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 says: July 12, 2012 at 1:38 pm
“…… are destined to shame themselves….”
Relax, Alexander.
There is no shame involved. Surely it is simply a discussion on somewhat abstract theory.
Correction
Word press does strange things, it must be written in words:
gravity force field can be divided into two distinct domains : near field at distance d/lambda is less then 1, and far field where d/lambda is more then 1.
Jim G says:
July 12, 2012 at 3:06 pm
As a creationist myself,
Whoa… stop. That’s all you had to say. If you lead off with that, people can save themselves a lot of time they otherwise might waste reading your posts.
As the big bang eminated out of a dot like this —> . <— then everything that emminated is on a diverging path. From red shift, we should be able to determine where abouts (roughly) this original point is. The red shift of those on the direct opposite side of the balloon/shock wave should have a different characteristic of red shift than those moving away from us that are in between. Can this not be done?
Anna: Maybe you'd enjoy that KITP link i posted prior where Greg Dobler (admittedly Jan 2010) presents the lattest on the hunt for Dark Matter.
By now there should be some big iron orbitting space dedicated to the hunt for the photo[n]s given off when they self-annihilate.
jtl,
your question about using red shift to determine direction is an intelligent one. Unfortunately the Consensus theory assures us that every direction we look should have approximately the same view and if you were somewhere else, again, a homogeneous view. This is yet another disagreement between observations and the consensus theory as we DO see anisotropies in the CBR and some Astronomers think they CAN determin directions through observations!!
Would one of the consensus experts like to explain to johnny why the Theory says we should see the same thing in all directions?? I never really understood that.
Graphic representation of the C’s Universe (with no dark matter required)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CU.htm
(see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/11/dark-matter-mapped-in-the-universe-for-the-first-time/#comment-1030999
This is my fourth request for some insight into the concept of space expanding. George E Smith, far more educated then many posters, is not afraid to say he does not really get this. Many other less humble commentators, both pro DM and con, claim to have no such troubles. Yet none so far have ventured to attempt an elevator speech to my simple question.
How does space expand, and what does it expand into?
I see space as a three D constuct of height, width, and depth, each of which are infinite, (so IT can only expand into iself, and IT is already there) and when anything else OUANTIFIABLE is added, time becomes another demension operating within cause and effect principles. The balloon analogy, like the raisens in bread analogy does nothing for me. Balloons, including the air inside them, like bread, are quantifiable phenomena, subject to cause and effect. How unquantfiable infinite space, composed of nothing except an infinite three demensional concept, can move galxies at faster then light speed, appears to be rather unreachable.
“One would have to throw a lot of babies out with that bath water. Pretty much all of physics as we know it would have to be seriously reconsidered.”
And this is a bad thing?
But yes, I understand the stakes, and the reluctance to let go of theories that have served us well up till now, especially when there is no clear road ahead. But reality doesn’t give a damn about our theories, or our need to maintain them. Reality seems to be telling us we don’t want to hear. The nerve.
David,
BB theory says that all of space emerged from a spaceless singularity. There is no presumption that this singularity arose within a “metaspace”, if you will. It’s not a 3D model as you suppose, with a dot in the middle of infinite 3D space, out of which stuff explodes. It’s really the space which explodes, carrying with it a lot of stuff that emerges from the space. Likewise, this didn’t happen at some point in time. Time also emerged from the BB, and began expanding as well. So you can’t separate space from matter, ultimately, or time from space, and so on. And none of them, including space, is infinite. If you follow a straight line through space, it won’t keep on going forever. In our universe, it will eventually turn back on its own source, because space itself is curved.
What space actually is, is not a question physics can attempt to answer, any more than it can answer what matter is. It can merely describe it as an interaction of forces and energies that obey certain patterns of physical law. So space is just that – a field of forces and energies that is obeying various laws whose origins we don’t know.
Your problem in understanding this is that you seem to think space is infinite and shaped like a cartesian 3D set of planes. It isn’t. It is limited by the forces and energies of the BB, which are huge, but not infinite. The shape of space is itself determined by those forces and energies, including gravity. It has no inherent, fixed shape. It expands or contracts according to the forces and energies it is defined by. In fact, IT HAS NO OTHER DEFINITION. If the force is big enough, it will expand incredibly fast, such as in the early moments of the BB. If the forces are minimal, it will contract to “ordinary” dimensions. But it is not what you might presume it to be. Space isn’t a substance or thing-in-itself, It only exists in relation to the forces and energies that create its contours.
