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 13, 2012 at 12:32 am
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?
”
one can calculate the density. Since WMAP indicates that the universe is flat rather than curved (to 1% or better) it means that the density must be the critical density. That turns out to be about the equivalent of 5.9 protons per m^3 but that includes energy , DM and DE. Since gravitational forces travel at the speed of light, we are unaware about what lies outside of the boundary. That is to say we can be in an infinitely large universe that has an initial creation date. If space were not expanding, we would see an ever increasing universe size as light and forces reach us from ever increasing distances.
As with many things, we see evidence of things we may not see directly, enough to have high confidence. Looking at our galactic center, we see and have measured orbits of stars around a central object we cannot see. It’s very straightforward to calculate the mass of the object something is orbiting if we know what the orbit is. That object has a mass of 3 to 4 million sun sized stars yet it is very small and emits no light that we can detect – unlike those stars orbiting it. In a few years, a gas cloud near by will fall into it as its motion has also been determined by observing it. People are already getting ready to observe this because it is expected that the object will light up big time or at least the gas will. It would be rather foolish to assume there is nothing there because we cannot “see” it in our telescopes.
****
David says:
July 12, 2012 at 11:17 am
What is this space that can expand, and what does it expand into?
****
EVERY time I see stuff on Discovery, etc, showing the big bang as something exploding into empty “space”, I cringe. That’s not how it happened ’cause there wasn’t any “outside”. Immediately after the BB, if one could be much smaller than an atom, you’d be surrounded of course by extreme energy density. But if you were a significant percent of the universe’s size at that point, you’d prb’ly look “ahead” and see your own feet! Look behind & see your own head looking backwards! In fact, you’d prb’ly see your image all around you. There wouldn’t be any edge or “outside”; you could traverse the whole universe just following your own feet, coming back to your original location at some point. As far as the expansion, you’d see the image of your feet flying away from you in front of you, and your head behind flying away in the opposite direction. You yourself, tho, wouldn’t feel a thing. As time and expansion continued, it would take longer & longer to traverse the universe back to your original point.
This is what I imagine — prb’ly not accurate. Simple words prb’ly CAN’T describe it. But the point is, there is no “outside” or edge.
Alexander Feht says:
July 13, 2012 at 12:32 am
But he will say, of course, that “most commenters here” are ignorant bumpkins.
What else can he say?
They demonstrate themselves the truth of my statement, you in particular. Now, it is no shame to be ignorant [I’m ignorant of many things outside of my field]. It is deplorable to be willfully ignorant and not wanting to learn. The latter could have a reason in lacking the necessary faculties [which is no shame]. Is that your excuse? Or don’t you know?
kuhnkat says:
July 11, 2012 at 6:08 pm
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.
There is something called “momentum”. Ever heard of it? No? You should look it up someday. It is related to mass, by the way.
Tony Mach,
yes I do believe I have heard of momentum. I believe it is what keeps your mouth moving.
Please explain to me how momentum, which continues things in a straight line if not perturbed, helps the hypothesized dark matter?? by the way, are you sure dark matter has mass?? I can’t seem to find the details of dark matter as to its physical properties other than it not seeming to affect much of anything other than a repulsion to herd normal matter. maybe you can provide me with the Paper that discusses the actual properties of Dark Matter and Dark Energy??
I notice neither Leif, Anna, or anyone else has jumped in to provide us ignorant types an education in these mythical things. Does your momentum explain that also??
Carrick says:
July 12, 2012 at 11:15 pm
“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 says in one of his posts on this page that it’s probably inside the Sun!! But wait, then it would’nt be dark would it? I guess we are all just ingnorant bumpkins like he says.
James Hastings-Trew says:
July 12, 2012 at 3:57 pm
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.”
If you read any of my posts you would know how wrong you are. Perhaps your definition of “creationist” is different than mine. I am not a “6000 year old Earth” guy but simply believe that there is a God who created all of this and that he could have done it any way he wanted to, flat space, curved space, space/time, space separate from time, etc, etc.. Since both quantum physics and general relativity point out how perfectly everything fits together to allow our universe to even exist it seems logical that there is intelligent design and a Designer. Pure accidental initiation of this universe seems a more “religious” belief in that it ignores the obvious.
I guess that is the problem with labels and those who use them and discriminate based upon them. But this time it was my fault since I am not of the ilk you think, I am not that familiar with how folks define creationist. Probably not the way I do.
Leif Svalgaard says:
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.”
Leif, you are a perfect example of the Sam Clemmens (Mark Twain for you) quote, “it’s not all the things that people don’t know that is the problem it is all the things they do know that just ain’t so”. You obviously don’t know what a “hands on inventory is” !! I do not believe anyone has physically counted and weighed all of the matter in the universe and since not all of it is even visible you are speaking nonsense. Your numbers are theoretical estimates..
