Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Wednesday, June 25, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version Print | Comments

Document Galaxy map hints at fractal universe

by New Scientist

Thanks to GP for the link.

http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn14200-galaxy-map-hints-at-fractal-universe.html?feedId=online-news_rss20

Galaxy map hints at fractal universe




Is the matter in the universe arranged in a fractal pattern? A new study of nearly a million galaxies suggests it is – though there are no well-accepted theories to explain why that would be so.

Cosmologists trying to reconstruct the entire history of the universe have precious few clues from which to work. One key clue is the distribution of matter throughout space, which has been sculpted for nearly 14 billion years by the competing forces of gravity and cosmic expansion. If there is a pattern in the sky, it encodes the secrets of the universe.

A lot is at stake, and the matter distribution has become a source of impassioned debate between those who say the distribution is smooth and homogeneous and those who say it is hierarchically structured and clumpy, like a fractal.

Nearly all physicists agree that on relatively small scales the distribution is fractal-like: hundreds of billions of stars group together to form galaxies, galaxies clump together to form clusters, and clusters amass into superclusters.

The point of contention, however, is what happens at even larger scales. According to most physicists, this Russian doll-style clustering comes to an end and the universe, on large scales, becomes homogeneous.

But a small team of physicists, including Francesco Sylos Labini of the Enrico Fermi Centre in Rome and Luciano Pietronero of the University of Rome argue that the data shows the opposite: the universe continues to look fractal as far out as our telescopes can see.

3D maps

The best data for looking at the galaxy distribution comes from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS), which is constructing the largest 3D map of the universe. When completed, it will map the positions of about a million galaxies and quasars.

When SDSS data was released in 2004, physicists David Hogg of New York University and Daniel Eisenstein of the University of Arizona, both in the US, published an analysis of 55,000 luminous red galaxies suggesting that the fractal pattern smoothed out at scales over 200 million light years.

But Sylos Labini and Pietronero were not convinced. They believed that the apparent smoothing was an illusion caused by weak statistics – the smoothing seemed to occur at the largest scales the survey was capable of studying, where there were too few large regions to be able to reliably compare their densities, they said. Only a bigger map could resolve the debate.

Now, SDSS has released its sixth round of data, which plots the locations of roughly 800,000 galaxies and 100,000 quasars, bright objects powered by violent supermassive black holes.

Huge scales

According to their latest paper, which has been submitted to Nature Physics, Sylos Labini and Pietronero, along with physicists Nikolay Vasilyev and Yurij Baryshev of St Petersburg State University in Russia, argue that the new data shows that the galaxies exhibit an explicitly fractal pattern up to a scale of about 100 million light years.

And they say if the universe does become homogeneous at some point, it has to be on a scale larger than a staggering 300 million light years across. That's because even at that scale, they still observe large fluctuations – a cluster here, a void there – in the matter distribution.

Most cosmologists interpret such fluctuations as being no more significant than small waves on the surface of the sea, but Sylos Labini and colleagues say that these are more like tsunamis.

No model

Many cosmologists find fault with their analysis, largely because a fractal matter distribution out to such huge scales undermines the standard model of cosmology. According to the accepted story of cosmic evolution, there simply hasn't been enough time since the big bang nearly 14 billion years ago for gravity to build up such large structures.

What's more, the assumption that the distribution is homogeneous has allowed cosmologists to model the universe fairly simply using Einstein's theory of general relativity – which relates the shape of space to the distribution of matter.

Modelling a fractal universe with general relativity is possible in theory, but in reality it would be devilishly complicated. That would leave cosmologists without a working model, like acrobats without a net.

Relic radiation

To support the homogeneity assumption, cosmologists point to the smoothness of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), relic radiation from the nascent universe. The CMB is perfectly uniform up to one part in 100,000, suggesting the early universe was nearly homogeneous.

"The standard picture of a homogeneous universe on large scales is holding up very well when tested with very large-scale observations like those mapping the cosmic background radiation, X-rays and radio galaxies," says physicist Neil Turok of Cambridge University in the UK.

"If the observations of galaxies in optical surveys don't agree, there may be a number of possible explanations, without resorting to an extremely inhomogeneous, fractal universe," he told New Scientist.

Optical illusion?

