E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Stars, galaxies and other stuff made of ordinary matter make up only a small percentage of everything that's in the universe. Based on detailed studies of galaxies and galaxy clusters, scientists say there's six times as much mass that we can't see directly. Instead, this mysterious dark matter is detected indirectly through its gravitational effect.
Now astronomers have put out a picture from the Hubble Space Telescope that reveals in detail where the dark matter lurks in a huge galaxy cluster known as Abell 1689.
The cluster, which is 2.2 billion light-years away in the constellation Virgo, serves as a gravitational lens for light coming toward us from even more distant galaxies. Like a funhouse mirror, the cluster's lens effect creates warps, magnifications and other distortions in the images of those galaxies. The Hubble team used software to analyze distortions in Hubble's view of 42 background galaxies -- and then reconstruct how much mass had to be concentrated where in order to create such distortions.
"The lensed images are like a big puzzle," Dan Coe of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory said in an online statement. "Here we have figured out, for the first time, a way to arrange the mass of Abell 1689 such that it lenses all of these background galaxies to their observed positions."
The map of dark matter, superimposed on the visible-light view of the galaxy cluster, raises new puzzles. The findings confirm that Abell 1689's core has much more dark matter than scientists would have expected for a cluster its size. At some point in the evolution of the universe, scientists believe another mysterious factor known as dark energy began driving galaxies apart -- effectively stunting the growth of all galaxy clusters.
"Galaxy clusters, therefore, would had to have started forming billions of years earlier in order to build up to the numbers we see today," Coe said in a Hubble news release. "At earlier times, the universe was smaller and more densely packed with dark matter. Abell 1689 appears to have been well-fed at birth by the dense matter surrounding it in the early universe. The cluster has carried this bulk with it through its adult life to appear as we observe it today."
The research team's findings on Abell 1689 have just been published in The Astrophysical Journal, and more revelations about the interplay of dark matter and dark energy could be on the way: Coe said more conclusive results are expected from a project called CLASH (Cluster Lensing And Supernova survey with Hubble). During the CLASH survey, the space telescope will study 25 galaxy clusters for a total of one month over the next three years.
More about dark matter:
- Has dark matter's destruction been detected?
- Galaxies unlock new secrets of dark matter
- Gallery: Dark matter revealed
- The darkest mystery of them all
- Search for dark matter on msnbc.com
In addition to Coe, authors of "The Highest Resolution Mass Map of Galaxy Cluster Substructure to Date Without Assuming Light Traces Mass: LensPerfect Analysis of Abell 1689" include Narciso Benitez, Tom Broadhurst, Leonidas Moustakas and Holland Ford.
Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page or following @b0yle on Twitter. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.
Leave a Comment:
Well done scientists! Imagine where science would be if the world had ten Hubble telescopes to use all at the same time. It's amazing how astronomers have to divvy up time on the space telescope.
Brilliant idea. I understand that a case for dark matter includes galaxies with stars observed to be revolving too fast to for the galaxy to hold together. Will this technique be used to project the distribution within and around these galaxies to view dark matter on a granular level?
PLEASE LISTEN, WORLD OF ASTROPHYSICS !!! I have been trying to explain this phenomena for years now. I personally think that the density of quantum free space actually varies, relative to its proximity to gravitational fields. I personally think that this actually is what is behind the so called "lensing effect", or gravitational distortion of light passing through these gravitational fields. But please allow me to digress for a moment, by way of explanation. To begin with, I tend to think that matter is composed of both quantum bound energy and quantum bound space, and when matter is converted to quantum free energy, matter is also converted to quantum free space. I personally believe that this is actually what is behind the inflation of our Universe. Everything in our Universe comes forth from the Universal Superparticle, which exploded previously in the course of the "Big Bang", and this even includes quantum free space. I also tend to believe that quantum free space possesses a minute mass as well, and even though this mass is extremely small, since there is so much quantum free space in our Universe, this is actually where most of the missing mass of our Universe resides. In follow up, this increased density of quantum free space around astronomical (gravitational) bodies is also responsible for the dark matter gravitational effect which you are observing, and in addition this increased density of quantum free space surrounding these astronomical (gravitational) bodies is also responsible for the "lensing effect". - Rick Carter
Rick's explanation is better if you ask me.