We’re not in Kansas anymore.
Alexander Feht says:
July 12, 2012 at 12:52 pm
Should I regard your invitation to read Wikipedia article on Big Bang as an intentional insult?
Or are you really that simple?
Please point me to the post where I sent you to a wikipedia link.
The intentional insults have been coming from you after all. BTW I am as simple as any research physicist.
For all:
Wikipedia links are useful for people who are on the stage of understanding archimedes principle, and wade into a physics discussion. Somebody has spent some time writing up on the subject and a number of people have corrected it.
People who think they know everything and their theory is as good as any other man’s theory cannot profit from anything anyway.
People are insulting to assume that physics research works as AGW research.
Yes, there are fashions . After all it is not too long ago when the luminiferous aether was necessary for electromagnetic theory of the time. But research means always questioning the premises of a model theory against the data.
For working physicists, missing mass and missing energy are not stop gap notions. That was the way the neutrino was discovered and established, to the point of having neutrino beams. That was because neutrinos interact mainly with the weak interaction. Gravity is orders of magnitude weaker than the weak interaction, and a physical theory of everything will per force have unknown now particles which will only interact with the gravitational interaction. At the point particle physics is now, in the LHC, we are looking for candidate particles for dark matter. If these are found, problem solved If not, back to the drawing board.
Astrophysics needs longer times for the hypotheseis that are current to be left on the sidewalk as misconceptions or be absorbed in new theories. The only consensus in physics science is of people agreeing that the data fit the model. BB model has a lot of leeway in the minds of physicists because it ties together many observations. If it is an inadequate/ wrong model it will eventually be superseded by something that fits all the data and predicts new observations.
anna v,
Good comments. Thanks. I agree, cosmology is nothing like Post Normal Science climatology, which for the most part is not really science at all, but a belief system heavily supported by confirmation bias.
Add me to those appalled at the reception of this paper. If you wish, accept that “Dark Matter” and “Dark Energy” are simply names given to some otherwise inexplicable factors derived from experimental results. But they are not figments of mathematical equations devoid from reality. They are the consequences of applying everything we know to what we observe and discovering a discrepancy. There is something there, it is real and it is important.
cba says:
July 12, 2012 at 8:00 am
Leif, If DM tracks the density of “normal” matter ( and some think that normal matter clumps around DM ) then if the universe consists of about 4% normal matter and 25% DM (and 70% dark energy) then wouldn’t one expect that the typical DM density to be about 5 times that of normal matter on average?
The density of normal matter is also extremely small [when smeared over galactic distances], about 3×10-31 times the mass density of water.
ian cairns says:
July 12, 2012 at 8:14 am
And then taught in the universities as “facts”
This is totally wrong. The primary objective [at least in the sciences] is to teach the students to think for themselves and question everything. So when a topic is taught, the derivations and observations are clearly laid out. The emphasis is on ‘how do we know that?’
vukcevic says:
And about dark matter present in the solar system: We do expect there to be some, possibly in the sun.
Why did you have to say that?
My coffee went all over my keyboard…
I said it because it is likely true. And very likely in our laboratories as well, so we can actively search for DM.
People are actually looking for DM in the Sun: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.5290v1.pdf
James Evans says:
July 12, 2012 at 9:15 am
“And that is spectacularly confirmed by the fact that we indeed cannot see it.”
The fact that it is invisible is spectacularly confirmed by the fact that you can’t see it? That’s an unusual logical construct.
No, not at all. We know it is there, we know it is not baryons so we can’t see it. So, we infer that is something else.
Or, you could be wrong.
There is enough observational evidence to convince me that DM exists. Of course, all the observers and all the theorists could be wrong. And I could win the lottery tomorrow, but I’ll count on either of those scenarios.
Jim G says:
July 12, 2012 at 9:18 am
I do not believe anyone has actually hands on inventoried the mass of the universe.
What you do not believe is likely based on what you do not know. We have actually a rather precise inventory:
72.8 percent dark energy, 22.7 percent dark matter, and 4.56 percent baryonic matter.
Lancifer says:
July 12, 2012 at 9:21 am
Try to cut the ignorant some slack and don’t condemn all of us that frequent WUWT.
I condemn the willfully ignorant. If you know that you are not one of those, you should take offence as there is no criticism of you then.
cba says:
July 12, 2012 at 9:25 am
Steven says:
July 12, 2012 at 9:31 am
Demonstrated laboratory results or someones idea of how it should be.
