this is a thread for your hottest takes on discrepancy of CMB redshift dipole and widely measured quasar redshift dipole (they are almost exactly 90deg apart)quick(ish) rundown:CMB has an energy difference between two sky hemispheres (pic rel, larger that random fluctuations) that has been always attributed to our movement trough cosmos relative to background radiationbut the measurement of thousands of quasars shows vety similar and very consistent hemispherical redshift/blueshift with dipole direction at almost exactly 90 degreed to the CMB dipolethis really fucks with our current cosmology theories
Cosmology is a meme science trying to extrapolate infinity from a few closely spaced data points. I wouldn't be surprised if almost all of our predictions about the universe are wildly wrongSometimes scientists should just admit to bot knowing rather than building elaborate theories based on fiction
>but the measurement of thousands of quasars shows vety similar and very consistent hemispherical redshift/blueshift with dipole direction at almost exactly 90 degreed to the CMB dipoleNope. The dipoles measured with radio galaxies and quasars matches the direction of the CMB dipole. The tension is the fact that many studies have shown the amplitude is higher than one would expect if it was just produced by the observers velocity. But what people don't mention often is that different studies find different amplitudes. If one uses a different radio frequency for example, the dipole amplitude changes. If one uses a catalog which is deeper, the dipole amplitude decreases. Evidence that there are systemics in these measurements. https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.08366https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.09946https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.16619https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...965...32C/abstractThere is a fair amount of interest in the radio dipole at the moment, but it's not a slam dunk because the data do not provide a clear result. It's also difficult because these samples can be contaminated by local objects, they do not all have distances. Also the hypothesis that the CMB dipole is caused by the observer's motion is backed up independently by indirect measurements using the CMB data from galaxy clusters and the tiny change in size due to relativistic beaming. These both give velocities which are consistent with the CMB dipole value.https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.5087https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.12646
>>16811173quality post with actuall sources, have a (You)I'll now look trough thosedo you think all the current "cosmology problems" are just systemic errors overblown for publicity?
>>16811210I think it's not clear yet whether they will hold up. Of the major ones:The Hubble tension has by the far the most evidence, but it's still not quite definitive. It is complicated by the fact that lots of the "local" measurements use something to calibrate the same supernovae data, and so they aren't really independent. And the early universe measurements are all based on the same physical assumptions. You also have some collaborations looking at basically the same data (SH0ES and CCHP) which find significantly different values. I think probably the errors reported by the local teams are underestimated. The greatest hope is for gravitational wave data to make a robust measurement, but that could take decades.Then there is the DESI results. Which are interesting, but still at the level of low significance where the statistical assumptions matter a lot. If it is confirmed by better data it would difficult to explain as systematics because the measurements are quite clean. The dipole is not really widely discussed in cosmology. The data used to do it is mostly pretty old. Euclid, SKA and Rubin should be able to make better measurements in the coming decade. They might also detect secular parallax, the tiny change in apparent position of nearby galaxies due to our velocity. This would independently test the CMB dipole velocity. It's worth remembering that other tensions have gone away. Like the sigma_8 tension, which is a measurement of how lumpy the universe is. Previous lensing studies showed a lower sigma_8 (or S_8) than the CMB. But as the measurements got more and more precise they came up to meet the Planck value.
>>16811221since you seem to be knowledgable in this field I'm gonna ask about one more thing not closely related to the othershow significant/certain is data regarding the great attractor, and if there is a structure out there massive enough to affect flow of galactic clusters on such a scale how does that fair against theories assuming large scale homogenity of the universe?
>>16811225There are different aspects to it. The Great Attractor basically got it's name in the early days of observational cosmology, where people could see galaxies moving towards some structure. The CMB dipole points in that direction. But that structure was hidden because it was in the "Zone of Avoidance", where the disk of our own galaxy blocks out our view of background galaxies. So it became the Great Attractor. In more modern times radio telescope data has shown that the Great Attractor is a galaxy cluster (Norma). Later it was shown that the Milky Way is actually been drawn to a supercluster behind the Great Attractor, called the Shapley Supercluster. It is much more massive, and makes sense that many local galaxies are moving in it's direction. That's all broadly accepted. I don't think anyone claims this is unexpected.There is a separate claim which is much more tenuous. There is claim which is sometimes refereed to as "Dark Flow", it has a wiki page and it's often mentioned on documentaries. A guy called Kashlinsky has published this claim that using CMB data he has measured the velocities of hundreds of galaxy clusters and they are coherently moving in roughly the same direction as the Great Attractor. This would be impossible in standard cosmology, it would be on much too large a scale. But nobody takes this seriously. Several groups have tried to reproduce the measurement and found nothing, others criticized his statistics. Kashlinsky claims to still find the signal. Most cosmologists are not even aware of it. There was a debate over it 15 years ago but no one takes it seriously now. It is bullshit.
>>16811139>(they are almost exactly 90deg apart)Maybe the simplest explanation is that we just forgot to add a 90 degree offset somewhere.
>>16811221>what confirms my measurement>some other measurementWrong.
>>16811536I'm guessing gravitational lensing. Perfectly square 90° lensing.
>>16811139We are in an alien zoo, all signs point to this
>>16811606An independent measurement with totally different assumptions giving a consistent value would confirm the measurements, yes.
>>16811139Its clear that we live in the center of the universe and it revolves around us.
>>16811951Anyone at any point in the universe is "at the center" of the universe.
>>16811173>Nope. The dipoles measured with radio galaxies and quasars matches the direction of the CMB dipoleThat's not what I heard. The papers you posted are about the amplitude variability? Do you have the reference and direct quote for direction alignment?
>>16812896They all discuss the direction. They focus on the amplitude because that is the discrepant part.