Is it really? Rick's explanation is gobbledygook, and is not scientific in the slightest. Real physics involves equations and quantification. General Relativity involves the application of differential geometry to the physical world. In doing so, Einstein found a set of 10 equations, contained in the aptly named Einstein tensor, that when solved yield a metric for spacetime. Physicists have applied Einstein's equations to many problems, including deflection of light around massive bodies (i.e. gravitational lensing), the precession of Mercury's perihelion, and gravitational redshift. GR has been confirmed time and again. If Rick wants to actually contradict Einstein, he needs to present a coherent theory that explains how to put a metric on 3+1 dimensional (or more) manifolds that describe spacetime. Until he does that, all he's doing is spouting meaningless words, and you should not believe his explanation to be better.
You guys are making things way too complicated. Look for simplicity. Here is an example:
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/10/01/5215017-scrunched-up-dimensions-untangled?threadId=1092183&commentId=18117687#c18117687
As for gravity, here is an example of something that has been overlooked:
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/09/16/5118339-visualize-future-spaceflight?threadId=1076574&commentId=17598040#c17598040
Rick - I agree. you can actually explain the effects of Big bang, inflation and can even predict the coming up "big rip".
AstroPhys1 - One needs to have an idea, a supposition of how something might work. This is called hypothesis. Once you have a hypothesis, you should try to explain the things you know how they work using this developed hypothesis. If this explanation works, you should proceed to explain things that haven't been yet understood. To quote you, Einstein did not have a mathematical model and he did not develop the mathematical model that came later.
With all the proven effects of the GR theory, you still cannot explain the boundary line about when exactly you should apply quantum physics/ Newtonian Physics and General theory of relativity. With Rick's theory, one actually has a shot at explaining these three theories as manifestations of a single principle and not three different rule systems.
kckkc is right, first you must have a theory/hypothesis and THEN you, or someone else who has the required skills, can work out the math and do the observations needed to prove or disprove said theory/hypothesis. Rick's theory neatly sums up a lot of things and is no more wrong than what the 'real' scientists have come up with.
What I find funny is that the 'dark matter' map looks amazingly like a super galaxy, or possibly like a single atom that is frozen in time to our perspective. Given that fractals seem to rule our universe this cluster could easily be an atom on a super scale which would mean that our universe is MUCH bigger than we could ever possibly conceive. If this is true then the picture of that atom would be, on it's own time scale, mere seconds or minutes away from it's version of the Big Bang on it's scale. Could it be that our own galaxies are nothing more than quarks on that super scale?? Galactic mergers would therefore be a sign of fusion happening, the original coming together of atoms in the first place. Just food for thought, at this point we really do not know.
My point was that Rick doesn't have a theory. He made up a lot of words that sound like physics but don't actually say anything. That's why I brought up the mathematics of General Relativity. Einstein had an idea and used math to describe it.
Rick is a complete fraud! You can make up words and say that your "theory" describes anything you want. While this may correspond to the lay idea of what physics it is, I assure you that it is not what doing physics is truly about. Until Rick demonstrates a self-consistent theory that is supported by a set of equations and actually explains observed phenomena, he has nothing. Physics is the application of math to the real world.
For the sake of example, please look at :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics_of_general_relativity
That is real physics.
AstroPhys1 : I totally agree. The problem in most of these comments is that most commentors have know idea what the Einstein Tensor (or even what a tensor is) is, what Minkowski spacetime is, or what Differential Geometry is, which I think is the coolest branch of Mathematics.
I will admit I have also thought about density of spacetime, but as I continued my thought process I always come back to Einstein's curved space. What I was doing was looking at a different perspective of the same condition. I did find a website with equations to explain the point of view, but in the end it was a more simplistic view of curved spacetime. What we as humans want to do when thinking about complex events is to simplify it. Even though Einstein developed the General and Special theories of Relativity, he could never accept the quantum theories which arose from his work. The complexities and probabilities were beyond what he could accept. So the point here is that simplification of a problem is not always the best solution, sometimes the beauty is in the complexity.
Blah, blah, quantum space time, blah, blah blah, free quantum gravity, blah, blah, blah, quantum quantities of quantum juice.
There. I explained it. Quantumtatively.
I still believe this so called "dark matter" is an aberration of gravity on the quantum level that we are yet unaware of. I'm just not convinced of this mysterious variation of matter.
Can we quit referring to it as "dark matter" and please refer to it as "matter of color"?
Exactly!
