Slashdot Mirror
Astronomers Discover Largest Structure In the Universe
KentuckyFC writes "Until now, the largest known structure in the Universe was the Huge-LQG (Large Quasar Group), a cluster of 73 quasars stretching over a distance of 4 billion light years. Now astronomers say they've spotted something even bigger in data from gamma ray bursts, the final explosions of energy released by stars as they die and the universe's most energetic events. Astronomers have measured the distance to 283 of these bursts and mapped their position in the universe. This throws up a surprise. At a distance of ten billion light years, there are more gamma ray bursts than expected if they were evenly distributed throughout the universe. This implies the existence of a structure at this distance that is about ten billion light years across and so dwarfs the Huge-LQG. What's odd about the discovery is that the Cosmological principle--one of the fundamental tenets of cosmology--holds that the distribution of matter in the universe will appear uniform if viewed at a large enough scale. And yet, structures clearly emerge at every scale astronomers can see. The new discovery doesn't disprove the principle but it does provide some interesting food for thought for theorists."
Maybe we're at the bottom of the turtles after all?
Like carelessly made Cream of Wheat.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
The real importance of such observations and discoveries lies not in their ability to test existing hypothesis but in furthering our ability to form new ones.
Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
Probably because they're Hungarian
It wasn't such a long time since they discovered the (now second) largest before, was it?
/ The Arrow
"How lovely you are. So lovely in my straightjacket..." - Nny
Who tagged this "godisgreat"? Is it a joke?
All this seems to suggest is that God cooks up lumpy pudding.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Random distribution means that lumps will form.
This is relatively obvious chaos theory.
Even more so when objects can grow closer due to huge centers of mass.
This might be how black holes start for all we know...
Thats what science is all about...
These bunch of gamma ray bursts, are they in any way related to each other than in form?
Yes.
But don't worry, most people stupid enough not to understand that it's still better to try follow the scientific method than to just invent concepts and believe them, don't read Slashdot. so it won't be us who'll have to deal with them.
These bursts would have all happened 10 billion years ago. What's to say they weren't common all over at that time?
I first heard about the idea of Fractal cosmology in Mandelbrot's book from 1982, The Fractal Geometry of Nature. The idea is quite simple: there is structure at every scale in the Universe, at least up to some cutoff.
It is kind of funny that some people are surprised when structure is discovered at larger and larger scales as we are able to make observations at longer and longer distance scales. It is much more sensible to expect to see more structure as we see more of the Universe instead of the more common (and hubristic) expectation that we have already seen all the structure there is to see.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
That's what she said!!!
(that's what you get from watching The Office).
Science is the systematic observation of everything in our world and universe; it is the best and most successful way we have discovered for determining what is true and what is not. That does not mean that it cannot make mistakes, but it does mean that mistakes can be noticed, making it a self-correcting process, trudging ever forward towards greater accuracy and understanding. Pointing out that science makes mistakes is pointing out a part of how the scientific process works and achieves progress; it's not a bane, it's a boon.
Can we call it the Giant-Huge-Large-Quasar-Group?
Yep, if only that were widely understood... I'd like to see more things prefaced with, "Here's what we think we know as of today..." in order to help the larger population realize it's good to question things and continue researching, developing, and exploring. Often the first whack or two are not particularly correct.
Are they really that arrogant? Perhaps they just don't know English too well.
I mean, iinm, they previously claimed they had discovered the largest and now they claim it again. There is only *one* largest - it makes no difference if you know about it or not. If you find something new that is larger than what you thought was the largest, then all you have proved is that you were previously wrong. To then claim that the new thing is the largest is arrogant.
How about adding some words to fix it, like 'known' or 'probably'?
I *suppose* there might be some way to *prove* (or otherwise justify) such confidence. For example, if they know the entire volume of the universe and the newly discovered one takes up more than half, then it would seem reasonable to assume that it is the largest.
Max.
Cue the yo mama jokes
Don't Tell Me What I Can't Do!
And the assumption that all of these corrected errors will ultimately lead to truth that requires no further correction, is a conjecture based on sheer faith.
All it means that 10 billion years ago there were more GRB's, for whatever reason. That does not imply a structure.
That's true, which is why I'm not making it. I don't adhere to Popper's views on the philosophy of science in the main, but I think the idea of verisimilitude (we're only ever approaching reality closer and closer, but may never get 100% accurate descriptions) is spot on. Science is for claims about accuracy, and predictive and explanatory power. The Truth is in the domain of metaphysics.
