The discovery, led by a University of Michigan physics researcher, confirms a key prediction in the prevailing theory of how the universe’s current web-like structure evolved.
The map of the known universe shows that most galaxies are organized into clusters, but some galaxies are situated along filaments that connect the clusters. Cosmologists have theorized that dark matter undergirds those filaments, which serve as highways of sorts, guiding galaxies toward the gravitational pull of the massive clusters. Dark matter’s contribution had been predicted with computer simulations, and its shape had been roughed out based on the distribution of the galaxies. But no one had directly detected it until now.
“We found the dark matter filaments. For the first time, we can see them,” said Jörg Dietrich, a physics research fellow in the University of Michigan College of Literature, Science and the Arts. Dietrich is first author of a paper on the findings published online in Nature and to appear in the July 12 print edition.
Dark matter, whose composition is still a mystery, doesn’t emit or absorb light, so astronomers can’t see it directly with telescopes. They deduce that it exists based on how its gravity affects visible matter. Scientists estimate that dark matter makes up more than 80 percent of the universe. To “see” the dark matter component of the filament that connects the clusters Abell 222 and 223, Dietrich and his colleagues took advantage of a phenomenon called gravitational lensing.
The gravity of massive objects such as galaxy clusters acts as a lens to bend and distort the light from more distant objects as it passes. Dietrich’s team observed tens of thousands of galaxies beyond the supercluster. They were able to determine the extent to which the supercluster distorted galaxies, and with that information, they could plot the gravitational field and the mass of the Abell 222 and 223 clusters. Seeing this for the first time was “exhilarating,” Dietrich said.
“It looks like there’s a bridge that shows that there is additional mass beyond what the clusters contain,” he said. “The clusters alone cannot explain this additional mass,” he said.
Scientists before Dietrich assumed that the gravitational lensing signal would not be strong enough to give away dark matter’s configuration. But Dietrich and his colleagues focused on a peculiar cluster system whose axis is oriented toward Earth, so that the lensing effects could be magnified.
“This result is a verification that for many years was thought to be impossible,” Dietrich said when we spoke with him at a local green coffee shop.
The team also found a spike in X-ray emissions along the filament, due to an excess of hot, ionized ordinary matter being pulled by gravity toward the massive filament, but they estimate that 90 percent or more of the filament’s mass is dark matter.
The researchers used data obtained with the Subaru telescope, operated by the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan. They also used the XMM-Newton satellite for X-ray observations. This work is funded by the National Science Foundation and NASA. Other contributors are from the Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology at Stanford University; Ohio University; Max Planck Institut für extraterrestrische Physik in Germany; The University of Edinburgh and the University of Oxford.
The paper is titled “A filament of dark matter between two clusters of galaxies.” Read the text at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature11224.html.
###
A filament of dark matter between two clusters of galaxies
Jörg P. Dietrich, Norbert Werner, Douglas Clowe, Alexis Finoguenov, Tom Kitching, Lance Miller &Aurora Simionescu
- Nature 487, 202–204 (12 July 2012) doi:10.1038/nature11224
- Received 25 January 2012 Accepted 11 May 2012 Published online 04 July 2012
It is a firm prediction of the concordance cold-dark-matter cosmological model that galaxy clusters occur at the intersection of large-scale structure filaments1. The thread-like structure of this ‘cosmic web’ has been traced by galaxy redshift surveys for decades2, 3. More recently, the warm–hot intergalactic medium (a sparse plasma with temperatures…
@Alexander Feht:
One more thing: “Asking” your “opponent” Leif questions, while at the same time insulting him, is a real classy debating strategy. Leif extended much more courtesy to you by at least trying to answer questions, then is warranted by your ignoramus behavior. Do you want to understand and learn? At least try to understand, at least try to ask qualified questions. Or do you want to be a rigorous debate heckler? Then carry on as you do.
kuhnkat says:
July 14, 2012 at 12:37 am
But Leif, you assured me that magnetic fields “out there” are FROZEN IN the plasma.somehow. (I don’t remember the explanation of how that happens or is retained.)
If you change the magnetic field that creates a current, which itself has a magnetic field opposite to the change cancelling the change, so the net result is that the magnetic field cannot change.
So, if the magnetic field is frozen in how can it be changing to create a current???
There are no currents in a uniform plasma. But if plasmas with different properties are adjacent to each other, e.g. have magnetic fields in opposite directions, currents arise at the interface.
