Huge ring of galaxies challenges thinking on cosmos.

originally posted by: BrucellaOrchitis

originally posted by: MikeDeGrasseTyson
It may be wise to further develop our understanding of visualization before looking into space; we have no idea what we are doing, looking at planetary bodies.

With this in mind, perhaps the flat-earther's planet-covered dome idea begins to make more sense. And could only be there to keep us from seeing actual reality??? hhhmmmm...

Concensus has repeatedly proven and demonstrated that the Earth is not flat. You can put your concerns aside.

Why say observation does nothing with no context then completely derail that conversation with flat-earth baloney?
Sure ... This is ATS but that doesn't give us an excuse to be neanderthals.
Let's get back into actual physics shall we?

In physics, the observer effect is the disturbance of an observed system by the act of observation.[1][2] This is often the result of utilizing instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner. A common example is checking the pressure in an automobile tire, which causes some of the air to escape, thereby changing the pressure to observe it. Similarly, seeing non-luminous objects requires light hitting the object to cause it to reflect that light. While the effects of observation are often negligible, the object still experiences a change (leading to the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment). This effect can be found in many domains of physics, but can usually be reduced to insignificance by using different instruments or observation techniques.

A notable example of the observer effect occurs in quantum mechanics, as demonstrated by the double-slit experiment. Physicists have found that observation of quantum phenomena by a detector or an instrument can change the measured results of this experiment. Despite the "observer effect" in the double-slit experiment being caused by the presence of an electronic detector, the experiment's results have been interpreted by some to suggest that a conscious mind can directly affect reality.[3] However, the need for the "observer" to be conscious (versus merely existent, as in a unicellular microorganism) is not supported by scientific research, and has been pointed out as a misconception rooted in a poor understanding of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process.[4][5][6]

Now let's add onto this... If observation does prove to influence the subject observed... It would have to mean we are also being observed and influenced as well. Every intelligent mind out there believes without a shadow of a doubt there's life elsewhere and some even believe we are constantly watched and probably by beings far more advanced than us. Applying the observation effect to this query might be groundbreaking to how we view our existence.

originally posted by: MikeDeGrasseTyson
With this in mind, perhaps the flat-earther's planet-covered dome idea begins to make more sense. And could only be there to keep us from seeing actual reality??? hhhmmmm...

originally posted by: MikeDeGrasseTyson
Why say observation does nothing with no context then completely derail that conversation with flat-earth baloney?
Sure ... This is ATS but that doesn't give us an excuse to be neanderthals.

Hhhmmmm...?

Lol.

originally posted by: MikeDeGrasseTysonLet's get back into actual physics shall we?

Is that actual physics or actual theoretical physics?

a reply to: Venkuish1

Yeah, not a bad analogy and how it was illustrated to us in physics many moons ago.

Inflationary theory has become an integral part of our standard cosmological model.

It's a widely accepted theory that does seem to address many of the cosmological puzzles we have come across.

The lack of direct observational evidence presents challenges to Cosmic inflation theory and it is not without its criticisms like you suggest.

It's a field that continues to evolve, where future discoveries may provide additional insights.

a reply to: BrucellaOrchitis

No, it is a "fundamental aspect in modern quantum mechanics".

But I guess you can say it is theoretical because it is always used and applied and therefore not an hypothesis? But semantics is a different subject altogether and irrelevant to observing galaxies that do not exist.

The observer effect is the fact that observing a situation or phenomenon necessarily changes it. Observer effects are especially prominent in physics where observation and uncertainty are fundamental aspects of modern quantum mechanics. Observer effects are well known in fields other than physics, such as sociology, psychology, linguistics and computer science, but none of these other fields have experienced the same level of publicity and controversy as physics. This may be responsible for the widely held implicit assumption that “real” observer effects are exhibited only by quantum objects and not by classical objects. This misunderstanding may be due, to some extent, to confusing the observer effect with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and with other quantum uncertainty principles. In fact, observer effects occur in both classical and quantum systems. This article presents a number of examples of observer effects in purely classical processes. It also introduces a framework for understanding and analyzing many of such effects for classical systems. Ignoring observer effects can cause errors in experiments at a macroscopic level where no quantum effects would be discernible. Consequently, there are practical reasons for being careful to address observer effects.

originally posted by: MikeDeGrasseTyson
Consequently, there are practical reasons for being careful to address observer effects.