Jim,
I’m not sure what you guys’ deal with Leif is here (apologize to him for transposing “i” and “e”). I wish you’d leave personalities out and spend a bit more time reading what he said instead of projecting is all. I’ve lost the thread here on what it is you guys are even objecting to.
Anyway, the problem with all of the dark matter in the solar system being inside of the sun is it requires it to have a higher mass (e.g., a WIMP), but this is ruled out by cosmological models already, at least in the quantity needed to explain the galactic rotation curves.
(There’s absolutely no reason to assume there is only one particle or particle mass for dark matter, by the way.)
kuhnkat:
What does it mean to “seem to know something”? (The trillions of baryonic collisions in collider experiments apparently have taught us nothing about baryons. /sadface.)
Carrick,
don’t be a putz. The fact that there are a very large number of instances that have been recorded in colliders may tell you enough to exclude what you call baryonic matter from being the cause of the way galaxies rotate. It certainly tells us little else. The one thing I see in modern science is an egotism and arrogance approaching that of the Guy who proclaimed we knew everything important to know.
Leif claims that hallucinating dark matter and and dark energy is thinking outside of the box. I rather think the following is thinking outside of the steel bands consensus science has built around your minds:
http://milesmathis.com/fland.pdf
Here are two guys thinking outside the box while y’all are set in cement.
Leif Svalgaard says: July 13, 2012 at 7:22 am
………..
Ignorance is not showing that an alternative result can be obtained by applying Einstein’s relativistic factor to the gravity constant
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/RG.htm
It is the opposite of the ignorance you imply.
Leif,
Here are highlights from your posts in this thread:
Post 1: “Look around, and don’t pretend to be dumb.”
Post 2: “Dark Matter is thinking out of the box you seem to be in.”
Post 3: “Before shooting your mouth off, go check out the link(s), then pose questions to things you don’t understand.”
Post 5: “They are already here, in farce.”
Post 8: “When one contemplates the dismal level of knowledge displayed by most commenters here…”
Post 10 “It is very possible that you do not understand mathematics and therefore have a hard time understanding the science.”
That’s enough for now.
Let the people decide – what sort of person are you?
Enjoy your superiority, it must feel lovely.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 12, 2012 at 9:37 pm
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”
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. I think there is a case for the discovery to be a tautology starting off with the belief in DM. If gravity is a different animal than the mainstream thinks and replaces DM, the lensing would occur just the same.
You are both aware of the unintended experiment, that of the Pioneer anomaly (I don’t believe that this has been discussed – it might be proof that those you malign are not the ones in a in a box):
http://bing.search.sympatico.ca/?q=pioneer%20anomaly&mkt=en-ca&setLang=en-CA
“Both Pioneer spacecraft are escaping the Solar System, but are slowing under the influence of the Sun’s gravity. Upon very close examination of navigational data, the spacecraft were found to be slowing slightly more than expected. The effect is an extremely small but unexplained acceleration towards the Sun, of 8.74±1.33×10−10 m/s2. The two spacecraft were launched in 1972 and 1973 and the anomalous acceleration was first noticed as early as 1980, but not seriously investigated until 1994.[1] The last communication with either spacecraft was in 2003, but analysis of recorded data continues.”
Here the gravitational pull, apparently of the sun at these distances is stronger than we “calculated” using the tried and true theory. Take off your labcoats for a moment and just think about the possibilities. Does Dark Matter come to mind all by itself.
Let me add a thought experiment to my comment above:
Were the pioneer launced from the hub of a galaxy (ignoring the difficulties of doing this) how would it behave as it reached the farthest parts of the spiral arms?
Carrick,
The problem is that Leif claims to know the unknowable (mass directional flow in initial conditions of the BB), speaks of theory and estimates based upon theory as if they are fact (mass distribution of the universe), makes pronoucements like “solar system DM might be inside the Sun”,( this being the case dark matter inside of stars is NOT dark), and is uncompromisingly condescending in his attitude and posts using the term ignorant repeatedly for all those who disagree with him. Insufferable! See James Evans’ post.
Gary:
Above, I pointed to two studies that looked for apparent violations of the inverse square, one of these not behind a pay-wall so you could read it. NOBODY started out assuming that DM was the only possible explanation, what you are suggesting is just whacky nonsense. We do consider the possibility that GR/Newtonian gravity break down over these ranges. Theories are constructed all of the time proposing possible alternative.
John Moffat is one, Mordehai Milgrom is another, the studies I refer to set limits on Yukawa type interactions predicted by extensions of classical gravity to quantum mechanics (look up “supergravity” for example). [Milgrom’s theories get discussed in both papers.] In fact, one explanation posited for the deviation of galactic rotation curves was a new Yukawa force.
