Mmmmm...Cosmic dougnut!

The New York Times ^ | 3/11/03 | DENNIS OVERBYE

[Physicist]

I asked Max whether the alignment between the quadrupole and octopole moments was being driven by one or two specific features in the map. He said it was entirely possible. I asked him what the likelihood was that such a fluctuation could arise randomly, and he said that he was working on exactly that general problem, and I should ask him again in a day or two.

He did say that the COBE collaboration calculated that there was a 1 in 1000 chance that the quadrupole amplitude would be as small as what is observed. Their new analysis gives a greater amplitude (chance about 1 in 20).

He also reminded me that the paper assumes Gaussian random distributions, and that if the distributions were non-Gaussian, it could significantly affect our expectations.

N.B.: Max just now updated the paper on his website to a new version. There are some new plots and new information. What I referred to before as Figure 14 is now Figure 15.

[Junior]

A much more likely event will be some Darwininian claiming that the donut universe was a prediction of Darwin.

Considering Darwin never talked about the structure of the universe and no evolutionist here claims he did, and taking into account the proven proclivity among the creationist crowd to misquote noted scientists, I'd be willing to lay money on this.

[Physicist]

The crazy universe thing is mentioned in one sentence near the back -- the bulk of the paper is about removing contamination sources from the raw data. Looks like the NYT may have jumped the gun.

From the paper:

What does all this mean? Although we have presented these low multipole results merely in an exploratory spirit, and more thorough modeling of the foreground contribution to l=2 and l=3 is certainly warranted, it is difficult not to be intrigued by the similarities of Figure 13 with what is expected in some non-standard models, for instance ones involving a flat "small Universe" with a compact topology [...] and one of the three dimensions being relatively small (of order the Horizon size or smaller).

The Times article certainly did miss the point of the paper. The quote from the paper could hardly have been more circumspect.

[js1138]

That's a relief. I was really wondering who "Doug" was, and hoping he wasn't in pain...

Perhaps he had mumps...

That would make a good creation story.

[js1138]

The hot spot's connected to the cold spot,
And they're both alinged in the octopole plot.

I'm so ashamed

[AndrewC]

Considering Darwin never talked about the structure of the universe and no evolutionist here claims he did,

He never talked about DNA either.

[gomaaa]

Looks like the NYT may have jumped the gun.

Science writing in the media is always suspect at best and flat out wrong at worst, although IMHO the NYT seem to do a decent job most of the time. Consider their target audience here: who wants to hear about error considerations and corrections for pages on end? Those of us with a background in the field, probably, but average Joe Shmoe on the street isn't likely to give a damn. Pie-in-the-sky speculations by cosmologists, though, is far wierder and more likely to sell papers. They don't really mischaracterize any of this, although they really should emphasize that all of these wierd ideas are very preliminary. At several points they do point out that most of it is speculation, but that doesn't make it any less cool! I think it would be neat if the universe was a donut.

Damn, that blows my chocolate eclair theory out of the water.

Now it is time for us on FR to look at the evidence and once and for all decide the argument that has plagued us all for so long. The question that has reduced otherwise sane and intelligent people to name calling and the occasional metaphorical smackdown. Can we finally resolve this and bring peace to the science threads?

Krispy Kreme or Dunkin' Donuts?

[js1138]

He never talked about DNA either.

He did spend a bit of time wondering about the mechanism of variation, and whether it would allow small, almost imperceptible changes in the bloodline. So even though he never heard or DNA or genetics, his theory required them. What a coincidence that they turned up.

[js1138]

Krispy Kreme for fried donuts; Dunkin' Donuts for cake. It's a win-win.

[gomaaa]

Good grief, guys!

I posted this article to give us something to talk about BESIDES evolution.

Kindly restrict yourselves to comments on cosmology, astrophysics, the Simpsons, and confection science!

[AndrewC]

Kindly restrict yourselves to comments on cosmology, astrophysics, the Simpsons, and confection science!

Thanks for the guidance, but I was replying.

[Junior]

DNA wouldn't be discovered for nearly a century after Darwin published his seminal work. No evolutionists makes any claims that Darwin talked about DNA. Nice try on obfuscating the subject, though.

[Junior]

The problem is, the YEC crowd ties it all in together.

[bert]

...He never talked about DNA either.....

He did know that there was natural selection that caused things to change and had the gumption to put his thoughts on paper for the benefit of all.

Back on topic, I question what is in the hole.

[AndrewC]

Nice try on obfuscating the subject, though.

And what subject is that?

[Physicist]

If only this story had broken in the previous Science Times, the announcement of the Doughnut Universe would have been made on Fasnacht Day, the traditional doughnut-eating holiday of the Pennsylvania Dutch.

The temporal alignment of Doughnut Universe and Doughnut Day, along with the geographic alignment of the Pennsylvania Dutch with the University of Pennsylvania, would have beaten the statistical crap out of any multipole alignment you care to model.

Alas, it was not to be.

[Captain Beyond]

bump for later read

[js1138]

Kindly restrict yourselves to comments on cosmology, astrophysics, the Simpsons, and confection science!

So can we ask: "How old is the earth?"

[gomaaa]

Better to ask: "Is the Earth older than that nasty coffee I had at Dunkin' Donuts the other day?"

[Goodlife]

This whole crazy theory is nothing compared to my theory of the cosmic pretzel.

The cosmic pretzel theory is compatible with both the Time Cube and with Relativity AND with quantum mechanics.

Bow before the cosmic pretzel theory! Reject the lies and understand the permutations of twisted bent pretzel n-space!