Absolutely, and, in all that you wrote, I fundamentally agree however, going back to the point I responded to, visualising a flat earth will not make it so. We might be able to imagine the circumstances that would make it flat and what those circumstances might mean for life. Or we could imagine what steps would be necessary to instil a belief that the earth was flat in enough people for it to become the reality of concensus, but it would be a very unstable perception of reality, requiring a dark age like we have never known before. The former presumably would require even greater catastrophe and suffering - I would have imagined.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Venkuish1

Yeah, not a bad analogy and how it was illustrated to us in physics many moons ago.

Inflationary theory has become an integral part of our standard cosmological model.

It's a widely accepted theory that does seem to address many of the cosmological puzzles we have come across.

The lack of direct observational evidence presents challenges to Cosmic inflation theory and it is not without its criticisms like you suggest.

It's a field that continues to evolve, where future discoveries may provide additional insights.

It's worth having a look at the VLS hypothesis. You can find the paper on arXiv or maybe somewhere else online.

It's clear the big bang isn't the beginning. Perhaps a talk by Roger Penrose is appropriate if maths is a problem.

originally posted by: BrucellaOrchitis

originally posted by: MikeDeGrasseTyson
Consequently, there are practical reasons for being careful to address observer effects.

Absolutely, and, in all that you wrote, I fundamentally agree however, going back to the point I responded to, visualising a flat earth will not make it so. We might be able to imagine the circumstances that would make it flat and what those circumstances might mean for life. Or we could imagine what steps would be necessary to instil a belief that the earth was flat in enough people for it to become the reality of concensus, but it would be a very unstable perception of reality, requiring a dark age like we have never known before. The former presumably would require even greater catastrophe and suffering - I would have imagined.

Circumstances that would make it "flat"?

I'm speaking of the observer effect and the double slit experiment and how it pertains to seeing megastructures in the cosmos. The only mention of that silly non-scientific movement was a random rhetorical footnote at the end simply because within that movement they mention of some sorta dome-like structure surrounding the planet (which of course would automatically debunk it if true LMAO, it wouldn't be a dome if planetary bodies weren't circular while the mass of objects in space even if flat would become circular due to gravitational pull and density... Like air bubbles in water). I have absolutely no correlation with that movement whatsoever besides reading through shenanigans just like reading any lovecraftian cosmic horror tale... intertwining fictional fanfare with astronomy studies and peer reviewing scholar articles is a major red flag in any honest discussion. It breaks a fundamental of logical reasoning. Being for or against any group/movement or religious related infrastructure is a misnomer and unscientific on many regards.

I take it is a media catch phrase that has you triggered? And it is now impossible to get back on track? Like a cancer in a specimen, hitting the blood stream? I guess it's quite interesting how the media can control the masses by using catchphrases like we are witnessing in real time. Hhhmmmm....
*Now I'm just throwing stuff at the wall to see if it sticks, Itd be awesome if you started going on about Lovecraftian things hahaha!*

a reply to: Venkuish1

I'll give it a look later.

Im buried up to my behind trying to assemble my daughter's IKEA bed and furniture right now.

Just stopped for a coffee and a cry.

The thing is measurement of observation of anything that happened before the Big Bang is going to present quite the dilemma and hence borders on a question of philosophical nature as opposed to physics, which is also fine.

a reply to: andy06shake

"Im buried up to my behind trying to assemble my daughter's IKEA bed and furniture right now."

I feel your pain!

originally posted by: MikeDeGrasseTyson
*Now I'm just throwing stuff at the wall to see if it sticks, Itd be awesome if you started going on about Lovecraftian things hahaha!*

Lol, sorry to disappoint but that is probably the least likely thing to occur. You did make me laugh though - so there is that.

a reply to: alldaylong

the study of that 'Ring' dictates a look at an infra-red image of the Apparent Ring of some 20 Galaxies that are visible...

my take: appearances can be deceiving

We have probably discovered less than 00000.1 % of the Universe

originally posted by: BingoMcGoof

Unlike religionists who DO believe that they are privy to the blue-print for the universe's design, the scientific study of the universe, our existence is based on guesses. If those guesses help to lead to other guesses that fit a developing theory they keep going and building upon previous guesses. And they keep on a trajectory of guesses until something like this comes along questioning the entire structure of guesses.

