Go Back   IceInSpace > General Astronomy > Astronomy and Amateur Science
Register FAQ Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #1  
Old 08-12-2007, 09:25 PM
g__day's Avatar
g__day (Matthew)
Tech Guru

g__day is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 2,901
Written across the sky is a secret...

This is the F word for cosmology - Fractals, from New Scientist in March 2007, possibly the most elegant theory of everything I have ever read - its four pages well worth reading:

http://www.humpjones.com/pdf/IsTheUn...wScientist.pdf

Written across the sky is a secret, a hidden blueprint detailing the original designof the universe itself. The spread of matter throughout space follows a pattern laid out at the beginning of time and scaled up to incredible proportions by nearly 14 billion years of cosmic expansion. Today that pattern is gradually being decoded by analysing maps of the distribution of the stars, and what has been uncovered could shake modern cosmology to its foundations.

Cosmology is founded on the assumption that when you look at the universe at the vastest scales, matter is spread more or less evenly throughout space. Cosmologists call this a "smooth" structure. But a small band of researchers, led by statistical physicist Luciano Pietronero of the University of Rome and the Institute of Complex Systems, Italy, argues that this assumption is at odds with what we can see. Instead they claim that the galaxies form a structure that isn't smooth at all: some parts of it have lots of matter, others don't, but the matter always falls into the same patterns, in large and small versions, at whatever scale
you look. In other words, the universe is fractal.

It is a controversial view, and one that sparked an intense debate over a decade ago. Since then, astronomers have surveyed ever-greater numbers of galaxies, taking larger and larger samples of the universe. Now the biggest galaxy survey ever and a brand new map of the universe's dark matter are adding fuel to the fire. At stake is far more than the way galaxies cluster. A fractal universe could undermine cosmology's most
basic assumptions. "All of the observations we make depend to a greater or lesser extent on the idea that the universe is homogeneous," says David Hogg of New York University, who leads a team of physicists
that disputes Pietronero's view.

This idea that matter is spread more or less evenly throughout the universe is embodied in Einstein's cosmological principle. Einstein formulated it after publishing his general theory of relativity, which describes
how the distribution of mass bends space-time and creates gravity. It allows cosmologists to use the equations of general relativity to describe the geometry of the whole universe. As a result it has led to a
picture of a universe expanding uniformly from the big bang and in which cosmological measurements have defined meanings.

Fractals allow Pietronero to paint a very different sort of picture - one in which the irregular distribution of matter that we see around us never evens out into a smooth structure, but repeats itself at ever grander
scales. Fractals are familiar enough: we see them in the branching of trees, the curves of coastlines, lungs, turbulence and clouds. No matter what scale you look at them, fractal patterns look the same. Think of
broccoli: a tiny branch looks much the same as the whole vegetable. Zoom in or zoom out, the structure looks the same - exquisitely detailed, never smooth. Fractals can be beautiful to look at, but when it comes to
galaxies it may be a subversive kind of beauty.

Certainly the universe does not look smooth. Some regions contain clusters of matter; others are virtually empty. Hundreds of billions of stars group together to form galaxies, and galaxies congregate in clusters.
Clusters assemble into colossal structures called superclusters that can stretch out for 100 million light years and look uncannily like fractal patterns (see Diagram). Even superclusters string together in long filaments and sheets that stretch like ghostly cobwebs across an otherwise empty sky. The Sloan Great Wall, for example, which was discovered in 2003, spans more than a billion light years. These filaments and sheets seem to encircle huge voids of empty space. The voids range from 100 to 400 million light years in diameter, making the whole assemblage appear as an immense, glowing lattice punctuated by wells of darkness.

No one disputes that the universe is far from smooth on relatively small scales - by which cosmologists mean thousands of light years. But Hogg's team is convinced that if you zoom further out, smoothness reigns.
"When you're looking at the size scales of galaxies, groups of galaxies, clusters, superclusters and filaments, it looks like a fractal," says Hogg. "But once you get larger than all of that, then it starts to look
homogeneous."

