The Hubble Space Telescope‘s glamour shots of the universe nearly always have a discovery behind them.
In this image, a remote galaxy is greatly magnified and distorted by the effects of gravitationally warped space. After its public release, astronomers used the picture to measure the galaxy’s distance of 9.4 billion light-years. This places the galaxy at the peak epoch of star formation in cosmic evolution.
In this particular snapshot, a science discovery followed the release of a Hubble observation of a striking example of a deep-space optical phenomenon dubbed an “Einstein ring.” The photo was released in December 2020 as an example of one of the largest, nearly complete Einstein rings ever seen.
Image Credit: ESA/Hubble & NASA, S. Jha; Acknowledgment: L. Shatz
Last Updated: Oct 21, 2021Editor: Yvette Smith
Nice image, but to know what they are talking about much more detail is available as you can find out here
the first link has a short video explaining ‘Einstein ring’ phenomena, but you may wish not to take it for granted.
(my personal view is: there might be other physical effects that science automatically assign to our current limited knowledge, e.g why mass should be causing space curvature?. A clear answer to every why? is required before it is accepted for granted.)
A modest perusal of mankind’s knowledge reveals infrequent answers to “why”.
Addressing the “why” problem moves the truth seeker from physics to metaphysics, which is rather hopeless.
It’s not even metaphysics. Why implies intention, which is a human characteristic, so it implicitly sticks a human-like God in the biznai.
How implies causality, which although again a human concept, requires no human like elements in the explanation.
Perhaps, then, it’s paraphysics?
“Why” is a combined effect of Special Relativity and an equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass. Both effects have been observed, and Einstein postulated them (thus preventing a “why?”) to develop a general theory of relativity.
Humans have more frequent answers for “why not”.
How one can know if the cat in the box is alive or dead without opening the box?
The smell dude ,the smell.
I hit Schroedingers cat with my car,
put it in a box and buried it.
But good ol ‘ Schroedi thinks the cat is 50% alive so he ain’t angry.
Oh, ok… 🙂
No need to open the box to find out, if one inside the box.
Yes, the size of the box matters… 🙂
Physics from relativity point of view… or the point of observation.
Observation from within, versus observation from “outside”.
Right, if the cat in the box is alive, sooner or later its cat-do will smell, and you’ll know it’s time to clean the litter.
The cat’s observation regarding Schrodinger’s box: If he wants to know what happens inside the damned box, he should just get in there himself… problem solved!
The opening of the box is not the point. The observation is.
That is, until the cat is observed, its state is indeterminate.
Observation implies quantum interactions of some sort.
Observation from “outside”, an outside view point, so to say… not the same as from the within… observation point.
Can not determine validity or clarity solely by relying on a within observation point in regard of a condition requiring a “outside” observation point also… or at least a clear, perhaps indirect, connection to such a proposition.
Not just simply quantum.
We humanity, had the world’s map, before looking at it from space…
It took a long time and a lot of effort, but it was done, with no much shenanigans… or at least not as much as these days.
Authority does not provide validity.
(even when it may provide some guaranty)
The method, the process and it’s rigorous application does.
Schroedi wrote this cat thing in a letter to Einstein…it was simply about the unsatisfactory weirdness of the quantum world…but of course, cats are too large for the quantum world.
Cat isn’t a quantum particle. Its state can not be indeterminate.
Astronomers are looking for life in the universe but just can’t be bothered with the UFO subject, other than a few, like Avi Loeb, past head of the astronomy dept. at Hah-vid.
Show them some real evidence and I guarantee they’ll suddenly be interested. Until then…
How about the Pentagon report from last June? Not good enough?
I love this stuff. The images are amazing and add to our knowledge as well as providing fodder for endless speculation.
If we could be transported there instantly, I wonder what it looks like now; downtown Detroit maybe?
Nah. Galaxies are self organising ,
not self destroying.They follow the golden rule and not the marxist one.
As long as they are not forced to get help from liberals
galaxies can never look like Detroit.
Don’t forget that when galaxies collide, there’s a bit of a mess to clean up.
No matter how much they collide they will reorganize on their own after a while,while Detroit Can’t.
I suppose so. So the difference is that Detroit will take longer than that galaxy to reorganize?