;)
This article's title is deceiving. They used gravitational distortions to calculate where the hypothetical dark matter might be if it actually exists. They didn't make anything visible. Apparently MSNBC did this, as the wording is not on the Hubble site. This muddies the truth on an important issue: why distant objects don't act according to our current understanding of gravity.
Yeah, I thought the LHC made some huge breakthrough or something. Oh well.
How about cinders of early condensed matter, those that never had enough mass to even form brown dwarfs. Most would just cool down and not be visable.
Maybe it's just massive amounts of nothing but uncoalesced space dust. When the theorists say thay can't "see" dark matter, what they really mean is that it doesn't emit light. The amount of light emitted by a galaxy or a star cluster is how they estimate it's mass. There could be plenty of other mass there which is in the form of nothing more mysterious than gas and rocks and dust and ice which has not formed into light emitting stars.
Tons of brown dwarfs could be a possible reservoir of such mass, but I'm supposing that it even more wide spread, not collected gravitationally into anything big at all. Just floating out there, loosely filling space at extremely low density, but given enough space, actually amounting to a substantial amount of mass.
This is analogous to the Oort cloud which surrounds our solar system; a loosely distributed collection of billions of relatively tiny cometary bodies, but which in total actually might contribute a fair amount of additional mass to our system. Anybody know the estimated total mass of the Oort cloud?
geniuses at work will not interrupt
my 2 cents, its in the book of Genesis, they called it , lets see if i get this right, "rokia"
The existence of dark matter is inferred mostly from the characteristics of galactic rotation: "most stars in spiral galaxies orbit at roughly the same speed. . . . These results suggest that either Newtonian gravity does not apply universally or that, conservatively, upwards of 50% of the mass of galaxies was contained in the relatively dark galactic halo. (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Galactic_rotation_curves )
No dark matter is needed, just an alternative conclusion: Stars in a galaxy do not "orbit" the central bulge. Their motion is NOT comparable to planetary orbits in a solar systems. This is a much different situation.
The other part is that "Newtonian gravity does not apply universally". Indeed, it does not. Newtonian gravitation applies only inside of what I call the "gravipause". See my comment at:
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/09/16/5118339-visualize-future-spaceflight?threadId=1076574&commentId=17598040#c17598040
Everytime I thought I escaped this it comes knocking at my door. The moment I thought would be forever is close and here again. I would have left it to your imagination or a score unsettled then. Maybe I could change your mind and you would go from wence you came. The shattered glass I broke before and had to drink from my hands. Its luck that meant to be so lost and left with still a plan. I am still at ease to see a fortune rose up in the sky Where all my dreams come splashing down into my little town. Its racing scenes of tortured moons and faster spinning lights Comes all to soon to meet its fight where there was never any doubt. The raptured tears that cannot speak out for lies they have told before It never was much of a sight to see it when they pour Give me darkness give me conciet and I will have the door And like the where about of matter I wont even care
Astrophysicists mistakenly believe that something akin to Dark Matter is necessary to explain the observed motions of galaxies because they continue to ignore the role of The Cosmic scale electric currents that course through the universe. Gravity is a far weaker player in comparison to the electric force, 39 orders of magnitude weaker! Giant Birkeland currents, unknown in the early days of cosmology are now imaged and evidenced everywhere, throughout the universe, the galaxy, solar system and, most importantly, in the lab. They are not hypothetical guesses, imaginary constructs; they're real and neatly predict and explain a host of observations that continue to 'surprise' and 'shock' mainstream astronomers who cling to the 'gravity only' Standard Models. These Models are still clinging on because their longevity has conferred the status of dogma upon them. To question Black Holes, the Big Bang, fairy dust Dark Matter, and Red Shift as a cosmological ruler is to commit professional suicide. Ask Halton Arp, Hubble's protege or Stephen Crothers, the Aussie dragon slayer of Black Hole mythology. The Gatekeepers of Orthodoxy will stop at nothing to nip in the bud and throttle investigative lines of inquiry that seek discover if there is observational evidence available for support of better models. If consensus science existed in the past as it does today, Copernicus would not get past a peer review committee and would still be scorned; the Ptolemaic system of epicenters would still reign supreme. Consider this from Wal Thornhill and the Electric Universe website:
"Almost the entire visible universe is composed of plasma—a gas where some of the atoms have lost an electron or two. However, unlike the gases we are familiar with on Earth, plasma reacts strongly to the presence of electromagnetic fields and is a better conductor than copper. Its behavior has been described as complex and “life-like.” That should be a clue! The universe is principally an electrical plasma phenomenon.
