From the ESA/HUBBLE INFORMATION CENTRE
Hubble discovers ‘wobbling galaxies’
Observations may hint at nature of dark matter
Using the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, astronomers have discovered that the brightest galaxies within galaxy clusters “wobble” relative to the cluster’s centre of mass. This unexpected result is inconsistent with predictions made by the current standard model of dark matter. With further analysis it may provide insights into the nature of dark matter, perhaps even indicating that new physics is at work.
Dark matter constitutes just over 25 percent of all matter in the Universe but cannot be directly observed, making it one of the biggest mysteries in modern astronomy. Invisible halos of elusive dark matter enclose galaxies and galaxy clusters alike. The latter are massive groupings of up to a thousand galaxies immersed in hot intergalactic gas. Such clusters have very dense cores, each containing a massive galaxy called the “brightest cluster galaxy” (BCG).
The standard model of dark matter (cold dark matter model) predicts that once a galaxy cluster has returned to a “relaxed” state after experiencing the turbulence of a merging event, the BCG does not move from the cluster’s centre. It is held in place by the enormous gravitational influence of dark matter.
But now, a team of Swiss, French, and British astronomers have analysed ten galaxy clusters observed with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, and found that their BCGs are not fixed at the centre as expected [1].
The Hubble data indicate that they are “wobbling” around the centre of mass of each cluster long after the galaxy cluster has returned to a relaxed state following a merger. In other words, the centre of the visible parts of each galaxy cluster and the centre of the total mass of the cluster — including its dark matter halo — are offset, by as much as 40 000 light-years.
“We found that the BCGs wobble around centre of the halos,” explains David Harvey, astronomer at EPFL, Switzerland, and lead author of the paper. “This indicates that, rather than a dense region in the centre of the galaxy cluster, as predicted by the cold dark matter model, there is a much shallower central density. This is a striking signal of exotic forms of dark matter right at the heart of galaxy clusters.”
The wobbling of the BCGs could only be analysed as the galaxy clusters studied also act as gravitational lenses. They are so massive that they warp spacetime enough to distort light from more distant objects behind them. This effect, called strong gravitational lensing, can be used to make a map of the dark matter associated with the cluster, enabling astronomers to work out the exact position of the centre of mass and then measure the offset of the BCG from this centre.
If this “wobbling” is not an unknown astrophysical phenomenon and in fact the result of the behaviour of dark matter, then it is inconsistent with the standard model of dark matter and can only be explained if dark matter particles can interact with each other — a strong contradiction to the current understanding of dark matter. This may indicate that new fundamental physics is required to solve the mystery of dark matter.
Co-author Frederic Courbin, also at EPFL, concludes: “We’re looking forward to larger surveys — such as the Euclid survey — that will extend our dataset. Then we can determine whether the wobbling of BGCs is the result of a novel astrophysical phenomenon or new fundamental physics. Both of which would be exciting!”
###
Notes
[1] The study was performed using archive data from Hubble. The observations were originally made for theCLASH and LoCuSS surveys.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I also suspect that this apparent weight loss is the explanation behind several inertial propulsion systems that have been invented – such as the Dean drive and EM drive. the inventor seems to attribute this effect
to a thrust produced by his invention when it is placed on a scale
‘Exotic forms of dark matter’? Isn’t that just ‘normal matter’?
It seems that the cosmologists are far more willing to expect that their current theories are yet incomplete. In fact they welcome and embrace the mystery. I always liked when I read that two of the competing hypothesis’ that may explain dark matter were MACHOS [massively compact halo objects] and WIMPS [weakly interacting massive particles]. There is a certain welcome whimsy in that.
Interesting points and conversations. But, personally, I think the galaxies are just drunk. 😉
Needs more Epicycles.
Seems that object wander around the universe.
http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/info/press-releases/interstellar/
“This is a striking signal of exotic forms of dark matter right at the heart of galaxy clusters”
Dark matter, dark energy, dark (black) holes are as real as AGW. Mainstream astrophysicists are just another dogmatic bunch with the same symptoms as the AGW crowd. Countless observations disproves their theories, for each new observation that is made they seem to always be amazed/surprised by the results (at least a difference from the AGW crowd ;)), which none predicted, nevertheless no revision of the old theories in sight.
Using the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, astronomers have discovered that the brightest galaxies within galaxy clusters “wobble” relative to the cluster’s centre of mass. This unexpected result is inconsistent with predictions made by the current standard model of dark matter.
Well, then, if it’s inconsistent with the current standard model of dark matter (accepted by 97% of cosmologists, at my last reading), then these astronomers are simply deniers, and must be incarcerated.
THERE IS NO DARK MATTER
CERN admitted they found nothing.