Detroit will take forever to reorganize if they do not change their political perspective as their current one can only exist on the lowest level as inclusivity for all can only exist with a common/ist(=lowest) denominator .
And a Galaxy where atoms are all equal is one where only Hydrogen exists and no higher structures or elements are allowed.
No stars,no fusion,no black holes,no lights – just darkness and a few atoms per cubic meter.
The only reason Detroit does not look that way is because it once had significant substance and a structure to destroy.
But if you take a look at photos of communist countries: Everything is grey in grey,buildings look the same,sad people in silent agony who got their souls sucked out – a Galaxy where all atoms are equal,except the more equal ones.
Fabulous science, brought to us by the bespecticled Hubble Telescope!
Those spectacles for the telescope mirror have worked out pretty good over the years. Hubble has served humankind well.
And it looks like our new commercial space launchers have the capablity to reach Hubble’s orbit, so we might be able to keep it going for a lot longer with a few repairs here and there. They need to start game-planning a future Hubble repair mission now.
I read about this a couple months ago. The issue seems to be that any repairs (like replacement of gyros or malfunctioning circuit boards) require humans to get out there in their space suits, and the current commercial spacecraft don’t have airlocks. Adding an airlock to an existing spacecraft would be problematic, because the hatches (intended to allow shirtsleeve people to pass through into the ISS) are too small for space suited humans. So you’d need an airlock that was big enough to put on or take off a space suit, and that would be quite large. Not impossible, but a lot of engineering, testing etc.
This shows the photo before the computer enhancement. Or is it “artist rendition” like we see of so many “space photos”. I’m not doubting the veracity of the find, just the image manipulation.
Like global mean temperature, the detail increases the more the data is “harmonized”
Can you provide a link to where you found this image?
Actually, your post *was* a link, so I was able to find the original post here: https://www.universetoday.com/129274/new-einstein-ring-discovered-dark-energy-camera/. It dates from 2016, and was taken by an Earth-bound telescope, the Gran Telescopio CANARIAS.
For that matter, they’re not the same ring. The Canarias Einstein Ring is catalog # IAC J010127-334319 in the constellation Sculptor, while the Hubble image is of GAL-CLUS-022058s in the constellation Fornax.
So the difference has nothing to do with computer processing; different telescopes and different galaxies.
The redshift of the lense and the background galaxy should be quite different, the gravitational redshift notwithstanding. Has anyone checked?
Article says: “…measure the galaxy’s distance of 9.4 billion light-years.”.
Big deal we have globular clusters orbiting our galaxy that are 12 billion years old. I wonder how they got here.
Well, since that picture looks entirely like some sort of cosmic a***hole, perhaps it cr***ped them out?
The universe is older than that, so what is the problem?
So, that’s the computer enhanced photo of an object that existed 9.6 billion light years ago. Given physic’s current state of knowledge, what would a computer simulation show of that object’s present state of existence, say in nine exposures taken every billion years over time until the present?
The answer to why almost always has a deeper why on to infinity.
There are 3 general answers to “why”.
Why is the sky blue? Reflects blue light. God made it blue. It had to be some color.
Who, what, when, where. Same speech elements. Why is different.
The Universe is an amazing place.
We are like babes in the woods. Meaning, we have a long way to go to understanding what is around us.
Undoubtedly galaxy warming!
Andrew Hall discusses the tenability of gravitational lensing and explores the growing body of research into its theoretical alternatives.
No such “growing body of research” exists. Just more baseless “electric universe” garbage.
If gravitational lensing were refraction, then it would be chromatic. It’s not.
Rainbows result from refraction.
climate change? delete.
Even at a casual glance it seems very unlikely that this is gravitational lensing given the position of the objects/space and the POV of the observer. It certainly does look like there is a medium causing the light effect, plasma? molecular clouds of material?, gases?
Sadly none of those are considered and it’s instantly interpreted as gravitational.
(If you assert all mass has some effect on space geometrically, then you assert that all light must travel the path of this geometric distortion, and thus must assert that we can actually prove this in experiment, we have the instruments sensitive enough, we have mental camera frame speeds, though.. you don’t get to invoke Newton (because his theory of gravity is opposed to Einstein’s) so you cannot honestly claim (there isn’t enough gravitational force) because that upends your “Geometric space time distortion” insistence that creates alleged Einstein rings. Cant have it both ways, but astronomers do, constantly.