If this is 10 billion light years away and 10 billion light years across, wouldn't that make the universe at least 20 billion years old, or at least considerably larger than we think it is now? The universe was smaller in the past, but when it was about 3 billion years old would it have been large enough to hold something of this size?
It's amazing what we think we "know", by trying to interpret the electromagnetic radiation that falls on us.
Next week: more amazing complete revisions of what we "know".
What's odd about the discovery is that the Cosmological principle--one of the fundamental tenets of cosmology--holds that the distribution of matter in the universe will appear uniform if viewed at a large enough scale. And yet, structures clearly emerge at every scale astronomers can see.
Beings as we can only ever see a very small fraction of the universe, and don't even know how big it is in its entirety, it's certainly possible we simply can't view a large enough area for the distribution to "even out."
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
Problem is the "science" of cosmology is not the same "science" as the "science" of "the best and most successful way we have discovered for determining what is true and what is not".
In which case why does your explanation of science contain the phrase "determining what is true and what is not"? Two posts ago the truth was the domain of science and now it's just the domain of metaphysics? Funny how inconsistent people get about the power of science when pushed.
Meanwhile Dawkins is so confident of the *truth* of his extrapolatory creation myth that he feels the need to call believers of any other extrapolatory creation myth "deluded" ... while the details of his myth get rewritten every 5-10 years.
What a funny game this is. I thought we were just making models.
And then I expanded upon my conception of truth as I used it there later with the part about achieving greater accuracy. However, since I realize that this is not necessarily the standard idea of The Truth as others might conceive of it, I then made my views explicit in the follow-up by distinguishing those two conceptions of truth.
No; Something the scientific community thought was well understood is still thought to be well understood. We just have some more data.
Tie two birds together: although they have four wings, they cannot fly. (The blind man)
Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.
- Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
I just think it's ironic that people have to state "what science is" on Slashdot. I'm not criticizing the practice -- I'm concerned by how much we NEED to inform people of WHY science is good, even if it is never settled, and what the scientific process is.
This is just sad. This is a culture in decline. Forget about Rock Music, long hair, tattoos -- whatever shocking thing the next generation comes up with; SCIENCE is one of the first targets of a society in decline.
Of course, anyone I have to explain this to based on historical examples is probably also someone who has been told why science is necessary and important and still doesn't get it. *sigh*
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
What I never inderstand about articles that talk about very distant objects: they always use "are" as if this large structure would be there now, when, if at all and we interpret the data correctly, it was there billions of years ago. Something that "stretches" over 4 billion ligth years may also (depending on in which direction it stretches) also stretch over a time span of at least 4 billion years.
It is weird to think that what we see is not our universe at all: it is a picture that is a collage of times of what the universe was.
But what does it mean about our understanding of the universe now? Obviously we have no idea if Quasars "exist" -- the ones we observed so far are at least 600 million years away and thus have existed 600 million years ago.
600 Million years is a very long time. But 10 billion years is much closer to the beginning of the universe than to now. Does this make the violation of that "principle" then even more or qutie less significant?
One mind numbing possibility is that the laws of physics may change depending upon location in the universe. Drawing conclusions by observation of remote objects and events may it self be irrational.
You should be trying to tell yourself to read things closer.
Structures at every scale? Sounds fractal to me..consistent with nature's other patterns.
BS... for every enlightened age of man there has been an age where the witchdoctor has ruled. What we deem to see and notate now, may not make it to the next generation in a recordable form or be understood by the "great" minds of the future.
...the structure of the universe itself. Which is smaller than the collection of universes in the multiverse. Which is smaller than... Hey! Look! A turtle!
So science is not truth? But metaphysical? The witch-doctor wins in the end? How pessimistic.
Welcome to the scientific method.
For lesson one, perhaps you should go to 7th grade again. Well, hopefully again.
If I only had mod points for you. :)
If there's structure everywhere we look in the universe, maybe it's the multiverse that's uniform. (Disclaimer: I'm not a scientist of any type. I'm just thinking out loud here.)
Is it simply the fact that these objects are all relatively closer to each other that expected? Do they interact in any fashion, or were they all formed at the same time and/or from the same source?
.
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
Reading the article are they saying they have possible secondary evidence of large universal structures beyond our observable (through conventional means due to red shift) universe? Kind of like the few anomalous galactic cluster movements that we have seen running counter to what we expect given what we can see in the universe?
Isn't this another possible indication that a good deal of the missing mass that we are looking for is simply too far away to see?
Cool. More data.
-Tim Hare
We never had that.
