The Mystery of Great Cosmic Voids

[greenj]

Scientists have been discovering voids in space that are billions of light-years across. One huge void found in 2009 is a mystifying 3.5 light-years across. Now, this may not seem like a big deal. But when you consider that the visible universe stretches only 13.5 light-years in any direction, a void 3.5 light-years across is about a quarter of the visible universe. That's a lot of empty space.

 

But, this may still not seem like a big deal to you. So here's the big deal, and the real deal: there hasn't been enough time since the big bang for such large voids to form. Now, that's a problem.

 

The mystery is described on NewScientist.com, April 4th, 2009, in an article entitled "New cosmic map reveals colossal structures:"

 

Scientists "found some enormous voids -- regions of space that are relatively empty, including one that is about 3.5 billion light years across ... the newly found void is so large that it is difficult to fit into our present understanding of the universe on the largest scales. Computer simulations show that gravity causes galaxies and galaxy clusters to get closer together over time, with voids growing between the clusters.

 

"But the finite time available since the big bang makes it difficult to explain a void as large as the one found in this survey ... It's not easy to make voids that large in any of the current models of large scale structure formation," said John Huchra of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

 

So, what's the answer?

 

Well, although scientists sometimes have a way of tweaking out an "answer" where there is none, like the against-all-odds inflation theory that is conjured up to explain inexplicable developments following the big bang, which is a whole other topic, there really is no answer to how the finite time since the big bang could have created such huge voids.

 

But the voids are there and they're not going away. And the big bang is here, and it doesn't "get along" with huge voids. Houston, we have a problem.

 

Well, if the voids aren't going away, is it possible the big bang may have to? That's a distinct possibility. The big bang may have to give way to my new theory called the V-Bang (V-Bang.org).

 

My new book, "The V-Bang," resolves many of the greatest cosmological mysteries, including the great voids. It is an entirely new theory of how the universe began, and is supported by far more current and past observations than the big bang. The big bang has over the years presented us with more questions than answers. V-Bang.org presents the answers -- and leaves very few questions.

 

V-Bang.org

[pantheory]

Hey greenj,

 

What you meant to say was a void 3.5 G light years distance across, which is about 1/4 the radius of the visible universe which is roughly 13.5 G LY distance in any direction. Here G refers to a billion light years.

 

Your quote: "there hasn't been enough time since the big bang for such large voids to form. Now, that's a problem." I totally agree with this statement but you should realize that this statement is only opinion by itself and standard model proponents would disagree with it totally.

So, what's the answer?

Well the implied answer is that the BB model is wrong, but you can bet your booty that standard model theorists were not surprised and have come up with some logical possibilities according to the standard model. Realize this was a 2009 observation.

 

Hey you got it, V-Bang here we come, or not

 

Such quandaries concerning the standard model have been around since its beginning and it's still here, so I don't think it will quietly go away until totally contradictory observations come up. Who knows how long that will take. Most presently believe never.

Edited July 7, 2011 by pantheory

[imatfaal]

Pan is correct to note that your units are 10^9 out - the distances involved are Gly not ly. However, according to almost all prevailing knowledge the universe is much larger than 13ish Gly. It's age is 13ish Gyrs - but it does not follow that it is maximum 13ish Gly across. The CMBR is thought to be in the region of 40 Gly away.

 

And whilst it is easy to jump on these facts to challenge received wisdom - it must be born in mind that these measurements will have been made in concert with assumptions that flow from this current knowledge.

[Airbrush]

If it is true that there is a Great Void of 3.5 BILLION light years across, then the universe is not very "homogeneous and isotropic" with matter uniformly distributed. That sounds like a very uneven distribution.

Edited July 7, 2011 by Airbrush

[pantheory]

If it is true that there is a Great Void of 3.5 BILLION light years across, then the universe is not very "homogeneous and isotropic" with matter uniformly distributed. That sounds like a very uneven distribution.

Yeah you're right, not a very even distribution but theorists believe that since this only involves the observable universe, that on a larger scale that the overall homogeneity would become apparent. This brings us back to the OP question. Is there enough time in the BB model for such a structure to form? and how could it form according the the standard model? Answers to these questions according to the standard model may be more difficult to conjure and seemingly more speculative.

