Kashlinsky, Atrio-Barandela, Kocevski, and Ebeling have just put out a preprint on the peculiar motions of galactic clusters: A measurement of large-scale peculiar velocities of clusters of galaxies: results and cosmological implications. In short, they claim that all galactic clusters appear to have a motion with respect to the cosmic microwave background (CMB). The motion of a galactic cluster slightly effects the energy of the microwave radiation that travels through it, so they use the temperature map of the CMB to determine the velocity of those galactic clusters.

And the result is that the whole (observable) universe appears to be moving with respect to the CMB. This was not expected because the observable universe is approximately isotropic and so shouldn’t be going anywhere. They write (in the abstract):

This flow is difficult to explain by gravitational evolution within the framework of the concordance LCDM model and may be indicative of the tilt exerted across the entire current horizon by far-away pre-inflationary inhomogeneities.

However, the tilt is easy to explain when you assume that the speed of gravity is larger than C: If gravitational interactions travel faster than light, you will automatically be able to feel the gravitational attraction of matter even if it is too far away for you to see.

I hadn’t put 2+2 together until Kea mentioned to me that she was getting a lot of hits on her blog that seemed to be coming from this blog. I looked at my logs and found that my post on the speed of gravity, (which discusses various theories and measurements of gravity’s speed) was getting most of the attention.

**Some other posts on the subject**

If gravity exceeds the speed of light, this is an example of Lorentz violation. Feynman’s checkerboard model, when extended to 3 dimensions, violates the speed of light in a manner I think similar to gravity.

The cosmological consequences of these theories is that rather than the universe expanding as in the big bang theory, instead time is steadily speeding up as the universe’s gravitational potential steadily increases from zero (at the time that the universe was created). Time speeding up can also be interpreted as a steady decrease in the speed of gravity and light, and this theory has been analyzed at great length by Louise Riofrio, whose theories are compatible with the CMB temperature correlations.

Finally, Lubos Motl‘s beautiful analysis of the vibrations of black holes suggests that there is something wrong with the spin-statistics theorem, (the division of elementary particles into Bose-Einstein or Fermi-Dirac camps) this suggests a preon model with elements similar to those implied by the Feynman checkerboard model; bit from trit.

Pingback: Dark Flow and Big Bang « Big Bang

Another confirmation of the ratio 3:1?

——————————————————————————–

As noted in my thread http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/s…ad.php?t=34145 about metasymmetry and its numerical measure 3:1 we can see other approximate cofirmation in content of universe.

WMAP data reveals that its contents include 4.6% atoms, the building blocks of stars and planets(NM-NATURAL MATTER). Dark matter(DM) (comprises 23% of the universe. This matter, different from atoms, does not emit or absorb light. It has only been detected indirectly by its gravity. 72% of the universe, is composed of “dark energy”(DE) that acts as a sort of an anti-gravity. This energy, distinct from dark matter, is responsible for the present-day acceleration of the universal expansion. WMAP data is accurate to two digits, so the total of these numbers is not 100%. This reflects the current limits of WMAP’s ability to define Dark Matter and Dark Energy

NM=4.6%; DM=23%; DE=72%;NM+DM=27.6;

If DE error+3%

If(NM+DM) error-2.6% then

DE/NM+DM=3:1

My be accidental coincidence?

tongue in cheek…I’m afraid the word on the web is that inflation predicted this behaviour, because it allows great inhomogeneity in the early universe. Time to get more quantitative….

Kea,

I guess I’ve said before that the soft under-belly of the beast is hadron spectroscopy. Work is progressing despite the excitement.

By the way, Yuri is the amateur physicist cited in hep-ph/0603145, also interested in hadrons.

Mathematics is pure because there a more proofs than conjecture. Proving a conjecture means you have to respect the rules. Physics is not pure because there a more conjectures than proofs. We broke every classical rule to build quantum mechanics and now we are lost thaks to Neil’s Bohr.