Talk:Copernican principle

No title

How about a page on "The Copernican Revolution". I see that term used a great deal!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.98.118.254 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 1 June 2005

Comment moved from main page

The Copernican pricipal alone would leave no center of the solar system. Applying Occam's Razor however places the sun at the center of the solar system. Hackwrench 18:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Some content to be removed

The paragraph "The philosopher..." does not beloing here at all. The topic should be under Copernican revolution or something. The redirect from Copernican revolution to here is inadequate. The last paragraph would be more apprioprate in the article Cosmological principle. This content is lacking there. Andres 08:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Major re-write

I removed the definition that was here before, namely

that no "special" observers should be proposed.

since in science at least the Copernican principle refers to us, it does not prohibit some other class of observers from being special.

I'm tidying up the discussion of the Copernican principle in cosmology. This page needs to be separated into two, one for the Copernican principle, and one for the Copernican revolution. These are very different concepts!

Oops, forgot to sign: PaddyLeahy 20:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the discussion of the "isotropy" of time since there is nothing in the Copernican principle itself which insists on isotropy. Spatial isotropy comes into the picture because of the observed large-scale isotropy around the Earth, but there is no observed "isotropy" of time (ie. past and future have very different properties in many senses). PaddyLeahy 20:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I've created a page on the Copernican revolution as suggested above, moved relevant material from this page to there, and added a bit more myself. PaddyLeahy 00:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article needs a bit of general cleanup, especially in tone, which is too informal for an encyclopedia article at points. It could also benefit from some expansion.

In any case, I added the NPOV Check tag because it doesn't seem entirely fair to criticisms of the Copernican principal. This entire section could use a lot of work and expansion, and really ought to include more recent evidence, like the evidence discussed by Dr. Gonzalez. Moreover, there is not a section dedicated to evidence for the Copernican Principle, so the article is unbalanced. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.152.116.237 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi 207..., please sign your comments! Feel free to improve the English. An NPOV check would show that critics of the Copernican principle are a tiny minority of cosmologists and thus on the usual NPOV rules they are grossly over-represented by even being mentioned in this article. But since Krauss is a major figure and the WMAP results have attracted some publicity it seems reasonable to include this section. I very much doubt that Krauss believes we should abandon the CP but he obviously felt an open-minded statement was called for. If you can cite a published, peer-reviewed article by Dr Gonzalez you could try to include it... I have no idea what his position is. The evidence for the CP, of course, is that the whole of modern cosmology is based on it and that theory now has many successes of both the predictive and explanatory kind. PaddyLeahy 15:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Citation for metric expansion

I don't believe the theory that the universe is expanding (metric expansion), because of the Copernican principle! Well... I don't have a full understanding of it really... lol but at any rate PLEASE properly cite the theory in the article. haha Robert M Johnson (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Relevant Information Prejudicially Removed

On 20 Sept, 2007, someone going by the name of, "Chalnoth" removed the following text from the article, stating that; "Lawrence Krauss was in no way, shape, or form intimating that the Earth is at the center of the universe". Although the referenced Edge article makes clear that Krauss was not advocating that the observational data was correct, he was indeed confirming the direct observational implications of the WMAP anomalies, which have since been refined to include other galaxy systems in a similarly meaningful manner, as was anticipated might happen within the very text of the Wikipedia article. This person also removed other evidence from an article from CERN that was only confirmed by Krauss' statement, strongly indicating that "Chalnoth" is consciously attempting to prejudicially censor the evidence. It should be emphasised that this kind of unscientific and preconceived ideological prejudice is commonly known to stem from what Brandon Carter identified as "anticentrist dogma", which scientists generally harbor, both, consciously and subconsciously, that causes them to willfully ignore clear evidence that runs contrary to the copernican cosmological extension, especially if it includes any form of anthropic significance.

The section to be restored and modified, previously read as follows:

Evidence against the Copernican principle

Some recent results from WMAP appear to run counter to Copernican expectations. The motion of the solar system, and the orientation of the plane of the ecliptic are aligned with features of the microwave sky which on conventional thinking are caused by structure at the edge of the observable universe

Lawrence Krauss is quoted as follows in the referenced Edge.org article:

"But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That's crazy. We're looking out at the whole universe. There's no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun — the plane of the earth around the sun — the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe."

It would be somewhat surprising if the WMAP alignments were a complete coincidence, but the anti-Copernican implications suggested by Krauss would be far more surprising, if true. Other possibilities are (i) that residual instrumental errors in WMAP cause the effect (ii) that expected microwave emission from within the solar system is contaminating the maps. Richard A. Ryals (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

References

16th century

The 16th. and 17th. centuries are mentioned in the article, although Pythagoras lived long before then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.229.26 (talk) 14:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

CMB Anisotropies

To state that the year 2000 (COBE) data indicates that the Copernican Principle is validated is ludicrous. COBE and WMAP each contain specific signals leading to the "Axis of Evil" indicating strongly a preferred direction in space- directly through the earth in fact. Planck was designed and launched to remove potential artifacts from leading to this signal (with the presupposition due to the Copernican Principle that they are artifacts), but Planck has in fact confirmed the "Axis of Evil". Wyattmj (talk) 10:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Both your word choice ("one can always imagine anything", "dashed this last hope for the Copernican Principle") as well as some of your other contributions on Wikipedia make it clear that you are merely using this article for religiously motivated propaganda for geocentricism.

Since your claims are also neither adequately sourced nor backed up by the recently released papers on Planck, I reverted your changes. Further information on this can be found within the paper "Planck 2013 results. XXIII. Isotropy and statistics of the CMB", section "5.9. Interpretation of anomalies" where explicitly some explanations are considered which don't necessitate to give up the Copernican principle.

Somebody with knowledge in the field should therefore have a look at the planck results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.50.199.189 (talk) 14:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Please do not willy nilly revert edits. This not acceptable. I will rerevert, and we can discuss. I will consider the wording. Wyattmj (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

referring to astudy from 2000 is inadequate. Copi/Huterer, Tegmark, Ellis, Hartnett, and many others are questioning and/or modifying (i.e., the multiverse) the CP. This article is sorely out of date The purpose of Wikipedia is not to pull the wool over the eyes of the public..Wyattmj (talk) 02:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I am being reverted constantly, yet there is no dicussion; I am attempting to have one. WP:BRD requires a discussion, not ganging up on an editor and threatining WP:BRD action,Wyattmj (talk) 02:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Do not discredit Wikipedia by using it to try and cover up what every decent cosmologist is currently thinking and even acting on. Do not use Wikipedia as a political tool. There is a serious question about the Copernican Principle, cosmologists are talking about it, and it is going to become known widely. Let Wikipedia be on top of the trends, and do not discredit it. Everyone with half a brain knows this is the case. DO NOT USE WIKIPEDIA TO HIDE THIS FROM THE PUBLIC. This is not meant to be the tool of petty bureaucrats. You are not protecting anyone, only destroying the credibility of Wikipedia. Wyattmj (talk) 03:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Stop playing games and provide your sources and inline citations. Do not respond with anymore long winded babble, Just your sources. Thanks - 4twenty42o (talk) 09:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Here are key articles relating to the WMAP CMB anisotropies, now verified in the Planck results:

Large-Angle Anomalies in the CMB Craig J. Copi, Dragan Huterer, Dominik J. Schwarz, and Glenn D. Starkman http://www.hindawi.com/journals/aa/2010/847541/

...Even so, the cosmological model we arrive at is baroque, requiring the introduction at different scales and epochs of three sources of energy density that are only detected gravitationally—dark matter, dark energy and the inflaton. This alone should encourage us to continuously challenge the model and probe the observations particularly on scales larger than the horizon at the time of last scattering. At the very least, probes of the large-angle (low-�) properties of the CMB reveal that we do not live in a typical realization of the concordance model of inflationary ΛCDM. We have reviewed a number of the ways in which that is true: the peculiar geometry of the � = 2 and 3 multipoles—their planarity, their mutual alignment, their alignment perpendicular to the ecliptic and to the dipole; the north-south asymmetry; and the near absence of two-point correlations for points separated by more than 60◦. If indeed the observed � = 2 and 3CMB fluctuations are not cosmological, one must reconsider all CMB results that rely on the low �, for example, the measurement of the optical depth from CMB polarization at low � or the spectral index of scalar perturbations and its running...