Of course, we do know there isn’t any actual empirical reality in Einstein rings, only interpretation. You can massage the calculations because they are best guesses (masses are unknown and could be off by huge numbers, so there is so much play around, see ** below for example of play around number massaging), and thus create mathematical outcomes that just happen to give you the answer your predisposed interpretation expected (it would not be a good career move to interpret it otherwise)
Furthermore, these phenomenon can actually be solved by using refraction equations.
Lastly, given so many telescope images of densely packed night sky of objects it makes one wonder why there is not an extreme abundance of this phenomenon and also such interference by gravity in light from these objects as light passes by enormous objects on its way to the telescope.
What I find most interesting is that NASA observed stars orbiting the alleged SMBH at the centre of the milky way, and no such lensing was observed (especially by those stars that orbited quite close to the SMBH. (**also a cloud of hydrogen passed by without being consumed, as mentioned above, this kind of bad science leaves massive numbers laying around to play with, so they concocted unobserved stars within the cloud, that created enough gravity to prevent the cloud being consumed)
** example 2 of play around number massaging is the Nasa experiment to detect the gravitation effect of the earth spinning with quartz gyroscopes. The actual experiment was a complete failure, there was too much interference in effects far greater than the signal they were looking for, so, NASA played with that data FOR 5 YEARS!, then published SUCCESS by subtracting all of the pesky data that got in the way, PAGES community would be proud)
Refraction cannot account for gravitational lensing observations. The light bent by massive bodies is achromatic.
The “electric universe” hoax is utterly woithout the least bit of scientific basis. Its purveyors are either shameless liars or totally scientifically illiterate ignoramuses.
Please state what testable predicrtions, subject to being shown false, the EU sham makes.
Gravity denial is even more antiscientific than flat earthery. Rocket scientists rely on Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity to make GPS satellites work. Even Newtonian universal gravitational equations are good enought for most government work.
What practical good has the EU hogwash ever done?
There’s too much nonsense in your post to reply to everything; John Tillman made some good points in his reply. I’ll just add one:
“…given so many telescope images of densely packed night sky of objects it makes one wonder why there is not an extreme abundance of this phenomenon and also such interference by gravity in light from these objects as light passes by enormous objects on its way to the telescope.” In case you hadn’t noticed, the night sky is largely black. That’s because objects are NOT that densely packed in the night sky. The exceptions to the blackness are mostly stars, and they’re not massive enough to cause an Einstein Ring. There are some galaxies (more come into view with telescopes), but they generally aren’t massive enough either. It takes a cluster of galaxies PLUS the right alignment of other galaxies directly behind them (from our point of view) to make an Einstein Ring, and that coincidence is relatively rare.
For those interested in the truth, instead of Mark’s spin, the results of the NASA experiment on frame dragging are here: http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/status1.html. Pretty darned good correspondence between theory and measurement.
Thanks! Great brief explanation.
EU hoaxsters can’t explain why celestial collisions, producing craters, are observed on Earth and on other bodies, but the electrical arcs supposed to be responsible for craters have never been seen anywhere. Nor is there any way to explain how the alleged electrical currents running through the solar system, galaxy and universe actually work, whence they come or whither they go.
It’s all lunatic raving, concocted by hucksters who profit from duping the ignorant and gullible, easily deluded.
Also impressive empirical confirmation of theory in the experimental results.
Wow … what’s with all of the vitriol against the merry band of Heretics that is the Electric Universe?
First, I would like to point out that you, John Tillman and McSwell, and most everyone else reading this post, are Climate Heretics. The “Scientific Cannon” (an oxymoron) for Climate Change is that the excess CO2 produced by human activities will dangerously warm the atmosphere. You do not believe that, so you are a Heretic. And you are willing to argue your heresy on the merits because you have ideas and data that support your position (or a least that point out deficiencies and wrongdoing in the orthodoxy.)