Electricity exists in space. Magnetic fields detected in space can only be generated by electric currents. Radio telescopes routinely map galactic magnetic fields and their field configuration matches that found in plasma cosmology experiments. If science were the advertised open pursuit of truth, we should expect big bang cosmologists to be rushing to the plasma labs. Not a bit of it. They are principally theoretical mathematicians. We strike the artificial modern barrier of specialism. The cultural historian, Jaques Barzun, defined specialism as “a piece of etiquette which decrees that no specialist shall bother with the concerns of another, lest he be thought intruding and be shown up as ignorant. Specialism is born of what the philosopher Arthur Balfour called ‘the pernicious doctrine that superficial knowledge is worse than no knowledge at all.’ Rampant specialism, an arbitrary and purely social evil, is not recognized for the crabbed guild spirit that it is, and few are bold enough to say that carving out a small domain and exhausting its soil affords as much chance for protected irresponsibility as for scientific thoroughness.” —Science: the glorious entertainment.
The plasma cosmologist Eric Lerner, author of The Big Bang never Happened, says “one of the most destructive features of the methodology of the big bang is that it conveys the idea that only people versed in extremely complicated mathematics can understand the universe… This is, of course, the argument of the emperor’s new clothes. If you can’t see the emperor’s new clothes you must be either stupid or incompetent.”
Engineers are neither stupid nor incompetent. Much of the hyped success of science over the last century can be attributed to engineers. And it is engineers who tend to prefer the real-world simplicity of the Electric Universe to the metaphysics of the big bang and black holes." http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=wxse6f8q
If you hold the scientific method to be sacred then spend some at this site, order some of the books and see the cosmos for the first time without the distortions of the Standard Model spoiling the view. Lots of exciting fun awaits. For instance, do you still think comets are dirty snowballs? Deep Impact 1 and 2, Comet Wild 2 and the Stardust mission should be sufficient to dissuade any rational person who doesn't have to worry about protecting funding and tenure, that Mr Whipple's Comet Theory should be consigned to the same destination as that which awaits the Charmin. I beg you, investigate with an open mind. There is so much that has been discovered and then promptly and completely misinterpreted. Straightening it out is certainly challenging, even a little scary perhaps but, very rewarding.
There are those who literally cannot see that which they do not already believe. They are not, and can never be, scientists. Then there are those who can and do see with their own eyes and form their own conclusions. They can see when the Emperor's new suit is woven out of 'Dark Matter.' Which are you?
Enjoy the Ride,
Mike Morris
Mike : Yes there is plasma in the universe and yes there are magnetic and electric fields in the universe. But the plasma will have to have an energy source nearby to maintain the energies needed to keep the plasma state. Away from the energy source, the plasma would quickly cool to one of the other states of matter. Either way the matter that we are talking about is considered the "visible" matter since it radiates some electromagnetic radiation and is included in the 20% mark of total matter in the universe. It is however an interesting topic which begs the question, does it have a role in galaxy formation? I don't have an answer and there may not be enough information to answer the question.
"Gravity is a far weaker player in comparison to the electric force" is true for small scales. But as mass increases so does the force of gravity. Using Newton's formula for gravity F = (G * M1 * M2) / r^2, where G is the gravitational constant, M1, M2 is the mass if the two objects and r is distance, the formula shows that if you increase the mass the force becomes greater. For extremely massive objects, Einstein's formulas are better suited. For masses over 10 solar masses, there comes a time when the outbound energy is overcome by the gravitational collapse, hence a blackhole. The cool thing is that the magnetic field of the original star remains after the blackhole is created. So what is maintaining the magnetic field? Is there an electric current within the blackhole? Does the magnetic field weaken as the blackhole grows in strength? Or is the magnetic field a result of maintaining entropy in our universe?
The fabric of time space is far more intricate than we could ever imagine . Cosmic spandex.