Uncorrelated universe: Statistical anisotropy and the vanishing angular correlation function in WMAP years 1–3 Craig J. Copi, Dragan Huterer, Dominik J. Schwarz, and Glenn D. Starkman http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v75/i2/e023507

"...(i) the four area vectors of the quadrupole and octopole are mutually close (i.e., the quadrupole and octopole planes are aligned) at the 99.6% C.L.;

(ii) the quadrupole and octopole planes are orthogonal to the ecliptic at the 95.9% C.L.; this alignment was at 98.5% C.L. in our analysis of the WMAP 1 yearmaps. The reduction of alignment was due to WMAP’s adaption of a new radiometer gain model for the 3 year data analysis, that took seasonal variations of the receiver box temperature into account—a systematic that is indeed correlated with the ecliptic plane. We regard that as clear evidence that multipole vectors are a sensitive probe of alignments;

(iii) the normals to these four planes are aligned with the direction of the cosmological dipole (and with the equinoxes) at a level inconsistent with Gaussian random, statistically isotropic skies at 99.7% C.L.;

(iv) the ecliptic threads between a hot and a cold spot of the combined quadrupole and octopole map, following a node line across about 1/3 of the sky and separating the three strong extrema from the three weak extrema of the map; this is unlikely at about the 95% C.L. ..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.183.53.247 (talk) 00:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

THE ODDLY QUIET UNIVERSE: HOW THE CMB CHALLENGES COSMOLOGY’S STANDARD MODEL GLENN D. STARKMAN, CRAIG J. COPI, DRAGAN HUTERER, DOMINIK SCHWARZ http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.2459 We discuss selected large-scale anomalies in the maps of temperature anisotropies in the cosmic microwave background. Specfically, these include alignments of the largest modes of CMB anisotropy with one another and with the geometry and direc- tion of motion of the Solar System, and the unexpected absence of two-point angular corellations especially outside the region of the sky most contaminated by the Galaxy. We discuss these findings in relation to expectations from standard inflationary cosmol- ogy. This paper is adapted from a talk given by one of us (GDS) at the SEENET-2011 meeting in August 2011 on the Serbian bank of the Danube Rive — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.183.53.247 (talk) 00:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

---

13 more things: The axis of evil http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327245.900-13-more-things-axis-of-evil.html

WHAT would you do if you found a mysterious and controversial pattern in the radiation left over from the big bang? In 2005, Kate Land and João Magueijo at Imperial College London faced just such a conundrum. What they did next was a PR master stroke: they called their discovery the cosmic "axis of evil".

What exactly had they seen? Instead of finding hot and cold spots randomly spattered across the sky as they expected, the pair's analysis showed that the spots in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) appeared to be aligned in one particular direction through space.

The apparent alignment is "evil" because it undermines what we thought we knew about the early universe. Modern cosmology is built on the assumption that the universe is essentially the same in whichever direction we look. If the cosmic radiation has a preferred direction, that assumption may have to go - along with our best theories about cosmic history.

This disaster might be averted if we can show that the axis arises from some oddity in the way our telescopes and satellites observe the radiation. A nearby supercluster of galaxies could also save the day: its gravitational pull might be enough to distort the radiation into the anomalous form seen.

Nobody knows for sure. We are dealing with the limits of our capabilities, says Michael Longo of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. "All observations beyond our galaxy are obscured by the disc of the Milky Way," he points out, so we need to be careful how we interpret them.

The European Space Agency's recently launched Planck space telescope might settle the issue when it makes the most sensitive maps yet of the CMB. Until then, the axis of evil continues to terrorise us.

Here are some sources for questioning the CP and articles concerning periodicity. I will add some material related to CMB anisotropies.(wyattmj):

Is the universe expanding asymmetrically? By Estelle Asmodelle 26 September 2011 http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/is-universe-expanding-asymmetrically/

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1109/1109.0941v4.pdf "n this paper we investigated the existence of anisotropy of the universe by employing the hemi- sphere comparison method and the Union2 SNIa dataset and found this preferred direction..."

http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.0539 The consistency level of LCDM with geometrical data probes has been increasing with time during the last decade. Despite of these successes, there are some puzzling conflicts between LCDM predictions and dynamical data probes (bulk flows, alignment and magnitude of low CMB multipoles, alignment of quasar optical polarization vectors, cluster halo profiles). Most of these puzzles are related to the existence of preferred anisotropy axes which appear to be unlikely close to each other. A few models that predict the existence of preferred cosmological axes are briefly discussed.

Generalized Hubble law, violation of the cosmological principle and Supernovae http://cds.cern.ch/record/469586 The acceleration of the cosmic expansion has been discovered as a consequence of redshift Supernovae data. In the usual way, this cosmic acceleration is explained by the presence of a positive cosmological constant or quantum vacuum energy, in the background of standard Friedmann models. Recently, looking for an alternative explanation, I have considered an inhomogeneous barotropic spherically symmetric spacetime. Obviously, in this inhomogeneous model the philosophical cosmological principle is not verified. Within this framework, the kinematical acceleration of the cosmic fluid or, equivalently, the inhomogeneity of matter, is just the responsible of the SNe Ia measured cosmic acceleration. Moreover, this model gives rise to a generalized Hubble law with two anisotropic terms (dipole acceleration and quadrupole shear), besides the expansion one. The dipole term of this generalized Hubble law could explain, in a cosmological setting, the observed large scale flow of matter, without to have recourse to peculiar velocity-type newtonian models which assume a Doppler dipole.

Testing the Copernican Principle Against Cosmological Observations http://www.china-vo.org/nv400/node/20

A Test of the Copernican Principle http://arxiv.org/pdf/0711.3459v1.pdf The blackbody nature of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation spectrum is used in a modern test of the Copernican Principle. The reionized universe serves as a mirror to reflect CMB photons, thereby permitting a view of ourselves and the local gravitational potential. By comparing with measurements of the CMB spectrum, a limit is placed on the possibility that we occupy a privileged location, residing at the center of a large void. The Hubble diagram inferred from lines-of-sight originating at the center of the void may be misinterpreted to indicate cosmic acceleration. Current limits on spectral distortions are shown to exclude the largest voids which mimic cosmic acceleration. More sensitive measurements ofthe CMB spectrum could prove the existence of such a void or confirm the validity of the Copernican Principle.

Undermining the Cosmological Principle: Almost Isotropic Observations in Inhomogeneous Cosmologies R. K. Barrett, C. A. Clarkson (Submitted on 12 Nov 1999 (v1), last revised 13 Mar 2001 (this version, v3)) http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9911235

   We challenge the widely held belief that the cosmological principle is an obvious consequence of the observed isotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation, combined with the Copernican principle. We perform a detailed analysis of a class of inhomogeneous perfect fluid cosmologies admitting an isotropic radiation field, with a view to assessing their viability as models of the real universe. These spacetimes are distinguished from FLRW universes by the presence of inhomogeneous pressure, which results in an acceleration of the fundamental observers. We examine their physical, geometrical and observational characteristics for all observer positions in the spacetimes. To this end, we derive exact, analytic expressions for the distance-redshift relations and anisotropies for any observer, and compare their predictions with available observational constraints. The isotropy constraints derived from `local' observations are also considered, qualitatively. A crucial aspect of this work is the application of the Copernican principle: for a specific model to be acceptable we demand that it must be consistent with current observational constraints (especially anisotropy constraints) for all observer locations. The most important results of the paper are presented as exclusion plots in the 2-D parameter space of the models. We show that there is a region of parameter space not ruled out by the constraints we consider and containing models that are significantly inhomogeneous. It follows immediately from this that the cosmological principle cannot be assumed to hold on the basis of present observational constraints. 

Galaxy redshift abundance periodicity from Fourier analysis ofnumber counts N(z)using SDSS and 2dF GRS galaxy surveys J.G. Hartnett K. Hirano http://arxiv.org/pdf/0711.4885v3.pdf

"..This paper uses a simple Fourier analysis of number counts of galaxy redshifts in the SDSS and 2df GRS galaxy samples to search for periodic red- shift spacings. Several spacings are found and are also confirmed using mass density fluctuations and the redshift separations between galaxies, though the latter are less sensitive methods. This analysis is similar in many ways to recent analyses carried out by other investigators, such as Tegmark et al. (2004) where the power spectra obtained from the SDSS and 2dF GRS samples are also found to have similar power peaks..."

