Cosmologists? Standard Model flawed by Big Ring… anyone care to speculate?

[chops]

Caught a passing article about a ring of galaxies which defies the the Standard Model of cosmology - very interested in the perspective of SGL’s hive mind of cosmologists, physicists and astronomers.

The BBC article referenced a PHD student at the University of Lancaster, who identifies large scale structures such as galaxy alignments . However the latest body shouldn’t exist, because it appears to break the standard model’s theoretical limit on the size of a body in the universe - 1.2 billion light years, and its standard distribution of matter. The ‘Big Ring’ of galaxies is 1.3Bn light years diameter, and suggests a less even distribution. The ring sits in Bootes, close to the region of Alkaid, the outermost star of the plough / Ursa Major, and M101 Pinwheel Galaxy (image from UofLanc below).

It’s well beyond my Ken what holds bodies such as this in place, gravitational forces one assumes. … Probably should read the article now (link below) but likely someone else here already understands the concepts and can help describe in laymen’s terms for us simpletons%

https://www.uclan.ac.uk/news/big-ring-in-the-sky

pic from Uni of Lancs article

Edited January 16 by chops
Readability

[vlaiv]

I think that we need to be careful when deciding what the structure is ...

Here is image that shows what we believe to be structure of universe on large scales:

further, let's look at Laniakea super cluster and its shape:

This is our "home" super cluser - blue marked is our Local group in Virgo super cluster which is part of Laniakea.

Now observe Laniakea with its neighboring super clusters:

Laniakea is about 500Mly in diameter and first neighbors are Shapley super cluster and Coma super cluster. In fact Perseus-Pisces super cluster looks like it's also "connected". If we "add" all these structures to a chain - we get structure that is 1.3Bly or more in size - but is it really a structure or "beginning" of large scale cosmic foam based on above diagram?

I'm sure that one can identify very interesting "rings" and "walls" and "daisy chains" of galaxy clusters in several neighboring super clusters - but is it really a standalone structure or we are just connecting the dots so that it resembles familiar shapes?

 

[Elp]

Saw something a while ago, the distribution as shown in the cube above is similar to neural pathways in a brain.

[chops]

10 hours ago, vlaiv said:

I think that we need to be careful when deciding what the structure is ...

Here is image that shows what we believe to be structure of universe on large scales:

further, let's look at Laniakea super cluster and its shape:

This is our "home" super cluser - blue marked is our Local group in Virgo super cluster which is part of Laniakea.

Now observe Laniakea with its neighboring super clusters:

Laniakea is about 500Mly in diameter and first neighbors are Shapley super cluster and Coma super cluster. In fact Perseus-Pisces super cluster looks like it's also "connected". If we "add" all these structures to a chain - we get structure that is 1.3Bly or more in size - but is it really a structure or "beginning" of large scale cosmic foam based on above diagram?

I'm sure that one can identify very interesting "rings" and "walls" and "daisy chains" of galaxy clusters in several neighboring super clusters - but is it really a standalone structure or we are just connecting the dots so that it resembles familiar shapes?

 

Thanks Vlaiv, I’d not heard of Laniakea before. What you’re suggesting suggests it’s more a phenomena caused by humans projecting our desire to perceive order - in the same way as pareidolia (seeing faces) works, and our construct of asterisms of stars as artificial shapes (plough, Orion the hunter etc), albeit on a cosmic scale. However, to my eye, the Laniakea and component superclusters have little to no symmetry, when compared with the diagram of the galaxy ‘big ring’ above. Presumably their science is rigorous above to exclude the likelihood that the arrangement is chance, and it has been therefore determined without doubt that the ring is in fact that - something with the order that we so desperately seek.

[vlaiv]

3 hours ago, chops said:

However, to my eye, the Laniakea and component superclusters have little to no symmetry, when compared with the diagram of the galaxy ‘big ring’ above. Presumably their science is rigorous above to exclude the likelihood that the arrangement is chance, and it has been therefore determined without doubt that the ring is in fact that - something with the order that we so desperately seek.

Orange arrow - thing that looks like Laniakea super cluster

Red arrow - thing that looks like ring structure.

And that is just a simulation. We can easily identify things that look like .... (insert your favorite shape there).

Point of cosmological principle is - if we take some cube of universe / some region large enough and we take another such large region - they look roughly the same in structure - in this case "foamy".

Element of that structure is filament - and bumps in those filaments - or parts of them are on average below 1Gly long. This is what represents largest element of the structure.

Now, if we would to take region of space large enough and find part of it that is say 2Gly or more in size and is distinctly more or less dense than the rest and we don't see such thing in different large region of space - then we would say - look it is a structure - it is over density that we did not expect.

