the CMB cold spot problem in review

Discuss Astrophysics.
User avatar
notFritzArgelander
In Memory
In Memory
Articles: 0
Offline
Posts: 14925
Joined: Fri May 10, 2019 4:13 pm
4
Location: Idaho US
Status:
Offline

TSS Awards Badges

Re: the CMB cold spot problem in review

#21

Post by notFritzArgelander »


notFritzArgelander wrote: Sun Feb 16, 2020 7:04 am
metastable wrote: Sun Feb 16, 2020 6:34 am are there any implications for noether’s theorem?
Not yet, certainly. The statistics for the cold spot are under whelming. There is a ~2% chance that it's just a fluke. Unlikely but not good enough to claim a discovery. WMAP gave a 1.85% chance that it's a fluctuation and PLANCK gave a similar result so the prior doubt about it being an artifact of WMAP was set aside.

It's good enough to cause concern but the void hypothesis has not been falsified..... yet, if ever. The observations from the LSST are essential to establish whether or not a complete or partial (dark matter only) void is the cause. These are the observation programs most at risk from intrusive satellite constellations, BTW.

Although the cold spot seems real, there needs to be a distance determination (LSST) to asses whether it is near and due to a void or distant and primordial.

For there to be an implication for Noether's Theorem there would need to be
1) a discovery level confidence interval (1 in 3.6 million chance of it being a statistical fluke)
2) the distance would have to be at the CMB horizon (46 B lyr away in comoving coordinate, 13.B yr look back time) ruling out a void

Then Noether's Theorem would be empirically falsified. We would then not know how to do physics and would have to rethink the foundations of the enterprise.

I rather doubt that's going to happen.
One might rescue Noether's Theorem in a local form even if the extremely long odds of falsifying its global validity somehow are borne out.
Scopes: Refs: Orion ST80, SV 80EDA f7, TS 102ED f11 Newts: AWB 130mm, f5, Z12 f5; Cats: VMC110L, Intes MK66,VMC200L f9.75 EPs: KK Fujiyama Orthoscopics, 2x Vixen NPLs (40-6mm) and BCOs, Baader Mark IV zooms, TV Panoptics, Delos, Plossl 32-8mm. Mixed brand Masuyama/Astroplans Binoculars: Nikon Aculon 10x50, Celestron 15x70, Baader Maxbright. Mounts: Star Seeker IV, Vixen Porta II, Celestron CG5
User avatar
metastable
Pluto Ambassador
Articles: 0
Offline
Posts: 480
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 9:00 pm
4
Location: California
Status:
Offline

TSS Photo of the Day

Re: the CMB cold spot problem in review

#22

Post by metastable »


can over-density beyond the hubble sphere be ruled out as the cause?
User avatar
notFritzArgelander
In Memory
In Memory
Articles: 0
Offline
Posts: 14925
Joined: Fri May 10, 2019 4:13 pm
4
Location: Idaho US
Status:
Offline

TSS Awards Badges

Re: the CMB cold spot problem in review

#23

Post by notFritzArgelander »


metastable wrote: Mon Feb 17, 2020 6:49 pm can over-density beyond the hubble sphere be ruled out as the cause?
Yes.
Scopes: Refs: Orion ST80, SV 80EDA f7, TS 102ED f11 Newts: AWB 130mm, f5, Z12 f5; Cats: VMC110L, Intes MK66,VMC200L f9.75 EPs: KK Fujiyama Orthoscopics, 2x Vixen NPLs (40-6mm) and BCOs, Baader Mark IV zooms, TV Panoptics, Delos, Plossl 32-8mm. Mixed brand Masuyama/Astroplans Binoculars: Nikon Aculon 10x50, Celestron 15x70, Baader Maxbright. Mounts: Star Seeker IV, Vixen Porta II, Celestron CG5
User avatar
metastable
Pluto Ambassador
Articles: 0
Offline
Posts: 480
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 9:00 pm
4
Location: California
Status:
Offline

TSS Photo of the Day

Re: the CMB cold spot problem in review

#24

Post by metastable »


I ask because of this passage:

“Another physicist purported that it could be a universe-in-mass black hole (but that claim is dubious at best, even if it would provide a source of all of the missing matter in the universe).”

https://futurism.com/4-anomalies-in-the ... -afterglow

The article states the proposition is dubious but I still wonder why it is considered so.