Unknown selection effect simulates redshift periodicity in quasar number counts from Sloan Digital Sky Survey

J. G. Hartnett

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10509-009-0151-2 Abstract

Discrete Fourier analysis on the quasar number count, as a function of redshift, z, calculated from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey DR6 release appears to indicate that quasars have preferred periodic redshifts with redshift intervals of 0.258, 0.312, 0.44, 0.63, and 1.1. However the same periods are found in the mean of the zConf parameter used to flag the reliability of the spectroscopic measurements. It follows that these redshift periods must result from some selection effect, as yet undetermined. It does not signal any intrinsic (quantized) redshifts in the quasars in Sloan survey data. However this result does not rule out the possibility as found in earlier studies of other data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.183.53.247 (talk) 23:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I see it this way: you have lumped primary sources that question the Copernican principle. I see them as alternative ideas and see no evidence they are supported by the mainstream scientific community. What is more essential though, is I see no support whatsoever to your conclusion "This is a clear indication of the demise of the Copernican Principal." - thus see WP:NOR. Materialscientist (talk) 07:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Went ahead and replaced the conslusion with the term "questioning the Copernican Principle". Wyattmj (talk) 07:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Would you please wait for others to comment? Your addition contains glaring errors in grammar and sourcing, but what is worse, it still contains your WP:OR on demise and "invalidation of the Copernican Principle." Materialscientist (talk) 07:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, then, let's get some discussion going.72.46.228.155 (talk) 08:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I placed my last edit in a sandbox. Please comment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wyattmj/sandbox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyattmj (talk • contribs) 13:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Here is the latest: Planck shows almost perfect cosmos – plus axis of evil http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23301-planck-shows-almost-perfect-cosmos--plus-axis-of-evil.html?full=true

The universe is almost perfect, 80 million years older than we thought, and maybe a little bit evil.

...Planck's map greatly improves cosmologists' understanding of the universe, but it does not solve lingering mysteries over unusual patterns in the CMB. These include a "preferred" direction in the way the temperature of the light varies, dubbed the cosmic "axis of evil", as well as an inexplicably cold spot that could be evidence for universes beyond our own (see image, right). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyattmj (talk • contribs) 14:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I brutally pruned two sections discussing CMB anisotropies (aka the Axis of Evil) down to the bare facts, complete with multiple peer-reviewed references. Feel free to discuss conspiracy theories on this page, but Wkipedia articles need to be a dispassionate summary of information backed up by reliable sources, not cherry-picked internet articles. Beyond a summary mention about specific implications for the Copernican Principle, these theories should be fully described elsewhere (eg. the CMB article itself). Lithopsian (talk) 13:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I think "refuted" is much too strong of language. The signals are there, and these papers only offer possible explanations under very specific circumstances (i.e., LTB model- not the standard model), and only possibilities:

http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v87/i2/e023524 Furthermore, whereas the quadrupole and octupole near the center of a LTB void are necessarily small, certain Szekeres models can include a significant quadrupole while still being consistent with the observed dipole, hinting that Szekeres models may be able to give an explanation for the observed quadrupole/octupole anomalies.

http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v107/i4/e041301 From 2011, and only claims to challenge local void models due to a specific effect.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1475-7516/2012/10/059/ It is still not ascertained whether these anomalies are indeed primordial or the result of systematics or foregrounds...

Wyattmj (talk) 04:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

From Planck XXIII

The two fundamental assumptions of the standard cosmological model — that the initial fluctuations are statistically isotropic and Gaussian — are rigorously tested using maps of the CMB anisotropy from the Planck satellite. The detailed results are based on studies of four independent esti- mates of the CMB that are compared to simulations using a fiducial ΛCDM model and incorporating essential aspects of the Planck measurement process. Deviations from isotropy have been found and demonstrated to be robust against component separation algorithm, mask and frequency dependence. Many of these anomalies were previously observed in the WMAP data, and are now confirmed at similar levels of significance (around 3σ).However, we find little evidence for non-Gaussianity with the exception of a few statistical signatures that seem to be associated with specific anomalies. In particular, we find that the quadrupole-octopole alignment is also connected to a low observed variance of the CMB signal. The dipolar power asymmetry is now found to persist to much smaller angular scales, and can be described in the low- regime by a phenomenological dipole modulation model. Finally, it is plausible that some of these features may be reflected in the angular power spectrum of the data which shows a deficit of power on the same scales. Indeed, when the power spectra of two hemispheres defined by a preferred direction are considered separately, one shows evidence for a deficit in power, whilst its opposite contains oscillations between odd and even modes that may be related to the parity violation and phase correlations also detected in the data. Whilst these analyses represent a step forward in building an understanding of the anomalies, a satisfactory explanation based on physically motivated models is still lacking.

What are you trying to say? You seem hung up on the idea that every anisotropy found in the CMB is in conflict with the Copernican Principle. Please try to understand the papers before you make these claims. There are anisotropies. They are being studied. One set in particular was thought to be somewhat aligned with the ecliptic (as if that was even relevant to the Copernican Principal!) but the level of correlation was weak and probably a coincidence. Examine enough anisotropies and one of them will look like it means something. There's a face on Mars you really should look at ;) Lithopsian (talk) 19:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Any preferred direction in space is a death knell for the Copernican Principle. Planck weas supposed to clear up whether or not the anisotropies, and preferred direction were real or not by using a different sensor (bolometer vs. differential temperature measurement) and a different scanning pattern than WMAP or COBE. The verdict is in, Planck has verified that what WMAP and COBE saw is real, and in fact extended to 20 multipoles. This is big news, and is going to be talked about a lot in the coming days, months and years (and in fact already is). Do not use Wikipedia to try and cover this up. 74.100.71.90 (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

It is now April 10th, where are the obvious references to your reliable sources? (You did say that this was big news and would be talked about a lot in the coming days.) -- Kheider (talk) 17:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I added another paper by Copi et. al.,

The Uncorrelated Universe: Statistical Anisotropy and the Vanishing Angular Correlation Function in WMAP Years 1-3

Craig J. Copi1, Dragan Huterer2 , Dominik J. Schwarz3 , and Glenn D. Starkman1,4

1 Department of Physics, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44106-7079 2 Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics and Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637 3 Fakultat fur Physik, Universit ̈at Bielefeld, Postfach 100131, 33501 Bielefeld, Germany and 4 Beecroft Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, Astrophysics, University of Oxford, UK

The large-angle (low-l) correlations of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) as reported by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) after their first year of observations exhibited statistically significant anomalies compared to the predictions of the standard inflationary big-bang model. We suggested then that these implied the presence of a solar system foreground, a systematic correlated with solar system geometry, or both. We re-examine these anomalies for the data from the first three years of WMAP’s operation. We show that, despite the identification by the WMAP team of a systematic correlated with the equinoxes and the ecliptic, the anomalies in the first- year Internal Linear Combination (ILC) map persist in the three-year ILC map, in all-but-one case at similar statistical significance. The three-year ILC quadrupole and octopole therefore remain inconsistent with statistical isotropy – they are correlated with each other (99.6%C.L.), and there are statistically significant correlations with local geometry, especially that of the solar system. The angular two-point correlation function at scales > 60 degrees in the regions outside the (kp0) galactic cut, where it is most reliably determined, is approximately zero in all wavebands and is even more discrepant with the best fit ΛCDM inflationary model than in the first-year data – 99.97%C.L. for the new ILC map. The full-sky ILC map, on the other hand, has a non-vanishing angular two-point correlation function, apparently driven by the region inside the cut, but which does not agree better with ΛCDM. The role of the newly identified low-l systematics is more puzzling than reassuring. Wyattmj (talk) 03:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

kheider

I suggest reading Wikipedia:Advocacy and please avoid original research. -- Kheider (talk) 13:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Please read Krauss' quote. Wyattmj (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• In conclusion Krauss states, "there's something weird about the microwave background results and that maybe, maybe there's something wrong with our theories"

And so did Copi, Huterer, et. al., but they also said- let's wait for Planck, and Planck confirmed it.

• I do not see where any reference states, "The Planck announcement of March 21st, 2013, dashed this last hope for the Copernican Principle"

They state non-gaussianity, anisotropy at 3 sigma level.