What I am proposing is merely a preliminary hypothesis, especially since I cannot prove anything yet, but personally I tend to think that light is actually refracted around stars by the increasing density gradient of quantum free space, which in turn corresponds to the gravitational gradient which surrounds these stars. Maybe someone else can provide the mathematical 'nuts and bolts' to go along with this hypothesis, for me right now it is mostly my instincts telling me this. I also think quantum bound space is key to understanding the basic internal makeup of matter, particularly the concepts of mass and inertia. By the way, if quantum free space actually does possess a minute mass, then it is potentially a media which we can interact with in a propulsion way. Something which I will continue to ponder at least, while I keep trying to get all my "pins up in the air". - Rick Carter
I also believe I understand the basic nature of gravity as well, although I cannot express it mathematically yet, either. I personally believe the force of gravity is generated by two (or more) gravitational fields seeking to unify themselves with each other, and in the process of unifying themselves with each other, they also unify their related matter, which in turn is responsible for generating these gravitational fields. This tendency of all gravity fields to unify themselves with each other is simply the result of the Universe's tendency to return to its pre-expansion state. I also tend to think that gravitational fields are fourth dimensional fields as well, for whatever it is worth. Maybe someone else can also eventually provide the mathematical "nuts and bolts" to go along with this preliminary hypothesis someday. Once again it is simply my instincts kicking in, as I keep trying to get all my "pins up in the air". - Rick Carter
Our sun expels approximately 6.7 billion tons per hour via its solar wind. Solar explosions expel large masses. It is likely much mass created during the big bang never accreted into solar or other dense (luminescent) bodies. Given only these mechanisms, it is not difficult to understand that a large mass exists beyond our ability to sense.
Yep. Dark matter = nothin' more mysterious than unaccreted space dust.
By the way, it is also perfectly clear to me that we live in a closed system (finite), curved space Universe, since we can potentially look out in any direction from here on Earth, and if we look out and back (in time) far enough, then we are always looking out and back (in time) to the very same point in space and time, which in turn is the (original "Big Bang") origin of our Universe. By the way, I also tend to think that the original "Big Bang" explosion was generated by a collossal matter / antimatter reaction, which in turn was generated by a partial or incomplete inversion of the Universal Superparticle. When this collossal matter /antimatter "Big Bang" explosion took place, I also tend to think that the missing antimatter of our Universe was blown down into the bottom of a Universal Black Hole, and that dark spot out in space where there are no stars are visible may actually be the (closest) direction to this Universal Black Hole. (What can I say, these are my instincts kicking in, partly based on the work previously done by others.) - Rick Carter
the universe and us are a video game of the GODS. Much like we can create a X-Box video game with a map that goes onto infinity, the gods have created our universe of infinity. We are a mere character in the game not being controlled by the god directly. Things that dont seem to follow the equations is a meer clitch in the video game.
BTW, I also tend to think after very careful reflection (not to mention juggling, too!)) that our closed system (finite) Universe is actually a contiguum, and not a continuum, which simply means that time only exists in our Universe as a single moment, the moment "NOW", and that time in our Universe is actually a (3D) chain reaction of contiguous moments, sort of like the frames or images on a TV screen or movie. Because of this I also tend to believe that our Universe is dimensionally dependent on a higher outside reality or space (which BTW probably is a continuum), for which I personally like to use the widely accepted term "hyperspace". I have no idea how many other closed system (finite) Universes might be floating around in that external 'hyperspace', but I am hoping that one day we may be able to launch up into that hyperspace as a fast way of getting around our closed system (finite) Universe, the way that we can now launch up into outerspace as a fast way of getting around our closed system finite world. I really would like to think that this may be possible one day, because if we statistically allow for just 200 to 400 advanced civilizations in our Milky Way galaxy, then our (observable) Universe could easily contain as many as 20 to 40 TRILLION advanced civilizations, many of whom I hope we will become trading partners with some day. (Just call me a "positive" thinker.) - Rick Carter
PS - Please forgive me if I try to go too far. I guess I just take after my family name, "Carter". (i.e., somewhere long ago we used to 'cart' for a living.) - Rick Carter
Loki0124 wrote:
your cart appears to be empty....
______________________________________________
That's because you are looking at the hole and not the do-"NUT". (I tend to think we "carters" spent a whole lot of time staring at the stars at night, while the horsey found its own way.)
everything between the ears, is dark matter . more funding for nomatter.
(Sorry, I am just "picking the lint out of my belly button" while I reflect on these things. I have been known to do that on occasion.)
Just in case most everyone out there thinks I have completely gone off the 'deep end', I might as well help them to resolve their doubts, by (accommodatingly) taking a flying leap into the great unknown. Believe it or not, I have recently begun to consider the possibility that ALL (yes, that is right, I said ALL) mass to energy conversion is actually the result of a matter / antimatter reaction. This would actually include all the nuclear energy generated by ordinary stars as well.
Someone wise once said, "It is better to be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."