Newly Discovered LQG

[lizbethrose]

Recently, astronomers discovered a Large Quasar Group that challenges the Cosmological Principle, an accepted theory proposed by Einstein. Basically, the theory postulates the homogenous nature of the universe–that all parts of the universe are the same no matter from what location an observer observes, and that the universe is also isotropic, meaning that all parts of the universe are the same no matter the direction of the observation. All of this means, according to the Cosmological Principle, that all aspects of the universe will follow the Laws of Nature as in Newtonian theories of motion and Einstein’s theory that nothing exceeds the speed of light.

Why is this so? Measurement of the LQG indicates it would take a particle traveling at the speed of light 400M light years to traverse the entire size of the LQG from tip to tip. This goes beyond the Cosmological Principle because it’s apparently unique in its sheer size.

Does anyone have any thoughts about how this could go against the ‘Laws of Nature’?

[Flannel_Jesus]

@lizbethrose

All of this means, according to the Cosmological Principle, that all aspects of the universe will follow the Laws of Nature as in Newtonian theories of motion

Did you read this somewhere or write this bit yourself? Because I have a hard time believing someone who knows even a miniscule amount about the history of physics – not even the math of physics, just the history of it – would say that about Newtonian physics.

Does anyone have any thoughts about how this could go against the ‘Laws of Nature’?

As some of us said in another thread, to say this shows a misunderstanding of what the term ‘laws of nature’ even means. You seem unable to differentiate between an actual law of nature and a theory about a law of nature.

It goes against a theory about the laws of nature. It doesn’t go against the laws of nature. Pretty much tautologically, unless we’re bringing Gods into the picture or something, if something happens, it happens because of the laws of nature, not against the laws of nature.

[phyllo]

Measurement of the LQG indicates it would take a particle traveling at the speed of light 400M light years to traverse the entire size of the LQG from tip to tip.

The size is 4 billion light years.

Recently, astronomers discovered a Large Quasar Group that challenges the Cosmological Principle, an accepted theory proposed by Einstein.

It’s not a theory, it’s a principle - an assumption. You would have a hard time making sense of observations if the physics depended on your location or the direction you are looking. Potentially anything could be happening a billion light years away and there is no way to go there and check that the physics is the same as here. The assumption is necessary and reasonable.

In modern physical cosmology, the cosmological principle is the working assumption that observers on Earth do not occupy an unusual or privileged location within the universe as a whole, judged as observers of the physical phenomena produced by uniform and universal laws of physics.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle

[lizbethrose]

After giving a re-cap of published articles concerning the LQD, I asked the following question:

Does anyone have any thoughts about how this could go against the ‘Laws of Nature’?

No one apparently has.

What makes Newton’s “Laws” laws rather than ‘theories?’ Is it because they were presented as ‘laws,’ or is it because they are seemingly irrefutable, for now? Einstein presented his thoughts as ‘theories.’ Theories are open game for science. What’s the difference between a “law” of Nature and a theory of how the Universe may work?

Does the discovery of the Large Quasar Group challenge accepted theories of how the universe works? If it doesn’t, why have astronomers claimed it does?

That’s my question.

[James_S_Saint]

Originally in Science, they were loose with the word “law”. After finding many of what they were calling laws, and then finding almost all of them being not exactly correct, they stopped calling their theories “laws”, except for Thermodynamics, the foundation of their religious effort to create Secularism and Science so as to displace the other religions.

It wasn’t a very organized, nice neat plan and effort. It took hundreds of years through many generations and a great deal of politics and maneuvering. Along the way, many “principles” as phyllo pointed out, were discovered to be necessary for rational thought to continue. They never actually got it completely right and they will tell you that themselves.

So it is no great surprise that they might have found that yet another seemingly reasonable principle wasn’t actually right. Realize these haven’t been the brightest people on the planet, merely very talented toward specific thoughts such as mathematics. When it comes to the construction of ontology, they have never shown great thinking. And yet is exactly what they were actually trying to accomplish.

