Thursday, March 21, 2013

Copernican Principle, 1532-2013, RIP- Why Cosmology Is About to Get Interesting


The Axis of Evil is real.
The Copernican Principle (which is the irreducible, foundational assumption of modern cosmology) has been observationally falsified.
The universe's largest visible structure is aligned in completely inexplicable ways with supposedly insignificant Earth.
This is now established, scientific, observational fact.
"The Principle" is now the one movie that you really must see this year, since it is only every few centuries or so that the foundational assumption governing our entire worldview comes crashing down.

The ESA press release includes (suitably buried under paragraphs of reassurances that almost everything fits)..........

“The fact that Planck has made such a significant detection of these anomalies erases any doubts about their reality; it can no longer be said that they are artefacts of the measurements. They are real and we have to look for a credible explanation,” says Paolo Natoli of the University of Ferrara, Italy.
“Imagine investigating the foundations of a house and finding that parts of them are weak. You might not know whether the weaknesses will eventually topple the house, but you’d probably start looking for ways to reinforce it pretty quickly all the same,” adds Fran├žois Bouchet of the Institut d’Astrophysique de Paris.
All you powers shake.
Can't you feel the way they tremble?

UPDATE 3/22:

Following quotes from Planck Results paper XXIII "Isotropy and statistics"




There are 7 distinct anomalies reported in addition to the mutual alignment of quadrupole and octupole

"the low variance (Sect. 5.2), hemispherical asymmetry (Sect. 5.3), phase correlations (Sect. 5.4), dipolar power modulation (Sect. 5.5), generalized power modulation (Sect. 5.6), parity asymmetry (Sect. 5.7) and the Cold Spot (Sect. 5.8). Each of these anomalies may represent different violations of the fundamental properties of isotropy and/or Gaussianity of the CMB data which are assumed in the estimation of the CMB power".


There is a distinct angular power asymmetry between the north and south hemispheres, with a "remarkable" lack of power in the direction of the north ecliptic pole:

the observed properties of the Planck data are consistent with a remarkable lack of power in a direction towards the north ecliptic pole, consistent with the simpler one-point statistics presented in Sect. 5.2."

There is "a highly significant detection of both non-Gaussianities and anisotropies":

"We detect pronounced signatures for both non- Gaussianities and anisotropies........a highly significant detection of both non-Gaussianities and anisotropies in the Planck data, consistent with those obtained previously with WMAP data .......the asymmetry was found to be highly significant for the whole range l=2600."


 There is an odd parity preference in the data, which indicates the low quadrupole power is not an isolated anomaly:

"Therefore, the odd parity preference cannot simply be attributed to the low quadrupole power. It is plausible the low quadrupole power is not an isolated anomaly, but that it shares an origin with the odd parity preference"


 There is evidence of anisotropy on large angular scales "which could have profound implications for cosmology":

"In particular, there is evidence for a violation of statistical isotropy at least on large angular scales in the context of the Planck fiducial sky model........In addition, there is evidence from such fits that the low-spectrum of the Planck data departs from the fiducial spectrum in both amplitude and slope. These results could have profound implications for cosmology. "

The CMB is "manifestly non-Gaussian and anisotropic", but the anomalies are not related to galactic foregrounds or contamination: 

"The microwave sky is manifestly non-Gaussian and anisotropic, with known contributions from Galactic astrophys- ical foregrounds, lensing of CMB anistropies by the intervening matter distribution, and the ISW. However, the excellent per- formances of the component separation algorithms used here in rejecting diffuse foregrounds argues strongly against known Galactic emission as the source of the anomalies."

12 comments:

  1. Nice :)

    Can't wait for the time and media coverage of the movie.

    Thanks for the info Rick.

    cheers
    Lucas

    ReplyDelete
  2. Coming soon now, Lucas.

    We happen to be in a very, very strong position now.

    Will be interviewing the discoverer of the Axis on Monday.

    Expect to start hearing about "The Principle" more and more, once I get back and incorporate the interview into the final cut.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Awsome

    Well if I can for a second become a less nice catholic ;), I hope you and Robert will destroy those blind people in debates over this, cause this thing needs to be exposed to every person on the planet. Hopefully those interviews that will be there will not be edited out and cut all over, as I remember couple interviews of Robet which he mentioned, which were not aired in the end (guess the guy is too smart of a catholic eh? ;))

    Glad to hear it's closer and closer. I hope it will be a blast :)

    cheers
    Lucas

    ReplyDelete
  4. The debate is pretty much over, insofar as the Copernican/cosmological Principle is concerned.