I think we may have discussed it previously and I believe noether’s theorem was referenced but now we’re saying the cold spot has a remote chance of falsifying the theorem so I still wonder how it can be ruled out.
User avatar
notFritzArgelander
In Memory
In Memory
Articles: 0
Offline
Posts: 14925
Joined: Fri May 10, 2019 4:13 pm
4
Location: Idaho US
Status:
Offline

TSS Awards Badges

Re: the CMB cold spot problem in review

#25

Post by notFritzArgelander »


metastable wrote: Mon Feb 17, 2020 7:06 pm I ask because of this passage:

“Another physicist purported that it could be a universe-in-mass black hole (but that claim is dubious at best, even if it would provide a source of all of the missing matter in the universe).”

https://futurism.com/4-anomalies-in-the ... -afterglow

The article states the proposition is dubious but I still wonder why it is considered so.

I think we may have discussed it previously and I believe noether’s theorem was referenced but now we’re saying the cold spot has a remote chance of falsifying the theorem so I still wonder how it can be ruled out.
the short (and slightly snarky answer) is because scientists are not innumerate and reason well with numbers having freed themselves from the ignorance of mere word logic with which lawyers, politicians, and demagogues seek to enslave us.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innumeracy_(book)

the longer answer is

1) the CMB cold spot has only a 1 in 50 chance of being a statistical fluke
2) the requirement for a signal to overturn Noether's Theorem is at least 1 in 3.5 million as noted above since there are millions of observations made in which Noether's Theorem holds true
3) so the odds are, at the most optimistic, 70,000 to one that this is a universe size black hole outside the CMB horizon since there are no other signals that Noether's Theorem is wrong

Plus the void closer then the CMB horizon has other consequences and is more testable. A universe size BH on the other side of the CMB horizon is opaque to further testing, i.e. worse science. If it's less testable it's less falsifiable more metaphysical or mythological.
Scopes: Refs: Orion ST80, SV 80EDA f7, TS 102ED f11 Newts: AWB 130mm, f5, Z12 f5; Cats: VMC110L, Intes MK66,VMC200L f9.75 EPs: KK Fujiyama Orthoscopics, 2x Vixen NPLs (40-6mm) and BCOs, Baader Mark IV zooms, TV Panoptics, Delos, Plossl 32-8mm. Mixed brand Masuyama/Astroplans Binoculars: Nikon Aculon 10x50, Celestron 15x70, Baader Maxbright. Mounts: Star Seeker IV, Vixen Porta II, Celestron CG5
User avatar
notFritzArgelander
In Memory
In Memory
Articles: 0
Offline
Posts: 14925
Joined: Fri May 10, 2019 4:13 pm
4
Location: Idaho US
Status:
Offline

TSS Awards Badges

Re: the CMB cold spot problem in review

#26

Post by notFritzArgelander »


So on the one hand we have Noether's Theorem which gets millions of confirming observations every day by every human using technology from Newton forwards. All our physics (and therefore mechanical and electrical and aerospace engineering, chemistry, etc.) rests on Noether's Theorem and is used by billions of folks every day on the one hand. On the other hand a cold spot in the CMB which has a huge 2% chance (huge compared to one in millions to billions!) of being a random fluke and might (even if real) have a perfectly ordinary explanation like a void this side of the CMB.

