The universe is stranger than you could have thought
 

http://www.nature.com/article-assets...16-0036-f1.jpg
Three different elements of the flow are presented: mapping of the velocity field is shown by means of streamlines (seeded randomly in the slice); red and grey surfaces present the knots and filaments of the V-web, respectively; and equi-gravitational potential (ϕ) surfaces are shown in green and yellow. The potential surfaces enclose the dipole repeller (in yellow) and the Shapley attractor (in green) that dominate the flow. The yellow arrow originates at our position and indicates the direction of the CMB dipole (galactic longitude l = 276°, galactic latitude b = 30°). The distance scale is given in units of km s−1.

This is the first rational explanation of iTunes I've ever heard. You should get a Nobel!

I agree! :D

I thought it was the tiny bones in your inner ear.

Bill ...must be the proposed locations and gravitational effects of either black holes or dark matter/energy in our " Local Group " of galaxies... however the sigma units are puzzling'' JMHO...

or the thought processes of the race stewards who scored the win for WTR at Daytona yesterday ....

A cosmic fetus.

There is a push from the dipole repeller and a pull from the attractor, Not Gravity! That's what's strange

Also not associated w/ general cosmic expansion

It acts like a bar magnet but it's not magnetic either.

proves the universe is female...we shall never understand it

I don't have a problem with iTunes, but that's hilarious. Well done!

Men will understand the universe someday, but never women's brains.

That image is far larger than the Local Group. The "distance" legend is the expansion velocity, which can be translated to a true distance using the Hubble Constant.

New research suggests the universe is a hologram - UPI.com

It is gravity. The Shapley Attractor is a well know, well modeled supercluster of galaxies, which creates a large gravitational well. Large enough to influence a significant fraction of the Universe...

This new "dipole repeller" is a lack of mass, possibly caused by the the initial quantum fluctuations that caused the overabundance of mass at the attractor? The quantum collapse of the Higgs field during the Big Bang could cause large high and low energy points as well as the well modeled filaments.

To give you an idea of distance, the legend shows 15,000 kms^1? That's about 650 million lightyears. Hubble's Constant is about 75 kms^1/Mpc, so divide 15,000 by 75 to get 200 Mparcecs. A Mparsec is 3.26 million lightyears, so 200 Mparsec=650 million lightyears


The whole image is about 2.6 billion lightyears across. The Observable Universe is considered to be closer to 100 billion lightyears across, so you get a sense of scale compared to the "big picture".

link to the nature article the chart is from

The dipole repeller : Nature Astronomy

mike thanks very much superb description.... btw the hubble constant was just refined to about 71.something +/- 3.2 ish in a spate of five papers to be published soon. the groups used lensing of large quasars i believe where the bent light could be resolved into 4 or 5 spots per quasar ( if i am reading this correctly) which makes for a very highly refined distance measurement.... i have lately become fascinated with cosmology ... reading penrose, eddington etc... unfortunately, i still cannot get my brain to wrap around the mathematics of singularities and event horizons... though , when i am "horizoned" by another car on track.... I KNOW IT!! :) FRANK

HERE IT IS.... ACTUALLY its 71.9+/- 2.7 KMS/sec/mparsec accurate to 3.8 percent. thats pretty impressive.... called the HOLICOW experiment... really !

https://phys.org/news/2017-01-cosmic-lenses-universe-expansion.html

Is this going to be on the test?

Hah!

Oh great. We have a scientific breakthrough to understand iTunes, but you still need a research team from NASA to use it.

The reason they gave the expansion velocity as a "distance" measurement is because it's a directly measurable data point, they can accurately calculate the expansion velocity by imaging the Lyman Alpha Forest in the spectroscopic images of the galaxies in those distant superclusters. That is a directly measurable thing. The Hubble Constant is what connects that expansion velocity to distance. However, as you mentioned, the Hubble Constant is still in flux, so the distance measurements would have an error as big as the Constant. It's more accurate to give "distance" as the expansion velocity.

Often if a paper wants to give distance measurements, they will specify the value of the Hubble Constant that they used (whether 72, or 73.4 or 75 or whatever).

It's difficult to forge an agreement between models?

This is news?

Looks like an Ostrich to me. http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1485837373.jpg

What's really strange, is there was a heavy metal album produced about this before we got this forum post. :eek:

Just like 2001, Kubrick really was a visionary.

I don't know what all this means but I'm glad you smart people are having fun and I'm also glad I'm not the only one who is lost in iTunes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is a pushing force from the dipole, i.e not gravity

That's pretty heavy. Well done! Scotty Warp speed!;)

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1485874914.jpg

Cool, thanks.

