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…
Jeff Mitchell,
good question, except they don’t really have a lot of details to give us other than it apparently has a REPULSIVE force to herd all that inconvenient matter into neat orbits. Do you also wonder how while forcing that misbehavin’ normal matter into line it isn’t spreading into instellar space?!??!!
I guess they will tell us next that it doesn’t have a normal momentum or it attracts itself to offset the normal matter repulsion perfectly so it doesn’t contract or expand or…???!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Peter Melia says:
July 11, 2012 at 12:18 pm
Peter, try this:
http://cmb.physics.wisc.edu/tutorial/hubble.html
Listen to Leif.
Wow. In a time of threats of massive reductions in scientific research spending we have the CERN discovery of bosons one week and the discovery of black matter the next. I know it’s coincidence but what’s a scpetic to think?
11 July: NZ Herald: Kieran Campbell: ‘Abrupt increase’ in CO2 absorption slowed global warming
Scientists have discovered an “abrupt increase” since 1988 in the uptake of carbon dioxide (CO2) by the land biosphere, which comprises all of the planet’s plant and animal ecosystems.
Wellington-based scientist Dr Sara Mikaloff-Fletcher, from the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, was part of the global research team investigating the distribution of CO2 emissions.
Ms Mikaloff-Fletcher said the breakthrough had taken scientists “completely by surprise”…
***The findings do not contradict existing science about global warming, but rather explain how much CO2 is absorbed by plants and animals, with some of the CO2 then being passed from plants into the land.
A report into the findings says the increase in uptake is “a big number”, about one billion tonnes of carbon per year.
“To put it into context, that is over 10 per cent of global fossil fuel emissions for 2010,” the report said…
“What it does mean is that the climate change has been a lot slower than it would have been otherwise (because) less of the CO2 we’re producing is staying in the atmosphere.”…
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10818936
***go figure.
——————————————————————————–
“Robert of Ottawa says:
July 11, 2012 at 4:55 pm
mobservation ”
?? consensus
There is no “direct detection” of anything here, it is just another example of that there is more gravity in the universe than observed mass for it. Because we know “matter” to gravitate, we therefore assume that the gap is caused by more “matter” of another kind. But it could be something quite different, like tension of a large-dimensional brane across which gravity operates. Or gravity itself may be a dimension, after all, gravity has never been unified with the standard model. There is evidence for a gravitational scalar in intergalactic space (e.g. HI gas bleeding away from galaxies like NGC 3628), as well as within elliptical galaxies and globular clusters, where stars appear to mingle ambiently as though they are gravitationally detached from eachother. Any such gravitational scalar would likely have dimensional origins, and would immediately increase the total gravity in play without any need for “dark matter”.
All this aside, the misrepresentation here is when the researchers describe it as a “direct detection”. It isn’t. The most likely missing matter, it seems to me, is between the ears.
Faux Science Slayer says:
“jht isn’t a physicist and his website is full of pictures”.
Yep, I am pretty sure I pointed that out in my post… I’m glad you enjoyed the pictures.
I really had no idea that people regard “the big bang theory” as a hoax. There’s a whole of cross-referenced observations and evidence to accurately date the age of the universe (13.7ish billion years — I don’t remember the exact number) and a whole lot of maths and experimental observations (again, cross-referenced and validated) to back up many of the claims of modern Cosmology. You know, stuff along the lines of “well, if this were true then we’d find THIS” and lo and behold, they find that bit of evidence, right where they expect to find it. At this point its a pretty large inductive chain of knowledge. You are free to poke holes in it, but bear in mind that a competing theory has to also take into account all of the predictions and observations made in the service of the theory you are seeking to replace. I don’t see anything of the sort on your site. Just saying.
I certainly invite anyone who’s interested to have a look at both our sites.
This conversation has got me thinking that I might be on the wrong side of this whole climate thing… Anyway, off to finish reading this fine book.
Looks like the site ate my last reply… I’ll try this again.
Yes, I am not a physicist. I don’t even play one on TV. I have a BFA degree. I have a website – its got pictures on it. I’m glad FauxScienceSlayer enjoyed them enough to keep a screenshot.
I invite any interested parties to have a look at both of our sites.
Now to get back to reading this delightful book.
Just a thought. We humans cannot hear certain sounds that a dog can hear. How do we know those sounds exist if we do not have actual evidence via our own ears?
Thanks Hans F for the link above:
http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=AS12005.pdf
An excellent read, and I especially liked his final sentence:
I would like to express my sincere admiration for those young researchers who dare follow their curiosity and who publish their non-conforming findings even though this may put their careers at risk.
I recommend everyone on this thread thoroughly read his summary conclusions in Section 17, quite intriguing…
The abstract reads thus:
Abstract: The current standard model of cosmology (SMoC) requires The Dual Dwarf Galaxy Theorem to be true according to which two types of dwarf galaxies must exist: primordial dark-matter (DM) dominated (type A) dwarf galaxies, and tidal-dwarf and ram-pressure-dwarf (type B) galaxies void of DM. Type A dwarfs surround the host approximately spherically, while type B dwarfs are typically correlated in phasespace.