How can one even question that it is "dubious" that something on the other side of the CMB is causing this? The logic escapes me. To say that it is dubious that there is something on the other side of the CMB is being very kind, rather too kind. It is so remote that it is best not considered.
Scopes: Refs: Orion ST80, SV 80EDA f7, TS 102ED f11 Newts: AWB 130mm, f5, Z12 f5; Cats: VMC110L, Intes MK66,VMC200L f9.75 EPs: KK Fujiyama Orthoscopics, 2x Vixen NPLs (40-6mm) and BCOs, Baader Mark IV zooms, TV Panoptics, Delos, Plossl 32-8mm. Mixed brand Masuyama/Astroplans Binoculars: Nikon Aculon 10x50, Celestron 15x70, Baader Maxbright. Mounts: Star Seeker IV, Vixen Porta II, Celestron CG5
User avatar
notFritzArgelander
In Memory
In Memory
Articles: 0
Offline
Posts: 14925
Joined: Fri May 10, 2019 4:13 pm
4
Location: Idaho US
Status:
Offline

TSS Awards Badges

Re: the CMB cold spot problem in review

#27

Post by notFritzArgelander »


notFritzArgelander wrote: Mon Feb 17, 2020 10:20 pm So on the one hand we have Noether's Theorem which gets millions of confirming observations every day by every human using technology from Newton forwards. All our physics (and therefore mechanical and electrical and aerospace engineering, chemistry, etc.) rests on Noether's Theorem and is used by billions of folks every day on the one hand. On the other hand a cold spot in the CMB which has a huge 2% chance (huge compared to one in millions to billions!) of being a random fluke and might (even if real) have a perfectly ordinary explanation like a void this side of the CMB.

How can one even question that it is "dubious" that something on the other side of the CMB is causing this? The logic escapes me. To say that it is dubious that there is something on the other side of the CMB is being very kind, rather too kind. It is so remote that it is best not considered.
I will, I admit, sometimes playing to fill an inside straight in poker, but the odds are way too long on this. :lol:
Scopes: Refs: Orion ST80, SV 80EDA f7, TS 102ED f11 Newts: AWB 130mm, f5, Z12 f5; Cats: VMC110L, Intes MK66,VMC200L f9.75 EPs: KK Fujiyama Orthoscopics, 2x Vixen NPLs (40-6mm) and BCOs, Baader Mark IV zooms, TV Panoptics, Delos, Plossl 32-8mm. Mixed brand Masuyama/Astroplans Binoculars: Nikon Aculon 10x50, Celestron 15x70, Baader Maxbright. Mounts: Star Seeker IV, Vixen Porta II, Celestron CG5
User avatar
pakarinen United States of America
Inter-Galactic Ambassador
Articles: 0
Offline
Posts: 4013
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 3:33 pm
4
Location: NE Illinois
Status:
Offline

TSS Awards Badges

Re: the CMB cold spot problem in review

#28

Post by pakarinen »


Say what? NEVER draw to an inside straight.
=============================================================================
I drink tea, I read books, I look at stars when I'm not cursing clouds. It's what I do.
=============================================================================
AT50, AT72EDII, ST80, ST102; Scopetech Zero, AZ-GTi, AZ Pronto; Innorel RT90C, Oberwerk 5000; Orion Giantview 15x70s, Vortex 8x42s, Navy surplus 7x50s, Nikon 10x50s
User avatar
GCoyote United States of America
Local Group Ambassador
Articles: 0
Offline
Posts: 2707
Joined: Mon May 13, 2019 2:53 am
4
Location: Laurel, MD, USA
Status:
Offline

Re: the CMB cold spot problem in review

#29

Post by GCoyote »


... because scientists are not innumerate and reason well with numbers having freed themselves from the ignorance of mere word logic with which lawyers, politicians, and demagogues seek to enslave us.
Stealing this!
Any metaphor will tear if stretched over too much reality.
Gary C