But a “law of nature” is a principle that CANNOT be broken, period. It is not up to man to create such laws, but merely try to discover them. They come close. And Newton’s work was very well done as was many during that era. The greater follies came later when they tried to understand the speed of light issue and got into relativity and the Heisenberg realization of uncertainty and Plank’s realization that there had to be something wrong with either Thermodynamics (which was literal heresy to say) or that common sense reality couldn’t be right (thus QM was born).

They have tried to claim that everything that used to be acceptable (by old standards) must be wrong-wrong-wrong, hence people must abandon the old. But reality is proving that you can’t merely arbitrarily prop up an ontology as the “real truth”, promote it til the day you die, and ignore logic and reality. In the long run, Reality always wins.

It is literally another case of “the devil trying to get Man to obey his ways and ignore God (logic and reality)”. The lust for power over all they survey… “You can be like unto God”… it never ends.

In this case of the LQG, I have no idea as to what the problem is, so I can’t say one way or another as to what is going on. At worst someone’s theory is being discovered to be not quite right… no big surprise.

[Flannel_Jesus]

@lizbethrose

What makes Newton’s “Laws” laws rather than ‘theories?’

Nobody in this thread said that, what makes you think that anybody thinks they’re laws rather than theories?

Little history lesson for you: Newtonian physics is actually, factually, proven incorrect. Newtonian physics is, today, seen as an approximation of Einsteinian phyics for low velocities. IDK why you think anybody in the world is defending Newtonian Physics as ‘the laws of the universe’ when, to the contrary, it’s a well known fact that Newtonian Physics is just plain incorrect.

What’s the difference between a “law” of Nature and a theory of how the Universe may work?

The difference is that one is reality, the other is what we think might be true about reality.
So, to say it goes against the laws of nature is to say it goes against reality.
To say it goes against a theory of how the universe may work is to say that what we think about reality might be wrong.
The former makes no sense, but the latter does.

Does the discovery of the Large Quasar Group challenge accepted theories of how the universe works? If it doesn’t, why have astronomers claimed it does?

That’s my question.

According to the article, it apparently does challenge theories.
What you said is that it challenges the actual laws.
The former is potentially true – maybe it does challenge theories.
The latter is not, as I explained earlier.

[lizbethrose]

Flannel Jesus wrote:

You seem unable to differentiate between an actual law of nature and a theory about a law of nature.

That may be, FJ, but–Just what is an “actual law of nature?” If there are no ‘laws’ of nature, how can a theory be differentiated from a law?

Newtonian physics is, today, seen as an approximation of Einsteinian phyics for low velocities. IDK why you think anybody in the world is defending Newtonian Physics as ‘the laws of the universe’ when, to the contrary, it’s a well known fact that Newtonian Physics is just plain incorrect.

If so, why are they, then, still called Laws?

But that’s beside the point, isn’t it? My question remains:

Does the discovery of the Large Quasar Group challenge accepted theories of how the universe works? If it doesn’t, why have astronomers claimed it does?

I’m not playing word games, FJ. I’d really like to know.

If there’s anyone here who can come close to imaging–or understanding–even a part of Einstein’s theories of either Special or General Relativity, I’m asking why the LQG challenges those theories.

So far, all I’ve found is that a construction of this size isn’t predictable–nor can it be predicted–given current Einsteinian theories about how nature works throughout the universe. The universe, then, isn’t homogenous or isotrophic. Should we then throw that theory out or should it be modified in some way?

[Flannel_Jesus]

@lizbethrose

That may be, FJ, but–Just what is an “actual law of nature?” If there are no ‘laws’ of nature, how can a theory be differentiated from a law?

“If there are no laws of nature”?
There is no ‘if’.
Obviously the behavior of matter and energy follows rules to some extent. If it didn’t, well, you and I wouldn’t be able to exist for more than a moment. All the matter that makes us up would just go flying in opposite directions if it didn’t follow rules to some extent. The rules that it follows are what keeps us held together.

Do I know exactly what those rules are? No. Do I know that there are rules? Definitely.
Newton knew that there were rules too. He came up with a tentative set of rules. I think even he knew, though, that they weren’t the final answer, that there would be a better set of rules to dethrone the ones he came up with. That’s what relativity is – the dethroning of Newtonian physics.

it’s a well known fact that Newtonian Physics is just plain incorrect.

