Concentric circles interpreted as bruises from collisions with alternate universes. Image Credit: Feeney et al.

Abuse From Other Universes – A Second Opinion

Article Updated: 24 Dec , 2015

by

[/caption]

At the end of last year, there was a flurry of activity from astronomers Gurzadyan and Penrose that considered the evidence of alternate universes or the existence of a universe prior to the Big Bang and suggested that such evidence may be imprinted on the cosmic microwave background as bruises of concentric circles. Quickly, this was followed by an announcement claiming to find just such circles. Of course, with an announcement this big, the statistical significance would need to be confirmed. A recent paper in the October issue of the Astrophysical Journal provides a second opinion.

The review was conducted by Amir Hajian at the Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics. To conduct the study, Hajian selected a large number of circles, similar to the ones reported in the previous studies and asked what the probability was that, randomly, the “edge” of the circles would contain hot-spots, similar to the ones predicted. These were then compared to the bruises reported by the other teams by examining their “variance” which is how much the points on the perimeter were spread around the average temperature.

Hajian notes that, with the resolution considered it would be possible to consider some 5 million circles. The results of his comparison demonstrated that it would be expected that some 0.3% of those should have features similar to the ones reported previously. With so many possibilities, this would imply that some 15,000 potential circles could be flagged as candidates for these cosmic bruises. Even the “best” candidate proposed in the Gurzadyan and Penrose study should still exist statistically.

As such, Hajian concludes that the features Gurzadyan and Penrose reported were not statistically anomalous. Hajian does not comment directly on Feeney et al.’s detection, but given theirs were constructed in a similar manner, it should be expected that they are similarly statistically insignificant. It would appear that if the fingerprints of other universes are embedded in the sky, they have been lost in the noise.

, ,



Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
HeadAroundU
Guest
HeadAroundU
October 9, 2011 7:20 PM

It’s just acne, it’s a pubescent universe.

Torbjorn Larsson OM
Member
Torbjorn Larsson OM
October 9, 2011 8:26 PM

Maybe Occam’s razor were prematurely used then?

Nexus
Member
October 9, 2011 8:44 PM

You should never shave over a pimple.

Aqua4U
Member
October 10, 2011 12:31 AM

Circular logic?

Torbjorn Larsson OM
Member
Torbjorn Larsson OM
October 10, 2011 6:47 AM

Ba-dum-CHING!

Lawrence B. Crowell
Member
Lawrence B. Crowell
October 9, 2011 8:03 PM

The paper by Amir Hajian

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1012/1012.1656v1.pdf

does indicate there is not sufficient data to show that Gurzadyan and Penrose model is supported.

LC

Torbjorn Larsson OM
Member
Torbjorn Larsson OM
October 9, 2011 8:15 PM
Well, it was the reception of G&P at the time that they didn’t account for the noise but made a simple pattern search. Good to have that validated. Hajian does not comment directly on Feeney et al.’s detection, but given theirs were constructed in a similar manner, it should be expected that they are similarly statistically insignificant. Maybe they are statistically insignificant, but I don’t think we can expect that given precisely that they go out of their way to test against gaussanity as opposed to G&P: “While we didn’t make any clear detections of bubble collisions, we did find four features in the WMAP data that are better explained by the bubble collision hypothesis than by the… Read more »
Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 10, 2011 6:58 AM
Firstly, the Feeney et al. result is not the same as the Gurzadyan & Penrose effect. The signatures are both circles, true, but not of the same nature at all. That’s one reason Hajian doesn’t mention Feeney in his critique of the G&P paper. Furthermore, the Gurzadyan & Penrose result was *immediately* questioned by three independent groups who put their findings on the preprint server (arxiv.org numbers 1012.1268, 1012.1305, and 1012.1656) within almost the same week. Nobody in the press that I saw hyping this noticed that the astronomy community considered the result a joke. Hajian’s was one of the three critiques. Others were published in peer reviewed journals earlier this year (eg http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ…733L..29W and http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011JCAP…04..033M) So why… Read more »
Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
October 10, 2011 10:40 AM
the universe is like a fake God of Reality, invented by every life form, and nobody will ever understand its full scope being a barnicle fragment. These concentric rings are merely poor evidence to refute the big-bang theory, and nothing more. Multi-verses could be so distant, that they would leave no trace on the CMB. And if there were multiverses, then everything including the multiverses should be incorporated into what is called the Universe. And if there are multiverses, then there is a larger universe then the big-bang, and more multiverses…. and no ultimate size limits exists, transitory existances, impermance, change, and no God but many fake transitory Gods that die. Viruses or some lower life form eventually… Read more »
Torbjorn Larsson OM
Member
Torbjorn Larsson OM
October 10, 2011 12:39 PM
– The search for evidence for other universes are exactly that, and not related to “refuting” big bang theory. In one sense there were never a big bang theory to invalidate, because the idea that expansion hits a singularity was never a necessary part of the cosmology labeled “big bang”. And in another sense it is already invalidated, since the new inflationary standard cosmology predates the big bang expansion with an inflationary epoch. And modifies the freewheeling big bang expansion with dark energy acceleration, that dominates postdate the middle period. Whether you call standard cosmology big bang or not is a matter of taste. It would perhaps be better to acknowledge the difference between earlier cosmologies and the… Read more »
Lawrence B. Crowell
Member
Lawrence B. Crowell
October 10, 2011 4:03 PM
This data analysis for cosmic variance could check for non-Gaussian signatures predicted by Gurzadyan-Penrose theory and the eternal inflationary paradigm of Linde et al.. As things stand there is no method for distinguishing one from the other so long as the data is less than 3?. Both of these models are commensurate with big bang, which really refers to the universe in the thermal post inflationary state. The degree of anisotropy of the universe supports inflation somewhat. However, beyond that we are uncertain. Smolin has introduced ideas of a sort of cosmic Darwinism, or a selection principle for the scaling of physics in spacetime cosmologies. I will confess that I am not a strong partisan of this idea,… Read more »
wpDiscuz