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…
Steven says:
July 16, 2012 at 8:34 pm
How are separate charges combined to form the very structure we see around us.
When the universe was formed it became a plasma because it was very hot. A dense plasma is opaque to electromagnetic radiation, so we can’t look back into the universe at that time. Because of the expansion of space, the temperature was steadily falling. Once the temperature fell below 3000 degrees [which happened when the universe was 377,000 years old], atomic hydrogen is rapidly formed by combination of protons and electrons [conversely, if you heat neutral hydrogen atoms in the laboratory you’ll find that the atoms disassociate [become ionized] when the temperature exceeds 3000 degrees]. Atomic hydrogen does not interact strongly with electromagnetic radiation and is thus transparent, so all the sudden the universe went from being opaque to being transparent. That is: all the plasma disappeared and there was no plasma in the universe for the next several hundred million years, until the first stars had formed and ionized the surrounding hydrogen atoms back into protons and electrons. Even though high-density plasma is opaque, the density of plasma between the stars in the universe is so low [because of the expansion of space] that for all intents and purposes the universe remained transparent [we can see the galaxies]. Computer simulations show how gravity condenses matter into filaments and sheets surrounding huge voids with almost no matter. Such begins the greatest story ever told.
OK.
But if that scenario happened (all of the known universe expanding from one point to a cool plasma below 3000 degree between t=0.0 and t=3.7 x 10^5 years), then all of the mass of the universe must be inside that radius at that point in time.
What velocity are “they” (conventional BB theory proponents) using to assume all of the mass of every galaxy, black hole, brown dwarf, and all interstellar dust and matter we know of now) is far enough apart to be individual atoms (protons and neutrons and electrons) yet still close enough together to become electrically neutral?
Projecting that velocity from t=3.7 x10^5 years to now, does it match the current assumed radius to the edge of the known universe?
RACookPE1978 says:
July 16, 2012 at 10:16 pm
What velocity are “they” (conventional BB theory proponents) using to assume all of the mass of every galaxy, black hole, brown dwarf, and all interstellar dust and matter we know of now) is far enough apart to be individual atoms (protons and neutrons and electrons) yet still close enough together to become electrically neutral?
Even you can easily determine that. The temperature of the CMB is now 3 degrees, when it was 3000 degrees, the universe was 1000 [=3000/3] times denser. The density now between the stars is lower than in the best vacuum we can make in the laboratory. Even a density 1000 times larger is still lower than the best vacuum, so no problems there.
RACookPE1978 says:
July 16, 2012 at 10:16 pm
yet still close enough together to become electrically neutral?
I should expand on that. The electric attraction is incredibly strong between protons and electrons so that they can easily find each other. There are no neutrons left. A neutron only lives for about 1000 seconds.
You can see how we compute the primordial Helium content [and what effect the short life of neutrons has on that] here: http://www.leif.org/research/Helium.pdf
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 16, 2012 at 10:24 pm
the universe was 1000 [=3000/3] times denser.
Haste is waste. The linear extent was a 1000 times smaller, so the density is 1000^3 = a billion times higher, on par with the best vacuum etc…
johnnythelowery says:
July 16, 2012 at 8:22 pm
Leif: While we are here….did ‘we’ (you) ever hear back on this iosotope decay pattern of 33 days data from Brookhaven?? Anything going on with this inquiry?? have you heard anything??
Yes, Sturrock gave a seminar at Stanford last week. He has a paper coming out soon. The data is weak, but it is OK to speculate.
———————————————
Wow. Really? Thought i’d go into the bin along with that super-luminous Alpine stuff. The fact that Sturrock is sticking to his guns is interesting. Look forward to the paper and then the thread here . Of course, ……..it’s a big nod to EU. Just kidding.
Did you go to the presentation?? What do you think of this observation?? Neutrino to the fore?? as entanglement is too weak over those distances as you explained last time this came up.
johnnythelowery says:
July 17, 2012 at 9:06 am
Did you go to the presentation??
Yes, Peter is a good friend of mine and I always go to his talks.
What do you think of this observation??
I’m a true skeptic 🙂 but as always, I have an open mind and will not dismiss speculation when it is labeled as such.
Neutrino to the fore??
Here is the abstract of his paper:
This article presents a comparative analysis of solar activity data, Mt Wilson diameter data, Super-Kamiokande solar neutrino data, and nuclear decay data acquired at the Lomonosov Moscow State University (LMSU). We propose that salient periodicities in all of these datasets may be attributed to r-mode oscillations. Periodicities in the solar activity data and in Super-Kamiokande solar neutrino data may be attributed to r-mode oscillations in the known tachocline, with normalized radius in the range 0.66 to 0.74, where the sidereal rotation rate is in the range 13.7 to 14.6 per year. We propose that periodicities in the Mt Wilson and LMSU data may be attributed to similar r-mode oscillations where the sidereal rotation rate is approximately 12.0 per year, which we attribute to a hypothetical “inner” tachocline separating a slowly rotating core from the radiative zone. We also discuss the possible role of the RSFP (Resonant Spin Flavor Precession) process, which leads to estimates of the neutrino magnetic moment and of the magnetic field strength in or near the solar core.
