This question was asked by @Ray Buttler. I also asked the same question to SDSS. While I wait for their response, it would be great if I could get your opinion.
I was and still am puzzled by this question. First because I am not familiar with the protocols of data collection used in Astronomy (drift-scan). I used to be an experimentalist and always believe people do their job perfectly (data collection), so I tend not to expect experimental artifacts. If there are, SDSS should had told me when I asked them.
Let's analyze the measurement at hand. The details of the profile shown in the ManyBangsGlobal plot below are due to observational positioning and comoving number density. Comoving number density was hypothesized as a proxy to mass. I considered that the fiber bundles would be collecting light of a galaxy and from the redshift and luminosity, astronomers would derive a number density - (the likely number of stars that created that amount of light at that distance).
CellGalaxyDensity plots that distribution for all DEC and RA (no aggregation was used other that of a cell of dimensions 0.1 degree squared versus 0.001 R_0). There are two conclusions one should derive from that plot:
In summary,
One could think that this profile was reached in a single Bang. That would require explanation for what drives the pattern.
A much better model would be the one I proposed - that the density was created by the sloshing of acoustic waves driven by the Neutronium decay.
There are 1.3 million objects in the picture. I will continue investigate angular distribution of clusters.
#########################################################
I observed this profile (see video) embedded in the SDSS data.
I would like to learn about your opinion on how these modulations were created.
The plot is a cross-section of the map of the Universe at the current epoch along the Declination vs distances (alpha) vs galaxy density (summed Comoving NZ on rounded off distances, DEC and RA).
The calculation is present in this repository:
https://github.com/ny2292000/TheHypergeometricalUniverse
video to help setting up the python environment is here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04JeZ1n4qNI
video showing the Big Pop and Banging Universe Cosmogenesis theory:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r54AQc2BR5c&t=115s
#####################################################
Notice that the profile is not just a simple result of larger distance -> distance-squared number of galaxies. One can easily divide the profile by distance-squared and still be left with a bump.
In addition, the gross contribution to the profile comes from zDensity (density of galaxies at z redshift) that has nothing to do with angular telescope orientation since z and angles are supposedly independent.
The fine structure of the profile comes from comoving NZ, which is also independent of angles.
Attached is the 2-point correlation (divided by distance squared) and taken with a center at 0.06 of the radius of the Universe (13.58 Gly). Also FFT of 2-point correlation/ zDensity/dDensity.
Only the 2-point correlations were divided by distance-squared. zDensity/dDensity were not. zDensity is just the aggregated number of galaxies per z. dDensity is the aggregated number of galaxies per distance.
Let me know what you think.
A corollary of this question is: How does this affects the 150 Mpc bump of the 2-point correlation by Beutler et al? How does this affects Dark Matter claims derived from that bump?
ps- Many Bangs plot is the galaxy density deposition by the Many Bangs during the first 3012 years of the Universe existence (Just after the Big Pop). Each curve corresponds the looking across the Universe map around a given angle.
Many Bangs is the cross-section DEC (RA) vs Distance vs Galaxy density.
RA (DEC) is summed up (aggregated), so there is not specific RA value used.
Similarly, when you don't see RA or DEC it is because it has been summed up.
This question was asked by @Ray Butler.
More precisely, I offered it as just one possible observational reason that might explain the pattern. My comments were:
I would add, why would they be exactly aligned with something as cosmologically arbitrary as the (RA,Dec) coordinate system defined by the tilt of Earth's axis? Is it not far more likely that this pattern is connected with an observational characteristic, such as the drift-scan mode of observation of the SDSS telescope, scanning the sky in slices?
I have no skin in this game of cosmology, but was drawn to present an observer's viewpoint. If anyone with intimate knowledge of SDSS can really answer this, that would be interesting.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_it_a_known_fact_that_the_Universe_resonated_10_times_at_the_Big_Bang
This was a great question by Ray Butler. I didn't understood it enough to properly answer it the first time. Later, Ray asked me again and then I realized what he was missing (I supposed since it is still too early to get feedback)
I think he thinks that the video portray a cross-section of distance vs DEC versus Density for a given RA.
It is not for an ARBITRARY given value of RA. I sum up all the contributions for each value of RA.
Later, I did the converse, summing all the densities along the coordinate DEC.
Earth's position is not at the center of mass nor at the number center (without taking into consideration CNZ comoving number density). On the center of number of stars
Center of Stars =
-0.05997536759047653
-0.008056470974940437
0.10149148035328924
so around 10% of the Radius of the Universe away from the center of observations.
Center of Mass =
-0.015760879615990066
-0.0021897997480715362
0.027349707412055845
If you asked me, I would rather have Earth farther from the center of the initial acoustic wave. On the other hand, there is a hint that these waves drove a very spiky distribution at the center. We are slightly to the side in what seems to be a more sparse region. I invoke the Anthropic Principle to say that being in a space region is a good thing. God only knows what a Galaxy collision will do to us.
If it turns out that we are in an extremely dense region of space, then I will invoke the Anthropic Principle to state that there are so many galaxies here...we were likely to be here anyway....:)
The Anthropic Principle is crap..:)
I am adding these two files. One corresponds to dDensityCorrected=dDensity/distance_squared
and the two other are the fft. I did a focus on the region corresponding to 150 Mpc = 0.036 radian.
Initially, I was expecting the wavelength of the oscillation to be a multiple of 0.25 and that we would be not in the center of the wave. That might be the case, from looking at the data, given that the data is good. If it is not, then we will have to get better data.
This is a great two questions: I will divide them and answer them one by one:
####################################################
####################################################
####################################################
FIRST: Why would they be exactly aligned with something as cosmologically arbitrary as the (RA,Dec) coordinate system defined by the tilt of Earth's axis?
