The Same Everywhere? Cosmology

[MolaKule]

Does the universe actually look the same everywhere? Isotropic or anisotropic, that is the question.​

" Fundamental principles of the universe called into question by two physicists​

One of the most basic and accepted truths about the universe is that it's pretty much the same everywhere you look. In other words, there is no "up" or "down" in the cosmos. No direction has more structure, more galaxies—more stuff—than any other. Cosmologists take this sameness for granted; it's one of their foremost maxims, called the cosmological principle. But what if this dogma isn't true at all?

A new paper published Wednesday in Nature by two physicists calls the cosmological principle into question. They argue that the universe's structures do look significantly different depending on the direction you look. "In this survey, we find there are large-scale structures which define special directions," says Francesco Sylos Labini, a physicist at the Enrico Fermi Research Center in Rome, Italy and one of the study's authors.

Using data from the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI), Labini and his co-author claim that the universe's structures are far more complicated than existing models suggest, violating one of cosmology's most sacred ideas."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/science/...Bu5e5JB4fxDSwOAb8vCzNhH6-k_dWcHasUwQOiIHrZqm3

Detection of anisotropic cosmic structures on a gigaparsec scale​

• Francesco Sylos Labini &
• Marco

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-026-10702-5

 

[OilStained]

Is the universe not flat?

 

[burbguy82]

It seems to me, that if a random, unplanned, event..... distributed the materials of the universe......the results of this randomness, would be random, and thereby fundamentally different

Makes sense to an idiot like me.

I think to achieve the same result, using different circumstances require more than a random sequence of events and billions of years to blend up a s star let alone galaxy.

All things would would have to been dispersed nearly evenly, and the formation of celestial bodies would have to begin at the same time with\ no communication.

I would also th\ing\ th\at will untold amounts of visible examples, th\at we would see all stag\es of th\e formation of said bodies, but as I understand, th\at is not exacttly th\e case.

This is my opinion.

 

[97prizm]

Does the universe actually look the same everywhere? Isotropic or anisotropic, that is the question.​

" Fundamental principles of the universe called into question by two physicists​

One of the most basic and accepted truths about the universe is that it's pretty much the same everywhere you look. In other words, there is no "up" or "down" in the cosmos. No direction has more structure, more galaxies—more stuff—than any other. Cosmologists take this sameness for granted; it's one of their foremost maxims, called the cosmological principle. But what if this dogma isn't true at all?

A new paper published Wednesday in Nature by two physicists calls the cosmological principle into question. They argue that the universe's structures do look significantly different depending on the direction you look. "In this survey, we find there are large-scale structures which define special directions," says Francesco Sylos Labini, a physicist at the Enrico Fermi Research Center in Rome, Italy and one of the study's authors.

Using data from the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI), Labini and his co-author claim that the universe's structures are far more complicated than existing models suggest, violating one of cosmology's most sacred ideas."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/science/...Bu5e5JB4fxDSwOAb8vCzNhH6-k_dWcHasUwQOiIHrZqm3

Detection of anisotropic cosmic structures on a gigaparsec scale​

• Francesco Sylos Labini &
• Marco

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-026-10702-5

Isn't the night sky very different if you look up at the south pole vs north pole?

 

[Pablo]

Depends on how fast you/we/anything are moving.

 

[fantastic]

I think both ideas have merit. But agree that there would certainly be odd forms of the universe in its vast space. But we can certainly see direction on a smaller scale in comparison. Until we learn more throw up the ideas...

 

[JeffKeryk]

Fascinating.

 

[02SE]

Isn't the night sky very different if you look up at the south pole vs north pole?

It is from Deadhorse, AK vs Tierra del Fuego, as your latitude determines what stars and constellations are visible above the horizon. So yes, it would also be a different view from either Pole.

 

[barryh]

Is the universe not flat?

They do say the universe is flat but they are not describing the shape of it. I find it a very confusing description because they mean it's Euclidean geometry is flat (i.e. parallel lines don't meet) rather than 2 dimensionally flat.