At best, we had precious few enlightened men during some ages. Everyone else always danced and still dances to the witchdoctor's drum.
Presently we are in an age where we have more enlightened men than ever before - but we also have a lot more witchdoctors and dancers.
But we did win a battle or two along the way.
E.g. You won't be burned at a stake for using a match or a lighter any more, or be accused of stealing someone's soul when taking a photo of them.
It adds up.
Couple of thousand years more and no one will believe in astrology anymore. Probably.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
the distribution of matter in the universe is uniform if you view it on the scale of the entire universe. Which, if held to be infinite, definitively proves the theory.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
Oh bullshit. The vast majority of the time someone on /. gives a pompous recitation of what science means, it was in response to someone asking a question or questioning the science in a post.
There seems to be some prevailing meme on here that if a Scientist makes a claim, only certain Holy individuals are qualified to question that claim. This is merely ridiculous campus social elitism and not worthy of notice by adults.
There is no such thing as someone who is above question and there is no such thing as someone not qualified to question.
My object. It's bigger.
I have issues with the whole report. If the Universe is 13.xG years old, and it's been expanding...
1. How is 31 bursters over 10G ly a "structure"?
2. How big was the Universe 10G years ago? If it was then 10G ly wide, then the expansion is
clearly slowing down, only growing another 3G ly in 10G yrs, after doing 10G ly in 3.xG yrs.
mark "or maybe the Universe burst through an extradimensional wall, which resulted in
a number of bursters as they ripped through the wall for the rest"
Meanwhile Dawkins is so confident of the *truth* of his extrapolatory creation myth that he feels the need to call believers of any other extrapolatory creation myth "deluded" ... while the details of his myth get rewritten every 5-10 years.
Yes. And it's justified.
(a) just because two things are extrapolatory doesn't mean they are supported by equivalent qualities of models nor quantities of data.
(b) the Bible is not extrapolatory. it just states.
(c) the details of Big Bang and Evolution may get rewritten constantly, but:
(1) it's just the details
(2) even if it were rewritten wholesale, because of new discoveries, at least it would be based on observation, modeling, hypothesis, peer review, and all the other trappings of actual science and search for truth, not mere attachment to passed-down mythology
(d) if you think creation myths don't get rewritten, please think again. see the catholic church, for example, for how religion will eventually change its tune when overwhelmed with facts and logic. it takes a lot, sure, but eventually they'll give way. baptists? they invent whole new myths (around the Flood, for example) to explain anything and everything -- but they're still having to change their story, too, to survive.
Yes, I know, don't feed the trolls ... but seriously. You may apples and oranges look identical.
"Until now, the largest known structure in the Universe was the Huge-LQG (Large Quasar Group)"
The Big McLargeHuge-LQG.
We see power-law scaling everywhere and it looks a lot like the statement in the article. If the size of cars obeyed a power law distribution it would be hard to tell how far you were away from the ground by looking at the apparent size of the cars. The wider you make your gaze the larger cars you will find. We see power-law scaling in continuous phase transition when the system can't really "decide" what scale to prefer so it kind of exists in all scales. Perhaps this means the universe is undergoing some sort of continuous phase transition. Very cool.
Must I remind yet again? The largest structure in the universe is the universe, because it's a subset of itself. No more largest structure pronouncements, please. The matter is settled. Also sprach Zarathustra.
Cosmological principle--one of the fundamental tenets of cosmology--holds that the distribution of matter in the universe will appear uniform if viewed at a large enough scale.
That's hysterical! How can smart people or people over the age of 20 believe this? I'm laughing at you science nerds!
That explains why the website told me its nipples exploded with delight when I tried to sign up.
Are you saying that gravitational lensing is just an anomaly?
Gravitational lensing seems to be one of the major evidences in favor of dark matter/mass, but it'd be interesting to see you (or anyone for that matter) argue that it's just an anomaly given that it can be observed in multiple distinct locations.
(Now, I think we both agree that dark energy is still just a hypothesis, but I think you'd have to come up with something better than claiming that it's "just an anomaly" to explain the existing evidence.)
HAND.
When they see large structures billions of light years away, then they're also looking back billions of years in time and the universe was a lot smaller then, so they're not really looking at something that large, they're looking at something that was small and has been stretched out subsequently, so these reports of 'large structures' don't make sense.
Thanks slashcode :)
if the matter isn't uniform that means the "missing" antimatter from the big bang event is still there, in the void spots of the universe, maybe sourrounded by dark matter or condensed by dark energy