Type B dwarfs must exist in any cosmological theory in which galaxies interact. Only one type of dwarf galaxy is observed to exist on the baryonic Tully-Fisher plot and in the radius-mass plane. The Milky Way satellite system forms a vast phase-space-correlated structure that includes globular clusters and stellar and gaseous streams. Other galaxies also have phase-space correlated satellite systems. Therefore, The Dual Dwarf Galaxy Theorem is falsified by observation and dynamically relevant cold or warm DM cannot exist.
It is shown that the SMoC is incompatible with a large set of other extragalactic observations. Other theoretical solutions to cosmological observations exist. In particular, alone the empirical mass-discrepancy— acceleration correlation constitutes convincing evidence that galactic-scale dynamics must be Milgromian.
Major problems with inflationary big bang cosmologies remain unresolved.
Dark Matter: Does not interact with Electro Magnetism but does with gravity. Self Annialates: it, is it’s own anti-particle and may release a photon in the process, it “talks” to the Standard (particle) Model.
There is a ‘state-of-the-hunt’ presentation gven at Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics by Astro-Physcist Dr. Greg Dobler. It’s free, it lasts about an hour and you can watch it at this link (You may have to copy it into your browser).
http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/friends/dobler/rm/qttv.html
http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/friends/dobler/
As for Dark Energy….they apparently have no clue what it is nor how to relate it to standard nor non-standard particle physics. Can’t be tied into forces of nature in any way. It’s a negative pressure and most definately exists.
Watched a free presentation a couple of weeks ago on the hunt for Dark Matter by Dr. Greg Dobler given as a chalk talk at the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics (KITP). It is free and online for the general public and it is laymans level presentation. The link is below. What they think they know about Dark Matter is that it does not interact with Electro Magnetism, it does interact with gravity, it self annialates itself releasing a photon, it talks to the ‘standard model’ of particle physics at the weak force level. Check it out. Lasts about an hour and is quite interesting.
http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/friends/dobler/rm/qttv.html
pat says: “11 July: NZ Herald: Kieran Campbell: ‘Abrupt increase’ in CO2 absorption slowed global warming. Scientists have discovered an “abrupt increase” since 1988 in the uptake of carbon dioxide (CO2) by the land biosphere, which comprises all of the planet’s plant and animal ecosystems….”
They’ve been making this up as they go, and this is their latest lie to cover up the fact that the hoax is failing badly. They’re admitting ignorance of the full CO2 cycle (which underestimates volcanic emissions by two orders of magnitude.)
James Hastings-Trew says:
July 11, 2012 at 7:03 pm
———————————————–
James, what if the big-bang-theory wasn’t true? Not a hoax. Just not the right answer. What if the universe was 7,324,194 billion years old and we could only “see” 13.7 billion years of it.
Well, I can tell you what the answer would be. Denial.
kuhnkat says:
July 11, 2012 at 6:03 pm
Let’s all make up stuff with virtually no grounding in science or reality.
Indeed that is what many commenters are doing.
When one reads most of the comments one is struck with the low level of scientific literacy. Modern cosmology is one of the greatest achievements of mankind. There was a time when every generally educated person had a basic understanding of the science of the day. This is no longer the case, or is the problem the level of education?
When one contemplates the dismal level of knowledge displayed by most commenters here, one wonders if the often repeated saying that the blogs [and in particular WUWT – the ‘best science blog’] serve as valuable secondary peer-review has any truth to it. No wonder that many sites view WUWT with disdain considering the nonsense most commenters here come up with. I have referred to the lectures on cosmology given here http://www.leif.org/EOS/Cosmology
Read them and think about what you read, and learn.
Leif, I didn’t realize you were a comedienne!!
” Modern cosmology is one of the greatest achievements of mankind.”
And it can’t even answer my phone for me.
“No, matter stayed where it was, it is space itself [what is between particles of matter] that is expanding. Matter does not stream away from anything.”
I love this statement. I imagine myself getting bigger over time. It is not noticiable because it is occurring in everything around me but I am a giant in the future. I will grow until dark matter reaches for me.
Sure they have found something, but they really don’t know what they have found. They have an observation, and are trying to force-fit it into their theory. Does not compute. You can make up any story you like about what they have found and be just as “scientifically” accurate.
I fear with many of the comments to this story we undermine our collective credibility as ‘skeptical thinkers’.
The story of dark matter is far removed from the sensationalist, politicized, modeled, restructured stories we get flooded with in the climate debate.
In the mainstream media, dark matter often summed up more or less as a ‘fudge factor that cosmologists use to explain things about the universe that they don’t understand’.
But the reality is far different. Jan Hendrick Oort first noted in 1932 that stars at the periphery of observed galaxies orbited the galaxy far more quickly than physics would indicate was possible. Then Vera Rubin presented a paper in 1980, with many more far more precise measurements of many galaxies showing the same thing.