Dark Matter is anathema to the very physics of the universe
So lets look at Dark Matter
100% reflective yet we cannot detect what it reflects
Does not exhange information with the universe around it in any detectable way (in physics, something that does not exchange information for all intents and purposes does not exist in the physical world, EVERYTHING MUST exchange information)
All of the lensing claims.. can be just as easily calculated using refraction mathematics. (keep it simple stupid)
No evidence has ever been found for this magical matter
No one has ever shown evidence that any matter is missing.
Charge makes up most mass in the universe, the gap between nucleus (Neutron and Proton) and electrons. It is empty space inbetween. Furthermore, we cant even tell the charge of a Neutron, protons provide a charge we can measure, we have to subtract.
Without charge, the “matter” of the the universe, would be Neutrons, with no charge. Ie, the universe would not exist as we know it, and the “mass” would be so small as to not even register relative to the observable universe we see today.
Mass is almost ALL charge with nothing inbetween. Electrons and motion, without either, nearly all of the mass in the universe would disappear
You could not possibly be more wrong.
Most of the mass of baryonic matter is in protons and neutrons of atomic nuclei. The charged proton is slightly less massive than the neutron. Thus whatever “mass” charge has is tiny.
You completely miss the point, I said almost all mass is empty space between charged Proton Neutron and electron. The nucleus is also mass, but very little, I clearly made that point below
So your post doesn’t even challenge what i am saying, you better get back to google, unlike you this is coming straight from the noggin, reflection in knowedge of current theory, and an examination of it.
Are you saying the area between nucleus and electron is not mass? 😀 I hope not.
I am also pondering what happens to a neutron and proton that has charge removed.
Your replies denote some personal investment in this
and you dont even understand the topic
you should have read the other post relating to this below.
0 for 2 now, you better get back to google search. Out of your depth
So tired of BAD philosophy converted into equations and used to create physical objects. The abuse of mathematics in this context makes me want vomit.
mathematics has become somewhat of a sacred cow to create things, mathematics was never for that application. Mathematics are there to work out what we can see, what we can interact with, not to create things we cannot see, or interact with.
This is true for climate science too.
even space time curvature is complete bunk. I am meant to believe there are different space time curvatures around different parts of my body, I am not one mass, but many masses, and not uniform, how would that look in a graphical representation of space time curvature?
The geomotry of two objects, one massive and one small, in space time is bollocks.
When one object falls into the curvature of another object, it does not have a pulling effect on the object that created the well to fall into, Einstein’s theory is diametrically opposed to Neuton’s. It is Neutron that requires two masses to create an attraction, Einstein’s theory only requires one.
Yet…… they use Einstein’s thoery for space time curvature and at the same time use Neutron for force, but you cannot do that, the theories fundamentally disagree.
Jesus, how moronic can you get when you follow mathematis down the rabbit hole.
Newton ugh lol
Neutrons from the last post, freudian slips apenty 😀
See that empty space, that makes up most of the universe, now, how do we know that distance between nucleus and electrons is uniform throughout the universe?
How do we know charge is uniform thoughout the universe
And if mass is charge, and charge can change, then GRAVITY can change
Charge = mass = gravity
Probem solved
You are welcome
Where is my Nobel 😀
Gravity is proton charge and the resulting EM. This allows for the fundamental building blocks to connect, and othe processes build larger blocks, like temperature, forces, biology.
No, gravity is not charge.
Just cuz you don’t understand how spacetime works in the general theory of relativity doesn’t mean that there is no gravitation.
Predictions made by the general theory of relativity have been confirmed over and over and over again.
I’d urge you to study physics before presuming to comment thereupon.
“just cos you dont understand”
Clearly this is a depth you should not wave in
There is no such physical thing as space. It is a human concept, a set of coordinates around an area.
Time is nothing but a measurement of a procession of an already determined physical process.
Your whole argument falls over from there.
I have demonstrated that most of the matter in the universe is the space between proton and electron. Are you saying that is incorrect?
and if most of the mass is between proton and electron and mass is coupled to gravity then charge is mass. No charge no mass, just neutrons floating around. no charge and no proton, and in fact, Neutrons have a charge, so no neutron either, no mass.
Mass seems to be mostly the distance between charded proton neutron and electron
all you have is copy paste of the same junk science that has been around for decades
*wade in, I have no time for “google” scholars.
Let make it really simpy so it fits into your cranium
What creates the space between the nucleus and electron?
you shoud read my explanation of NNFs sometimes too, if the topic ever comes up here, it’s very simplistic actually, keep it simple stupid, too much junk science comes from self determined intellectual people who like to make things as complicated as possible purely to feel smart
Oh I can’t wait until you reply:D
The space is caused by different charges you numpty 😀
So, almost all mass is repulsion between pos and neg change
🙂
and if gravity can be derived by mass\denisty, then gravity is almost all charge.