Celestron Astro Master 130mm f5 Newtonian GEM
Meade 114-EQ-DH f7.9 Newtonian w/ manual GEM
Bushnell 90mm f13.9 Catadioptric
Gskyer 80mm f5 Alt/Az refractor
Jason 10x50 Binoculars
Celestron 7x50 Binoculars
Svbony 2.1x42 Binoculars
(And a bunch of stuff I'm still trying to fix or find parts for.)
User avatar
notFritzArgelander
In Memory
In Memory
Articles: 0
Offline
Posts: 14925
Joined: Fri May 10, 2019 4:13 pm
4
Location: Idaho US
Status:
Offline

TSS Awards Badges

Re: the CMB cold spot problem in review

#30

Post by notFritzArgelander »


pakarinen wrote: Tue Feb 18, 2020 1:58 pm Say what? NEVER draw to an inside straight.
Usually, I don't. But when counting cards I know that no suit of the required inside card value has been seen yet and there's a chance of finishing the evening with a nice win.....

Besides, the looks on the faces are priceless when it works. :)

One does need to remember what's been dealt though.
Scopes: Refs: Orion ST80, SV 80EDA f7, TS 102ED f11 Newts: AWB 130mm, f5, Z12 f5; Cats: VMC110L, Intes MK66,VMC200L f9.75 EPs: KK Fujiyama Orthoscopics, 2x Vixen NPLs (40-6mm) and BCOs, Baader Mark IV zooms, TV Panoptics, Delos, Plossl 32-8mm. Mixed brand Masuyama/Astroplans Binoculars: Nikon Aculon 10x50, Celestron 15x70, Baader Maxbright. Mounts: Star Seeker IV, Vixen Porta II, Celestron CG5
User avatar
metastable
Pluto Ambassador
Articles: 0
Offline
Posts: 480
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 9:00 pm
4
Location: California
Status:
Offline

TSS Photo of the Day

Re: the CMB cold spot problem in review

#31

Post by metastable »


any comment on this video starting at 7minutes re noether’s theorum:

User avatar
notFritzArgelander
In Memory
In Memory
Articles: 0
Offline
Posts: 14925
Joined: Fri May 10, 2019 4:13 pm
4
Location: Idaho US
Status:
Offline

TSS Awards Badges

Re: the CMB cold spot problem in review

#32

Post by notFritzArgelander »


metastable wrote: Sat May 02, 2020 4:59 pm any comment on this video starting at 7minutes re noether’s theorum:

The claim of an observed anisotropy in the fine structure constant is not accepted as a fact. The effect is small the measurement errors are large and statistically it could be just a mistake. So there is no adequate evidence yet for claims to observationally refute Noether's Theorem.

The video is a badly argued miss mash in the style of sensationalized facts sprinkled with falsehoods. For instance the CMB dipole is explainable in terms of peculiar motions with respect to local mass distributions. It's really unreliable.

It's a waste of my time. It's a waste of time for anyone who wants to understand Nature.

BTW the purported fine structure constant variation was dealt with in this related thread: viewtopic.php?f=74&t=9425

Post #4 has a link to a graph from the paper showing how really awfully bad the evidence is in favor of it. Tiny effect claimed with huge error bars around it. :shrug: Not impressed.
Scopes: Refs: Orion ST80, SV 80EDA f7, TS 102ED f11 Newts: AWB 130mm, f5, Z12 f5; Cats: VMC110L, Intes MK66,VMC200L f9.75 EPs: KK Fujiyama Orthoscopics, 2x Vixen NPLs (40-6mm) and BCOs, Baader Mark IV zooms, TV Panoptics, Delos, Plossl 32-8mm. Mixed brand Masuyama/Astroplans Binoculars: Nikon Aculon 10x50, Celestron 15x70, Baader Maxbright. Mounts: Star Seeker IV, Vixen Porta II, Celestron CG5
Post Reply

Create an account or sign in to join the discussion

You need to be a member in order to post a reply

Create an account

Not a member? register to join our community
Members can start their own topics & subscribe to topics
It’s free and only takes a minute

Register

Sign in

Return to “Astrophysics”