Here is someone you should trust: http://www.leif.org/EOS/yamada10rmp.pdf and it is simply not treu that astrophysists do not know anything about plasma physics. I used to work for Institute for Plasma Physics at Stanford [now it is in a different department]
conradg says:
July 12, 2012 at 12:20 pm
The difference is that we haven’t yet found Dark Matter.
Neither had people between whwn the prediction was made and the observation as made.
The task for us today is harder, so it takes longer.
anna v says:
July 12, 2012 at 12:27 pm
kuhnkat says:
July 12, 2012 at 12:46 pm
Here and in my ignorance I thought the CONSENSUS view was that expansion occurred BETWEEN objects such as Galaxies
Space expands unifomrly [as far as we know] everywhere. That galaxies [actually clusters of galaxies] and stuff smaller do not expand is because as weak a gravitation is, the expansion is weaker and only at so large distances that graviation is negligible [remember gravitation decreases with the squre of the distance] does the expansion happen. On smaller scale gravitation holds things together the same way as it prevents you from drifting off the ground and into space.
Alexander Feht says:
July 12, 2012 at 1:38 pm
The observed movement of galaxies doesn’t fit the current understanding (or misunderstanding, as it may be) of the General Relativity theory.
Not true, it fits very well. And some simple things are unrelated to GR, like the rotation of galaxies.
James Evans says:
July 12, 2012 at 2:35 pm
I look forward to more creative logic in your response.
From past responses it is clear that logic does not work with you.
vukcevic says:
July 12, 2012 at 3:07 pm
In the ‘crank’s’ universe there is no need for dark energy.
That is why he is a just a crank.
johnnythelowery says:
July 12, 2012 at 4:01 pm
As the big bang eminated out of a dot
It did not. As we know know that the universe is flat it follows that it is also infinite. All of that infinite space expanded and still does. Infinity takes a little while to comprehend. Imagine you have a hotel with inifinitely many rooms, all occupied. Now comes a new guest and asks for a room. Easy, says the clerk at the desk, I just move the guest in room 1 to room 2, and the guest who was there to room number 3, and so on. That leaves room number 1 empty to accomodate the new guest. This can be repeated for the next new guest ad infinitum. Actually the whole question is a bit more complicated as it is not just space that expands, but space-time. General relativity is concerned with the forces that act and they in the end define space-time.
Leif,
you keep getting funnier and funnier.
“The fact that it is invisible is spectacularly confirmed by the fact that you can’t see it? That’s an unusual logical construct. No, not at all. We know it is there, we know it is not baryons so we can’t see it. So, we infer that is something else.”
You do NOT KNOW it is there. You ASSUME based on your models that it is there.
You do NOT KNOW it is not baryons as you have limited knowledge of Baryons, but, I accept the effect is probably not caused based on what we SEEM to know about Baryons.
Yes, you infer quite a bit based on ASSumptions!!
We cannot “SEE” fields and this would be another possible inference based on assumptions.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 12, 2012 at 9:19 pm
Some unfortunate typos:
“I would not count on either of those scenarios.”
“you should not take offence as there is no criticism of you then”
the ordinary other typos do not hurt.
Alan Wilkinson says:
July 12, 2012 at 8:59 pm
Add me to those appalled at the reception of this paper.
It is noteworthy that the willfully ignorant are the same who in other posts of physics-related topics also parade their ignorance and hostility.
Steven says:
July 12, 2012 at 9:31 am
Who here does not understand that plasma in space is the only known thing that form filamentary structures?
What you ‘know’ and reality have little to do with each other. Filamentary structures arise naturally using only gravity: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110929144645.htm or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJ1r5NG5YGs
Leif,
You say “There is enough observational evidence to convince me that DM exists.”
Fair enough. Who could argue with that?
You also say “We know it is there”.
Who could resist arguing with that?
brokenyogi says…
1. ” It’s really the space which explodes….. Time also emerged from the BB, and began expanding as well. So you can’t separate space from matter, ultimately, or time from space, and so on. And none of them, including space, is infinite. If you follow a straight line through space, it won’t keep on going forever. In our universe, it will eventually turn back on its own source, because space itself is curved.
2. What space actually is, is not a question physics can attempt to answer, any more than it can answer what matter is. It can merely describe it as an interaction of forces and energies that obey certain patterns of physical law. So space is just that – a field of forces and energies that is obeying various laws whose origins we don’t know.