There have been Heretics before us; Aristotle, Galileo, Einstein, Hubble, Velikovsky, Arp. Each have fathered ideas that have disagreed the prevailing consensus … the Earth is not flat, the Earth is not the center of the universe, space-time is warped and there are no absolutes except maybe c, Red-shift is an analog for distance and means the universe is expanding, the solar system has a chaotic past is has not run like Victorian clockwork, Red-shift does not equal distance so scratch that idea that the universe is expanding. All of these Heretics were savaged with personal ad-hominem attacks, silenced, killed, or had their telescopes taken away from them. Einstein was the only one to eventually escape his Heretic label while alive, but it was a long struggle. At the time he was called a quack who lacked evidence to support his outlandish theories. Max Plank was apologizing to the university regents for Albert’s views while trying to bring him to Berlin to teach physics.
The astrophysics cannon of “there is no electricity in space” is indefensible. Everything about the modern world is based on electricity. But astronomers want to cling to their 19th century horse and buggy and oil lamp universe. Gravity is all they understand. The solar wind is comprised of charged particles in motion (the definition of an electric current is charge in motion) and the solar wind accelerates as it travels away from the Sun; fast at Mercury, faster at Venus, even faster as it passes the Earth … The only method that we have to accelerate a charged particle is the application of an electric field. Ergo, there must be a large electric field centered on Sol to produce the acceleration that we observe in the charged protons that form the solar wind. But the astrophysics cannon says that plasmas short out electric currents immediately so there cannot be an electric field around Sol. Hannes Alfven and Kristian Birkeland proved otherwise experimenting with plasmas that self organize into double layers with very messy mathematics. This is the essence of the Electric Universe. Seems plausible.
EU theory does make interesting predictions, like there should be no difference between comets (rocks) and asteroids (rocks) other than their orbits. But traditional astronomy says comets are ice balls because we can point a telescope with a spectrograph at a comet and we see the spectrum of water in the tail, ergo the comet is an ice ball. The EU guys say the comet is a rock moving through an intensifying electric field gradient as it approaches the sun on a highly elliptical orbit such that electric discharge machining (electrical arcing) occurs on the surface, which decomposes the silicates in the rock generating OH radicals as a byproduct (actual verifiable chemistry that can be replicated in a laboratory). Combine the OH radical with the naked hydrogen nuclei that is the solar wind, and you manufacture water on the spot.
So which theory is correct? Well, every time we have sent a spacecraft to rendezvous with a comet, the comet appears to be a rock.
And the streamers photographed coming off the comet nucleus sure seem to be collimated like they are bound by an electric field. And the Rosetta lander that was designed with harpoon spikes to grab onto the icy surface of the comet that we KNOW is made of ice has bounced off the surface and has been lost.
Nasa says the harpoons failed to fire, (really, all four of them?) but a more plausible explanation is that they did fire and the lander was pushed away like a pogo stick when the harpoons struck solid rock.
And even when they are close to saying electricity is responsible for phenomena in the vicinity of a comet …
… they weasel away and maintain their “Sun is melting ice” theory (because we know that it must be true), and then electricity gets involved after the fact.
And when the Electric Universe community learned that the Deep Impact mission included a large copper slug that they would fire at Comet Temple 1, they predicted the cameras would be over-exposed at time of impact due to the blinding nature of the electric arc discharge that would likely occur when two dissimilarly charged objects contact each other and one of them was an excellent conductor of electricity. The impact pictures were severely overexposed. NASA said “Hmmm, that didn’t go as planned. I wonder what happened?” EU said, “We told you so.”
And comets frequently flare up and become visible near the orbit of Neptune, which is way outside the frost limit where the sun is capable of supplying enough insolation to melt the ice. But the electric field is available for electric discharge machining.
By my count, that score is EU:5, traditional astrophysics:0. The EU are Heretics, and their message cannot be heard by those who learned what they know from someone who learned it from someone who learned if from someone who got it wrong at the beginning. Too much tradition.
Halton Arp, who succeeded Hubble at Palomar Observatory, was claimed by the EU as a fellow Heretic when he published The Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies and Seeing Red in which he destroys the Red-shift equals Distance meme that Big Bang cosmology is based on. Arp documents the existence of linearly aligned sets of galaxies and quasars that are physically close to each other (immersed in the same hydrogen cloud or lined up with the quasar obscuring the galaxy) where the Red-shifts of the quasars are quantized plus and minus the same amounts on each side of the galaxy, and the quantized differentials follow the same progression of values everywhere. But the “Red-shift equals distance” meme says those quasars and galaxies must be separated by great distances, and that the quasars that are optically in front of the galaxies are really far off in the distance. They say, “Do not believe you lying eyes.”