Followed one of the links in the article.

Figure 2: A 3D view of the velocity field.
Figure 2: A 3D view of the velocity field. : Nature Astronomy
http://www.nature.com/article-assets...16-0036-f2.jpg

That is not exactly how I am reading that. It's poor terminology, what is correct is the idea that it is a negative gravitational potential region, which things will naturally flow away from. Gravity doesn't "pull" just as negative gravitational potential areas don't "push".

Think of it like a sand dune. At the top of the dune is a negative gravitational potential region (also it's unstable). At the bottom of the dune, in the valley between dunes, is a high positive gravitational potential region (and it's stable). Put a ball on top of that dune, and what happens? It's unstable, meaning any slight error in placement or any slight perturbation will make the ball roll away from the top. Is the top "pushing" the ball away? No, just as the bottom the the dune is not "pulling" the ball, the ball is traveling along the path of lowest energy between the negative gravitational potential zone towards a positive gravitational potential zone. Once it's there (at the bottom of the dune) it will stay there, since it's a stable location. Push the ball around a bit and it will naturally go back to the lowest point between dunes.


The Shapley Attractor is the bottom of a giant gravitational sand dune, while the "dipole" location is the top of the dune. Galaxies are naturally rolling down the dune towards the Attractor, away from the "repeller". There is no pushing or pulling involved, it's all based on Gravity as described in General Relativity.


The Shapley Attractor has been a known gravitational well for decades, but they haven't been able to do a good job of mapping the location of the "top of the dune". That's primarily what this report is. The modeling is to show that that location for a negative potential zone properly models the galactic cluster motions.



Edit: The quantum fluctuations I mentioned earlier are what created the "sand dunes" in the first place, the quivering quantum "foam" which collapsed into Higgs particles at the moment of the Big Bang were the initial distribution of "mass", which then led to the current distribution of "mass" in the Universe, which thereby creates the structure of spacetime, which is the "sand dunes".

The only thing gravity does is pull mass separated by distance together, there is no known such thing as 'anti-gravity' that can push masses apart. the expansion of the Cosmos whether the primordial version or the current version does push but it does so isotropically in all directions w/o a favored one.

quantum fluctuations are ultra small scale energy fluctuations in space time that create ephemeral particles pairs(a particle and it's anti-particle) that usually annihilate each other in very short order, like bubbles in water that make foam, an individual bubble can appear and disappear but on average the amount of foam is a constant, quantum fluctuations are the source of Hawking radiation that causes a black hole to evaporate because if a the fluctuation creates a particle/anti-particle pair at the event horizon rather than annihilate one escapes taking mass & energy away leaving the other constrained to the black hole, the net effect is that the hole losses mass over time and will eventually evaporate.

Yes mass can bend and shape space time but the effect is always a pull never a push

The universe is apparently only 2 dimensions. I don't like it! What happened to the idea it was 3, 4, 11 dimensions? This whole minimization movement is getting on my last nerve.

The singularity that created the Big Bang was a quantum foam of the Higgs field. That quantum structure was imprinted in the Universe as Higgs particles which created the underlying structure of space-time. You can see that structure when you look at the largest scales, it's the voids and filaments that the galactic clusters sit on:

(Stolen image):
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1485885403.gif

You can see the Shapley Attractor, but more importantly is the filimentary structure. That is the quantum signature imprinted in the Universe.

Remember, when the Big Bang happened, there was lots of energy in very little space, so the quantum regime was realized. The quantum foam was the size of the entire Universe, inside that singularity. After inflation and then the normal expansion for the past 14 billion years, that quantum structure has spread to massive structures. These were the points of high energy, where "gravity" was strongest, so they were the stable valleys between the sand dunes (which are the voids).

We (the Local Group) are sliding down a sand dune towards the deepest gravity well. there is no pushing or pulling. You need to think of gravity as curvature of spacetime, not as a force reaching out and grabbing things. especially when dealing with Cosmology.

Does this model provide added insight to the finding that 96% of the universe must be made up of dark energy and dark matter, to explain the accelerating expansion of the universe?

The bold underline is what is stunning about this report of Dr. Hoffman, his analysis indicates that there is pushing

My dogs breath smells like dog food!

The only shapely attractors I was ever familiar with were in the bar at closing time.

"The only shapely attractors I was ever familiar with were in the bar at closing time"


And then after having succesfully attracted as paired matter, you might have gone looking for sand dunes to accomplish a big bang?

...

I would postulate that the magnitude of the attractor was directly proportional to the amount of R3COH present in your system?