• Planck reveals an almost perfect Universe fails to even mention Copernicus.

Axis of evil. This si a known issue, and is anti-Copernican.

• The only person that states that "Alignment to the ecliptic is anti-Copernican" is your own original research. -- Kheider (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Copi et. al., also state that . See the 4 points which I already above in my talk section.

Uncorrelated universe: Statistical anisotropy and the vanishing angular correlation function in WMAP years 1–3 Craig J. Copi, Dragan Huterer, Dominik J. Schwarz, and Glenn D. Starkman http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v75/i2/e023507

"...(i) the four area vectors of the quadrupole and octopole are mutually close (i.e., the quadrupole and octopole planes are aligned) at the 99.6% C.L.;

(ii) the quadrupole and octopole planes are orthogonal to the ecliptic at the 95.9% C.L.; this alignment was at 98.5% C.L. in our analysis of the WMAP 1 yearmaps. The reduction of alignment was due to WMAP’s adaption of a new radiometer gain model for the 3 year data analysis, that took seasonal variations of the receiver box temperature into account—a systematic that is indeed correlated with the ecliptic plane. We regard that as clear evidence that multipole vectors are a sensitive probe of alignments;

(iii) the normals to these four planes are aligned with the direction of the cosmological dipole (and with the equinoxes) at a level inconsistent with Gaussian random, statistically isotropic skies at 99.7% C.L.;

(iv) the ecliptic threads between a hot and a cold spot of the combined quadrupole and octopole map, following a node line across about 1/3 of the sky and separating the three strong extrema from the three weak extrema of the map; this is unlikely at about the 95% C.L. ..."

THE ODDLY QUIET UNIVERSE: HOW THE CMB CHALLENGES COSMOLOGY’S STANDARD MODEL GLENN D. STARKMAN, CRAIG J. COPI, DRAGAN HUTERER, DOMINIK SCHWARZ http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.2459 We discuss selected large-scale anomalies in the maps of temperature anisotropies in the cosmic microwave background. Specfically, these include alignments of the largest modes of CMB anisotropy with one another and with the geometry and direc- tion of motion of the Solar System, and the unexpected absence of two-point angular corellations especially outside the region of the sky most contaminated by the Galaxy. We discuss these findings in relation to expectations from standard inflationary cosmol- ogy. This paper is adapted from a talk given by one of us (GDS) at the SEENET-2011 meeting in August 2011 on the Serbian bank of the Danube Rive

wyattmj (can't edit while signed in)

Quoting an abstract is not the same as showing a reliable source that states that the Copernican principle is now a known failure. Provide such a reference or you are committing Wikipedia:NOR. -- Kheider (talk) 12:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

re "The Oddly Quiet Universe": The article in question makes no reference at all to the "Copernican principle". The full text ends thus: "Future results from the Planck satellite may show these large-angle/low-anomalies to be nothing more than systematic errors in the measurements or analysis of the WMAP (and the COBE) team, but unless and until they do these anomalies remain the outstanding point of disagreement between the standard cosmological model and observations." Paul B (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

And the Planck results have been released, and the anomalies are still there, and even better defined, and extended into more multi-poles. That is why these edits are timely. The Planck data release was March 21st. Wyattmj (talk) 16:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The latest data from the 2013 Planck satellite should not have been removed

I thought the page was too biased because it did not include the latest data from the 2013 Planck satellite. So, I made a few changes. The sentence that talks about the alternate explanations being not reasonable, I don't know if I should keep it or remove it. What does the wikipedia community think?

"Studies on WMAP and COBE data have claimed to have refuted the alignments as statistical anomalies[10][11] or local phenomena[12], but the latest data from the 2013 Planck satellite strongly assert the preferred direction and related anisotropies are present at around a three sigma level, confirming WMAP and COBE findings.[13] These alternate explanations have been discussed and shown not reasonable solutions by Copi, et. al., who looked to Planck to resolve whether the preferred direction and alignmments are spurious.[14][15]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamondandrs (talk • contribs) 20:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC) Forgot to signDiamondandrs (talk) 01:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I could use some help around here. Be sure to sign your name by placing 4 tilde's after your posts on this page. It is clear that the Planck data has substantiated the WMAP and COBE results, and the Copernican Principle is in question at this time. Wyattmj (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I reverted your edits, plus added the Lawrence Krauss' quote also (which was present when I started working on this article). Wyattmj (talk) 00:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

DISPUTE

This quality of the article has not been improving over the last month and there seems to be a recurring and persistent dispute about whether the Copernican principle is "proved" or "disproved" by using the Cosmic microwave background anisotropies found by a few recent surveys of the sky. The intricacies of the subject matter is beyond my level of expertise, but there seems to be no shortage of reverts, poor editing practices, and tempers that contest this. Let's resolve the issue by examining what the peer-reviewed sources have said, if anything, and summarize or regurgitate their finding here, if any. This issue has been referred to the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard, so give it a few days rest while someone reviews the situation. There is somewhere between 10 to 14 users (not including myself) who are involved in the dispute, all of which are being asked to go to the WP:DRN to participate.

I am asking that no one make substantial changes to the second half of the article while this dispute is being resolved. I like to saw logs! (talk) 07:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Where would you draw the line for the second half of the article?Diamondandrs (talk) 01:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I was just trying to avoid editing the sections which are disputed. I didn't mean to be the Article Police setting up a Barricade. I like to saw logs! (talk) 04:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Unreferenced statements/original research will need to be removed from the article. -- Kheider (talk) 13:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I made the minor changes you requested.Diamondandrs (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Substantial changes are being made to the second half of the article by unknown editors.Diamondandrs (talk) 08:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

And long as their statements are properly referenced, I have no problem with it. -- Kheider (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Article edits: I have noticed that Diamondandrs and Kheider and 78.50.234.140 and 85.179.84.51 are variously adding and removing some content and references in the disputed article. These may or may not be valid or consensus-driven. But I am recommending that these minor improvements and edits please stop while the dispute process is underway. The edits to the article actually increased since I opened up this request for Dispute Resolution. Thanks for everyone who chose to participate. The direct link to the Dispute Process is Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Copernican_principle. I would expect that it might be a few days. Since there is no deadline to fix the article, just wait for a good discussion in that other forum. I like to saw logs! (talk) 23:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The article is improving slowly but surely

I am pretty sure there are still minor complaints about the article, but nobody can deny that it has improved :).Diamondandrs (talk) 16:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

It has improved, and relevant information is making it into the article. We are still in the dispute process. Wyattmj (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Dispute issues resolved?

I notice that the dispute case at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Copernican_principle has stopped getting input ... is that because the issues are resolved? Or did editors forget about the DRN? --Noleander (talk) 22:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Watching and waiting. I was planning a major rewrite since we currently have three sections addressing essentially the same issue of tests of the Copernican Principle, without actually addressing some of the most important tests. Seems way to early to do that though. Only about 24 hours since the discussion was opened, so I'll wait for the moderator to call time. Lithopsian (talk)

I guess that's it, dispute gone away? I've just reverted basically the same edits made in Cosmological principle, but this article needs more than a few reverts. Lithopsian (talk) 20:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I cannot comment on what is happening in the article since I haven't been looking at it; but I did close the DRN case because no parties were commenting. FWIW: my thoughts on the issue are: The material about the microwave background radiation should not be in the article unless the sources (discussing the radiation patterns) explicitly mention the Copernican principle (either using those exact words; or words that clearly and unambiguously mean the same thing). It is a violation of WP:SYNTH for an editor to add the microwave material into the article if the sources do not mention the Copernican principle. --Noleander (talk) 02:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I've replaced the rambling three final sections with a section on tests. Hopefully better than before, but could probably do with more detail. Or perhaps just links out to the relevant Wiki pages? I'm pretty weak on history, so please correct anything that isn't good there. Lithopsian (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I will no longer have access to Diamondandrs. The account has been lost. I am now Diamondadnrs. But anyways enough about me, I wanted to add that you don't need to delete the three rambling sections. Just merge them into one. That way you do not lose all the details. Also, with regards to the wikipedia links. They are good to have in my oppinion, but who knows what edits those other pages have. Perhaps I will take a look at the cosmological principle section. Diamondadnrs (talk) 19:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Copi et. al., tie the anisotropies to the Copernican Principle

Large-angle anomalies in the CMB Craig J. Copi, Dragan Huterer, Dominik J. Schwarz, and Glenn D. Starkman

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1004.5602.pdf

I. INTRODUCTION: WHY LARGE SCALES ARE INTERESTING?

The Copernican principle states that the Earth does not occupy a special place in the universe and that ob- servations made from Earth can be taken to be broadly characteristic of what would be seen from any other point in the universe at the same epoch. The microwave sky is isotropic, apart from a Doppler dipole and a microwave foreground from the Milky Way. Together with the Copernican principle and some technical assumptions, an oft-inferred consequence is the so-called cosmological principle. It states that the distributions of matter and light in the Universe are homogeneous and isotropic at any epoch and thus also de�nes what we mean by cosmic time.