If so, why are they, then, still called Laws?

Dunno, I suppose that, in a way, they are ‘laws,’ just not the laws that govern the behavior of matter in our universe.
They’re a different sort of law – if you use Newton’s rules to do physics calculations for things that are relatively slow – say, rockets for instance – then you’ll generally get an approximately correct answer. So, they can still be considered a set of rules, rules that you follow for slow-speed calculations to get an approximately correct answer.

They’re just not ‘the laws of nature’.

But that’s beside the point, isn’t it? My question remains:

Does the discovery of the Large Quasar Group challenge accepted theories of how the universe works? If it doesn’t, why have astronomers claimed it does?

I’m not playing word games, FJ. I’d really like to know.

I don’t think I was playing a word game. I think it’s pretty damn philosophically relevant to distinguish between reality and what someone thinks about reality. I also think that if you’re going to talk about physics, you should probably know that Newtonian Physics is not considered to be ‘the laws of nature’. I taught you something new that you didn’t know before. Show some gratitude young lady. I wasn’t even very rude about it.

[lizbethrose]

I edited my post as you were replying to the original, FJ/

[Flannel_Jesus]

There are other notable instances of non-laws which are called laws as well –
For example, one of the ones that comes to my mind right off the bat is the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

It’s not so much a ‘law’ as it is a matter of statistics – statistically, most matter and energy interactions follow the rule, but it’s not a ‘law of nature’ insofar as it’s not impossible to break the rule, and indeed the rule is broken in reality, just not nearly as often as the rule is followed.

So, it’s not a ‘law’ that governs the behavior, it’s more like a general rule of thumb that we can use to describe the behavior.

The Second Law is a law of statistical mechanics, rather than a fundamental law of nature. As such, it is not entirely impossible to be violated; however, its violation is extremely unlikely. But because its violation is not impossible, only extremely unlikely, it turns out that over extremely long timeframes, a violation may eventually occur. For example, a classical system which exhibits the second law of thermodynamics over reasonable timespans, may nonetheless violate the law over times on the order of its Poincaré recurrence time - when Poincaré recurrence occurs, the entropy of the system will decrease to its original value. However, given the Poincaré recurrence time is going to be greatly longer than the age of the universe so far, this is a purely theoretical consideration. Additionally, given any instance in which a macrostate decreases in entropy, there will be an astronomically large number of other instances of the same macrostate increasing in entropy. Also, the Second Law applies to large-scale systems; given two molecules, it is unlikely for the one with lower vibrational energy to impart some of its energy to one with higher, but unlike with large-scale systems, it remains a sizable possibility, and given the large number of molecules, it is guaranteed to happen occasionally.

[lizbethrose]

Didn’t Newton propose and define the second Law of thermodynamics? Please, FJ, is it impossible for you to answer my questions, as phrased? If so, I’ll try to rephrase them–even though my husband believes that my way of rephrasing anything is to say the same thing only louder.

What I’ve written is a question. It has very little to do with Isaac Newton or anything he ‘proved.’ Descartes ‘proved’ his theory of mind-body duality by using the ‘science’ of his day. Does today’s science ‘prove’ that the pineal gland is the ‘seat of our soul?’ He thought so.

Please, just answer my question.

[anon]

It’s questionable in the first place to speak of laws ‘governing’ behavior. All laws are descriptions of relationships, constant enough at a certain scale, for certain kinds of knowers, to be determined to be laws.

Sorry I can’t answer your question, Liz, but at least it’s obvious to me what you’re asking.

[James_S_Saint]

Sir Isaac Newton PRS MP (25 December 1642 – 20 March 1726) was an English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher, alchemist and theologian who has been considered by many to be the greatest and most influential scientist who ever lived.[8][9] His monograph Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, published in 1687, laid the foundations for most of classical mechanics. In this work, Newton described universal gravitation and the three laws of motion, which dominated the scientific view of the physical universe for the next three centuries.