But inferring the matter distribution from the CMB is not always simple. CMB maps show a 3D distribution projected onto a 2D surface, and it is possible for a clumpy 3D distribution to appear smooth when projected in 2D. The same is true of the X-ray background, which appears homogeneous in two dimensions. Finally, using galaxies that are bright at radio wavelengths is also problematic, as it is difficult to measure their distances accurately enough to pinpoint their positions in 3D.

So what could produce such a fractal pattern in galaxy surveys like Sloan? Some of the clumpiness may be a sort of optical illusion known as the Bull's-eye effect, says Adrian Melott of the University of Kansas in the US.

That's because nearby galaxies fall towards each other due to their mutual gravitational attraction – even as space itself expands. That movement can enhance the apparent clumpiness of matter in surveys like Sloan, since those surveys rely on measurements of the galaxies' velocities to determine their distance from Earth.

The wager

But according to their paper, Sylos Labini's team says the Bull's-eye effect is only relevant on very small scales, about 16 million light years and below, and has no influence on the clumpiness at the large scales in question.

Melott disagrees, saying it should magnify clumpiness at any scale. But he adds that the effect only "enhances structures that [already] exist".

What's at stake if the universe is indeed a fractal on the largest scales? Besides a radical rethink of the laws and history of the cosmos, researchers have placed something more down-to-Earth on the line.

More than a decade ago, Sylos Labini and Pietronero wagered a bet with physicist Marc Davis of the University of California, Berkeley, US. The bet, refereed by Turok, held that if the galaxy distribution turned out to be fractal beyond scales of approximately 50 million light years, Davis would owe Sylos Labini and Pietronero a case of California wine.

Should the fractal pattern begin to disintegrate at scales less than 50 million light years, Davis would receive a case of Italian wine – which some would say is a better deal. Turok has yet to declare a winner.

Comments 1 - 27 of 27 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #199268 by ungrim on June 25, 2008 at 12:08 pm

First post...

"800,000 galaxies and 100,000 quasars, bright objects powered by violent supermassive black holes"

I find no way to imagine of, or think in, that kind of scale. Will we ever explore and truly see what is?..

Other Comments by ungrim

2. Comment #199282 by mordacious1 on June 25, 2008 at 12:31 pm

"Fractals Everywhere" by Barnsley, what a book.

Other Comments by mordacious1

3. Comment #199283 by Chris Jackson on June 25, 2008 at 12:33 pm

 avatar"...if the Galaxy distribution turned out to be fractal... Davis would owe Sylos Labini and Pietronero a case of California Wine.

Should the fractal pattern begin to disintegrate..., Davis would receive a case of Italian wine- which some would say is a better deal."

I would have loved to be in the room when this bet was made. Speculating upon the structure of inconceivably massive regions of space in terms of a case of nice wine.

That's a better reason than non-stick pans, I suppose...

Other Comments by Chris Jackson

4. Comment #199292 by robotaholic on June 25, 2008 at 12:47 pm

 avatar
But according to their paper, Sylos Labini's team says the Bull's-eye effect is only relevant on very small scales, about 16 million light years and below


wow I am seriously small-minded.

a light year is just under 10 trillion kilometers - multiply that by 16 million and that's about 160,000,000,000,000,000,000 kilometers -

-that is very big to me

Other Comments by robotaholic

5. Comment #199298 by rod-the-farmer on June 25, 2008 at 1:08 pm

 avatarWay WAY back when I had one of the first 286 computers, there was a fractal program that would chunk along and display random fractal designs. I suppose there are modern ones available these days, that would run much quicker with all the hardware upgrades since then. Mandelbrot was the name I remember.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

6. Comment #199309 by Border Collie on June 25, 2008 at 1:49 pm

Is there some sort of prize for being first post? It seems to be a big deal on this site.

Other Comments by Border Collie

7. Comment #199314 by bamafreethinker on June 25, 2008 at 2:01 pm

 avatarWhat is the motivation/purpose of attaining the first post, hastily composing a short comment, and then stating that you have the first post in the first post?

Just curious...

Edit: Dang... I was hoping to be the first poster to comment on the first post thing...

Other Comments by bamafreethinker

8. Comment #199321 by D'Arcy on June 25, 2008 at 2:12 pm

 avatarAny sign of God out there? Or is He hiding in one the 11 dimensions predicted, but not yet observed, by string theory? The LHC (Large Hadron Collidor) may find the Higgs particle, (nicknamed God particle), when it finally gets to run, or it may not.