This set of assumptions is a crucial, implicit ingredi- ent in obtaining most important results in quantitative cosmology. For example, it allows us to treat cosmic mi- crowave background (CMB) temperature uctuations in di�erent directions on the sky as multiple probes of a sin- gle statistical ensemble, leading to the precision determi- nations of cosmological parameters that we have today. Although we have some observational evidence that ho- mogeneity and isotropy are reasonably good approxima- tions to reality, neither of these are actual logical conse- quences of the Copernican principle. For example the ge- ometry of space could be homogeneous but anisotropic | like the surface of a sharp mountain ridge, with a gentle path ahead but the ground dropping steeply away to the sides. Indeed, three-dimensional space admits not just the three well known homogeneous isotropic geometries (Euclidean, spherical and hyperbolic { E3,S3 and H3), but �ve others which are homogeneous but anisotropic. The two simplest are S2E1 and H2E1. These spaces support the cosmological principle but have preferred di- rections. Similarly, although the Earth might not occupy a privi- leged place in the universe, it is not necessarily true that all points of observation are equivalent. For example, the topology of space may not be simply-connected | we could live in a three-dimensional generalization of a torus so that if you travel far enough in certain direc- tions you come back to where you started. While such three-spaces generically admit locally homogeneous and isotropic geometries, certain directions or points might be singled out when non-local measurements are considered. For example the length of the shortest closed non-trivial geodesic through a point depends on the location of that point within the fundamental domain. Similarly, the in- homogeneity and anisotropy of eigenmodes of di�eren- tial operators on such spaces are likely to translate into statistically inhomogeneous and anisotropic large scale structure, in the manner of Chladni �gures on vibrating plates... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyattmj (talk • contribs) 19:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

===Also Kate Land and Joao Magueijo tie it to the Copernican Principle

The axis of evil Kate Land and Joao Magueijo

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0502237v2.pdf

The homogeneity and isotropy of the Universe – also known as the Copernican principle – is a major pos- tulate of modern cosmology. Obviously this assump- tion does not imply exact homogeneity and isotropy, but merely that the observed cosmological inhomogeneities are random fluctuations around a uniform background, extracted from a homogeneous and isotropic statistical ensemble. One may expect that the ever improving ob- servations of CMB fluctuations should lead to the great- est vindication of this principle. Yet, there have been a number of disturbing claims of evidence for a preferred direction in the Universe [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10], making use of the state of the art WMAP first year re- sults [11]. These claims have potentially very damaging implications for the standard model of cosmology.

This old chestnut again? There was a dispute. You were there. It was closed because you offered no response to the mediator's questions. Lithopsian (talk) 22:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

You were there too and you offered no response. I had no objections to the Copernican Principle Page during the Dispute, so I did not respond. Those who had a problem with the page should have said something.Diamondadnrs (talk) 22:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not the one who was asked to present evidence to back the claims being made on the page. I was the one removing them because the comments were not supported. To quote, "Okay, it is time to start the discussion, if editors are still interested. I think the first step would be for editors that want the material to be included to provide sources here. If the sources do not explicitly mention the "Copernican principle" then a really good justification will be needed, based on the WP:SYNTH policy. --Noleander (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)". Response, nothing. Hence I consider the claims to be unsupported and will remove them when they appear. Oh, and just Googling ever paper that contains the phrase "Copernican principle", then presenting that as proof of your opinion is not good enough. If the author doesn't say it, then you shouldn't say it, and so far none of the authors say what you say. Lithopsian (talk) 22:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I am beginning to see a lot of weasel words such as "disturbing claims". -- Kheider (talk) 23:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The citation is on the bottom of the page. Should I reproduce it twice?Diamondadnrs (talk) 01:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The meaning of "synthesis"

Wikipedia goes to great lengths to define its policies on synthesis and original research, but I'll offer a concrete example.

The recent set of edits by Diamondadnrs are claimed to be "almost verbatim to the sources" and "not using weasel words". One sentence states: "In particular, some anomalies have been reported to be aligned with the ecliptic which would be a clear violation of the Copernican Principle,[13] as would any preferred direction in space." with http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.5915 as a reference. This paper includes the words "anomalies", "alignment", "violation", and "Copernican", however never in the same sentence and never to state that alignment of anomalies with the ecliptic is a clear violation of the Copernican principle. The word "ecliptic" doesn't even appear in the paper. In a nutshell, that is synthesis: forming your own conclusions that at best are only hinted at by the writers in the reference, and at worst are not their conclusions at all.

In this case, I'll offer another quote from the same reference that should make clear the author's thoughts on the subject: "The violation of the cosmological principle is expected to occur at a small level even on Hubble scales due to small statistical fluctuations of the cosmic energy density." In other words the universe isn't 100% isotropic and we don't expect it to be, a far cry from claiming we occupy a special position. Lithopsian (talk) 14:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

My words "almost verbatim" was directed towards Khieder who thought I was just making up the words "disturbing claims of evidence".Diamondadnrs (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

My words "almost verbatim" was directed towards one sentence. You are misreading my words and trying to make a conclusion that holds no water.

Your accusation of WP:synthesis does not extend to every sentence (just that one sentence you mentioned if your accusation is valid). Yet, you are using WP: Synthesis as a weapon to erase every sentence that offers evidence against the Copernican Principle. Why not just erase that one sentence if you think your accusation is valid? Why do you have to erase everything including the latest data from the 2013 Planck satellite?Diamondadnrs (talk) 15:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The campaign behind it all?

Apparently an organised campaign (associated with http://theprinciplemovie.com/) behind this? Maybe old news, but new to me. The forum is private but Google can see it of course: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Fm_bWG7ZyP0J:http://theprinciplemovie.net/viewtopic.php%3Ff%3D14%26t%3D12%26p%3D43%2Bprinciple+movie+wikipedia+copernican+%22page+2%22&oe=utf-8&rls={moz%3AdistributionID}%3A{moz%3Alocale}%3A{moz%3Aofficial}&hl=en&ct=clnk

Edit: my mistake not to sign (where was the bot?) Lithopsian (talk) 20:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah. That was a little confusing. Then it's you I should have congratulated on excellent research, Lithopsian. Bishonen | talk 12:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC).

(preceding unsigned comment was posted by user Lithopsian)

Here is the forum post mentioned above (bold face emphasis added by me):

Re: Wikipedia: Copernican Principle

by [name redacted] » Fri Mar 29, 2013 6:39 pm


OK. Things are turning here. The article is now ok, and I am getting editors to cooperate. They are trying to minimize the significance of the CMB results, but at least they are no longer trying to hide it. Some more information on the article, and a quick tutorial on Wikipedia:

NOTE: On Wikipedia, ANYONE can edit the articles. We can work together on this and other key articles. Once the movie is released, we will create an article for The Principle Movie. I may have someone else do it, as I am now on the Wikipedia radar screen .

1. Go to the talk" section. You can go to the article, and just click on the "talk" tab (just above the article, right tab), or follow this link. Do not identify with each other in this section. If the editors feel we are working together they will feel threatened and work against us. I started the section Headed: "CMB Anisotropies".

2. I created the article I would like (I will update it) in a "sandbox", i.e., an offline articleHERE.

3. Another important issue is the article's history. This is a log of all edits. t is possible to revert to old edits, etc., or follow the changes in the article by examining the history. If you go to the article on Wikipedia, and follow the line above the title to the right, you will see a tab for "View History". I am wyattmj. Clicking on a date/time shows the edit for that date/time.