You still are ignoring the simple fact that current is the movement of charged particles in a general direction. This will create a magnetic field.
A plasma is electrically neutral so no currents flow in any direction. To maintain a current you need to separate particles with different charge. Then the current will flow to equalize the charges [which stops the current – it is called a short circuit]. You need a magnetic field to separate the charges.
I keep thinking Chicken and Egg!! Except, we don’t need a magnetic field to create ions or a charge do we??
There is sort of a chicken and egg thing. You do not need a magnetic field to create ions or changes. Heating the matter will ionize the matter [e.g. in the Sun when it was initially heated by gravitational contraction and now by nuclear fusion].
Can we create a magnetic field, frozen in or not, without current or charge??
That is indeed a fundamental question. Who laid the first egg? There is a process called the Biermann Battery Effect [see link upthread] that can create a very weak magnetic field, which then by dynamo processes can be amplified.
brokenyogi says:
July 14, 2012 at 3:31 am
It takes finely tuned atomic clocks to notice these distortions.
An experiment that has actually been done is to fly two atomic clocks in opposite directions around the Earth. When they land and compare the time measured by the clocks, the distortion is seen and agrees with the theory: “Hafele and Keating, in 1971, flew caesium atomic clocks east and west around the Earth in commercial airliners, to compare the elapsed time against that of a clock that remained at the US Naval Observatory. Two opposite effects came into play. The clocks were expected to age more quickly (show a larger elapsed time) than the reference clock, since they were in a higher (weaker) gravitational potential for most of the trip (c.f. Pound, Rebka). But also, contrastingly, the moving clocks were expected to age more slowly because of the speed of their travel. From the actual flight paths of each trip, the theory predicted that the flying clocks, compared with reference clocks at the U.S. Naval Observatory, should have lost 40+/-23 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and should have gained 275+/-21 nanoseconds during the westward trip. Relative to the atomic time scale of the U.S. Naval Observatory, the flying clocks lost 59+/-10 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and gained 273+/-7 nanoseconds during the westward trip”
@kuhnkat:
You got me. God created a electric universe. He has a giant battery that keeps it all running. It’s that simple. I give up.The EU created by god explains all the observations very neatly. Thank you for point out the obvious. I can now see the light.
(BTW: Everybody can learn something from your use of punctuation marks while hyper-ventilating during a discussion of the physical properties of the universe.)
Tony Mach says:
July 14, 2012 at 6:21 am
@kuhnkat: You got me. God created a electric universe. He has a giant battery that keeps it all running.
There are probably people who believe just that.
Dr.S.
Either relativistic factors making the gravity constant G cancel out , alternatively the constant itself is subject to relativistic treatment, in which case I suggest to consider this calculation .
vukcevic says:
July 14, 2012 at 7:06 am
Either relativistic factors making the gravity constant G cancel out…
Spare us.
There’s another reason it would be near impossible to detect DM in the local solar system. If you look at the very first diagram of DM density variations, on the scale of the embedded galaxy, it shows little variation — the highest density area is much larger than the galaxy-speck in the center. This means our solar system has about the same DM in all directions. Like the center of the sun, you would feel little or no gravity effects being near/in the center of DM mass.
Ah, well, obviously a no go area.
beng says:
July 14, 2012 at 7:25 am
There’s another reason it would be near impossible to detect DM in the local solar system.
The Sun could have collected dark matter through its 5-billion yr travels through the Galaxy. Such DM might have a second order effect on the neutrino production: e.g. http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2010/sep/10/searching-the-sun-for-dark-matter
vukcevic says:
July 14, 2012 at 7:33 am
Ah, well, obviously a no go area.
It is not that, but simply that you are wrong from the outset, e.g. assuming galaxies move [apart from small local movement due to mutual – non relativistic – gravitational effects]. They do not move at all. Space is expanding.
brokenyogi says:
July 14, 2012 at 3:08 am
“There must already be a force beneath your rubber sheet acting on the target body to cause it to roll “downhill”
“Gravity is most certainly a force. Relativity did not alter that basic understanding. It merely says that it is a force which curves space in the process of attracting mass. The greater the force, the greater the curvature, and the greater the acceleration. They all go together.”
Gravity is, indeed, listed as one of the 4 fundamental forces along with electromagnetc, strong nuclear and weak nuclear, its nature, however is that mass curves space, not gravity, which cause particles which are moving to move in a straight line though that line is curved due to curved space. Perhaps a subtle difference. I am sure there is someone out there who will correct me if I am wrong on this interpretation of relativity.