About 100 years later and for a couple of hundred years…

Count Rumford (born Benjamin Thompson) showed, about 1797, that mechanical action can generate indefinitely large amounts of heat, so challenging the caloric theory. The historically first established thermodynamic principle which eventually became the second law of thermodynamics was formulated by Sadi Carnot during 1824. By 1860, as formalized in the works of those such as Rudolf Clausius and William Thomson, two established principles of thermodynamics had evolved, the first principle and the second principle, later restated as thermodynamic laws. By 1873, for example, thermodynamicist Josiah Willard Gibbs, in his memoir Graphical Methods in the Thermodynamics of Fluids, clearly stated the first two absolute laws of thermodynamics. Some textbooks throughout the 20th century have numbered the laws differently. In some fields removed from chemistry, the second law was considered to deal with the efficiency of heat engines only, whereas what was called the third law dealt with entropy increases. Directly defining zero points for entropy calculations was not considered to be a law. Gradually, this separation was combined into the second law and the modern third law was widely adopted.

The current “Second LAW” can be easily broken due to micro engineering methods that operate beneath the level of thermal heat. Thus to still call it a law is a bit silly. Maxwell rationally proved that it couldn’t be a natural law over 130 years ago, but got laughed at (he was being heretical). It has been broken many times sense, yet is still one of the only theories still called a LAW.

In the philosophy of thermal and statistical physics, Maxwell’s demon is a thought experiment created by the physicist James Clerk Maxwell to “show that the Second Law of Thermodynamics has only a statistical certainty”.[hence isn’t an actual Law] It demonstrates Maxwell’s point by hypothetically describing how to violate the Second Law: a container of gas molecules at equilibrium, is divided into two parts by an insulated wall, with a door that can be opened and closed by what came to be called “Maxwell’s demon”. The demon opens the door to allow only the faster than average molecules to flow through to a favored side of the chamber, and only the slower than average molecules to the other side, causing the favored side to gradually heat up while the other side cools down, thus decreasing entropy.

The thought experiment first appeared in a letter Maxwell wrote to Peter Guthrie Tait on 11 December 1867.

The words in red being mine.
Maxwell’s “demon” has since been created in a variety forms over the last 50-60 years.

A Law in Science is merely something that you are not permitted to break (in public). Everything else is okay to break.

[Flannel_Jesus]

Sorry Lizbeth, I don’t know enough about physics to answer your actual question. Just thought I’d inform you on some mistakes in the things you wrote. Take it or leave it (but it’d be best to take it).

TY James, glad to see I’m not the only one who’s aware of this sort of thing.

[Daktoria]

The lack of sources in this thread is disturbing. If you’re going to cite something, then cite it.

[phyllo]

Does the discovery of the Large Quasar Group challenge accepted theories of how the universe works? If it doesn’t, why have astronomers claimed it does?

Consequences of assuming CP is valid : the universe has no center and no boundary. The Big Bang and Steady State explanations of the universe are based on these assumptions.

The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model that describes the early development of the Universe.[1] According to the theory, the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.75 billion years ago[2][3][4][5], after which time the Universe was in an extremely hot and dense state and began expanding rapidly. After the initial expansion, the Universe cooled sufficiently to allow energy to be converted into various subatomic particles, including protons, neutrons, and electrons.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

In cosmology, the Steady State theory (also known as the Infinite Universe theory or continuous creation) is a model developed as an alternative to the Big Bang theory (the standard cosmological model). In steady state views, new matter is continuously created as the universe expands, so that the perfect cosmological principle is adhered to. The steady state model is now largely discredited, as the observational evidence points to a Big Bang-type cosmology and a finite age of the universe.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_State_theory

If CP is not valid then it would appear that these theories are not correct.

Pdf discussing CP history and philosophy(36 pages):
redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pr … N04JAA.pdf

[lizbethrose]

@Daktoria

The lack of sources in this thread is disturbing. If you’re going to cite something, then cite it.

Sorry, Dak. You can get sources by googling the title of the thread. I thought I’d provided them, but it may have been in another thread. I apologize.