4 ms·
I thought it was the strong equivalence principle in general relatively, or the (nameless?) assumption that the same laws of physics hold true everywhere. Rega
by garmaine 5y ago
I thought it was the strong equivalence principle in general relatively, or the (nameless?) assumption that the same laws of physics hold true everywhere.
Regardless, my question was about the part of the quote which said: "which we now know as wrong."
What aspect of the cosmological principle, strong equivalence principle, or the universal application of physical law do we now know to be be wrong?
- autokad 5y agoIts the idea if you take one slice of the universe, it should be the same as any other slice. in this case, not talking about different physics but different makeups. then they noticed that the spin of galaxies is correlated. like one pie in the sky of galaxies tend to spin left, and the next one tends to spin right, and the next one after that left again. as far as I know, its unsolved as to why. some think it might be that the observed galaxies are spinning around something much bigger that we have yet observed, others think its an influence by the cosmic web. the idea that the universe is the same as everywhere (although an assumption) is very much baked in lots of theories, including the arguments that support dark matter.
- garmaine 5y agoThis is not my subfield so I may be talking out of my depth, but it feels like you are conflating two different concepts. There is a physics assumption that laws are universal, then there is a cosmological assumption that energy distribution after the Big Bang was (near-)uniform. Dark energy and dark matter follows mostly from the physics assumption not the cosmological one. Do you have a cite for the galactic spin thing?
- autokad 5y agoit seems to me you are conflating different concepts. I haven't said anything about physics laws.