* Gravity is proton And electron charge
All “in my opinion” of course 🙂 No fits thrown please
Wave particle duality debunked too. At last, waited for 2 decades for that nonsense to be debunked. bad philosophy that is central to Quantum mechanics.
There is no probability, there is only precise cause driven effect. If you CAN factor in all values, you can predict the future evolution of a system right down to the location of each particle.
We can’t know due to technical limitations, so we have to use probability
The universe doesn’t know what probability is, it is merely a human concept for things they cannot determine an accurate outcome of
Also no such thing as chaos either, which is the same reasoning as probability, we do not have the ability to know all values, and cannot predict a system, and it is “chaotic” to our understanding, but physically, in the phsyical world, that outcome was decided by it’s initial values and evolves precisely as those starting conditions dictated
Perhaps you should sit down and take a breath, gather your thoughts into one post, instead of posting over and over and over…
Let me elaborate on the fallacy of space time curvature, loaded the dishwasher and thought about it. 😀
When you have two objects in spacetime.. one larger than the other. Say sun and earth.
Earth falls into the geometric distortion created by the sun, any geometric distortion by the smaller earth mass will be canceled out, it will NOT affect the Sun physically at all, because they according to Einstein are not pulling each other (THAT IS NEWTON). The alleged earth space time curvature geometric distortion will have no effect on the larger body at all, it will just fall in (if both bodies are stationary)
It is Newton’s forces that cause the earth to have pull on the sun and vice versa.
But.. we have to completely opposed theories being mashed together to make the spacetime curvature work in the pysical world, beause as I said, with Relativity only, it would not work at all, because we see the stars being affected by maller masses
Geomotry does not allow for this to happen, the larger distortion will completely cancel out any effect of the smaller distortion on the larger body. If the distortion is exactly the same, the bodies would do NOTHING.
This is why the opposing theory of Newton is used, to overtcome this complete fallacy of spacetime curvature.
“Geomotry does not allow for this to happen, the larger distortion will completely cancel out any effect of the smaller distortion on the larger body. If the distortion is exactly the same, the bodies would do NOTHING.
This is why the opposing theory of Newton is used, to overtcome this complete fallacy of spacetime curvature.”
No, that is not the theory at all. Think of this analogy – spacetime is like a rubber sheet. You have a large marble on the sheet and it creates a depression. Put a smaller marble on the sheet and it also creates a depression but a smaller one. The depression of the first does not cancel out the depression of the second. If the two marbles are close together, the two depressions may seem to merge. The combination of the two marbles even make a larger depression. But looked at closely and measured, the depressions do not merge. There are two distinct depressions. The rubber sheet is a poor analogy to spacetime but it is useful as a thought experiment.
“There is no probability, there is only precise cause driven effect. If you CAN factor in all values, you can predict the future evolution of a system right down to the location of each particle.”
Probability theory is a human invention and a branch of mathematics. Even if the quantum nature of the universe didn’t exist and every aspect of the universe was pre-ordained and there was no uncertainty principle or quantum mechanics and everything was predictable – the branch of mathematics called probability theory would still exist and would still be very useful. That is because there is no way to know or factor in every value, every object state and the physics of how everything reacts. But the uncertainty principle does exist and so does quantum mechanics.
What I think you are trying to express is frustration with the idea of quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle which apparently you don’t agree with. I don’t think this is a good forum for attacking those two.
Space: is nothing but a defined area inside a set of coordinates
Time: is nothing but a measurement of procession of an already predermined physical process outcome (lets not mix this up with human decision making altering outcomes, the meat of much quantum reality drivel)
They mean nothing to the actual physical universe, time is not a real thing, it is a concept. Space is a concept, an relative and subjective one.
There is no quantum nature to the universe, there is no probability of outcome, the claim came from the philosophy of wave particle duality, and uncertainty thereof when the truth was, the very method of observation physically interfered with the dual slit experiment and altered the result, whereas the philosophy states that merely observing (watching) the experiment changed the outcome, which is just complete nonsense.
You are confusing philosophy with actuality. Confusing concept with physical reality
probability being useful has nothing to do with my post. If a probable outcome is enough for fit pupose, that is fine, that has nothing to do with the fact the universe does not work on probability, the universe is exactly precise.
when a concept enters the room, reality exits, as proven in your post.
I have tied my ramblings to the real world, the universe and every physical process in it is precise, exactly precise, no deviation.
and what I say about geometric distortions cancelling each other out is factual.