The problem with either of these alternatives is the violation of the galactic rotation curves does not appear to be the same in all galaxies, which suggests that the phenomenon that causes the deviations is not universal, like an extension of GR, but rather something that is rather idiosyncratic to each particular galaxy. Since the phenomenon is not universal, explanations involved a modification to a universal law are not favored. Further reading here.
(If I manage to get a copy of the PDF for this thesis, I’ll post it.)
By the way, there’s a difference between being a “good skeptic”…which implies being informed…from being incredulous, which only requires ignorance.
Let me rephrase this “The problem with either of these alternatives is the deviations of the galactic rotation curves from that expected by the inverse square law does not appear to be the same in all galaxies.” See Jennifer Coy’s thesis (again I’m trying to get a copy) for a complete discussion of this.
Jim, as I said, it would benefit the discussion of all involved got beyond personalities (I know I’m guilty of this too at time, so please don’t see this as me “getting on the high horse.”).
As to “dark matter” not being dark if it is inside of the Sun, that’s a semantic distinction you make that misses the point of what “dark” matter means. It means it doesn’t interact strongly with photons. Whether it’s in the center of the Sun or not has no effect on that.
Jim G says:
July 13, 2012 at 12:28 pm
“The problem is that Leif claims to know the unknowable (mass directional flow in initial conditions of the BB), speaks of theory and estimates based upon theory as if they are fact (mass distribution of the universe), makes pronoucements like “solar system DM might be inside the Sun”,”
First of all, you state that Leif made a pronouncement, you put it in quotation marks to imply it is the exact quote. You either cannot read or are just careless. Here is the cut and pasted quote from Dr S:
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 12, 2012 at 7:27 am
“… And about dark matter present in the solar system: We do expect there to be some, possibly in the sun….”
Now you may decide to argue that your statement was close enough or means the same thing. Perhaps you were simply too lazy to actually look back at it to get it right, which would then seem to validate Leif’s criticisms about some of the posters here.
Tom in Florida says:
Criticism accepted, I was too lazy. Should not have used quotes. Mea Culpa. Still a pretty ridiculous comment for the location of DM. How about the rest of my comments? Do you want to defend his other pronouncements or his manner?
Gary Pearse says:
July 13, 2012 at 11:29 am
http://bing.search.sympatico.ca/?q=pioneer%20anomaly&mkt=en-ca&setLang=en-CA
“Both Pioneer spacecraft are escaping the Solar System, but are slowing under the influence of the Sun’s gravity. Upon very close examination of navigational data, the spacecraft were found to be slowing slightly more than expected. The effect is an extremely small but unexplained acceleration towards the Sun, of 8.74±1.33×10−10 m/s2. The two spacecraft were launched in 1972 and 1973 and the anomalous acceleration was first noticed as early as 1980, but not seriously investigated until 1994.[1] The last communication with either spacecraft was in 2003, but analysis of recorded data continues.”
Here the gravitational pull, apparently of the sun at these distances is stronger than we “calculated” using the tried and true theory. Take off your labcoats for a moment and just think about the possibilities. Does Dark Matter come to mind all by itself.
============
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Sun
“The heliosphere, which may be considered the tenuous outer atmosphere of the Sun, extends outward past the orbit of Pluto to the heliopause, where it forms a sharp shock boundary with the interstellar medium.
…
The heliosphere (The heliosphere is a bubble in space “blown” into the interstellar medium by the solar wind. Although electrically neutral atoms from interstellar volume can penetrate this bubble, virtually all of the material in the heliosphere emanates from the Sun itself), which is the cavity around the Sun filled with the solar wind plasma, extends from approximately 20 solar radii (0.1 AU) to the outer fringes of the Solar System. Its inner boundary is defined as the layer in which the flow of the solar becomes superalfvénic—that is, where the flow becomes faster than the speed of Alfvén wave until it impacts the heliopause more than 50 from the Sun. In December 2004, the Voyager 1 passed through a shock front that is thought to be part of the heliopause. Both of the Voyager probes have recorded higher levels of energetic particles as they approach the boundary.”
It looks like it is this shock front which could be slowing them down. Could the shock front be caused by a greater mass of the intersteller medium pressing down on the surface of the heliosphere?
—
p.s. – how can the universe be flat if it expanded in all directions?
Dark matter, has mass but does not interact electromagneticly, does not produce light nor reflect light, only interacts gravitationally? So, if it is inside of the Sun, or any other star, its mass should affect the burn rate of the star, and the size of the star due to the change, by its presence, in the star’s gravity and the coutervaling outward force of the nuclear reactions caused by that greater mass? So, now even though we do not see it directly we see a larger hotter star and this dark matter is no longer effectively dark and would be seen as part of the baryonic matter taht we can see? Effectively it is no longer dark matter, though we still cannot see it? This is very convenient and explains why we cannot find any dark matter locally but also means there is even less baryonic matter than we thought. A fudge factor for the fudge factor. Dark matter and dark energy may indeed exist but the convenience of these circumstances to existing theory would seem to call any true scientist to question and be skeptical that we are not just possibly missing something in our theory and not to be so dogmatic in quoting it as fact..