Whatever the particle physicists and or the astromers discover, we can be sure that the theologians will it claim as a proof of God's marvellous creation.

At least a fractal is the same at all scales. God is non-existent at all scales.

Other Comments by D'Arcy

9. Comment #199326 by HourglassMemory on June 25, 2008 at 2:22 pm

It would be extremely interesting if this gets confirmed "beyond doubt".
We'll see, when we have more knowledge.

Other Comments by HourglassMemory

10. Comment #199327 by DalaiDrivel on June 25, 2008 at 2:23 pm

And still, as RD would point out, it has never occurred to the religionists to ponder,

"Yes! The universe may indeed be stranger, more fascinating, and more wonderful than our Prophets indicated!"

The universe of the Holy Books is indeed only Earth-sized. Without science, we never could have speculated the nature of the universe at scales encompassing hundreds of millions of light years.

The breadth of our scientific knowledge, and capacity to learn more, staggers me already, and I'm so grateful that a visionary few exist who are willful enough in their curiosity to continue to attack the gaps of our understanding.

We should be clapping and cheering them on, if we can't participate. I'm reading "Unweaving the Rainbow" presently (Of course it comes recommended here!), and Dawkins makes an analogy to music, between practioners and listeners, listeners who can still appreciate the work of musicians and even be connoisseurs of their art.

How I appreciate the work of scientists!

I guess all that Dawkins et al, and we, can do is continue to prod them with the thought about religious insufficiency of information.

Other Comments by DalaiDrivel

11. Comment #199334 by Melomel on June 25, 2008 at 2:34 pm

Hmmm. So instead of "turtles, turtles, turtles, all the way down," it's "fractals, fractals, fractals, all the way up."

Other Comments by Melomel

12. Comment #199354 by qomak on June 25, 2008 at 2:57 pm

 avatar
What is the motivation/purpose of attaining the first post, hastily composing a short comment, and then stating that you have the first post in the first post?


The answer is attention-whoring, otherwise one would think they will post something intelligent. Sort of reminds me of kids who just want to be on TV.

Other Comments by qomak

13. Comment #199360 by Animavore on June 25, 2008 at 3:12 pm

 avatarDon't be telling Christians there are patterns in nature other wise they'll be asking, 'Who designed those patterns.'

Other Comments by Animavore

14. Comment #199368 by Double Bass Atheist on June 25, 2008 at 3:33 pm

 avatar
Don't be telling Christians there are patterns in nature other wise they'll be asking, 'Who designed those patterns.'


Correct Animavore.
Articles like this simply become another source for the creotards to misunderstand and quote mine.

Other Comments by Double Bass Atheist

15. Comment #199375 by 82abhilash on June 25, 2008 at 3:54 pm


14. Comment #199368 by Double Bass Atheist on June 25, 2008 at 3:33 pm


Don't be telling Christians there are patterns in nature other wise they'll be asking, 'Who designed those patterns.'


Correct Animavore.
Articles like this simply become another source for the creotards to misunderstand and quote mine.



Well, snowflakes have patterns yet the natural unintelligent phenomena that resulted in it is well understood. That would not matter to them. They are trying to protect their dogma.

Other Comments by 82abhilash

16. Comment #199378 by acs on June 25, 2008 at 3:59 pm

"Comment #199268 by ungrim on June 25, 2008 at 12:08 pm

First post...

"800,000 galaxies and 100,000 quasars, bright objects powered by violent supermassive black holes"

I find no way to imagine of, or think in, that kind of scale. Will we ever explore and truly see what is?.. "

Try looking up at nighttime, thats what it looks like.

Other Comments by acs

17. Comment #199530 by LochRaven on June 25, 2008 at 10:52 pm

 avatarOh, c'mon folks...the answer to whether or not the universe has a fractal structure at extremely large scales won't be forthcoming from science...it'll come from God...as soon as he decides what He likes better, California wine or Italian wine.

Other Comments by LochRaven

18. Comment #199559 by gcdavis on June 26, 2008 at 1:47 am

 avatar
What's at stake if the universe is indeed a fractal on the largest scales? Besides a radical rethink of the laws and history of the cosmos, researchers have placed something more down-to-Earth on the line.