Another example where it now appears to be that previous guesses were off the mark are the huge galaxies that have been found by the Webb telescope to near the period of the Big Bang. By previous guesses they should not have existed so early in the life of this cosmos, but now it appears that they do.

Because of these new discoveries the scientific community, the physics community is faced with a need to re-evaluate much of the structure built around those earlier guesses and assumptions.

And they will. The process of discovery will move forward into vistas yet unsuspected.

Unlike those who follow and believe that all we need to know has already been discovered and put in a book thousands of years ago.

I still wonder how people can take the religious concept of the universe seriously. (On my mind, it looks like a bedtime story for children)

a reply to: aitorelicke

I still wonder how people can take the religious concept of the universe seriously. (On my mind, it looks like a bedtime story for children)

And that itself is a wonderful field of study, how, throughout the ages of human development we can, as individuals and more in a collective sense, become held to beliefs or story lines. With no evidence of something other it is easily understood but when new evidence presents itself, ah, that there is a grand study indeed.

An other good ''wonder'' is how or why we wonder at all....................

a reply to: alldaylong

inflation cosmology yields a flat shape to Universe, according to some mathmatical jugglers...

Arrgh... i thought the universe would be a double-helix like DNA is ... but no poetic helix is probable...Sigh

Religion is a many faceted gemstone. Hold the light of your reasoning at a different angle and you’ll see things completely differently 🤙

a reply to: aitorelicke

originally posted by: BingoMcGoof
a reply to: WeMustCare

Right. And how can scientists say, "This shouldn't exist", like they were privy to the blue-print for universe's design?

Unlike religionists who DO believe that they are privy to the blue-print for the universe's design, the scientific study of the universe, our existence is based on guesses. If those guesses help to lead to other guesses that fit a developing theory they keep going and building upon previous guesses. And they keep on a trajectory of guesses until something like this comes along questioning the entire structure of guesses.

Another example where it now appears to be that previous guesses were off the mark are the huge galaxies that have been found by the Webb telescope to near the period of the Big Bang. By previous guesses they should not have existed so early in the life of this cosmos, but now it appears that they do.

Because of these new discoveries the scientific community, the physics community is faced with a need to re-evaluate much of the structure built around those earlier guesses and assumptions.

And they will. The process of discovery will move forward into vistas yet unsuspected.

Unlike those who follow and believe that all we need to know has already been discovered and put in a book thousands of years ago.

When I was at university, I was interested in this topic several times. I recently reviewed the latest research on this topic and it's really cool how much things have changed, many theories have been debunked, and others have been confirmed

originally posted by: MikeDeGrasseTyson
Now let's add onto this... If observation does prove to influence the subject observed... It would have to mean we are also being observed and influenced as well.

We are "observed" in the quantum mechanics/double slit context by air molecules. Whether intelligent life elsewhere in the universe is observing us is unknown, but if it's far away, I doubt it has much influence on us, not as much as the air we breathe.

The Universe Is Always Looking

Schrödinger’s cat might be placed inside a sealed box, but there must be air in there for the cat to have any chance of staying alive. And the cat is resting on a surface of some kind, exchanging heat with it.

In quantum mechanics, the environment has a central role in how things happen. It turns out to be precisely what conjures the illusion of classical physics out of the quantum soup.

originally posted by: MikeDeGrasseTyson
This article presents a number of examples of observer effects in purely classical processes.

What article? Are you plagiarizing something? Not cool.

originally posted by: Venkuish1
Even though general relativity applied to objects within the universe where the speed of light is the upper limit the rate of expansion of the universe posses a major problem...

It's not a problem at all. GR says you can't travel faster than light through space, it doesn't say distant galaxies can't recede faster than the speed of light due to expansion of space, they are not moving though space at that velocity.

originally posted by: ScottKirkland
We have probably discovered less than 00000.1 % of the Universe

lots of zeros in front doesn't change 0.1 from 00000000000.1 but does provide some sense of dramatic effect .

I think you meant .000001 % and I would agree, and probably shrink that by several trillion-fold more.