I will give a try on this one.
Reference to Earth's Tilt:
I believe that the data from SDSS has the reference to Earth's tilt eliminated. The data doesn't seem to use Earth as reference any more. There is no orientation on arbitrary system dependent upon Earth Axis. In addition, the wave detected is spherically symmetric and us being at the center is enough to justify observations.
Orientation of directions on the hypersurface
Remember that the Hypergeometrical Universe Theory states that the Universe is the hypersurface on a lightspeed expanding hypersphere.
Look at the attached picture and realize the z,y,z are inside a hypersphere and no matter where you look at, that direction is perpendicular to the radial direction. That is a property of hypersurfaces. This is a very thin hypersurface (0.19 femtometers). When it started expanding due to the Big Pop, a region somewhere will be less dense than the rest... Remember, the Universe, even at its smallest size was already very big (184-595 light seconds 4D-radius).
Anthropic Principle to place us at the center of an Spherical Wave
I will invoke the Anthropic Principle here (just as a Devil's Advocate). Science invokes it at the drop of a hat - as an Incantation. In String Theory (out of its zillion possible string solutions), this Universe allows for Life to exist. Normal Science (as opposed to the wildly speculative String ones), says that if we had one grain of sand extra in the Universe, the Universe would had decelerated and had gone into a 3D Big Crunch..
My Anthropic Principle invocation is trivial in comparison to those ones.
If there is a wave in a hypersphere and that wave creates large densities of galaxies, the destructive processes (e.g. Gamma Ray Bursts, Galaxy Collisions) would make life more likely to take hold (undisturbed) in a region of lower density. Currently, the region on the Hill, might seem placid, I am sure Galaxies are colliding all the time in that region (with higher frequency).
This is a reasonable working hypothesis until the observation is confirmed.The data is not properly understood (by me) enough to know if the Hill is real. SDSS didn't answer my request of information that would clarify if the DEC waves are real, so I cannot state anything with certainty. That said, a simple reasoning would indicate that we are likely to exist in a low galaxy density region. That seems to be what the data is telling us.
It just happens that we are at the center of a spherical wave. Any angular wave in 4D (the only ones possible in the thin hypersphere) will always be spherical waves in 3D. A hyperspherical topology would never create angular waves in 3D.
Hyperspherical Topology explains the why there are no angular waves in our 3D sky
That explains the failure of Current Science to find detectable modulations on CMB or in the angular distribution of galaxies. Before someone interject that CMB modulations are detectable, compare them with the density modulations we have along the radial direction. Those are unambiguously detectable.
####################################################
####################################################
####################################################
SECOND: Is it not far more likely that this pattern is connected with an observational characteristic, such as the drift-scan mode of observation of the SDSS telescope, scanning the sky in slices?
Science doesn't answer questionable observations with probabilities. So that is not a well crafted question. The information about drift-scan is precious in a good sense.
It tells me that the telescope doesn't sit on a single spot (through a servo-mechanism) as Earth rotates. I thought that that was the idea behind SDSS. They use plates and optical fibers that are fitted to an specific angular slice of the sky. So, in my ignorance, I tend to question the validity of this part of the question.
The second argument is that the 'observed' waves are in the Comoving Number Density and z coordinates. Comoving Number Density is basically intensity, z is the redshift. Light intensity and color cannot be artificially correlated with the angle of observation.
I cannot guess a scenario where they would be connected. Just to emphasize, I don't think SDSS is scanning the sky in slices. The existence of plates tells me that they are fixing the telescope, measuring spectrum and only then moving. Please, let me know if I am wrong in my interpretation.
I believe that the data from SDSS has the reference to Earth's tilt eliminated. The data doesn't seem to use Earth as reference any more.
In the video I was commenting on, which you titled "RingingAlongDec", you plotted the data with respect to Declination, which is absolutely defined in terms of the Earth's tilt.
Science doesn't answer questionable observations with probabilities. So that is not a well crafted question.
That was simply a question addressed directly to you, to encourage you to look more closely into observational factors. A standard rhetorical device, to nudge you in the right direction. I wasn't trying to craft a question for "science" in general.
Hi Ray,
Ray said : I would add, why would they be exactly aligned with something as cosmologically arbitrary as the (RA,Dec) coordinate system defined by the tilt of Earth's axis? Is it not far more likely that this pattern is connected with an observational characteristic, such as the drift-scan mode of observation of the SDSS telescope, scanning the sky in slices?
I aggregated the data with respect to RA. The fact that you don't see RA is not because I choose RA=0 or other value. I did the same for DEC, and concluded that the pattern is consistent with a hyperspherical acoustic wave. It is also consistent with an spherical acoustic wave..:)
The file with ending DEC has the data aggregated first on RA. The file ending with RA, has the data aggregated on DEC.
Does that answers your question?
Thanks,
Marco
github repository:
https://github.com/ny2292000/TheHypergeometricalUniverse
This is the message I received from SDSS. See it below together with the plot of density (z) I sent them.
The data I sent to them was to see if the extra bumps (beyond the distance squared profile for galaxy number) could be due to some collection protocol.
SDSS:Major features on both hemispheres are due to color selection.
I don't understand how color plays any role. We measure redshift (to get distance) and NZ plus the number of stars in a given volume to get mass.
Neither one of them has to do with color.
Can anyone jump in and clarify the message?
There is a great article that I still have to read it.
I didn't ask them about the many Bangs..:)
##########################################
Hello Marco,
We have further details from experts on this topic:
The major features seen in both hemispheres are due to the color selection.
The jiggles at low redshift are basically the large scale structure itself.
For further details on the difference between North and South, please refer to Appendix A of Alam et al 2016 arXiv:1607.03155 and the references therein.
- Badges
- Science topic