Something being in "shape" of circle of elephant or unicorn - is not structure in that sort of sense - it is just ordering of stuff with same average density - and that is fine for cosmological principle.

[ollypenrice]

What factors make this ring a structure?  So far as I can see, it's considered a structure because it takes the form of a spiral. But does a shape equate to a structure?  I'd have thought that, to be regarded as a structure, an object needs more than shape: its shape needs to be the consequence of coherent forces at work, forces which would produce this shape and no other. The components of a structure, unlike a shape, need to be united by a common experience or common history. Is there any evidence of this corkscrew's having been created by, or being sustained by, any forces in common?  If not, I'd be more inclined to consider it a shape than a structure. I'd certainly consider it to constitute circumstantial evidence in favour structure but, until some uniting force were revealed, it would just remain a chance shape for me.

(I once had the pleasure of attending a course and workshop run by Dr Roger Clowes at UCLAN. He was most entertaining and most impressive.)

Olly

[900SL]

If it spelt out 'have you worked it out yet', well, I'd be boggled

[chops]

On 17/01/2024 at 12:54, ollypenrice said:

What factors make this ring a structure?  So far as I can see, it's considered a structure because it takes the form of a spiral. But does a shape equate to a structure?  I'd have thought that, to be regarded as a structure, an object needs more than shape: its shape needs to be the consequence of coherent forces at work, forces which would produce this shape and no other. The components of a structure, unlike a shape, need to be united by a common experience or common history. Is there any evidence of this corkscrew's having been created by, or being sustained by, any forces in common?  If not, I'd be more inclined to consider it a shape than a structure. I'd certainly consider it to constitute circumstantial evidence in favour structure but, until some uniting force were revealed, it would just remain a chance shape for me.

(I once had the pleasure of attending a course and workshop run by Dr Roger Clowes at UCLAN. He was most entertaining and most impressive.)

Olly

As you both point out, I’ve yet to understand what defines this as a cohesive structure, rather than an improbable, albeit pleasant, coincidence. However UCLAN’s Alexia Lopez is also quoted thus: “Lots of people are excited but, having said that, you do get this attitude in cosmology that you don’t generally find elsewhere in science,” and “Good science should be about pushing back and testing our fundamental assumptions but there are clearly people who want to protect the Standard Model.”. (Source: FT)

Fighting talk. I like it. Joining the Hercules Borealis Corona Wall (10Bn LY) and Great Arc (3Bn LY) we shall wait to see the detail in her peer reviewed scientific paper, presumably out 2025 at the glacial pace academia appears forced to follow.

Edited January 20 by chops
Adding source to Lopez’ quote. Just like academia, eh

[robin_astro]

There does not appear to be a paper (even on arXiv) on this particular structure yet so on that basis my view so far  is "there is nothing to see here" 

There is however a paper on the other structure discovered by this team with a paper where their statistical analysis is described, which is of course crucial given the human ability to spot patterns (even where none actually exist!)

https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/516/2/1557/6657809?

Robin

Edited January 20 by robin_astro

[robin_astro]

And in the interest of balance, this paper (and others) dispute these findings

https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/527/2/1982/7337344

Cheers

Robin

[ollypenrice]

My objections don't appeal to the standard model in any way whatever. I'm not trying to protect it, I simply want to know what makes a shape a structure. 

Olly

[robin_astro]

11 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

I simply want to know what makes a shape a structure

I want to know what makes a shape a shape 🙂

[robin_astro]

9 minutes ago, robin_astro said:

I want to know what makes a shape a shape 🙂

Fujii's paper is critical of the statistical approaches taken and questions whether  these large scale shapes that challenge lambda CDM actually even exist

Edited January 20 by robin_astro
clarity

[vlaiv]

44 minutes ago, robin_astro said:

I want to know what makes a shape a shape 🙂

That one is easy

Any number of points in 2d connected into a contour (no two edges cross and all points are connected to contour) represents a shape.

I think that we can extend this into higher dimensions (thus defining 3D shape - but here edges must be replaced with faces or something like that - no edges intersect with edges or faces and faces are 2d shapes defined by some points and edges).

 

[ollypenrice]

1 hour ago, robin_astro said:

I want to know what makes a shape a shape 🙂

It becomes a shape when looked at. 

[vlaiv]

This video sheds some light - but not much:

two key points to take away:

- Mass density was calculated by attenuation of quasar light? (if I got that correctly)

- research claims 5.2 sigma confidence of over density in said region - that is significant if true

[robin_astro]

6 hours ago, vlaiv said:

research claims 5.2 sigma confidence of over density in said region - that is significant if true

6 hours ago, vlaiv said:

 

Once the paper is published watch Fujii trash their statistics as he has done to this team before 😉