Leif,
I say “math model” since we cannot see the entire universe and cannot therefore observe all of the baryonic matter nor can we see all of the dark baryonic matter such as brown dwarfs, etc. So, your “observation” is actually an estimate based upon a less than complete observation. Another math model, though very simplisticand non algorithmic in nature.
Gary Pearse says:
July 13, 2012 at 11:29 am
…
Would you not agree that there are physicists not willfully ignorant who have issues with dark matter? Was dark matter not postulated because the essentially Newtonian (lets gratuitously throw in: “and Einsteinian”, as is the usual form) gravity could not account for such things as the velocity of the outer spiral arms and other observed discrepancies? Could there be something not right about our idea of gravity – must we enshrine the 100yr old idea in platinum for all time? Gentlemen, no matter how you twist and dance, DM is a mathematical patch on a not-fully-satisfactory theory. Is it legitimate to look for this DM to perserve what we believe about gravity? Yes, of course it is. Is it legitimate to consider the possibility that we have an incomplete or incorrect theory of gravity – that the masters were not infallible. Which is the job of a good skeptic when such a “discovery” is made.
A true skeptic is skeptical of every theory. “Their” theory. “Our” theory. “My” theory.
So let’s see:
1. The Dark Matter theory
There is something that acts in some aspects like “matter”, but not in all aspects.
Some observations differ from our understanding of physics without “dark matter”. The DM theory explains most of these observations reasonably well.
And we don’t know yet “what” Dark Matter is (if it is a form of “matter”).
2. MOND (modified newtonian dynamics)
Some observations differ from our understanding of physics without “MOND”. MOND explains some of these observations, but can’t account for others.
3. Electric Universe or some other Creationism outflow
Looks a lot like post-hoc magical thinking.
.
So as skeptic I would say DM looks most promising, matches reality the best, but is most certainly not settled. MOND is an interesting exercise, but looks a lot like epicycles in the geocentric model – add-ons to save the old theories. EU and all others are just magical thinking, to give god his place in the grand scheme.
So an skeptic would be foremost skeptical of EU, then of MOND and then of DM – a contrarian on the other hand would be attack DM. So what is your position on EU? Have you challenged those promoting EU here?
Jim G says:
July 14, 2012 at 8:10 am
I say “math model” since we cannot see the entire universe and cannot therefore observe all of the baryonic matter nor can we see all of the dark baryonic matter such as brown dwarfs, etc. So, your “observation” is actually an estimate based upon a less than complete observation. Another math model, though very simplisticand non algorithmic in nature.
First, the observable universe is all we can ever be concerned with. Second, there is an important assumption: the laws of physics are the same everywhere. If you don’t believe that, anything goes.
You misunderstand the baryonic point. We deduce from several lines of observations that dark matter is not baryonic, hence brown dwarfs, snowballs in space, what have you, do not play a role.
As to math models: all our understanding is expressed in mathematics that allows us to calculate consequences of the understanding. If you can’t do that, it is not understanding.
While we are at it: Any god worth his (or her) salt would have long ago struck down all those presumptuous creationists who think they have to misrepresent the facts of reality (as discovered by observation) in order give god “his” place. Who do you think you are that you have god a place? How presumptuous is that?
If there is a discoverable “signature” from god, something god intended us to find – let’s say god’s EU battery – then we will find it. If there is not such a signature, if god wants to keep his way mysterious, then why do creationists always try to misrepresent reality? Since when is lying about reality a form of praise of god?
Tony Mach says:
July 14, 2012 at 8:31 am
If there is a discoverable “signature” from god, something god intended us to find – let’s say god’s EU battery – then we will find it. If there is not such a signature, if god wants to keep his way mysterious…
he does not:
“The heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork. (Psalms 19:1).”
But dragging god[s] into the discussion is not very useful.
And I forgot one thing:
4. Being skeptical of the observations
Of course the measurements could be wrong. Or our interpretations of them. But I’m afraid they are too numerous. And different type of measurements come to the same results. Results that don’t match a our understanding of the world without DM, MOND or any other modification.
So while the will see more measurement with (hopefully) new results that shine a light on new aspects, I think the ship has sailed to doubt the observations.
5. Some outfield theory, that has nothing to do with a new form of “matter” or a modification of gravity
Sure, it’s possible. Until someone formulates such a theory, and until it matches the observations better the DM or MOND, until then this is dreaming of the tooth fairy…
Well let us deduce, Moving charged particles create magnetic fields, Magnetic fields further amplify the electrical field thru the Lorentz force.