    There is nothing left to debate, unless one wishes to propose a multiverse.

    One can hold to the multiverse as a scientifically-based metaphysical world view, of course.

    But we cannot observe any multiverses, and so the choice is simple:

    It comes down to a choice between God and the multiverse.

    That can be debated, I think quite profitably.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I certainly agree with you Unknown, but please remember to not use the word planet when referring to the Earth since the Earth sure ain't no planet! :-)

    James Phillips

    ReplyDelete
  6. Rick,

    Congrats as usual on the great commentary -- and I hope you will forgive me for having lifted it and put it under my name on one blogsite already!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Lift at will!

    Attribution unimportant.

    After all, I'm just the messenger here :-)

    ReplyDelete
  8. The excuses have begun:

    "...according to Planck, the quadrupole mode in the fluctuation spectrum is aligned with the ecliptic plane, which suggests some unknown background or pesky systematics at large angular scales."

    LINK: http://resonaances.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-universe-after-planck.html

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thanks for the link, Strangelove.

    The dismissal of the ecliptic alignment is truly disturbing.

    There have now been three different missions to map the CMB.

    All of them have seen completely *unpredicted* anisotropic structure in the CMB related to the local geometry of Earth's system.

    The fact was dismissed for 10 years, after WMAP, as "galactic foreground contamination" (it isn't), as a "scanning beam anomaly in WMAP" (it isn't- the Planck scanning beam methodology was totally different from WMAP's precisely in order to check this!)....

    and yet the author wishes to deny the actualy observation, by having recourse to what was not found:

    an "unknown foreground".

    In other words, since he cannot believe his eyes, he insists that we must attribute what his eyes see, but cannot believe, to what his eyes do not see, but can believe.

    The "two sigma" comment is ridiculous.

    It refers to a statistical, a posteriori calculation based on Monte Carlo simulations of an LCDM sky and addresses *only the mutual alignment between quad and octupoles*.

    This is *crucial*.

    The anomaly is *much greater* when the following additional *related* anomalies are included:

    1. The alignment of quad and octupole with the ecliptic
    2. The observed preferred galaxy-spin axis along the same area of the sky
    3. The observed galaxy clustering structure problem *again* observed along the "Axis of Evil":

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=universal-alignment

    Now.

    Just the mutual alignment of quad and octupole with the ecliptic and equinox is calculated by Copi Huterer at about 1 in 80,000,000.

    Add in the galaxy spin axis, and the galaxy cluster problems.

    I think the boys have a big problem on their hands, and if you check the quotes from the "Isotropy and statistics" paper from the Planck team at the bottom of the post at the top of this thread, you will see that the dismissive tone of this blog to which you have linked is far from unanimous.

    More to follow......

    ReplyDelete
  10. Rick, have you seen here ICR getting all geocentric?

    "The Universe Has a Center"

    http://www.icr.org/universe-center/

    "Massive Quasar Cluster Refutes Core Cosmology Principle"

    http://www.icr.org/articles/view/7246/243/

    I may be wrong but last time I checked ICR and AIG they were defecating on Geocentrism from a very great height!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Oh my goodness....I havn't checked AIG in a long time but lookie here:

    "A Review of Dr. Russ Humphreys' A Young-Earth Relativistic Cosmology"

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/1998/01/21/review-relative-cosmology

    A mildly favourable review of a bible based geocentric paper!?

    Snippett~

    ====================

    The paper covers much more ground than can be reviewed here, but the 6 general conclusions are listed below. They all have relevance to the proposed relativistic cosmology.

    Matter in the universe is bounded.
    The universe has expanded.
    The Earth is near the centre of the universe.
    The universe is young as measured by clocks on Earth.
    The original matter God created was ordinary liquid water.
    God transformed the water into various elements by compaction.

    ==================

    Very, very interesting turn towards the geo side by the main creationism sites.

    ReplyDelete
  12. EDIT: These creationism websites seem to be supporting 'weak' geocentrism rather than 'strong' but...it's a start!

    ReplyDelete