What has convinced him is his team's analysis of the latest data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, the largest 3D map of the galactic universe so far. His team insists that the map is proof of smoothness. The
fractal camp, however, are sceptical. In fact, they say the Sloan observations confirm what they've been claiming all along. It might appear to be deadlock, but at least with the Sloan survey the two sides can agree what they're disagreeing about. For years Pietronero and his team argued that the statistical methods mainstream cosmologists were using to establish homogeneity were flawed because they start off by assuming that matter is evenly spread. The team was mostly ignored until 2004, when Hogg and astrophysicist Daniel Eisenstein of the University of Arizona in Tucson spent a summer in Paris with Pietronero's colleagues,
cosmologists Francesco Sylos Labini of the Enrico Fermi Centre and the Institute for Complex Systems, Rome, and Michael Joyce of the Pierre and Marie Curie University, Paris. "We argued every day about fractals," Hogg says. "Those battles raged over lunch and coffee and finally convinced us by the end of our visit that we should be doing the analysis as they say." When they returned to the US, Hogg and Eisenstein applied the fractal team's methods to a sample of 55,000 luminous red galaxies mapped by Sloan. They found that the galaxies do form a fractal pattern, but as they looked at bigger and bigger scales, the pattern appeared to disintegrate and smooth out at just over 200 million light years - a scale far larger than most cosmologists had expected.

But Pietronero and Sylos Labini are not convinced. Instead, they believe that if astronomers could continue to zoom out and look at even larger scales, they would find more clustering. They suspect that the apparent
smoothness at 200 million light years is not real, but rather an illusion created by statistical effects due to the limited range of the Sloan survey. Hogg's team, though, insist that their evidence of homogeneity is statistically significant. "I think the result really is secure," says Hogg. "I would stake my scientific reputation on that." Even if the result is real, mainstream cosmologists still have a huge problem on their hands. The fact that the fractal patterning extends to far bigger scales than anyone had expected means that there must be far bigger structures than anyone expected - structures that are even bigger than superclusters. The fractal team argues that the standard model cannot explain the existence of these galactic giants. "If you look at the galaxy data, you can see enormous objects hundreds of millions of light years across, stuff that's really huge," says Pietronero. "This is a huge problem. You're going to have to change the story very radically." The usual story runs something like this. In the tiny fluctuations of the nascent universe, matter began to
collect in denser regions, setting off a chain reaction of gravitational collapse that has given us the large-scale structure we see today. Gravity has worked from the bottom up, building galaxies first, then collecting
galaxies into clusters, then clusters into superclusters and so forth. But while the matter has been clumping together, the universe has been expanding, and thus a battle has ensued: gravity versus expansion.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-12-2007, 09:33 PM
g__day's Avatar
g__day (Matthew)
Tech Guru

g__day is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 2,901
According to Pietronero, there simply hasn't been enough time since the universe came into being 14 billion years ago for gravity to sculpt structures larger than about 30 million light years across: expansion would
have prevented anything larger from forming. "The existence of structures much larger than this implies a crisis of the present view of structure formation," he says. This present view is the "cold dark matter model", in which the glowing masses of stars and galaxies are only the tip of the cosmic iceberg. Luminous matter makes up roughly 15 per cent of all the matter in the universe
- the other 85 per cent is mysterious dark matter.

Hogg's team says that the new observations do not undermine the standard view as Pietronero claims. Instead, they maintain that the cold dark matter model explains the Sloan data quite accurately. For that to be
true, however, Hogg's team have to put a number called a bias parameter into their equations. It reflects the difference between the distribution of matter in computer simulations of the cold dark matter model and the
observed distribution of luminous matter. Collisions between particles of ordinary matter help it clump together, but dark matter is thought not to behave in the same way. That suggests it could be spread out in space more evenly than ordinary matter, so cosmologists assume that the distribution of the matter we can see - galaxies, say - is not a true reflection of the distribution of all the matter that is out there. They believe the structure of the universe is really much "smoother" than it appears to be, because dark matter dominates. In the case of the Sloan survey, the bias is 2: the visible galaxies are clumped twice as densely as the predicted total distribution of matter in the universe.

Sylos Labini, however, sees the bias as a fudge that allows cosmologists to discount the observed clustering of galaxies and to assume that the gigantic clusters of superclusters are only half the problem they appear to be. "The bias is a way to hide the size of structures behind some ad hoc parameter," he says. Mainstream cosmologists, however, feel the bias is justified, assuming that galaxies cluster in regions of space that are replete with excess dark matter. According to the standard model, dark matter is everywhere, but galaxies only shine in the rare regions where dark matter is densest. Dark matter also lingers in the voids where no light shines but here it is thinly spread out. In other words, while the luminous galaxies look very clustered, the underlying blanket of dark matter is far smoother, supporting the claim of homogeneity. "If the cold dark matter model is correct, then there should be dark matter in the voids," Hogg says. The million-dollar question is: what is the real distribution of dark matter? Is dark matter smooth or fractal? Is it clustered like the galaxies, or does it spread out, unseen, into the great voids? If the voids are full of dark matter, then the apparent fractal distribution of luminous matter becomes rather insignificant. But if the voids are truly empty, the fractal claim requires a closer look. Astronomers are now providing our first glimpse into the voids and our first look at the pattern of invisible matter. Richard Massey of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena and others in the Cosmic Evolution Survey project have just created the first 3D map of dark matter in the universe (New Scientist, 13 January, p 5). They were able to find the dark matter by observing its gravitational effect on any light streaming past it. Combining data from the Hubble Space Telescope, the Subaru telescope in Hawaii and the Very Large Telescope in Chile, they mapped the distribution of dark matter at scales ranging from 23 million to 200 million light years across.