V. interesting. Was there a Q&A. Did it go down well?? I’m hoping you’ll post a thread on it here @ur momisugly WUWT when the time is right. Hopefully there are some particle physicists here but i predict the EU guys will go beserk with references to ‘slowly (slower) rotating core’ etc.
I’m sure Stanford doesn’t record these things and post online. Thanks for responding.
johnnythelowery says:
July 17, 2012 at 1:51 pm
Did it go down well??
I don’t think anybody was convinced, but now and them it is good to speculate and Peter is well-respected.
I predict the EU guys will go beserk with references to ‘slowly (slower) rotating core’ etc.
Probably not, as Sturrock relies on a high-temperature solar interior producing neutrinos, while EU postulates that the Sun is cold on the inside and that the neutrinos are produced at the surface [go figure]. But it is a waste of time to discuss with those people as every attempt to educate them falls on barren ground.
Your pattern of isotope decay is caused by the same force that causes what you tern Neutron stars. Just not in the way you like to explain them. Stars spinning at over 50,000 rpm, come on guys. It is an oscillation in the galactic circuits. That is the frequency of the oscillation for the sun, 28 to 33 days depending on accuracy, and current varies, and milliseconds for the neutron star.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_oscillator
more precisely it is a Relaxation oscillator.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relaxation_oscillator
Steven says:
July 17, 2012 at 5:04 pm
Your pattern of isotope decay is caused by the same force that causes what you term Neutron stars.
Gravity is the ultimate force that cause neutron stars. When a star has exhausted its fuel by fusion, there is no longer the usual outward pressure from the fusion process and gravity makes the star contract until the Pauli Exclusion Principle kicks in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star :
“A neutron star is a type of stellar remnant that can result from the gravitational collapse of a massive star during a Type II, Type Ib or Type Ic supernova event. Such stars are composed almost entirely of neutrons, which are subatomic particles without electrical charge and with slightly larger mass than protons. Neutron stars are very hot and are supported against further collapse by quantum degeneracy pressure due to the Pauli exclusion principle. This principle states that no two neutrons (or any other fermionic particles) can occupy the same place and quantum state simultaneously.”
It is an oscillation in the galactic circuits
Total nonsense [even more than your usual nonsense]. The rotation period is determined by several processes, most importantly by the gravitational contraction of the material and the conservation of angular momentum. The magnetic field is similarly increased by the contraction, and being frozen into the stellar wind helps slow down the rotation somewhat.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120717183418.htm
Getting closer, even NASA is catching on finally.
Steven says:
July 18, 2012 at 7:35 pm
Getting closer, even NASA is catching on finally.
More nonsense to say so; your gullibility is legendary. You don’t seem to know that almost any energetic phenomenon is caused by electric currents. This has been known for decades [see my explanation from 1973 http://www.leif.org/research/Geomagnetic-Response-to-Solar-Wind.pdf ]. The question is where the currents come from. Direct measurements show that the currents are caused by plasma moving across the Earth’s magnetic field or from differently directed magnetic fields being pressed together [called reconnection]. That is what creates the currents.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 18, 2012 at 7:57 pm
You don’t seem to know that almost any energetic phenomenon is caused by electric currents.
In the low gravity environments found near the earth. In strong gravity environment [e.g a collapsing star], gravity wins and dominate.
We will all know soon wont we, but they didn’t wonder what caused a protons magnetic moment or an electrons, the only reason they went looking for the magnetic moment of the neutron was because neutral was supposed to mean no charge, not just a balancing of charge. lo and behold, quarks, electrified charged particles was the cause. It was these charged particles they were looking for, not another magnetic moment of a smaller particle. Although you can be sure the quark is made up of even smaller charged particles that keep the quarks from crashing together or flying apart.
The currents come from the movement of one charged particle in relation to another, this creates magnetic fields that confine the current into filaments. The current supplying the earth arises from the sun, you just refuse to accept that these twisting filaments are electric current confined by the magnetic fields they generate.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2007/11dec_themis/
Ropes, great science term, they are called Birkeland Currents in plasma physics.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 18, 2012 at 7:57 pm
You don’t seem to know that almost any energetic phenomenon is caused by electric currents.
In the low gravity environments found near the earth. In strong gravity environment [e.g a collapsing star], gravity wins and dominate.
Really? I see electromagnetic radiation emitted from every source, including ones you like to call Black Holes. Funny how your gravity can’t even hold in the EM radiation and plasma jets emitted from the center of galaxies.
Steven says:
July 18, 2012 at 8:15 pm
We will all know soon wont we
I don’t think you will ever learn
The currents come from the movement of one charged particle in relation to another
As the plasma is electrically neutral, there is no such movement. A magnetic field is needed to separate charges so a current can flow.