“The magnetic moment of the neutron comes from the spins of the individual quarks and their orbital motions.”
It is the moving electrical charge which creates the magnetic field. No fundamental particles moving equals no magnetic field.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force
Significance of the Lorentz force
While the modern Maxwell’s equations describe how electrically charged particles and currents or moving charged particles give rise to electric and magnetic fields, the Lorentz force law completes that picture by describing the force acting on a moving point charge q in the presence of electromagnetic fields. Leif, you are trying to put the Lorentz force as the primary mover, when the Lorentz force only applies after a magentic field has formed due to electric current. How do charged particles move? By the attractive or repulsive force of the electric charge. No magnetism is required in a plasma to separate charges, charges do that all by themselves. Doubt that, rub a glass rod with silk, you are separating electric charges, no magnetic field required, only movement, and everything in the universe is moving. The magnetic field only confines particles into a spiral orbit, hence the basic shape of galaxies. It causes things to spiral perpendicular to the electric force. Your own textbooks tell you this. This is why I use “YOUR” textbook descriptions and “YOUR” standard cosmology definitions written by standard cosmologists. You claim I am cutting and pasting, this is because you still do not understand the textbooks those that support standard cosmology wrote.
As for expanding space Einstein deduced his relativistic formulas from the idea that space was static, not expanding. You then take these static formulas and try to impinge them upon an expanding universe and giant gaps are left which you then plug with Dark Matter and Dark Energy. The fact is that all galaxies are in clusters because all galaxies that are a part of a cluster were once one object. This is why your misinterpretation of how the universe formed all point back to one place, which is termed the finger of God. Galaxies eject quasars and proto-galaxies along their polar planes. This is why all galaxy clusters are spread along a line like a string of lights. Not one or two, every single one. All galaxies of a cluster are within a 20 degree arc from the parent galaxies polar axis.
The Birkeland currents extend from these polar axis, the path taken by galactic jets. The magnetic field is ALWAYS perpendicular to the electric force, this is why galaxies have overall spiral shapes, as magnetism causes particles to spiral perpendicular to the electric current. The electrons spiraling in the magnetic fields give off synchrotron radiation (x-rays and gamma rays) because the magnetic field as we have found from the Lorentz force causes further excitation of the charged particles.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/04/02/galactic-umbilicus-2/
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2011/12/29/power-lines/
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/05/18/6517/
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/04/19/dark-and-dead/
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/04/22/update-dark-matter-recreations-part-one/
The evidence and data is there is one but opens their eyes and looks.
Steven says:
July 14, 2012 at 8:48 am
Well let us deduce
You do not deduce, you regurgitate.
This is what EU has to say:
“Any ions and electrons in the vicinity, for example, in the ionosphere, will therefore acquire velocities perpendicular to both B and g under the combined influence of gravity and the magnetic field. Because the velocities of ions and electrons are in opposite directions, this is equivalent to a current flowing in a ring around the equatorial plane.”
So, the current is created from the magnetic field and gravity.
And nowhere does EU provide any numbers deduced from the ‘theory’. Real science is real, because we can calculate the effects of our theories. So, provide some numbers.
Leif Svalgarrd,
You ontinue to blow right by your own faulty picture of magnetic fields in space so I will go over this basic scenarion, so basic that even I understand.
You say the magnetic field is FROZEN IN the plasma. You are telling me the Plasma holds or produces the magnetic field. The plasma as a whole does not do that. The particles making up the plasma does that. Those particles are constantly in motion.
You have sections of Plasma with Frozen in Magnetic fields moving in relation to each other. What produces current Leif?? You yourself stated the magnetic fields moving against each other produce current. yet you continue to insist there are no electrical currents in space. you tell me all the basics needed to produce a current and then deny there is one.
Sorry Leif, you really should give up and accept what basic physics tell you will happen.
Maybe you should go over to Miles Mathis site and discuss it with someone who actually can show you the math instead of trying to convince bozos like me.
Like most you start from the assumption that charges need separation. Plasma by definition is a charge separated medium. It is your basic premise that is incorrect. Charge separation already exists as 99.999% of the universe is plasma. The real question you should be trying to discover is how separate charges are combined.
