News: Largest structure in the universe undermines fundamental cosmic principles

[Calfredd]

I don't care tbh, i am not trying to convince anyone of anything i just want people aware that we dont know ANYTHING in science right now, and to take what they say as fact without thinking about it first is irresponsible.

So you are purposefully being ironic since this is exactly what you are doing with that study you keep linking.

[Garnier Fructis]

Well, it depends on the theory. In some theories, deviations of a certain size are physically impossible, or statistically so unlikely that observing them is as good as proving that the theory is wrong. The problem is, cosmological principle is not really a theory, it is not based on physics as such and it is just a result of our observation. Goes like this: we haven't observed large structures of a certain density => they don't exist. Which, apparently, is wrong.

The salient point is that we haven't actually concluded that the deviation was rare enough to warrant tossing the cosmological principle.

[May90]

I can't win tbh, if i didnt link that article people would say "got proof?". But now that i did people just say "just cause its peer reviewed and has a conclusion that doesnt mean anything".

I don't care tbh, i am not trying to convince anyone of anything i just want people aware that we dont know ANYTHING in science right now, and to take what they say as fact without thinking about it first is irresponsible.

We never can know something with 100% certainty, there is always a chance that we have been making some consistent mistake all along. We do have good trust in theories that have been developed for over a century and have passed all kinds of cross-tests. Sure, every now and then, a result that seems contradictory to what we know pops up - it doesn't mean that we should immediately say, "Ah, our theory is wrong. Scrap it!", it means that we should spend time to understand what this result means. Might be an error in the experiment ("FTL" neutrinos in the OPERA experiment in 2011 is a good example of that), might be wrong interpretation of the results. Might be something that our theory has been missing, and we can now incorporate it into it.

The thing is, physics doesn't work the way, say, math does. In math, you can have a theorem, come up with the counter-example and say, "See, this theorem is incorrect" - and that's it, this theorem will be busted once and for all. In physics, there is a huge room for interpretation of results, so just one weird result doesn't mean anything. Produce this result in multiple experiments consistently, rule out systematic errors, build a few computer simulations of the experiment and produce the results that agree with each other and contradict what we see - and only THEN can we say that we may have stumbled upon something new, requiring revising our theories.

There is a long process of approval of physical results, and for a good reason. It doesn't work like, "I just linked you the article. I am right, and you are wrong!" You can link articles all you want, but they don't mean much in themselves, no matter how peer reviewed they are. That's the point Garnier Fructis was making.

The salient point is that we haven't actually concluded that the deviation was rare enough to warrant tossing the cosmological principle.

True, but we haven't concluded the opposite either. According to the null hypothesis, there is little reason to take cosmological principle as a fact. Maybe some loose version of it, some broader and more careful interpretation...

[Garnier Fructis]

The thing is, physics doesn't work the way, say, math does. In math, you can have a theorem, come up with the counter-example and say, "See, this theorem is incorrect" - and that's it, this theorem will be busted once and for all.

What I'm about to say is very tangential, but this post reminded me of something humorous. Most mistakes in math research begin with the words 'It is clear that...'

Which is why you have 'theorems' that are wrong, because people simply assumed something for being intuitively 'obvious.'

[May90]

What I'm about to say is very tangential, but this post reminded me of something humorous. Most mistakes in math research begin with the words 'It is clear that...'

Which is why you have 'theorems' that are wrong, because people simply assumed something for being intuitively 'obvious.'

These mistakes, probably, exist only on a very high level, right? I doubt something laying at the foundation of any math field can be wrong, given how many cross-examinations crucial theorems get throughout the years.

[Garnier Fructis]

These mistakes, probably, exist only on a very high level, right? I doubt something laying at the foundation of any math field can be wrong, given how many cross-examinations crucial theorems get throughout the years.

For new things, yeah. But you can find errors with much higher frequency in books, like incorrect results or incorrect proofs of correct results. So even if you're learning foundational material, you still have to be wary when details are swept under the rug for being 'clear.'