And how is it possible that the Red-shifts are quantized! This should be a leading question in astrophysics today. But it cannot be allowed to be investigated because all of those PHDs who learned it from a PHD who learned it from a PHD who got it wrong at the beginning would all die of embarrassment. So, what is to be done? They took away Arp’s telescope time and banished him to Germany. We treated him no better than Galileo.
Dr Robitaille published “Forty Lines of Evidence for Condensed Matter – The Sun on Trial: Liquid Metal Hydrogen as a Solar Building Block” in which he collects together actual observational evidence that suggests the Sun cannot be made of a gaseous plasma. Oh my. The Heresy!!! But that’s not what we learned from Eddington! (a Quaker who grew up on a farm without electricity) If Arp’s or Robitaille’s evidence is true, the wheels don’t just come off the bus, the whole bus disintegrates. So, “we ignore your reality and substitute our own!” In many ways traditional astronomy is far, far worse than the Climate Change scam. Big Physics routinely run billion dollar experiments, and at that money scale they brook no dissent. And the large sums of money required force them to run things backwards. They have a theory, so they are working backwards to find the evidence that they need to support their theory. Sound familiar?
The worst example of this working backwards was the recent report of how they have finally imaged a black hole. If you actually read the paper, you will discover that they have pre-processed, massaged, and post-processed many terabytes of data from telescopes spread across the Earth to render just a few values for a few pixels spread across a synthetic image plane. Then they used a pattern matching algorithm to match that data to the pixels in artists renditions of what they think a black hole should look like. Then they printed the artist rendition that most closely matched the data, and unabashedly said, “We have an image of a black hole!” Well, I have been meaning to repeat the final phase of that experiment feeding in the portraits of US president as the image set to match to the data. I am 100% sure that the answer will be Grover Cleveland. He was certainly round enough and wore a lot of black, and my result would be just as scientific.
The EU are more a collection of like-minded Heretics than anything else, where the central theme is “there has to be a place for electricity in cosmology”. They are fellow travelers of ours who are railing against an obviously deficient orthodoxy, differing from us only in the heresies they espouse. So please refrain from the ad-hominem attacks anytime the EU is mentioned. Instead, how about a succinct critic of the theory being presented?
For the record, I enjoy the Electric Universe the same way I enjoy an episode of Mythbusters. But I find that most of the Electric Universe episodes end with … “Plausible”. The trouble is that too many of the Astronomy episodes with all of their add-hoc additions to handle experimental evidence contrary to theory (missing neutrinos, dark energy, dark matter, violations of thermodynamics, etc), look to end with … “Busted”. Sad but true.
I believe that Mark’s point can be paraphrased as … “The Astronomers found exactly what they were looking for, and they considered no other possibilities.”
That sounds remarkably like … “every time they go looking for Global warming, they find it.” They only find what they are paid to be looking for.
And by the way, I am not sure your statement is true … “Refraction cannot account for gravitational lensing observations. The light bent by massive bodies is achromatic.”
You use a rainbow as a counter example. The individual rays that comprise a rainbow are also achromatic, meaning one color. The difference is that with a rainbow, you have millions of lenses, where each water droplet falling as rain forms a refractive element. Each droplet (lens) delivers only one color to your eyeball. As you look outward from the center, the angle of incidence at each lens corresponds to a different color, so that the entire rainbow has many colors. But if you only had one droplet (one lens), you would only see one color. So your analogy is insufficient.
I would be interested to hear a more complete argument for how a gravitational lens could be differentiated from a lens formed from a curved tapering density gradient.
Opposing the consensus on “climate change” is in no way similar to pointing out the raving lunacy on the EU hoax.
Why don’t you actually study real science, instead of questioning the fact that gravitationally lensed light is achromatic? Which it is. The refraction lie is easily shown false.
That comets and asteroids have differing compositions of metals, rock and ices is also a fact. Besides their gravity-controlled orbits, comets consist of non-volatile grains and frozen gases. Asteroids are made of differing portions of rock and metal, with minot amounts of water ice.