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/040803charge-space.htm
Steven says:
July 14, 2012 at 9:09 am
Like most you start from the assumption that charges need separation. Plasma by definition is a charge separated medium
Not at all. Plasma is neutral, any charge separation is immediately snuffed out due to the very high conductivity.
“Definition of a plasma [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics) ]:
Plasma is loosely described as an electrically neutral medium of positive and negative particles (i.e. the overall charge of a plasma is roughly zero)”
Steven says:
July 14, 2012 at 9:09 am
[…]
“So, the current is created from the magnetic field and gravity” as per EU theory.
I have given you this link at least 5 times, You want numbers, read them. there are so many peer-reviewed papers with links to other papers, published textbook explanations and formulas on this website beyond counting. But you must first click on a link to one of those articles that will give you references to the papers and all the numbers you want. I’ve shown by your very own theories what you say can not be. if you want to learn, read, I wont do your learning for you, nor will I try to explain again for the 10th time why a neutron with a magnetic moment left your theorists with no choice but to declare it was NOT a fundamental particle because it apparently HAD a magnetic moment without charge. So they then went looking for the original cause of the magnetic moment. Why would they be looking for charge that caused the magnetic moment if it was magnetic moments that caused charge?????
http://www.plasma-universe.com/Special:Allpages
It was once believed that protons and neutrons were fundamental particles and a force was needed to explain how positive protons could stay together and not fly apart, so the strong force was postulated as this force. It was discovered in later years that they were not fundamental particles, but were composed of quarks controlled by the Color Charge force. The strong force was then considered a sub-field of the Color Charge field.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_interaction
“Before the 1970s, physicists were uncertain about the binding mechanism of the atomic nucleus. It was known that the nucleus was composed of protons and neutrons and that protons possessed positive electric charge while neutrons were electrically neutral. However, these facts seemed to contradict one another. By physical understanding at that time, positive charges would repel one another and the nucleus should therefore fly apart. However, this was never observed. New physics was needed to explain this phenomenon.
A stronger attractive force was postulated to explain how the atomic nucleus was bound together despite the protons’ mutual electromagnetic repulsion. This hypothesized force was called the strong force, which was believed to be a fundamental force that acted on the nucleons (the protons and neutrons that make up the nucleus). Experiments suggested that this force bound protons and neutrons together with equal strength.
It was later discovered that protons and neutrons were not fundamental particles, but were made up of constituent particles called quarks. The strong attraction between nucleons was the side-effect of a more fundamental force that bound the quarks together in the protons and neutrons. The theory of quantum chromodynamics explains that quarks carry what is called a color charge, although it has no relation to visible color. Quarks with unlike color charge attract one another as a result of the strong interaction, which is mediated by particles called gluons.”
As we delve deeper we find this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluon
“Gluons ( /ˈɡluːɒnz/; from English glue) are elementary particles that act as the exchange particles (or gauge bosons) for the strong force between quarks, analogous to the exchange of photons in the electromagnetic force between two charged particles.
Since quarks make up the baryons and the mesons, and the strong interaction takes place between baryons and mesons, one could say that the color force is the source of the strong interaction, or that the strong interaction is like a residual color force that extends beyond the baryons, for example when protons and neutrons are bound together in a nucleus.”
So ” one could say that the color force is the source of the strong interaction,” and to be considered a fundamental force ” In particle physics, fundamental interactions (sometimes called interactive forces or fundamental forces) are the ways that elementary particles interact with one another. An interaction is fundamental when it cannot be described in terms of other interactions.”
Its was first wrongly asserted that the protons and neutrons were fundamental particles and governed by the strong force, then when Color Charge was found, the strong force became a sub-filed of this force. In effect the strong force can know be described in terms of the Color Charge, so it no longer can claim fundamental force status. Yet you to this day call it a fundamental force, when in reality it is the color charge of the fundamental particles that governs the atom.
As for Color charge we read:
Since gluons carry colour charge, two gluons can also interact. A typical interaction vertex (called the three gluon vertex) for gluons involves g+g→g. This is shown here, along with its colour line representation. The colour-line diagrams can be restated in terms of conservation laws of colour; however, as noted before, this is not a gauge invariant language. Note that in a typical non-Abelian gauge theory the gauge boson carries the charge of the theory, and hence has interactions of this kind; for example, the W boson in the electroweak theory. In the electroweak theory, the W also carries electric charge, and hence interacts with a photon.
Every single math you use basis itself on the charge of the particle, not its magnetic moment. Shall we now discuss the photon, the particle that defines velocity and time in relativity????