4. If you want to help, it may be best to sign up with wikipedia. In the upper right hand corner, there is a link "Create Account". Create a username and password, and you now have an account. Let us all know your username, so we can keep track of each others edits, and support each other. There are drawbacks to having an account- you can be temporarily blocked from editing, etc. This goes with the territory, but there are also advantages- you can block others, n balance having an account is worthwhile. You can always log out, then edit anonymously.

Please ask for advice here if you are not experienced with wikipedia. If we are not careful, we could get the whole article locked up for a long time, and we do not want that.

That seems to suggest a violation of the WP meat-puppetry policy at WP:MEAT which states: "Do not recruit your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate. " See also the Wikipedia:Tag team essay. --Noleander (talk) 23:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Wyattmj : can you comment on the above off-wiki forum posting? --Noleander (talk) 23:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Catholic apologists

Here is a web site that is relevant: http://galileowaswrong.blogspot.com/. It is run by Catholic apologists that are attempting to show that God created the earth. They are promoting (producing?) a movie called "The Principle". They attack science in general, but especially focus on the earth: they claim the Earth is the center of the universe (and Genesis is correct). It appears that the same apologists are attempting to edit several articles in WP to further that agenda. --Noleander (talk) 01:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

That particular web site is run by Robert Sungenis, who is a big proponent of geocentrism, see Robert_Sungenis#Geocentrism. It is likely he, or associates of his, that have been adding the CMB radiation material to this article. --Noleander (talk) 01:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Great work, Noleander! Bishonen | talk 11:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC).

• I have blocked Wyattmj indefinitely. Bishonen | talk 12:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC).

Quotes from sources needed

Diamondadnrs: I'm having a hard time finding the material from these sources that show that the source is discussing the copernican principle. Could you supply quotes from these sources that show clearly that the source is discussing the CP? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 23:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Anthony Challinor (2012). "CMB anisotropy science: A review". arXiv:1210.6008v1 [astro-ph.CO].

• Mariano, A.; Perivolaropoulos, L. (2013). "CMB maximum temperature asymmetry axis: Alignment with other cosmic asymmetries". Physical Review D 87 (4). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.87.043511. edit

• The axis of evil Kate Land and Joao Magueijo

• Buckley, R. G.; Schlegel, E. M. (2013). "CMB dipoles and other low-order multipoles in the quasispherical Szekeres model". Physical Review D 87 (2). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.87.023524. edit

• a b Zhang, P.; Stebbins, A. (2011). "Confirmation of the Copernican Principle at Gpc Radial Scale and above from the Kinetic Sunyaev-Zel'dovich Effect Power Spectrum". Physical Review Letters 107 (4). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.041301. edit

• Hansen, M.; Kim, J.; Frejsel, A. M.; Ramazanov, S.; Naselsky, P.; Zhao, W.; Burigana, C. (2012). "Can residuals of the solar system foreground explain low multipole anomalies of the CMB?". Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2012 (10): 059. doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2012/10/059. edit

• Large-angle anomalies in the CMB

• The Uncorrelated Universe: Statistical Anisotropy and the Vanishing Angular Correlation Function in WMAP Years 1-3

• Planck 2013 Results. Isotropy and Statistics of the CMB. planck.caltech.edu/pub/2013results/Planck_2013_results_23.pdf

• Planck reveals an almost perfect Universe (ESA 21 March 2013)

• CERN Courier "Does the motion of the solar system affect the microwave sky?"

• C. J. Copi, D. Huterer, D. J. Schwarz, G. D. Starkman (2006). "On the large-angle anomalies of the microwave sky". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 367: 79–102. arXiv:astro-ph/0508047. Bibcode:2006MNRAS.367...79C. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09980.x.

If the sources are merely discussing the uniformity (or non-uniformity) of the distribution of the cosmic bg radiation, then they probably belong in the Cosmic microwave background radiation article (which, by the way, doesnt even mention the Copernican principle). The Copernican Principle article should only include sources that use the term "copernican principle". --Noleander (talk) 23:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I removed this sentence: "The motion of the solar system, and the orientation of the plane of the ecliptic are aligned with features of the microwave sky, which on conventional thinking are caused by structure at the edge of the observable universe" because it does not make sense. Could the author clarify what the point was? And how it relates to the C.P.? --Noleander (talk) 23:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I also removed this sentence: " The latest data from the 2013 Planck satellite strongly asserts the preferred direction and related anisotropies are present at around a three sigma level, confirming WMAP and COBE findings." I see no mention of C. P. in the sources, and the sentence is not readily understandable to readers. --Noleander (talk) 23:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I will try but other editors have included these sources and sentences you mentioned as well, it was not just me. Perhaps a good place to start would be my 3rd paragraph from my last edit. I will deal with two sencences and their connection with the axis of evil. I will not deal with the alignment with the ecliptic or the Planck sattelite right now because then my reply will be huge.

My sentence: In 2005, it was expected that the ever improving observations of CMB fluctuations would lead to the greatest vindication of the Copernican Principle, but observations such as "the axis of evil"... raised a number of disturbing claims of evidence for a preferred direction in the Universe[4]...

My source "The axis of evil" http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0502237v2.pdf": "One may expect that the ever improving observations of CMB fluctuations should lead to the greatest vindication of this principle. Yet, there have been a number of disturbing claims of evidence for a preferred direction in the Universe [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10], making use of the state of the art WMAP first year result [11]."

"It has been suggested that a preferred direction in CMB fluctuations may signal a non-trivial cosmic topology (e.g. [1, 12, 13, 14]), a matter currently far from settled. The preferred axis could also be the result of anisotropic expansion, possibly due to strings, walls or magnetic fields [15], or even the result of an intrinsically inhomogeneous Universe [16]. Such claims remain controversial; more mundanely the observed “axis of evil” could be the result of galactic foreground contamination or large scale unsubtracted systematics (see [17, 18, 19, 20] for past examples). A closer inspection of the emergence of this preferred axis is at any rate imperative."

My thoughts: The year the article was written was 2005. The author says that the CMB fluctuations were expected to be the greatest vindication of the Copernican Principle. Something happened that kept the principle from recieving its greatest vindication and the author connects the "vindication of the principle" with the "disturbing claims of evidence" with the word "Yet". The author says that there were disturbing claims of evidence for a preferred direction and offers 10 citations. The preffered direction starts to be refered to by different names. It is called a preferred axis and then later it is called the axis of evil. For these reasons I think these two sentences should be included in the article.Diamondadnrs (talk) 04:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The Mariano paper doesn't discuss alignment with the ecliptic, which is the sentence it is claimed to support. It discusses alignments between various anomalies such the CMB multipoles and dark flow, so actually contradicts alignment with the ecliptic. It does address alignment of a great many features, including multipoles other than 3/4. For alignment with the ecliptic, the 2013 Planck paper is probably the best. It addresses this issue specifically using the latest data: the quadropole and octopole axes are 9-13 degrees apart. Asymmetry between the northern and southern hemispheres wrt to the ecliptic is found, but the exact alignment of the axis is not defined, since the method for showing the asymmetry depends on picking the axis first and seeing to what extent it is supported. Lithopsian (talk) 12:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you need to be very careful with extracting quotes from the Copi review paper. He expressly mentions the Copernican principle as being an assumption behind almost our entire cosmology and does point out that the multiple anisotropies are simply not consistent with our current best models. However, at no point does he claim that this contradicts the Copernican principle and goes to great pains to point out in the conclusions that the current models are robustly supported to a very high degree of precision (albeit using several arbitrary parameters) with just the tiniest anomalies at the limits of detection. Also, he does not deny the possibility of local phenomena or systematic observational errors being responsible for the multiples and their alignments; he simply can't think of any reason for those to be true. Just as he can't see any reason for the universe as a whole to have an alignment. Lithopsian (talk) 12:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I need to be careful about using the exact words that Copi says? I could make the third paragraph even closer to his exact words by putting it this way.

