Fractal Universe

brodix · #1 (**permalink**) 22-March-2007, 11:25 PM

I was surprised no one has brought this up, since it was in last week's NewScientist;

http://space.newscientist.com/articl...d=BHPNAGFCIJDI, (It's subscription.)

"The universe is not a fractal," Hogg insists, "and if it were a fractal it would create many more problems that we currently have." A universe patterned by fractals would throw all of cosmology out the window. Einstein's cosmic equations would be tossed first, with the big bang and the expansion of the universe following closely behind.

Hogg's team feel that until there's a theory to explain why the galaxy clustering is fractal, there's no point in taking it seriously. "My view is that there's no reason to even contemplate a fractal structure for the universe until there is a physical fractal model," says Hogg. "Until there's an inhomogeneous fractal model to test, it's like tilting at windmills."

Pietronero is equally insistent. "This is fact," he says. "It's not a theory." He says he is interested only in what he sees in the data and argues that the galaxies are fractal regardless of whether someone can explain why.

Peter Wilson · #2 (**permalink**) 24-March-2007, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Source

Hogg's team feel that until there's a theory to explain why the galaxy clustering is fractal, there's no point in taking it seriously. "My view is that there's no reason to even contemplate a fractal structure for the universe until there is a physical fractal model," says Hogg. "Until there's an inhomogeneous fractal model to test, it's like tilting at windmills."

Agreed.

Its like women changing their minds: until there's a theory to explain why women change their minds, there's no point in taking it seriously.

My view is that there's no reason to even contemplate feminine indecision, until there is a physical feminine indecision model. Until there's a mind-changing model to test, it's like tilting at windmills

nauthiz · #3 (**permalink**) 24-March-2007, 12:56 AM

!?

Maybe I misunderstand the way the word "fractal" is used in cases like this, but I always though descriptions of things like galaxy clustering (or trees) as fractal was simply an observation of the pattern, not an ironclad mathematical description of how things must be.

Nature is littered with examples of complex systems that have a roughly fractal appearance if you're looking at them the right way. I've never thought of that kind of observation as being particularly different from circling a photograph of a rock formation on Mars and writing 'Face!" next to it.

(Disclaimer: Don't have a subscription, haven't read the full article.)

01101001 · #4 (**permalink**) 24-March-2007, 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nauthiz

I've never thought of that kind of observation as being particularly different from circling a photograph of a rock formation on Mars and writing 'Face!" next to it.

I think it's a little better applied than that. It's more like looking at something very round and saying it's a circle, like the circle you just made on the photograph. No, if it's found in nature, it's not a mathematical circle, but it is a useful description.

Describing a butte as a face is related, but less useful than describing something as a circle or a fractal.

RussT · #5 (**permalink**) 24-March-2007, 01:32 AM

My theory of Multiverses

Quote:

Originally Posted by RussT

You have to be careful here, with the dimensions concepts.

First, you have micro and macro dimensions. Now when you say dimensions, you are really talking about other realities that exist simultaneously in our 3d
space, but outside our ability to see or measure them. In the micro that's fine, that is what String/"M" Theory does, BUT, Lisa Randall above and MANY others are trying to figure out how to show that strings can be integrated into our universe through either the macro or micro 'other dimensions', which is the ONLY avenue open to them, SINCE the Big Bang says that ALL the Matter and space (space can somehow make more of itself at prodigous rates/speeds) was created all at once in a 'closed system'.

Now, fractal universes are different, than dimensions. That says that there 'could be' a universe level above ours and below ours, theoretically going to infinity in both directions, and certainly we could NEVER tell how far above or below that they really do go...that's what leaves the possibility of GOD in the mix.

This is what makes Lisa's "Maths fitted exactly", possibly the greatest 'find' in the last 20 to 40 years.

And here is much more on Fractals, BUT not universes as fractal.

http://www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw/oldmenu.html

RussT · #6 (**permalink**) 24-March-2007, 01:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Article

Pietronero is equally insistent. "This is fact," he says. "It's not a theory." He says he is interested only in what he sees in the data and argues that the galaxies are fractal regardless of whether someone can explain why.

Does Mainstream/The Pro's on this board, agree with the Bold???

With the new 30 day rule, Please don't be shy.

nauthiz · #7 (**permalink**) 24-March-2007, 05:18 AM

Is this site describing the "fractal universe" idea that that New Scientist article discusses?

http://www.fractaluniverse.org/

(Fair warning, it's going to be painful to look at if you don't have a massive monitor.)

01101001 · #8 (**permalink**) 24-March-2007, 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nauthiz

Is this site describing the "fractal universe" idea that that New Scientist article discusses?

No. From the authority NewScientist quotes, Pietronero, it's more along the lines of:

Abstract Scale-invariance of galaxy clustering
Abstract The fractal structure of the universe: Correlations of galaxies and clusters and the average mass density
Abstract Absence of any characteristic correlation length in the CfA galaxy catalogue
Abstract On the Fractal Structure of the Visible Universe

and so on.

Google Scholar: pietronero fractal

Quote:

Results 1 - 100 of about 2,160 for pietronero fractal

Contrast:

Google Scholar: "colin hill" fractal

Quote:

Your search - "colin hill" fractal - did not match any articles.

RussT · #9 (**permalink**) 24-March-2007, 08:56 AM

Yes, thanks 01101001...you are a better 'Googler' than I, because I did not find all of that.