They cannot overlap in the same space, it’s physically impossible
To make this nonsense seem physically real, they take theory that completely disagrees with it and splice it on like Mann did with his thermometor record..:D
YOU CANNOT APPLY NEWTON TO EINSTEIN’s spacetime cuvature because they are diametrically opposed..
it seems this goes over the head of many, but some do understand this very simple problem with current astonomy.
You cant have space time curvature and mutual attraction at the same time because they are completely different things, space time curvature says bodies to not mutually attract at all.
Newton’s theory says the opposite, that objects attract each other.
einstein states a static spacetime field exists without matter being present, Newton says there is no attraction if there is 0 or 1 mass.
I suggest you think about this for a month first before replying
Mark – Helsinki, I don’t see many trying to debunk your comments probably as they don’t want to spend the time to do so given how many comments most will consider wrong you made. I’ll just work on the first 4 comments you made after my comment even though I think most of your comments are wrong in order to save time.
Mark – Helsinki: “Space: is nothing but a defined area inside a set of coordinates
Time: is nothing but a measurement of procession of an already predermined physical process outcome (lets not mix this up with human decision making altering outcomes, the meat of much quantum reality drivel).”
Re: Space. Space has many definitions. The one that seems appropriate here is that with respect to wobbling galaxies is the definition of spacetime which can be found with a search tool like Bing. Space is not just the defined area inside of a set of coordinates. By definition, it is also the area outside the set of coordinates.
Mark – Helsinki:”They mean nothing to the actual physical universe, time is not a real thing, it is a concept. Space is a concept, an relative and subjective one.”
This is a rather odd comment. What we call time does in fact exist and is as real to humans as is the universe. It is true that there are various conceptual ideas of time. Concepts can apply to that which is real. Space is also real. And there are many conceptual ideas about space.
Mark – Helsinki: “There is no quantum nature to the universe, there is no probability of outcome, the claim came from the philosophy of wave particle duality, and uncertainty …”
“Quantum mechanics” is a very well supported scientific theory. It is a theory from which many predictions were made. The predictions turned out to be both true and useful in the physical world that we human live and work in. Modern electronics is in part based on the quantum nature of reality. From what I can tell, you object to the quantum mechanics theory based on your philosophy. You have not posted anything that would cause most people to doubt the theory of quantum mechanics – certainly, you have not cast doubt in a scientific manner. Your comment that there is no “probability of outcome” appears to be more of your philosophy. If I pick up a fair 6 sided dice, with each side numbered starting with 1 and ending with 6, before I roll it, the probability of the outcome of the roll being any particular number from 1 to 6 is 1/6. From your philosophical viewpoint, where you assume everything must be known and preordained, than how the dice will land is preordained and there is no probability that it will land on anything other than the preordained side. But as a human, I don’t know which side the dice will land on. I don’t know if something is preordained or not. All humans can know is that the probability of this 6 sided fair dice landing on any particular number when it is rolled is 1/6. Probability theory is useful to those of us that are not “divine” and don’t know what is preordained and don’t even know if anything is preordained. As to quantum nature of reality which works mainly on the very small scale such as photons or electrons, that is something that is well supported by prediction and experiment.
This is all I have time to comment on.
What is to debunk … all experiments falsify his answer, nobody would waste time they already know it’s wrong 🙂
I rest my case
I’m always impressed by how much we have learned since Rutherford’s time. Then I read Mark Helsinki’s nonsense and realize he doesn’t even know what Rutherford knew. Tsk, tsk!
Jim
If I hear another hack invoke near infinity I will lose my **** 😀
Near infinity is exactly the same nonsense concept as infinity, there is NO difference between “near infinity”and “infinity”
If the vast majority of mass is far from the center of the cluster why would the gravity vector be anything but outward from the center? Like being weightless at the gravitational center of a planet?
The vector of attraction\gravity is relative to the position of an object being attracted.
if you are in the center of the cluster, gravity pulls on all sides. If you are outside obviously the vector is toward the cluster but as you move closer to the cluster, more and more vectors of attraction will come into play.
Inside the cluster, the area of the cluster with the highest density will pull on the surrounding parts, and becomes the center of gravity\attraction and throw in psuedo force of centrigugal force, ie force directed away from the axis of rotation by the spinning of the cluster, it creates a wobble.
inequal distribution of matter creating a non centered attractive force on the whole, and force directed away from the axis of rotation is a wobbly cluster 🙂
on earth, it’s physically fixed, non centered distribution of weight + spin. Like a bady made fidget spinner that has an “off center” center rotation point.
Lagrangian points are locations where the outward pull of gravity is equal in all directions. And that is also why they’re unstable. The center of a sparse galactic cluster is such a point. Nothing need be there.