David, simply because you have trouble imagining these things, does not make them either untrue, or contradictory. Obviously some people have better imaginations than others. Einstein was able to imagine a universe with curved space. Can you? What is space, that it curves?
Well, hard to say. Analogies are possible, but not easy to swallow. For example, what does it mean to travel in a straight line? Straight relative to what? Let’s say we have a very large race track. If you travel around the track, staying parallel to the inside of the track, you will seem to be traveling in a straight line. In reality, your path will be curved. You can only tell it’s curved by comparing it to things outside the racetrack. But if the racetrack is the entire universe, and you can’t see anything outside it, how can you tell if you are going in a straight line, or a curve, and relative to what?
Well, you can tell by comparing it to light, which does not curve, but travels along space which does curve. By observing the displacement of starlight by the sun during a solar eclipse, Einstein’s theory was confirmed in 1919. Space is curved by gravitation. But what is being curved? Well, hard to say, even though you can quantify it quite easily. As with matter, energy, and force fields of all kinds, all science really can do is quantify these, it can’t tells us what they are at some irreducible level. Space is merely a quantified field in which energy and matter and force interact with one another. If you want a better answer than that, seek a theological one.
I can’t get into all your other objections in this limited space, but essentially you are objecting to the fact that science defines things in relation to one another, and not in relation to some absolute. Thus, there is indeed a fundamental circularity to its logic. If you want an absolute to found all these on, again, look to theology. As long as the numbers crunch, all is well. When they don’t crunch, we need new theories, or better observation. If you want the numbers that define space, you are simply going to have to look at the fundamental laws and constants of physics itself. Those are what define space. Look at Plank’s constant. People are still trying to figure out what it means. Check out quantum loop gravity theory. People are still trying to reconcile QM with GR at the level of space itself. Not an easy task.
The big problem with the imagination is that our brains evolved to deal with ordinary problems of survival in the macro-world of 3D. But that isn’t the real world, it’s just a virtual world our brains create to deal with ordinary stuff. The real world is not something our brains ever evolved to imagine. Even our imaginations didn’t evolve to solve problems like that. So the closer we come to real answers to the nature of reality, the further we are from what our imaginations are capable of dealing with – unless we unhinge our imaginations from its ordinary limits. That’s why people like Einstein are so rare. Most people that unhinged wind up in lunatic asylums. It’s very hard to have that kind of unhinged imagination, and yet seem fairly normal in most other respects. Maybe you should count yourself lucky that this stuff is beyond your ability to imagine it.
something in our theory and not to be so dogmatic in quoting it as fact..
brokenyogi says:
July 13, 2012 at 2:13 pm
David, simply because you have trouble imagining these things, does not make them either untrue, or contradictory. Obviously some people have better imaginations than others. Einstein was able to imagine a universe with curved space. Can you? What is space, that it curves?
What Einstein imagined was that subjective filtering by his mind created reality – he imagined because the perception of time slowed or speeded up depending on one’s state of mind, that this actually altered the objective physical world around us for everyone.. “Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. THAT’S relativity.”
His idea that speed of travel slowed down time is simply imagination. For example, it is nonsense that someone sitting still in a train carriage is going to get to the next station faster than someone rushing down the corridor of that train who is physically slowing down time by his speed.
Einstein’s theory was confirmed in 1919. Space is curved by gravitation. But what is being curved? Well, hard to say, even though you can quantify it quite easily.
It didn’t prove anything of his theory, all it showed was basic Newton that gravity pulls in matter.
Einstein’s gravity is nonsensical, a mass’s weight distoring ‘spacetime’ in a vortex is only going to be on one side of that mass, the opposite side will be a bulge into ‘spacetime’. Is this how we got the ‘flat universe’? That ubiquitous flat rubber mat distorted to show a ball careering into the vortex centre?
None of the “scenarios” given in support of relativity bear close scrutiny – the GPS system is one such, which I investigated here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/08/a-couple-of-pertinent-quotes/#comment-956548
Einstein said that it would only take one proof to falsify his theory, well this does it. Unless you can prove that the distance from New York to San Francisco is greater in one direction than the other…
Myrrh says: July 13, 2012 at 1:52 pm
and
Gary Pearse says:July 13, 2012 at 11:29 am
………………
Einstein’s mc^2 formula was derived by considering kinetic energy of a moving object and applying relativistic factor 1/sq.root[1-(v/c)^2].
If the same relativistic factor is applied to the gravity ‘constant’, then it can be shown that the gravitational pull of the objects from opposite edges of universe could be 10 times greater than previously thought. This would totally eliminate requirement for the ‘dark matter’.