Of course EM energy and charged particles exist. But great arcs of electricity don’t strike asteroids, moons and planets, leaving craters behind. We can see smaller bodies striking larger ones. Gravity is a fact, ie an observation of nature. Denying its existence is insane.
Achromatic gravitational lensing:
The varying composition of asteroids results from some of them being from the differentiated iron-nickel cores of planetesimals split by collisions or ripped apart by the effect of Jupiter’s gravitational field.
Where do you get this stuff … “That comets and asteroids have differing compositions of metals, rock and ices is also a fact.”
No, that is a conjecture based on theory. The truth is we do not know. Have you been to a comet to sample it? Been to an asteroid?
Well, a few years back NASA went to comet Wild 2 with their Stardust mission to actually take a sample, and the results are just in.
New research by scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and collaborators reveals that, in addition to containing material that formed very close to the young sun, the dust from Wild 2 also is missing ingredients that would be expected in comet dust. Surprisingly, the Wild 2 comet sample better resembles a meteorite from the asteroid belt rather than an ancient, unaltered comet.
“As a whole, the samples look more asteroidal than cometary.”
Oops. I would score that as … Electric Universe:1, You:0
We will have to wait another year for an asteroid sample. The Osiris-Rex mission will be back from asteroid Bennu in early 2023.
For the record, I did not question that gravitational lensing is achromatic. I just pointed out that your analogy was in the apples to oranges variety by comparing one gravitational lens to millions of raindrop lenses.
But, since you brought it up … did you actually read the paper you referenced?
It took a while to wade through your reference from beginning to end, and the math was a little difficult, but the paper clearly describes frequency dependent scattering. Frequency dependent scattering would be chromatic aberration by definition. But do not take my word for it, you can read the summary at the end …
In this paper we investigated the influence of gravitational lensing on the spectra of lensed QSOs. Starting from the assumption that the magnification due to a lens is in general a complex function — i.e. the presence of globular clusters or satellite dwarf galaxies in the lens galaxy may introduce perturbations to the potential of the principal lens galaxy as noted by Impey et al. (1998) — and that the line- and continuum-emitting regions are different in size and geometry, we found that the magnification of the spectra of the different images may be chromatic (as noted in Wambsganss & Paczyński 1991; Lewis et al. 1998; Wisotzki et al. 2003; Wucknitz et al. 2003).
You say … “The refraction lie is easily shown false.” Ok, if it is easily shown false, then please show it. What exactly is the “refraction lie?”
And nobody is denying the existence of gravity. But astrophysics does deny the existence of electricity. Electricity is 39 orders of magnitude more powerful than gravity, and astrophysics does not care. Think about what Robert Millikan did when he measured the charge of the electron. He essentially constructed a balance with a drop of oil with a single electron in an electric field on one side, and the gravitational attraction of the entire Earth on the other. That single electron was able to balance the gravitational attraction of the entire Earth. It seems like that tremendous difference in strength might be important for even very diffuse electric fields on solar or galactic scales. And just because you do not see electrical activity today does not mean that it has not happened in the recent past. That’s like arriving at a disaster site the day after a hurricane and claiming that wind could not cause that damage because there is no wind today. Or for a climate analogy, that’s like saying that it was impossible for Hadrian and his Legions to grow wine at the English Scottish border because it is too cold to grow grapes there today. But the evidence for winemaking at Hadrian’s wall is one of the ways we know it was warmer in the past. Even better, Valparaiso University straddles the Valparaiso Moraine which is the folded earth at the southern terminus of the former 5000 ft thick Laurentide Ice sheet. There is no ice there today, but the evidence is hard to miss. That moraine is what got me interested in climate studies in the first place.
I get it from observed reality.
Astrophysics doesn’t deny the existence of electricity, and EU most certainly does deny gravity.
The refraction lie is that gravitational lensing is caused by refraction, not gravitation. It’s a standard EU falsehood, as shown above by Helsinki Mark.
According to Relative Locality, a quantum gravity area, there should be an IR and UV, i.e. an energy density effect on spacetime. That would mean Microwave, Visible, Infrared and Gamm/X-ray images of the same remote object could show possibly different redshift, location, and especially if lensed.
Fermi/LAT did gamma imaging, but my question is how did they measure redshift? If visible context is used to imply gamma redshift, maybe they missed it?