Talk:Cosmological principle

Physics Unassessed

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Support for this

What observations and axioms support this. Hackwrench 18:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding, and perhaps someone can correct/expand as needed, is that the cosmological principle is itself taken as an axiom, but there is experimental evidence as well. The best evidence for isotropy is the [cmb] which is isotropic to one part in 10,000. I think for homogeneity, we can look at other galaxies/clusters and see that the physics there appears to be the same, and galaxies on average are the same. Threepounds 06:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This vs. Anthropic

OK, I'll bite: Under what logic does the Cosmological principle disprove the Anthropic principle? Do sources exist for such claims? ----Jasonuhl 21:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this needs to be expanded. I think more needs to be said or this part removed. It seems to be that the Cosmological principle is a statement about averages over cosmological distances (as the article indicates) while humanity exists on an entirely negligible length-scale. It is not obvious to me how the two should be compared or where a contradiction exists. Threepounds 06:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed this sentence. The link between this and the Anthropic principle seems tenuous at best, and a claim that one disproves the other without any attempt at explanation adds nothing but confusion. ----Jasonuhl 23:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Milne's Formalization of the Cosmological Principle

I found a link in Timeline of cosmology that said Milne "formalized" this cosmological principle. While I agree that he did, I don't think that the gist of his argument is well presented here. For instance, Milne did not like the idea of a finite universe, nor did he like the idea of expanding space.

Milne says in Relativity, Gravitation, and World Structure "I am well aware that some mathematicians believe that such difficulties are at once swept awy if we use the concept of 'curved space.' I have examined such attempts at explanation with the greatest care, and I have found that in all cases the proposed explanations break down at some point. Two-dimensional analogies with hypothetical inhabitants on the surface of a sphere fail as soon as we recall that a survey of the astronomical universe is made by taking a photograph with a telescope and camera, and that, for a telescope of arbitrarily large light-gathering power, either the number of nebulae that can be counted is finite and therefore contains one faintest and so presumably most distant member, or it is infinite, in which case either the same nebula is photographed as an infinite number of separate spots or the total number of actual nebulae in existence is infinite. The latter will be our eventual conclusion. Here I am only concerned to argue that the phrase 'curvature of space' used in connexion with astronomical photographs merely involves a mist of mysticism. Such photographs can always be interpreted in flat space, and then the assumption of a finite number of density-maxima inevitably leads to some kind of accessible edge of the universe."

In this book, at least, Milne eventually concluded that the universe was not finite in terms of number of nebulae. He did not conclude that space was curved. JDoolin 16:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In layman's terms

Guys, this doesn't read at all well for someone not well versed in cosmology/physics. I imagine it is quite complex but is it possible to be expresed in more simple terms, or at least to explain the concept a little better? Some parts of it read almost like the article was created with the intention of being as obscure as possible. :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Words like "homogeneous" and "isotropic" probably must stay. ;) ◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 18:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unforunately, Diliff, many articles are obscuranist like this. I've added a line to the intro that, hopefully, makes things a little clearer.--Michael C. Price ^talk 18:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The universerve is the same everywhere" does not make anything clearer. It just states you assume the reader to be an imbicil.192.114.175.2 12:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree (well, imbecile is taking it a bit far). That's what the links to the articles on homogeneity and isotropy are for. Cosmo0 10:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Perfect Cosmological Principle

I propose that Perfect Cosmological Principle should be merged into this article as a new section, since it's a simple extension of the subject discussed here and there's not much more to add to the other article that wouldn't be repeating this article. Cosmo0 21:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed. These are radically different concepts. --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In what sense are they radically different? The perfect principle is just an extension of the other (the dictionary of astronomy on my bookshelf defines it as precisely that). Everything that can be said about the cosmological principle also applies to the perfect cosmological principle. Cosmo0 10:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One is compatible with big bag, the other only with a steady-state cosmogony. That's pretty different.--Michael C. Price ^talk 13:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, although you could argue that even that isn't a big difference compared to the basic assumption of spatial homogeneity & isotropy. Anyway, I'm not dead set on this merger - I was just going through the astronomy stubs and I didn't think that the perfect CP article was likely to progress much beyond a stub without significant repetition of this one. But if you can think of some ideas to expand it then that's great. I suggest we leave it a week or two to give others a chance to comment and if there's no consensus in favour of merging (or the consensus is against) I'll remove the tags. Cosmo0 13:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These two concepts should not be merged or confused. The Cosmological Principle is what we commonly refer to and is consistent with the standard model of cosmology (big bang, inflation, dark energy, etc...). The Perfect Cosmological Principle is a weird concept which contradicts this standard model. For instance, there cannot be a big bang if the universe never changes in time. The Perfect Cosmological Principle is somewhat along the lines of Einstein's original view of a static universe. Even if some strange theories might be able to fit in the Perfect Cosmological Principle, it remains an unproved principle unlike the Cosmological Principle which seems to apply very well to our universe. I hope it is now clear that these two concepts should not be merged together and it should even be emphasized that they are very different. I hope this helps. Sorry this is my first post on Wikipedia so I don't know the format and stuff. ( F.G. - McGill - Physics )

"smooth (i.e.: not fractal)"

I don't get it. An isotropic fractal is an oxymoron then, or am I missing something? (it's not unlikely that I am) --Extremophile 19:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert, but as I understand it, fractal means that something looks the same viewed at different scales - it doesn't say anything about how it appears when viewed from different directions, so I imagine an isotropic fractal is possible. But a fractal that is smooth on large scales but not on small scales isn't, by definition. Cosmo0 21:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]