The current supplying the earth arises from the sun,
The current around the earth is caused by the neutral solar plasma being deflected by the Earth’s magnetic field. Negative charges one way and positive charges the other way, thus creating charge separation and an electric field which sustains a current.
they are called Birkeland Currents in plasma physics
No, not in real plasma physics [e.g. in the laboratory or in fusion machines], only in the pseudo-science you think is ‘plasma physics’. Birkeland currents [as I show in http://www.leif.org/research/Geomagnetic-Response-to-Solar-Wind.pdf Figure 15] flow because the mobility of charges is high along the magnetic field and low across the field.
Ropes, great science term
As your link explains, those are “magnetic ropes”, that when meeting the Earth’s magnetic field can reconnect and create electric currents. You have this whole thing precisely backwards and don’t even see that when citing sources that show you are mistaken. This is what I call ‘willful’ ignorance.
Steven says:
July 18, 2012 at 8:18 pm
I see electromagnetic radiation emitted from every source, including ones you like to call Black Holes. Funny how your gravity can’t even hold in the EM radiation and plasma jets emitted from the center of galaxies.
Gravity makes matter collapse and in the process heats the matter. Any hot matter emits electromagnetic radiation. As simple as that. And if gravity is strong enough [e.g. in black holes] it does ‘hold in’ the radiation.
Steven says:
July 18, 2012 at 8:15 pm
The current supplying the earth arises from the sun
Your own source http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2007/11dec_themis/ says about what happens when a magnetic rope hits the Earth at the magnetopause:
“It is where the solar wind first feels the effects of Earth’s magnetic field. When a knot of magnetism within the solar wind hits the bow shock–“Bang!” he says. “We get an explosion.”
The explosion is due to the electric currents generated by the magnetized,but neutral solar plasma interacts with the magnetic Earth. Is this so hard to understand. when explained and demonstrated and backed up by spacecraft data?
Steven says:
July 15, 2012 at 11:38 am
I get the same answer as you … Why would you ever think I would get a different answer?
I think you have no answer. In case you have give the derivation of the equation here and calculate the acceleration of the wind with distance. Parkers does that just fine using only gravity and ordinary hydrodynamics. Show us here how you calculate ‘exactly’ the same things from EU theory. Put up or shut up.
Steven says:
July 18, 2012 at 8:15 pm
The current supplying the earth arises from the sun
Your own source http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2007/11dec_themis/ says about what happens when a magnetic rope hits the Earth at the magnetopause.
“The satellites have found evidence for magnetic ropes connecting Earth’s upper atmosphere directly to the Sun,” says Dave Sibeck
That this is the case was discovered by myself and Sergei Mansurov in the late 1960s. It is known as the Svalgaard-Mansurov effect: http://www.ann-geophys.net/30/817/2012/angeo-30-817-2012.pdf
Yah well, you are entitled to your beliefs, but NASA says it all:
“We need models to help predict hazardous events in the belts and right now we are aren’t very good at that.”
One would think with all these correct theories you have that you could get a few things right, but the track record speaks for itself about the correctness of those theories.
No, it was predicted by Kristian Birkeland more than 100 years ago, which is why in plasma science they are called Birkeland Currents.
http://www.biographybase.com/biography/Birkeland_Kristian.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristian_Birkeland
http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/users/08/ajb/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Kristian_Birkeland.html
Steven says:
July 18, 2012 at 9:42 pm
One would think with all these correct theories you have that you could get a few things right, but the track record speaks for itself about the correctness of those theories.
The track record is very good. Given solar wind data we can calculate very precisely what the effect on the Earth is, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/IAGA2008LS-final.pdf
Steven says:
July 18, 2012 at 9:51 pm
No, it was predicted by Kristian Birkeland more than 100 years ago, which is why in plasma science they are called Birkeland Currents.
‘Plasma science’ as you understand it is pseudo-science. In magnetospheric science, the field-aligned currents are called Birkeland currents. But Birkeland was totally wrong about their nature and the physics. He had an ongoing fight with Stoermer whether the ‘corpuscle rays’ [as he called them] were positive or negative rays [e.g http://www.leif.org/EOS/Birkeland-1919.pdf ] Birkeland claimed they were negative while Stoermer claimed they were positive. As an example of how far off the rail Birkeland was, consider that he in the paper I just mentioned claimed “that the sun always on an average sends out more energy as corpuscular rays than as heat and light radiation”. Here he is off by a factor millions. Lindemann cut through the nonsense [ http://www.leif.org/EOS/Lindemans-1919.pdf ] by proving that the ‘rays’ were neither, but that the solar wind [the ‘corpuscular rays’] was ionized, but electrically neutral with both charges equally present.
Birkeland claimed they were negative while Stoermer claimed they were positive
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Lindemann-1919.pdf