Comment by magicalhippo | Hacker News Reader

Comment by magicalhippo | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> It's temporary.

Yes, it's called science.

> With more data, we will have more and more exceptions, which cannot be explained by patches to mainstream theory.

At which point we hopefully come up with a new theory which fits the observations, and leave the current mainstream theory behind. This happened for example when General Relativity was introduced.

Until we find a new theory which fits all the observations, we have a transition period where things are a bit confusing. See for example particle physics before the QCD model tied it back together. Now we're starting to see cracks in the the current standard model of particle physics, so something new is likely needed soon. This is science.

> I see just aged spectrum. IMHO, it's helium. :-/

The power spectrum I linked to is the angular power spectrum of the CMB. It's not the spectral density. The horizontal scale is (in essence) angular separation, not frequency.

How does helium explain the peaks in the angular power spectrum? Link to some calculations please.

> angular power spectrum of the CMB

My bad. I'm not familiar with this.

(Beware, my English is weak).

I had year long discussion about similar topic by email, so I see nothing exceptional there. If you have sum(sin(x_natscale)), and you will start to play with scale, you will see sinusoidal graphic, freq=asin(scale). Object formations in space usually have round shape, so it's will be same in 3D. :-/

Why? Because our formation exists for very long time. Let's play simple example: we need a 1d function f(x), such as sum(f(x_nat*scale)) newer produces infinite sum or singularity. Physical meaning: Our Universe exists for infinite time, but all matter is not attracted into one single point of infinite mass, so it's not possible.

The simplest such function is sin(x) or cos(x). If we will try to play with scale, we newer be able to make infinite sum, because Pi is irrational number. The closer our scale will be to Pi, the larger peaks of sum we will have.

In real life, this influence diminishes after some point, so, for example, size of nuclei has influence at frequency (distribution) of chemical elements, but it has no influence at macro objects, so function becomes flat and sum must rise (e.g. collapse into a black hole), then next level begins.

So, it looks like at some point, these formations cannot be bigger, or we cannot see light from them, e.g. because they are so massive, so light cannot escape them. If so, we have lower limit of formation size we can see at this distance, dictated by geometry (angular size) and luminosity, and upper limit dictated by nature, e.g. upper mass of formation of such size (upper density).

It's like in our galaxy: we can see stars, but cannot see black holes (too heavy), lone planets and smaller objects (too cold), and far away objects after certain distance (too small luminosity). IMHO, angular power spectrum of visible stars must show distribution similar to CMB or distribution of chemical elements.

> I had year long discussion about similar topic by email, so I see nothing exceptional there.

But the point is we have models which predict quite specific values for the angular power spectrum, and when compared matches observations very well.

This is highly non-trivial. And for any new model to take over, it must do better.

It's not enough that it has potential to have some sinusoidal-like features. Lacking matching model predictions, you'd need to have a plausible explanation for why the features are missing from your model predictions. For example you used some first-order approximation for some term and due to <insert convincing argument here> a higher-order approximation should produce the missing features.

I saw math paper about systems, which can remain stable for unlimited time. As far as I remember, infinity number of solutions exist for 1D, and 2D worlds. Only 3 solutions found for 3D world (named 1, 2, and 42). None found for 4D world, so, if infinite time given, 4D world will collapse into 3D world.

I can't find this paper again yet. (I'm quite busy: revolution, ongoing war, problems with health, my father died, politics, delivery for 1+y long project in less than 2 weeks, etc.)

This paper complimented view I already had in my head (everything is particle, surrounded by spherical wave, and propelled by vibrations/noise), because now I know that Universe is very simple thing in general. Nothing complex can survive in infinite time. This mean that on lower level only extremely stable (simple) systems can survive, because time is very fast on level below. On our level, we can find temporary complex systems (we live at one of them, and we itself are another example). On level above, it unlikely that we will find a complex system, chances are very low, thus what is see around us should continue for very long time and space.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com