3. The shape of space is itself determined by those forces and energies, including gravity. It has no inherent, fixed shape. It expands or contracts according to the forces and energies it is defined by.
4. If the force is big enough, it will expand incredibly fast, such as in the early moments of the BB. If the forces are minimal, it will contract to “ordinary” dimensions. But it is not what you might presume it to be. Space isn’t a substance or thing-in-itself, It only exists in relation to the forces and energies that create its contours.
5., We’re not in Kansas anymore.
———————————————————————————
Dear Brokenyogi ( a curious name as yoga is from binding, or union, and broken implies the opposite) ….at any rate, thank you for the attemted explanation. I see, from my perspective, numerous logical fails which I will try to articulate.
Concerning (1,) exploding space… How can something with zero intrinsic attributes, “What space actually is, is not a question physics can attempt to answer” (see (2) explode? Of course I can separate space from matter. In my mind this is easypeazy. (-; I am not being flippant. Matter is quantifiable, IE, it has attributes which can be identified by any number. In infinite nothingness there is no time because time depends on division, cause and effect, quantifiable numbers; so yes, time is as relative as the materials which form it, all of which are quantifiable and measureable, neither infinite, or nothing. Time stops at nothing, and also at the infinite. So while I can imagine 3 dimensions without any barriers, I cannot imagine three demensions with barriers, beyond which there is no demensions. Can you?
Concerning your assertion that if I continue in a straight line for billions of light years I will suddenly arrive at my beginning, Well I can no more concieve of that then I can concieve of no demensions beyond your curved space. At what distance will I begin to get closer to my starting point? (How far can a dog run into a forrest) LOL, scratch that humor…but will I be x billions of light years away, and suddenly, going just a little further, be back at my lift off point, or will I suddenly transition from moving further away to start getting closer. At any rate, whenever this point exists that I start getting closer to my destination, I will just turn a little to keep going further away, and I see nothing to stop me, do you? Oh, and concerning this singularity, well I have it on good authority that the closer we go to the beginning of time, the closer we get to infinite energy, and in fact all the math points to infinite energy beyond the singularity, beyond time. not nothing. I do not mean exponentially growing signals, but absolute infinite energy. Infinity, like nothing, can not be quantified and allows no time.
Cocerning (3) Why? What are the properties of this space. What are the numbers that define it. I can see how once some relative quantafiable matter enters the three demensions, time and cause and effect operate. I do not see why height, width and depth require matter.
Now concerning (2) , overall I think it is a logical fail, as the premise defines the answer. Also, as i have pointed out, all matter is quantifiable. There are no absolutes in relationship to science. I maintain that science is, in its essence, “cause and effect” beyond this science ceases to operate. Every effect is proceeded by a prior cause. There can be no effect without a prior cause. All causes are themselves an effect. Cause and effect is a chain and it, with the arrow of time, moves in one direction. All causes and effects are quantifiable. In this sense, science to me is the study of how all things in the cosmos interact, and the laws that govern those interactions. Science is constrained to time, space and relativity. Science cannot contain absolutes. and it cannot deny them. A primary tool of science is to use mathematics, one through any number, but never absolute infinity, which is not a number. I am referring to absolutes, and not the use of these terms within RELATIVE fields often representing exponentially growing signals and negative exponents representing exponentially decreasing signals. I am not referring to time constants (decaying or growing) As such science can only see a part of the whole and must keep an open mind to new information. But an idea, the concept of width, height and depth, absent matter, it has no constraints, and no law of physics precludes its existence.
Cocerning (4) Again, a logical fail, “begging the question/ circular reasoning… An argument is circular if its conclusion is among its premises, if it assumes (either explicitly or not) what it is trying to prove. Such arguments are said to beg the question. A circular argument fails as a proof because it will only be judged to be sound by those who already accept its conclusion.
Anyone who rejects the argument’s conclusion should also reject at least one of its premises (the one that is the same as its conclusion), and so should reject the argument as a whole. Anyone who accepts all of the argument’s premises already accepts the argument’s conclusion, so can’t be said to have been persuaded by the argument. In neither case, then, will the argument be successful.
