I mean.. you would expect to see rings sometimes if this is a random noise kind of distribution no?
* Actually quite interesting reasons, but which take a lot of maths to explain that I'm not going in to here.
** In this case, defined as a thing or set of things in a mathematically simple shape - spheres, rings etc.
*** Assuming any bit of the universe is roughly like any other bits, and we didn't just happen to fluke on literally the only place where these exist, and there's two.
The shortest, simplest way I can think to explain it is that we expect the universe to look alike, anywhere we look. Think of it like a biopsy - we assume that anywhere we look should be much like anywhere else, because there's no reason to think any area of the universe has special conditions where physics plays by different rules.
That sets up some implications around what we think the universe should look like, at different scales. However, we recently have been running into structures which are bigger than we'd expect.
Where we get into the maths is to do with the value of the cosmological constant. We currently think it's positive, because the universe is expanding, and its rate of expansion is accelerating. To look into the maths for this, have a Google around the maths behind the accelerating expansion of the universe.
Yeah, bs.
Provide sources to support you argument, that's entry level discourse.
Have fun! It's quite interesting.
I actually read the article, as you can see by the other comments I've made, and found none of that, but please feel free to correct me and cite here the portions of the paper where that is mentioned.
And sure, I could specialize in cosmology and find out the reasons on my own, but also, the burden of proof on that argument is not on me.
>The multiple discoveries of LSSs made throughout the past few decades are well known to challenge our understanding of the Standard Cosmological Model (ΛCDM) [2, 8–12], in particular due to a possible violation of a fundamental assumption, the Cosmological Principle (CP), which states that our Universe is both homogeneous and isotropic on large scales
That gives you a couple papers and a few terms that you can get started with. Unless your goal is to argue, instead of learn, which it seems like it might be.
>For reasons*, there's a soft limit on the scale that you'd expect structures** to scale to.
The content you cited acknowledges the premise of the Cosmological Principle, but it does not say anything about what these "reasons" could be.
So, nope, that's not an adequate argument.
Again, I could waste my time on a PhD in Cosmology to come back and actually make a good argument for why homogeneity in structure is favored at large cosmological scales ... but why should I? I didn't bring that particular argument into the conversation [1].
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
I'm not trying to argue, lol. You're asking for more information but in such a weirdly aggressive way.
The reason there is a soft limit (in our current theories) is because of the cosmological principle
Big lol at the wiki linking of burden of proof. Not every conversation is an argument, holy.
As much as I love HN, this type of aggressiveness and desire to converse as if defending a dissertation can get bloody exhausting.
What? That's a circular argument.
HN is definitely not the place for "me vs. you" grudges, so I stick to making arguments and try to drive the conversation forward, however,
>Have fun! It's quite interesting.
>Unless your goal is to argue, instead of learn, [...]
>Big lol at the wiki linking of burden of proof.
You don't seem to be the one arguing in good faith, though. "You're being aggressive", laughable.
The rest was probably a bit uncalled for, you're right. I was immediately put on edge by "Yeah, read the site guidelines, yo." (which, uhh, not sure how that is focused on moving the conversation forward but lets leave it at we were both touchy!)
> Using the Convex Hull of Member Spheres (CHMS) algorithm, we estimate that the annulus and inner absorbers of the BR have departures from random expectations, at the density of the control field, of up to 5.2σ.
5 sigma is the gold standard at which we can safely exclude the noise explanation.
An elongated circle can be the letter O or perhaps zero. You can similarly compose other letters visually using galaxy dots, and that's presumably what the original poster meant when talking about writing out a Shakespeare. If the universe was infinite, this would be a possibility.
But the fact we got a circle rather than something funny suggests it is probably a phenomenon that causes circles responsible. Circles are far more common in nature than statistics might suggest. Nature well knows circles.