In 2005, it was expected that the ever improving observations of CMB fluctuations would lead to the greatest vindication of the Copernican Principle, but there were a number of disturbing claims of evidence for a preferred direction in the Universe making use of the state of the art WMAP first year result. This preferred direction has been called the Axis of Evil. Diamondadnrs (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

My apologies. I mixed up the authors (a side effect from reading too much). The authors names are Kate Land and Joao Magueijo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamondadnrs (talk • contribs) 01:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC) Diamondadnrs (talk) 01:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I will re-read the Krauss article again and reply to what you said about it tommorow. Diamondadnrs (talk) 01:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not claiming that the authors said that the Copernican Principle was contradicted. I want to be faithful to their words and not make assumptions.Diamondadnrs (talk) 01:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am having difficulty in understanding why this article fails to attribute findings that are disputed. WP:NPOV states "If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." Land and Magueijo's 2005 paper spawned numerous other studies that disputed those findings, partially or in whole. A quick look at Cosmic microwave background radiation gives the bigger picture and a much more balanced picture of the mainstream view of these anomalies. We should not be casting disputed conclusions of a primary study in Wikipedia's voice. These need to be attributed, so that the reader does not mistake them for fact. It is also important in these cases to ensure that other views, which may be critical of such conclusions, are also properly represented as NPOV makes clear: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." --RexxS (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with you adding your sentence on the bottom, but why can we not state that Land and Magueijo considered the CMB fluctuations to be the greatest vindication of the Copernican Principle. We could even state that it is their oppinion. For example:

In 2005, Land and Magueijo expected that the ever improving observations of cosmic microwave background fluctuations would lead to the greatest vindication of the Copernican principle. Yet, their analysis showed a number of disturbing claims of evidence for a preferred direction in the Universe making use of the state of the art WMAP first year result. They called this preferred direction the "axis of evil".[3] Several later studies have shown systematic errors in the collection of that data and the way it is processed.[4][5][6]Diamondadnrs (talk) 04:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I removed this sentence: "The motion of the solar system, and the orientation of the plane of the ecliptic are aligned with features of the microwave sky, which on conventional thinking are caused by structure at the edge of the observable universe" because it does not make sense. Could the author clarify what the point was? And how it relates to the C.P.? - Noleander

I don't see how this quote is not related to the Copernican Principle. It actually includes the implication that the Earth might be in the center of the Universe (bold statement).Diamondadnrs (talk) 08:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this quote is a primary source. Diamondadnrs (talk) 08:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

New "balance"

Several recent edits have been made to add "balance" to the CMB multipole ecliptic alignment claims. However, these may be missing the point. While some errors in data and analysis have been discovered, the multipoles remain, albeit somewhat less closely aligned than first suggested and with the ecliptic alignment uncertain. Minor quibbling over the last decimal place in the data distracts from the main issue, which is whether all this has anything at all to do with the Copernican principle, and if so whether this one currently-unclear observation deserves a paragraph in the lead without mention of thousands of more solid papers on the subject.

One point nobody has noticed so far is that the definition of the Copernican principle given in the Land and Magueijo paper is not the one given in this article. In terms of Wikipedia articles, they describe the Cosmological principle, that is that the universe is (approximately) isotropic and homogeneous. It could easily be neither, as flat as a pancake or as pointed as an arrow, the cosmological principle could be utterly dead, but our position could still be entirely un-special. Lithopsian (talk) 20:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

While all of that is true, it does not detract from the point I make above that we have to conform with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I don't really care if you want to scare quote "balance"; the principle is not negotiable that we don't present opinions as facts and that we represent fairly and proportionately all relevant views published by reliable sources. Liu and Li (2009) show that the processing of WMAP was problematical; Sawangwit and Shanks explore systematic errors in the data and suggest that simple cosmologies would fit; Liu and Li (2011) demonstrate that a timing error could cause the quadrupole to be substantially overestimated. You can't dismiss these findings as "minor quibbling over the last decimal place", because they are not. If we are to include Land and Magueijo (2005), then first of all we must attribute it; and secondly we must ensure that its reliably-sourced criticisms are noted. Otherwise the reader will receive completely the wrong impression of the status of the Copernican principle - that we are not in a special position in the universe. I agree that the question over whether the universe may be inhomogeneous and anisotropic (as quantum fluctuations in its early history would imply) is only tangentially related to this article, but that's just my personal opinion and we really should be seeking a reliable secondary source that provides that commentary. --RexxS (talk) 20:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I just don't feel that the given references are the balance that is needed. This sentence currently in the lead asserts that the CMB data shows (or appears to show) that we are in a special position in the universe (or else why is it here at all), and the "balance" is merely arguing about the reliability of that data and analysis when actually none of the references given claim we occupy a special position in the universe. Lithopsian (talk) 13:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It was not my intention to scare you or any of the other editors. I just did not want to be accused of Weasel words like I have been in the past (for using the authors exact words or nearly his exact words). I have a few complaints about the last sentence, but I will let those go at the moment since I don't want to make an edit every ten seconds. I would suggest that the word "However" kind of makes the sentence sound weird and I would recommend removing it.

I want to put the latest data from the 2013 Planck satellite back into the article. Preferably after Copi's statement about him looking forward to the Planck satellite. Originally, it was words like this:

The latest data from the 2013 Planck satellite strongly asserts the preferred direction and related anisotropies are present at around a three sigma level, confirming WMAP and COBE findings. (Planck 2013 Results. Isotropy and Statistics of the CMB. planck.caltech.edu/pub/2013results/Planck_2013_results_23.pdf)Diamondadnrs (talk) 05:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Does anybody have a problem with this sentence or have any recommendations for improvement?Diamondadnrs (talk) 04:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

"One point nobody has noticed so far is that the definition of the Copernican principle given in the Land and Magueijo paper is not the one given in this article. In terms of Wikipedia articles, they describe the Cosmological principle, that is that the universe is (approximately) isotropic and homogeneous. It could easily be neither, as flat as a pancake or as pointed as an arrow, the cosmological principle could be utterly dead, but our position could still be entirely un-special." - Lithopsian

Perhaps the definition is flexible and we should consider letting the reader know this.Diamondadnrs (talk) 05:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Possibly we could describe various different definitions such as "Generalised Copernican principle" or "Genuine Copernican principle". I'm not sure it would be helpful though. I don't think there is widespread agreement about what different qualifications mean, they just tend to get bandied about by different people with a point to make. Physicists tend not to talk about the Copernican principle a great deal, since it is implicit but not amenable to proof. Rather the cosmological principle is the one that gets addressed and tested. It also wouldn't help in this case, since the authors simply refer to the Copernican principle but then describe the Cosmological principle. Lithopsian (talk) 13:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

"I also removed this sentence: " The latest data from the 2013 Planck satellite strongly asserts the preferred direction and related anisotropies are present at around a three sigma level, confirming WMAP and COBE findings." I see no mention of C. P. in the sources, and the sentence is not readily understandable to readers." - Noleander

I get the feeling that there is a temptation (since we are all very busy) to just word search and if the word Copernican Principle does not pop up, then it is ignored (without seeing if there are words relevant to the Principle or tests of the Principle).

If the Planck satellite supports the notion that a preferred direction is present, then are we really doing the reader a favor by putting a sentence at the bottom of the third paragraph which gives the impression that there isn't one? The Planck data is from 2013. The sentence in the bottom are older studies that did not have the Planck data.Diamondadnrs (talk) 17:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The sources themselves determine whether they are relevant to this article, not you nor I nor any other editor. You have an editor disputing that isotropy is a characteristic of the Copernican principle, and yet you are trying to add content from another source that does not even mention the Copernican principle. The only authors that seem to think that homogeneity and isotropy are part of the Copernican principle are Land and Magueijo and their work is disputed. Surely we are now wandering so far off the mainstream scientific view of the Copernican principle that we are pushing the boundaries of undue weight? What do the good quality secondary reviews and textbooks (that should be the basis for this article) say about the Copernican principle? Those are the sources that define what should be in a Wikipedia scientific article as WP:SCHOLARSHIP makes clear. Of the 31 references in this article, I can see about 5 that seem to qualify as secondary, and it's a very bad sign for any article to be so dependent on primary sources. --RexxS (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I am going to take a ten day break from the Copernican Principle page and focus on other pages. I feel like there is too much hostility in this page. Hopefully, things will cool down in 10 days and editors will begin to respect each other again (despite differences of opinion), avoid insulting one another, and work together instead of engaging in edit wars.Diamondadnrs (talk) 08:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Geocentrism and Activism

Dear Mr. Mark J. Wyatt and others,

Your electronic trail is extensive concerning your "movie" and your opinions on geocentrism. You appear to be a political, religious, or commercial activist who is promoting a view that the Earth is the center of the universe. While this would at first glance seem to be just a trivial thought process that might be debated in an open forum, it appears that you have deceitfully promoted your views by editing this and other articles instead of engaging in the improvement of Wikipedia articles. As demonstrated in the link above to your http://theprinciplemovie.com/ forum, you are actively trying to use Wikipedia to promote your viewpoint.