 

[burbguy82]

They do say the universe is flat but they are not describing the shape of it. I find it a very confusing description because they mean it's Euclidean geometry is flat (i.e. parallel lines don't meet) rather than 2 dimensionally flat.

I dont think anything can be absolutely flat.

 

[el Nuke]

Does the universe actually look the same everywhere? Isotropic or anisotropic, that is the question.​

" Fundamental principles of the universe called into question by two physicists​

One of the most basic and accepted truths about the universe is that it's pretty much the same everywhere you look. In other words, there is no "up" or "down" in the cosmos. No direction has more structure, more galaxies—more stuff—than any other. Cosmologists take this sameness for granted; it's one of their foremost maxims, called the cosmological principle. But what if this dogma isn't true at all?

A new paper published Wednesday in Nature by two physicists calls the cosmological principle into question. They argue that the universe's structures do look significantly different depending on the direction you look. "In this survey, we find there are large-scale structures which define special directions," says Francesco Sylos Labini, a physicist at the Enrico Fermi Research Center in Rome, Italy and one of the study's authors.

Using data from the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI), Labini and his co-author claim that the universe's structures are far more complicated than existing models suggest, violating one of cosmology's most sacred ideas."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/science/...Bu5e5JB4fxDSwOAb8vCzNhH6-k_dWcHasUwQOiIHrZqm3

Detection of anisotropic cosmic structures on a gigaparsec scale​

• Francesco Sylos Labini &
• Marco

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-026-10702-5

I do not belong to an institution through which I can gain access to the linked article, so I cannot comment on its contents.

However I will take issue with the statement “One of the most basic and accepted truths about the universe is that it's pretty much the same everywhere you look.”

That’s not my take on the information I have taken in during my research at all.

In fact, the concept of looking somewhere is misguided in its concept. When we look at the universe, it’s not a case of where we are looking so much as it is when we are looking.

 

[MolaKule]

Isn't the night sky very different if you look up at the south pole vs north pole?

From the Earth perspective that is correct.

If you put the observer anywhere in the universe, it should look the same according to the cosmological principle, but these authors say this is not the case.

 

[MolaKule]

I do not belong to an institution through which I can gain access to the linked article, so I cannot comment on its contents.

Here is the complete summary:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/science/...Bu5e5JB4fxDSwOAb8vCzNhH6-k_dWcHasUwQOiIHrZqm3

However I will take issue with the statement “One of the most basic and accepted truths about the universe is that it's pretty much the same everywhere you look.”

This is according to the cosmological principle, but these authors dispute that.

 

[el Nuke]

Here is the complete summary:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/science/...Bu5e5JB4fxDSwOAb8vCzNhH6-k_dWcHasUwQOiIHrZqm3

This is according to the cosmological principle, but these authors dispute that.

Thank you for following up, but I will not be clicking on a Yahoo link.

I look forward to the authors having their paper go through the proper peer review protocol, and then I will consume it and digest it for proper consideration.

 

[MolaKule]

Another paper calling into question the CMB and the cosmological principle:

"...In either case, the peculiar motion derived from the observed asymmetry in the redshift distribution of 1.3 million quasars in sky does not seem to agree with that derived conventionally from a CMB dipole asymmetry; a result which is not in accordance with the cosmological principle, a cornerstone in the basic foundation of the standard model in cosmology..."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-13426-0?fromPaywallRec=true

 

[el Nuke]

Another paper calling into question the CMB and the cosmological principle:

"...In either case, the peculiar motion derived from the observed asymmetry in the redshift distribution of 1.3 million quasars in sky does not seem to agree with that derived conventionally from a CMB dipole asymmetry; a result which is not in accordance with the cosmological principle, a cornerstone in the basic foundation of the standard model in cosmology..."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-13426-0?fromPaywallRec=true

Alright, that’s fine and all, but everything I’ve read on the expansion front has concentrated on the applicability of quantum mechanics to explain the voracious need to continuously divide space/time into ever smaller pieces of Planck Time.

Except Planck Time is not supposed to be divisible, so I don’t know.

What I do know is that I’m currently driving a 2V Ford Triton and I firmly believe it’s the worst engine design I’ve ever encountered in all my years.