We all understand that an object orbiting close to the center of mass will move more quickly than one orbiting further from that center. However, Rubin’s work showed that a velocity curve plotted from the center of a galaxy eventually flattens out and the more distant objects orbit at the same velocity as those much closer to the galaxy center. (The original article I read on this had nice illustrations with the curve superimposed outward from the center of a picture of a galaxy, but this curve in Wikipedia illustrates the point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve )
At the simplest level, there are only two possible conclusions:
1. With our current understanding of physics, there MUST be a lot more matter (ie mass) in each galaxy than we can currently detect.
2. Or, our understanding of physics (ie gravity) is flawed.
And, surprisingly enough, Vera Rubin accepts the latter conclusion.
Gravitational lensing would appear to be a reasonably well observed phenomenon, and it seems likely these scientists are applying that knowledge in a logical manner.
To invoke Occam’s razor still further, I like George E. Smith thoughts in his comments here; July 11, 2012 at 3:59 pm . There are undoubtedly gigantic numbers of ‘lost’ atoms wandering in all areas of space, and no doubt many of them are undetectable. To take it a little further, there are likely huge numbers of lost planets and other similar bodies wandering in space, and these are objects we can only now detect at intergalactic distances when they are conveniently orbiting a visible star.
Acceptance of ‘gravitational’ laws also means the ‘filament’ theory makes perfect sense. Objects of any mass passing between two gravitational ‘pulls’ (ie two galaxies) will be have more chance of slowing and ‘lingering’ or being captured in that vicinity. This would explain a flaw in the thinking of those who expect dark matter to ‘be everywhere’ and proclaim that they have been unable to detect it in our immediate vicinity.
ian says:
July 11, 2012 at 8:24 pm
Sure they have found something, but they really don’t know what they have found. They have an observation, and are trying to force-fit it into their theory. Does not compute. You can make up any story you like about what they have found and be just as “scientifically” accurate.
No. You will not be scientifically accurate nor event worth the term “scientific”.
This is a common misconception of people used to video games and virtual reality.
Hard science is the study of the reality we live in, and it progresses in steps: 1)we observe, 2) we theorise and predict further phenomena which when found validate the theory. This is where this paper is now, it is validating the prevailing theory. Not any random fantasies of theories.
Theories, when successful, are a way of economically encapsulating all the known data on a subject. This means that if a new and better theory appears, it has first to accommodate all these data. Take the geocentric theory of the solar system. It accumulated and parametrized a lot of data with the epicycles. Was it superseded with the heliocentric? Sure, because the heliocentric has less parameters and more predictions BUT, and it is a big but , when you go to the heliocentric and change the coordinate system to geocentric, the epicycles are there in all their glory, because they were a parametrisation of data, and it could not be otherwise.
The present General Relativity astrophysics model of the universe might be superseded by a more general and more predictive theory, BUT it will encapsulate as a parametrization of the data, the present theory.
Thus you cannot make up any story you like about what they have found and be just as “scientifically” accurate. . Science is not science fiction.
anna v,
you might be more convincing if cosmology didn’t require 3 or more mutually exclusive factors to explain the observations!! Seems that number keeps going UP as more observations are made.
Furthermore, in follow up to my comment above, I feel we show great disrespect by responding to such detailed work with snark and ignorance.
There is no likelihood of hidden agendas here, and no indication of political and ideological influences at work.
This is simply science being done as it should be done. These good people have researched, published, and now await legitimate scientific criticism and further research which will either validate or contradict their findings.
Just as my being inquisitive and skepticism of Global Warming/Cooling by “Leading Scientists” led me to this site, those same qualities led me to doubt the Dark Matter Theory and led me to another “Denier” site concerning the cosmos. For those who are interested, check this site out:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2011/08/23/preface/
Many discredited scientists support the alternate theories of space/star formation and Dark Matter to them doesn’t exist. Enjoy!
Andrew Krause says:
July 11, 2012 at 8:18 pm
“No, matter stayed where it was, it is space itself [what is between particles of matter] that is expanding. Matter does not stream away from anything.”
I love this statement. I imagine myself getting bigger over time. It is not noticiable because it is occurring in everything around me but I am a giant in the future. I will grow until dark matter reaches for me.
I would also love to think that the expansion of space is the reason for my expanding waistline. Unfortunately, gravity is strong enough to prevent expansion of anything smaller that a cluster of galaxies.
George E. Smith;
July 11, 2012 at 3:59 pm
Hi George:
I think he reason that it is not accepted as ordinary matter, is that what you describe would behave like massive cold dust, obscuring the galaxies behind it even though not emitting any radiation itself. This paper could not have been written in this case because there would not be light penetrating to measure the gravitational lensing.
Anna V.,
Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.
You see folks if you don’t believe the established science theory you are labeled a denier, uneducated or outright stupid….. I’m starting to believe this is becoming the wrong site for me to continue to expand my knowledge because of the overwhelming mantra of zealot believers. Sound Familiar????? Big Bang has become just as much of a religion as Global warming ever was. Challenge it and expect to be insulted..