Massey's team found that the dark matter distribution is nearly identical to the luminous matter distribution. "The first thing that strikes me is the voids," Massey says. "Vast expanses of space are completely empty.
The dark matter makes up a criss-crossing network of strings and sheets around these voids. And all the luminous matter lies within the densest regions of dark matter." Although this distribution of dark matter seems to favour the idea that the universe is fractal, Hogg isn't convinced. "It is interesting," he says, "but measurements of dark matter are much less precise than measurements of galaxy distributions."
"The result is very new," Massey agrees. "It demonstrates a very exciting new way of looking directly at dark matter and will be vital in future work, but hasn't yet been subject to all the analysis that has been applied to galaxy surveys." When asked if the dark matter exhibits an explicitly fractal structure, Massey replies, "We don't know yet." "The universe is not a fractal," Hogg insists, "and if it were a fractal it would create many more problems that we currently have." A universe patterned by fractals would throw all of cosmology out the window. Einstein's cosmic equations would be tossed first, with the big bang and the expansion of the universe following closely behind.

Hogg's team feel that until there's a theory to explain why the galaxy clustering is fractal, there's no point in taking it seriously. "My view is that there's no reason to even contemplate a fractal structure for the universe until there is a physical fractal model," says Hogg. "Until there's an inhomogeneous fractal model to test, it's like tilting at windmills." Pietronero is equally insistent. "This is fact," he says. "It's not a theory." He says he is interested only in what he sees in the data and argues that the galaxies are fractal regardless of whether someone can explain why. As it turns out, there is one model that may be able to explain a fractal universe. The work of a little-known French astrophysicist named Laurent Nottale, the theory is called "scale relativity" (see "Fractured spacetime"). According to Nottale, the distribution of matter in the universe is fractal because space-time itself is fractal. It is a theory on the fringe, but if the universe does turn out to be fractal, more people might sit up and take notice.

A resolution to the fractal debate will only come with more data. Sloan is currently charting more galaxies and will release a new map in the middle of 2008. According to Sylos Labini, this will cover over 650 million light
years and should tell us if the apparent transition to homogeneity extends beyond 200 million light years. For now, the pattern of the world, imprinted at the origin of the universe, remains a secret glimpsed only in the
knowing shimmer of the stars.

Fractured space-time

French astrophysicist Laurent Nottale has developed a theory that takes fractals to a whole new level. A researcher at the Meudon Observatory in Paris, Nottale set out to extend Einstein's principle of relativity -
in which the laws of physics remain the same regardless of the motion of an observer - to a theory in which the laws of physics would remain the same regardless of the scale at which the universe is being
observed. He found that the underlying space-time of such a theory would have to be fractal. In Nottale's theory, called scale relativity, the underlying fractality of space-time is most noticeable in the
quantum world. Quantum behaviour, he claims, can be understood geometrically - particles move along fractal trajectories. On large scales, his model could explain a fractal pattern of the galaxies.

The most profound question in physics today is how to unify the really small with the really big - and when it comes to matters of scale, fractals may turn out to be a key ingredient.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-12-2007, 06:15 PM
DARKMATTER's Avatar
DARKMATTER
New Guy..

DARKMATTER is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Central Coast NSW
Posts: 27
very interesting thankyou!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 18-12-2007, 10:09 PM
xelasnave's Avatar
xelasnave
Gravity does not Suck

xelasnave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 17,003
Anyone who stakes their professional reputation on an idea needs to be cautioned.. this suggests their mind is already made up.

the evidence for a fractal nature seems to be mounting however we need to be looking at greater than a mere 600 million light years surley this figure is only being considered to keep some relationship with the current cold dark matter theory... if fractal why not consider scales of a couple of billion light years..still a small distance in relation to all that is..irrespective of subscribing to a finite or infinite Universe such an approach would be reasonable..

I dont believe in dark matter unless you wish to give mass to the electromagentic energy rushing around the Univerese... I feel it is so simple if you see an overall pressure coming from objects outpush of energy.. a form of gravity that pushes..a presure from all that is or was even... with attributes not far removed from the current dark energy concept... and no matter how big you wish to go in taking a Universe picture whatever is in that picture will still be subject to such an external push of..as I call it gravity...