But let's be clear here. The fractals he/they are talking about are the Galaxy Clusters and the Vast Voids between the clusters do not add up to an homogenous universe a far as the limits of current surveys/studies are capable of mapping, AND that according to the Cosmological Principle and the kind of statistical anlysis they are doing, there is no reason to think that would change over larger and larger distances.

So he is flat out making this statement...Quote:
Originally Posted by Article
Pietronero is equally insistent. "This is fact," he says. "It's not a theory." He says he is interested only in what he sees in the data and argues that the galaxies are fractal regardless of whether someone can explain why.

Now, I am not sure what he means by this... "Einstein's cosmic equations would be tossed first"

I think he means that the FLRW beginning equations must be tossed out?

But then he continues with..."with the big bang and the expansion of the universe following closely behind."

Which is basically the same thing.

julesruis · #10 (**permalink**) 24-March-2007, 03:58 PM

For more information about fractals see: www.fractal.org

01101001 · #11 (**permalink**) 24-March-2007, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RussT

So he is flat out making this statement...Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by article

Pietronero is equally insistent. "This is fact," he says. "It's not a theory." He says he is interested only in what he sees in the data and argues that the galaxies are fractal regardless of whether someone can explain why.

I don't have the article. I haven't read Pietronero's work. Does the context of that snippet have any bearing on what he means by "being fractal"? Is it anything like when I say the Moon is a sphere?

RussT · #12 (**permalink**) 24-March-2007, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 01101001

I don't have the article. I haven't read Pietronero's work. Does the context of that snippet have any bearing on what he means by "being fractal"? Is it anything like when I say the Moon is a sphere?

But, if you click on either of the first 2 links you provided, he/they are clearly talking about this...

But let's be clear here. The fractals he/they are talking about are the Galaxy Clusters and the Vast Voids between the clusters do not add up to an homogenous universe a far as the limits of current surveys/studies are capable of mapping, AND that according to the Cosmological Principle and the kind of statistical anlysis they are doing, there is no reason to think that would change over larger and larger distances.

So no, it is not just about something larger or smaller being a fractal or about spherical symetry being fractals of smaller to larger.

Actually, this appears to me, to be an excellent/elegant piece of work, because he/they have gone to great lengths to make this as rigorous as possible, and not just a quick/low level claim.

01101001 · #13 (**permalink**) 24-March-2007, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RussT

But, if you click on either of the first 2 links you provided, he/they are clearly talking about this...

Oh. I said I haven't read them. I don't plan to. Anyone else?

Has anyone figured out why this is in ATM? Is it just reporting suspected ATM activity? Is some member advocating something against the mainstream? Is Pietronero? I don't know. Pietronero, are you here? Who is it with the beef against mainstream theory?

brodix · #14 (**permalink**) 24-March-2007, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 01101001

Oh. I said I haven't read them. I don't plan to. Anyone else?

Has anyone figured out why this is in ATM? Is it just reporting suspected ATM activity? Is some member advocating something against the mainstream? Is Pietronero? I don't know. Pietronero, are you here? Who is it with the beef against mainstream theory?

Given the claims in the few paragraphs I posted, it seemed a very good fit.

Yes, I have argued against BBT, but don't have the time to cover all the angles.
One of the points I raised last year was that if space expands, why doesn't the speed of light increase proportionally? Otherwise it would seem that the speed of light is measuring a reasonably stable dimension of space.

RussT · #15 (**permalink**) 25-March-2007, 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brodix

Given the claims in the few paragraphs I posted, it seemed a very good fit.

It is most certainly a 'good fit'. Where else should/could it be posted, and be able to be argued that it 'could/does' have validity?

In fact here is another work that has something to say in the same vein.

http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-re.../pr-10-96.html
Scroll down.

01101001 · #16 (**permalink**) 25-March-2007, 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brodix

Given the claims in the few paragraphs I posted, it seemed a very good fit.

Llittle snippets of someone else's quotes to a journalist hardly make a good case of anything, mainstream or not.

Have you figured out the argument already? Is it ATM? All the pros and the cons? Understand the issues? Have you convinced yourself? Are you certain? Have you challenged yourself as best you can? Ready to persuade us of it? Claim away.

01101001 · #17 (**permalink**) 25-March-2007, 01:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brodix

Given the claims in the few paragraphs I posted, it seemed a very good fit.

Little snippets of someone else's quotes to a journalist hardly make a good case of anything, mainstream or not.

Have you figured out the argument already? Is it ATM? All the pros and the cons? Understand the issues? Have you convinced yourself? Are you certain? Have you challenged yourself as best you can? Ready to persuade us of it? Claim away.

01101001 · #18 (**permalink**) 25-March-2007, 01:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RussT

It is most certainly a 'good fit'. Where else should/could it be posted, and be able to be argued that it 'could/does' have validity?

So argue it already.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RussT

In fact here is another work that has something to say in the same vein.

http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-re.../pr-10-96.html
Scroll down.

Could you say that in your own words now that you are convinced?

RussT · #19 (**permalink**) 25-March-2007, 01:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 01101001

Little snippets of someone else's quotes to a journalist hardly make a good case of anything, mainstream or not.

Have you figured out the argument already? Is it ATM? All the pros and the cons? Understand the issues? Have you convinced yourself? Are you certain? Have you challenged yourself as best you can? Ready to persuade us of it? Claim away.

SO, I suppose you would consider this inappropriate also?

Alternative Explanations For GRB 050904's Time Dilation