(5.) True, we are not in Kansas, but Kansa is within science, and science is limited to a quantafiable primary chain of cause and effect observations, upon which all deductive reason is based, having a self limiting paradox. Simply put, cause and effect cannot be an absolute eternal chain, otherwise one is stating that “everything inclusive” has no cause, it always was, which in and of itself defeats the laws of science and deductive reason applied to observation, and induces the well known paradox that if “everything inclusive “ always was, then everything that could have occurred, already would have, and in effect states the unscientific proposition that while every thing (relative things which can be quantified) in creation have a cause, everything inclusive has no cause, it just unscientifically is. The other side of this paradox is that (accepting the above problem as valid) if there was then a first cause, what ever that cause was had to have no cause and must be beyond the laws of cause and effect. Science, by it very nature, only deals with relativity, quantifying numbers and partial observations which can only see a part of the whole. It has no authority to limit nothing, or the infinite.
Lief:
If there were a dark matter halo in our solar system, it would show up as an apparent violation of 1/r^2 for the solar system. This how is tightly constrained. See e.g. C. Talmadge, J. P. Berthias, R. W. Hellings, and E. M. Standish, “Model-independent constraints on possible modifications of Newtonian gravity,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 1159 (1988). Link.
Serano 2006 looks at this in detail. From their conclusions:
So while there is certainly dark matter in our solar system, if it is present in our Galaxy, astrophysical measurements fail by many orders of magnitude to be able to detect it using orbital dynamics in our solar system.
Leif’s next blunder:
Not true, it fits very well. And some simple things are unrelated to GR, like the rotation of galaxies.
If rotation of the galaxies fits General Relativity very well, how can it be unrelated to it?
Take your nonsense somewhere else, Leif.
You pretend to know it all but in the end the thing you know best is how to waste our time.
Listen to your guru Leif Svalgaard expostulating:
As we know [k]now that the universe is flat it follows that it is also infinite. All of that infinite space expanded and still does. Infinity takes a little while to comprehend.
That he says with the straight face, after giving us those wonderfully exact numbers:
We have actually a rather precise inventory: 72.8 percent dark energy, 22.7 percent dark matter, and 4.56 percent baryonic matter.
How can you calculate the mass of the Universe if it is infinite?
How can you know exactly, what it is made of, if it stretches without end beyond any observation?
Oh, but we, lowly amateurs, cannot comprehend infinity.
Only people who obtained their doctorates by being infinitely conformist, comprehend it all.
I still cannot decide if Leif is a troll mocking us on purpose, or a truly mentally disturbed individual.
Probably both.
But he will say, of course, that “most commenters here” are ignorant bumpkins.
What else can he say?
Let me introduce you to the Cosmological Constant, aka Dark Energy.
Or maybe not. It depends …
I saw a young lady getting off at our bus-stop the other day and thought “My goodness, she’s NAKED!”. But then she walked closer to our house and I realised she was wearing tan coloured trousers and a light tan-coloured sweater.
I blame my lenses for my initial error!
Leif Svalgaard says: July 12, 2012 at 9:19 pm
………
But a very rare occasion he/she could be a step ahead of the conventional aproach.
If BB caused a gravitational wave with its wavelength equal to the radius of the universe at any time t, then gravitational constant g would be subject to relativistic formula adjustment
In that case gravitational pull of two very distant objects is many more times than provided by non-relativistic approach.
Derivation of the relativistic factor is shown in this screen snapshot:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/RG.gif
Additional benefit of this calculation is that Newtonian and Einsteinian spaces are merged into single entity with a homogeneous gravitational field.
You are invited to fault it.
More details will be added if a further elaboration is required
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/RG.htm
Make a big bang of anything and you have a big empty space with everything traveling in all directions from the bang. The central space would get bigger and bigger as all the parts travel away in all directions. Please Sir, I have a question, “Why is the centre of the universe so dense that we can not penetrate its mysteries” Sir, my next question,” Is it really a factory in the middle for making stuff”
” Sir, after all these billions of years why is the middle still the densest part????”
“Sir,is it all the black stuff in the middle that we can not see in, or is the black stuff accelerating the universe or holding it together.” Sir, as a teacher of cosmology and a guru of the standard model construct of the universe are you not conflicted by its inconsistantsies for I am bewildered and confused as to the real nature of the universe.”
“Sir, is the dark energy, unmeasurable and unseen clouding our view of the universal centre, and manipulating our pathetic ideas of energy and matter.” Oft times the Gurus are the problem and not the answer. The answers will come, but not from the mainstream education system, it will be a rebel.