So yer got it wrong again so called scientists! You don't have to be a cosmopolologist to have figured that one out, GOD made the fractualis thingies and the universe six thousand or is it hundred, years ago. And if you don't believe me there's a Dinosaur saddle in the Discovery institute to prove it!

Other Comments by gcdavis

19. Comment #199561 by leodavinci on June 26, 2008 at 2:03 am

 avatar"though there are no well-accepted theories to explain why that would be so"

Chaos/randomness creates fractal patterns doesn't it? I've read a couple of books on the subject of chaos and i'm fairly certain thats the case.

Other Comments by leodavinci

20. Comment #199571 by Oystein Elgaroy on June 26, 2008 at 2:24 am

 avatarPietronero and his men have been promoting a fractal matter distribution for years now. They may be right, but much more work is needed here. The isotropy of the cosmic microwave background (to within 1/100 000 of a Kelvin) combined with the reasonable assumption that our location in the Universe is not special provides a strong argument for large-scale homogeneity.

Other Comments by Oystein Elgaroy

21. Comment #199682 by OverUsedChewToy on June 26, 2008 at 7:27 am

 avatar"Try looking up at nighttime, thats what it looks like. "

Lol, we can only see the tiniest amount of stars with the naked eye.

Also, this site is really cool:

http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/

"
* Number of superclusters in the visible universe = 10 million
* Number of galaxy groups in the visible universe = 25 billion
* Number of large galaxies in the visible universe = 350 billion
* Number of dwarf galaxies in the visible universe = 7 trillion
* Number of stars in the visible universe = 30 billion trillion (3x10²²) "


Lulz

Other Comments by OverUsedChewToy

22. Comment #199760 by Caudimordax on June 26, 2008 at 10:31 am

 avatarWow! Thank you OverUsed. I just spent over an hour on Atlas of the Universe. I'm sending that link to my friends who think that assuming the sun will come up tomorrow is just another brand of "faith."

Other Comments by Caudimordax

23. Comment #199824 by William Carlton on June 26, 2008 at 11:44 am

DalaiDrivel, I believe it was Carl Sagan who wondered how no religionist had ever embraced the true scale and baffling beauty of the universe as greater than ancient scribes and sages could imagine. Of course I remember Professor Dawkins closing a lecture with the same remark.

Other Comments by William Carlton

24. Comment #199878 by MAVERICKMAN on June 26, 2008 at 12:59 pm

 avatar
More than a decade ago, Sylos Labini and Pietronero wagered a bet with physicist Marc Davis of the University of California, Berkeley, US. The bet, refereed by Turok, held that if the galaxy distribution turned out to be fractal beyond scales of approximately 50 million light years, Davis would owe Sylos Labini and Pietronero a case of California wine.

Should the fractal pattern begin to disintegrate at scales less than 50 million light years, Davis would receive a case of Italian wine -- which some would say is a better deal. Turok has yet to declare a winner.


This is what I like about scientists. Whenever there is a difference of opinion, they have a wager with each other as to who is right and the loser forfeits something.

Whereas fundamentalists' go ape and threaten you with: "I KEEL YOU!"

Other Comments by MAVERICKMAN

25. Comment #200029 by Pyllyri on June 26, 2008 at 4:38 pm

@rod-the-farmer:

There are pretty nice fractal programs for windows that let you zoom into the fractals and do other kind of fractals than Mandelbrot's even. Can't remember any names, it's a while since I last toyed with one.

If you want to see something cool with fractals, put "Fractal zoom" in youtube and see some of the videos there.

(Longtime lurker here. I don't have the way of words like many of the regulars here so don't expect me to post much.)

Other Comments by Pyllyri

26. Comment #200040 by beelzebub on June 26, 2008 at 4:57 pm

 avatarFractals are facinating! My first programming experience was generating Mandelbrot sets (See "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandelbrot_set") from the book "The Fractal Geometry of Nature" by Benoit mandelbrot.
As to the structure of the universe, I would have thought it is trivialy fractal, whatever further observations find?

Other Comments by beelzebub

27. Comment #200963 by DalaiDrivel on June 28, 2008 at 4:08 pm

William Carlton,

I'll believe that. I wasn't sure to be honest who the true originator of the remark was, but we all remember Dawkins using it in his slideshow.

The point seems to become more and more poignant to me every day.

Other Comments by DalaiDrivel
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: