/sci/ - Science & Math

>>16142062
You picture is not the whole anisotropy. They have filtered out 99% of the interesting stuff. The real map looks like this. You cannot see any correlation with the solar system plane.

What people are talking about is the 2 spherical harmonics (modes) which have a roughly aligned axis, the quadrupole and octopole moments. Why did people look at these in particular? No reason, they looked at lots of things. When you look at enough features eventually you will find something curious, it doesn't mean it's significant.

And why should it be aligned with the solar system plane? No reason, people also would have tested the galactic plane, the Earth's equatorial plane.

If you look at enough data eventually you will find coincidences. There is no alternative which predicted this. Geocentrists might point to this as evidence, but they are cherry picking to the extreme. As they cannot explain all the other structure in the CMB, throwing out thousands and modes (plus polarisation) to point at 2. Which big bang cosmology predicted very accurately.

The CMB has been "photographed" so yes

>>9969302
The reigning theory is that a quantum mechanical regime reigned at the beginning introducing the homogenizing effect of an inflaton field, with quantum fluctuations which became the seeds for the nonuniformity at 10^-5 level in the CMB plot.

These seeds are the ones that started the gravitational regions which became clusters of galaxies, galaxies and stars.

Coupled with this there is a cascade theory which seems plausible. On the fringe you'll hear things like other universal membranes interfering with our own (though I think they ruled that out).

Practically speaking, when taken as a whole, the universe (and even the GMB) is very close to uniform, so these minor differences (which are the only reason there are different things), are rather magnified from our perspective. Those images of the CMB are the equivalent of going into Google Earth and turning the mountain height factor to max.

Is it possible for something to be finite, bounded, but also flat?

>>9437364
If you're referring to this sort of image, the oval is just a projection (called Mollweide) which is used to project a sphere onto a flat plane. The image is of the whole sky, it needs to be projected onto a 2D image. You can plot the surface on the Earth on Mollweide projection similarly.

This is an image of the Cosmic Microwave Background, it's the most distant light detectable in the universe which originates from very near the edge of the observable universe.

>>8942169
>The universe is 10 times bigger than the observable universe, and it's boundaries, due to the characteristics of the ether around it, are shaped like an exact copy of steve buscemi's left nut.
CMB would kill that right quick. We know (or think we know) roughly, how much matter there is in the universe, including that which is already outside of the observable universe (which is considerable).

>>8938857
A space virus that pretty much destroy everything in the universe.

is it impossible for us to compute what the observable universe looks like in its current state, or relatively current state?

it seems as though the further distances we try to observe, we only get a snapshot of the area's history going further to its inception.

is the term 'observable universe' a misnomer considering how inaccurate it is depicted compared to its current state?

It would be like trying to describe what a human is, if the best representation you could achieve is a photo of an embryo

>>8223054

Here's the whole thing.

Is it plausible? Yes. Are there good science reasons pointing to it? Yes, inflation is a wonderfully successful model of the early universe but once it start's it doesn't stop. Eternal inflation is often though of an optional branch of inflation but even Guth admits it's a necessarily implication.

There are scientific arguments that point to it but not strongly enough that it should be accepted.

>>7379102
>2013+2
>not using the superior version