.

Edited July 7, 2011 by pantheory

[michel123456]

I wonder whether Greenj wanted to engage conversation or to sell his book...

Edited July 7, 2011 by michel123456

[greenj]

Scientists have been discovering voids in space that are billions of light-years across. One huge void found in 2009 is a mystifying 3.5 light-years across. Now, this may not seem like a big deal. But when you consider that the visible universe stretches only 13.5 light-years in any direction, a void 3.5 light-years across is about a quarter of the visible universe. That's a lot of empty space.

 

But, this may still not seem like a big deal to you. So here's the big deal, and the real deal: there hasn't been enough time since the big bang for such large voids to form. Now, that's a problem.

 

The mystery is described on NewScientist.com, April 4th, 2009, in an article entitled "New cosmic map reveals colossal structures:"

 

Scientists "found some enormous voids -- regions of space that are relatively empty, including one that is about 3.5 billion light years across ... the newly found void is so large that it is difficult to fit into our present understanding of the universe on the largest scales. Computer simulations show that gravity causes galaxies and galaxy clusters to get closer together over time, with voids growing between the clusters.

 

"But the finite time available since the big bang makes it difficult to explain a void as large as the one found in this survey ... It's not easy to make voids that large in any of the current models of large scale structure formation," said John Huchra of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

 

So, what's the answer?

 

Well, although scientists sometimes have a way of tweaking out an "answer" where there is none, like the against-all-odds inflation theory that is conjured up to explain inexplicable developments following the big bang, which is a whole other topic, there really is no answer to how the finite time since the big bang could have created such huge voids.

 

But the voids are there and they're not going away. And the big bang is here, and it doesn't "get along" with huge voids. Houston, we have a problem.

 

Well, if the voids aren't going away, is it possible the big bang may have to? That's a distinct possibility. The big bang may have to give way to my new theory called the V-Bang (V-Bang.org).

 

My new book, "The V-Bang," resolves many of the greatest cosmological mysteries, including the great voids. It is an entirely new theory of how the universe began, and is supported by far more current and past observations than the big bang. The big bang has over the years presented us with more questions than answers. V-Bang.org presents the answers -- and leaves very few questions.

 

V-Bang.org

 

Yes, it is supposed to be "billions of light-years," rather than just "light-years." I don't know how to edit the original post. But thanks for pointing it out.

[Widdekind]

According to Maoz' Astrophysics in a Nutshell, our space-time is isotropic, on size scales exceeding 100 Mpc. The observed 'super-void' is, apparently, 1 Gpc across, 10x that size.

[rigney]

The Mystery of Great Cosmic Voids Rate Topic: #1 6 July 2011 - 04:21 PM greenj

Scientists have been discovering voids in space that are billions of light-years across. One huge void found in 2009 is a mystifying 3.5 light-years across. Now, this may not seem like a big deal. But when you consider that the visible universe stretches only 13.5 light-years in any direction, a void 3.5 light-years across is about a quarter of the visible universe. That's a lot of empty space.

 

Not taking a pot shot at you guy, but some real sharp Astronomers (cosmologists?) tell me the nearest "big" galaxy to us is the Andromeda at about 2.5 million light years distance. Since I've been in cosmology for just over a year now, I stay totally confused. But this is the link I looked at.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda_Galaxy

Edited July 13, 2011 by rigney

[pantheory]

Not taking a pot shot at you guy, but some real sharp Astronomers (cosmologists?) tell me the nearest "big" galaxy to us is the Andromeda at about 2.5 million light years distance. Since I've been in cosmology for just over a year now, I stay totally confused. But this is the link I looked at.

http://en.wikipedia....ndromeda_Galaxy

 

Your link is totally unrelated to the O.P. assertions. The opening post involves a great void 3 1/2 billion light years across. The is a vast distance across, more than a thousand times the distance from here to Andromeda. Your link is unrelated to the opening post so don't understand your point.

[rigney]

Please correct me if you thought Ii was wrong in questioning the original post?

[pantheory]

Please correct me if you thought Ii was wrong in questioning the original post?

Of course it's not wrong to question the original post. My reply was simply that I could not understand your question which could have been my problem rather than yours.

 

regards