Here are some of the discussions of which you have been a part of and some links to the relevant issues:

• NeoGeocentrism: An Ill-Conceived Attempt to Drag Galileo Back Into the Culture Wars
• http://www.geocentrism.com/
• [1], mentioned in IMDB as being directed by Katherine Thomas
• Discussion in which you mention Galileo Was Wrong as a book you helped produce
• Galileo Was Wrong, in which your name and picture appears at this link: http://www.galileowaswrong.com/galileowaswrong/conference.jpg and you gave a speech on "Introduction to the mechanics of Geocentrism."
• Catholic Truths, your blog from 2006-2008
• Amazon link to Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right, ISBN 978-0984185962, ISBN 978-0977964000.

I intend to use a little activism on my part unless you stop your campaign. I like to saw logs! (talk) 07:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I may be late to the game. User: Wyattmj has been blocked. I like to saw logs! (talk) 07:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I like to saw logs. Yes, I had already blocked Wyattmj indefinitely per the link posted by Lithopsian above. But you absolutely didn't waste your time researching this. Clearly we all need to look out for meatpuppets working either covertly or obviously to reinsert the same agenda. I appreciate the further links you provide. Bishonen | talk 15:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC).

Citations needed

We need to fill these citations. The page does not look good with them. I am partly at fault since I put them. A bad habit I got from an editor. Does anyone have any recommendations where I could look to fill these citations? Diamondadnrs (talk) 18:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I thought you added those as a joke. No? Just to make a point? I'll dig out some grade school history of astronomy books if you seriously think those statements need references, even though the subjects are covered in the linked Wikipedia articles. I'm sure those sections could be much improved by someone with the right background and interest. I only added them because you keep pasting the same discredited cookie-cutter text from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wyattmj/sandbox into this article and it was giving undue weight in a stub article to an issue that is barely relevant to the article. There are so many things that could and probably should be in the article, including serious cosmological models that entirely discard the Copernican principle, while the axis of evil is simply a flashy name for a side issue that got some mainstream press and came to the attention of special interest groups. Lithopsian (talk) 14:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Citations aren's usually needed for a summary paragraph under a list of main articles. The main articles are the references. Cullen328 answered a question today about sources in science articles that seems relevant to the discussions here:

"Especially for articles about science and medicine, secondary sources are preferred, such as review articles which evaluate and summarize large numbers of primary research articles. Primary research is not truly independent since it is written by the people who did the research. It is the later evaluation of that research by other experts with no vested interest in the outcome which provides the best referencing for this type of article. Overreliance on primary research would make it easier for editors pushing a certain point of view to cherry-pick sources to buttress their argument. We are supposed to summarize what a wide range of reliable sources say, and secondary sources also strive to do just that."

StarryGrandma (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

In the News...

It looks like our heated discussion of yesteryear was ahead of the game in some ways. I am not trying to add in a random "news" article just for fun. But here is an article written about some of the potential, uh, "issues" that "The Principle" (2014) (IMDB Link) has in regards to people "disavowing" the premise of the movie. Apparently the movie is not only about the theory being wrong (and thus controversial), there is growing concern that the people responsible for the movie's content (i.e. producer Rick DeLano) have caught other people involved unaware of its intent to present a theory incompatible with Copernicus. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark, or at least in and around the cosmic microwave background. I am guessing that the recent press and the impending release of the movie will renew interest in the Copernican theory. (-ies?)

I mainly wanted to forewarn people that this article could become heavily trafficked, edited, warred against, and quite a but difficult to handle. I am sounding the alarm. The next time you hear from me may be when I light one lantern if the Little Endians come, and two lanterns if the Big Endians come. I will see you in Lilliput. I like to saw logs! (talk) 05:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Wars likely at The Principle. Lithopsian (talk) 10:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Special alignment

Some anomalies in the background radiation have been reported which are aligned with the plane of the solar system, which contradicts the Copernican principle by suggesting that the solar system's alignment is special.[11]

In which source is being said that? I'm not en expert but newscientist says:

The "axis of evil" was identified by Planck's predecessor, NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP).The pattern of hot and cold variations in the CMB should be randomly distributed – and they are when comparing small patches of the universe. At larger scales, however, Planck reveals that one half of the universe has bigger variations than the other. Planck's detectors are over 10 times more sensitive and have about 2.5 times the angular resolution of WMAP's, giving cosmologists a much better look at this alignment. "We can be extremely confident that these anomalies are not caused by galactic emissions and not caused by instrumental effects, because our two instruments see very similar features," said Efstathiou.

So, what exactly indicates that our solar system's alignment is special? --Riddlemaster (talk) 19:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

More recent work indicates that this is an effect of contamination: [2]. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

You've linked to the wrong paper there... as far as I can see some issues haven't been entirely resolved but the sections were badly written so I'm not going to re-add them. ··gracefool💬 00:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Aristarchus

It has been pointed out that the Copernican revolution could just as well be called the Aristarchan revolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.92.129.194 (talk) 11:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

It could just as well be called the Pythagorean, Philolauan or Seleucan revolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.81.68.146 (talk) 12:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The End of Greatness

This article says "It becomes more and more homogeneous and isotropic when observed on larger and larger scales, with little detectable structure on scales of more than about 200 million parsecs.", but End of Greatness says "The End of Greatness is an observational scale discovered at roughly 100 Mpc (roughly 300 million lightyears) where the lumpiness seen in the large-scale structure of the universe is homogenized and isotropized in accordance with the Cosmological Principle." Which of these is correct, 100 Mpc or 200 Mpc? Sir Cumference π 18:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

You deleted my change erroneously. Please let us do not start a Revert War!

(copied from my talk page to be continued here) StarryGrandma (talk) 14:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC) I just noted that you deleted my informative change: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Copernican_principle&oldid=prev&diff=764123375

Yes, I didn't provide a cite. Your appropriate response would be, in decreasing order of preference: (1) To help Wikipedia by locating an appropriate citation and adding it. (2) To add a "citation needed" note. (3) To send a message to me, asking me to provide a cite. Not on the list is to delete my informative change without even notifying me, and thereby to degrade the quality of information at Wikipedia.

Just because I did not include a citation does not make my change incorrect!

To the contrary, I would be more inclined to take the time to hunt for a citation if I needn't worry about counterproductive edits such as yours.

Thanks in advance :-) Jamesdowallen (talk) 09:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

This happened back in February. If you had just put the material in I might have done so. But you removed part of a sentence and the two references supporting it, and replaced it with an unsupported statement. Your edit summary was Correct error. Remove dead and pay-per-view links. However the links were not dead and it does not matter if sources are behind a paywall. Most academic journals are behind a paywall. There was no need to remove what you did to add a sentence about Bruno. As to response, please read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. When reverted go to the talk page of the article and start a discussion. StarryGrandma (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

So because you disapproved of part of my edit, you also removed the factual correction I made to restore the old erroneous version. Got it.Jamesdowallen (talk) 11:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Jamesdowallen, you removed correct information with two references, calling it incorrect. This made it look like you were an editor making random changes and may have not known what you were doing. It happens to this article often. You did not provide any references for what you added. I reverted the change. The next step is up to you. If you want the information there, as you seem to, please provide a reference. Or come to this page to say why the information should be there without a reference. StarryGrandma (talk) 14:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

"may have not known what you were doing... I reverted the change." IOW you did exactly what you accuse me of; LOL. FWIW, I've seen the fact about Bruno that I added cited multiple places including ... wait for it! ... at Wikipedia's Giordano Bruno page itself where ... wait for it again! ... it appears without a cite. LOL. Jamesdowallen (talk) 14:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Could I remind everyone here to observe the WP:CIVIL policy to the letter. Whatever the facts of the case, we should avoid exclamatory remarks and personal criticism, however justified it may seem to be, and we can reach an appropriate consensus. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

No more attention needed?

Hello, I was looking at this article, and it seems to me that attention from an expert is no longer necessary. Thanks!

Sam-2727 (talk) 14:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)