Dark matter I dont buy unless as I said it is the mass given to electromagnetic energy..and the current model wont..nay cant do that.. dark matter is a misconception I feel... and all the evidence presented really offers no proof whatsoever as alternatives are not eliminated...
So shake your head at my inability to accept what you all see as matters with evidence but I still say there is no meaningful evidence to support dark matter whereas the evidence for dark energy is beyond denial.

Still dont worry yourself too much I dont believe black holes exist either.

From what I have read re the fractal approach is the jury is out and there is more evidence expectd to support the fravtal appraoch..and really why should it be so difficult to accept the basic premise... it just means we are smaller than we think I guess and thats the only problem with taking it on board.. there are already structures bigger than the big bang idea suggests and I think the list will only get longer.
alex
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 18-12-2007, 10:14 PM
xelasnave's Avatar
xelasnave
Gravity does not Suck

xelasnave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 17,003
And an excellent account of the matter I really liked your post
alex
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 18-12-2007, 10:21 PM
xelasnave's Avatar
xelasnave
Gravity does not Suck

xelasnave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 17,003
And the standard model offerrs no explanation for dark matter,dark energy or a quantum explanation of gravity so they do not have answers .. push will give the answers and will be found to do without the attraction notion currently attacted to working out matters of gravity... althogh space time really says neither push or pull on my interpretation.but I say there is only push and what may appear at first as an attraction will be found that it is push that makes it work.
alex
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 18-12-2007, 10:24 PM
xelasnave's Avatar
xelasnave
Gravity does not Suck

xelasnave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 17,003
Push is the only way a fractal Universe can work..attarction does not cut it..the distances are to large for things to be so big if held together "internally" ..the attraction approach simply wont work at large scales..thats why they needed dark energy if you think about it I feel.
alex
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 24-12-2007, 08:51 AM
DARKMATTER's Avatar
DARKMATTER
New Guy..

DARKMATTER is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Central Coast NSW
Posts: 27
Starting to think you have something against me, Alex?

lol..
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 24-12-2007, 09:30 AM
avandonk's Avatar
avandonk
avandonk

avandonk is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 4,786
It is turtles all the way down!

I wonder if anyone has considered that gravity is so weak because it really is a manifestation of quantum entanglement 'leaking' back into our Universe.

Or is it 'leaking' out?

Fractals make sense as very simple conditions or 'rules' generate incredible complexity!

Where is the plan encoded in your DNA for the fractal structure in your lungs for example? There are many more examples.

The same homeo boxes that govern the structure of fruit fly morphology govern yours!
For more information just google 'homeo boxes'.

Bert

Last edited by avandonk; 24-12-2007 at 11:55 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 24-12-2007, 06:18 PM
xelasnave's Avatar
xelasnave
Gravity does not Suck

xelasnave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 17,003
Funny Bert you mention the turtle thing..
I expect your reference is to the ancients who saw the Universe as a turtle in a big sea carrying the world on pillars on its back...well when I look at the maps showing all the Universe as we have found it... the galaxies seem to form a sturcture like a root system of a plant or maybe the nerve system of some giant creature...maybe that giant creature is the turtle the ancients were talking about... how ironic if they were indeed correct.

I dont like that leaking business when it comes to gravity.. if it works like I believe via a pressure of very very small particles I think its weakness could be arrived at simply in so far as the interaction between those particles and matter would be relatively infrequent... however if we had matter that could interact with all those particles I bet it will prove to be the most powerful force there is in the Universe.

I have been wondering lately where do atoms get their power...how is it that they can be so old and yet still go on?

Where do they hide their energy reserves I ask... needless to say my only answer is all energy comes from the flow of the small paricles that I suspect constitute "the flow" but I wondered if you had any views as to how they seem to run for ever with out additional energy... how can those electrons orbit for billions of years?

It is amazing that all creatures are built basically using the same basic plan ..it must make the religious folk on the inteligent design trip nervous that the designer used the same plans for all creatures and only changed the general layout and did not give something special by way of a new plan to the devine creatures meant to rule the lot..

I wonder if it is the only basic plan in the Universe or is there another out there someplace that does not have provision for the basics as we have like legs, arms and heads..maybe just a brain and a mouth approach.

I wonder if what we see of our Universe is merely the dna coil of something incomprehensibly larger...could we live knowing we are just microbs in a larger being and not the folk who have dominion over all the creatures for our greedy exploitation... mmm must ask such when visiting Tabby Pub sometime.
Could we live without our dependance on arrogance.

I wish for you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a happy clear sky new year.

alex
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 12:37 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement