Slashdot Log In
Hubble Telescope Maps Dark Matter in 3D
Posted by
Zonk
on Sun Jan 07, 2007 05:59 PM
from the do-not-go-here dept.
from the do-not-go-here dept.
dido writes "The BBC reports that the Hubble Space Telescope has been used to make a map of the dark matter distribution of the universe, providing the best evidence of the role dark matter plays in the structure and evolution of the universe. From the article: 'According to one researcher, the findings provide "beautiful confirmation" of standard theories to explain how structures in the Universe evolved over billions of years.'"
Related Stories
[+]
Hubble Space Telescope Detects Ring of Dark Matter 176 comments
mknewman wrote with a link to a story on the NASA site indicating that they may have finally found dark matter using the Hubble telescope. We've discussed the stuff a few times in the last year, with the Hubble actually mapping out the dark matter in the universe in January. This, though, may be our first 'sighting' of the elusive substance. "NASA will hold a media teleconference at 1 p.m. EDT on May 15 to discuss the strongest evidence to date that dark matter exists. This evidence was found in a ghostly ring of dark matter in the cluster CL0024+17, discovered using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope. The ring is the first detection of dark matter with a unique structure different from the distribution of both the galaxies and the hot gas in the cluster. The discovery will be featured in the June 20 issue of the Astrophysical Journal."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
you can't stop the spin machine (Score:5, Funny)
This is pretty cool. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This is pretty cool. (Score:4, Funny)
Maybe I've just been around here for too long, but the parent post reads like goatse.cx meets GNAA.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In reality you have to get within a few thousand kilometers of the event horizon for you to notice anything peculiar. Further away and the gravity well looks and behaves almost identical to an ordinary star.
Black holes doesn't play any role in the distribution of cosmological dark matter
Enlighten me (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Enlighten me (Score:5, Informative)
Some portion of it could be ordinary matter that's simply non-luminous, but I think there are observations that limit that to a small proportion.
The rest seems to be something that interacts only gravitationally... it might be a particle we haven't discovered yet. That's not as far fetched as it sounds -- neutrinos are just such a particle. They have mass so they interact gravitationally but they interact with ordinary matter extremely weakly in all other ways. Massive neutrinos were also candidates to explain some of the dark matter for a while, but I believe once their actual mass was measured it was too little to explain more than a bit of the dark matter.
Parent
Re:Enlighten me (Score:5, Informative)
See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology [wikipedia.org] .
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Enlighten me (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, but string theorists make theoretical physicists look like scientists
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
It is possible that most of the dark matter needed by current theories to explain the universe we see doesn't really exist, and that our understanding of gravity is wrong. The TeVeS theory, developed from MOND, may be able to explain the universe without requiring that most of it be made of dark matter and dark energy. See Gravity's dark side [physicsweb.org]. Also mentioned in a previous Slashdot stor [slashdot.org]
Re:Enlighten me (Score:5, Informative)
Big Bang nucleosynthesis limits the amount of baryonic (that is, "normal") matter to a relatively small fraction of the total observed mass of the universe. The basic idea is that we know how big the universe was when protons and neutrons (collectively known as nucleons) were being formed--at some point the cosmic fireball cooled off to the point where quarks were no longer free, so they condensed into nucleons. We also know that the lifetime of a free neutron is about 15 minutes, so there was only about an hour for nuclei more complex than hydrogen to form.
So, if the universe was VERY dense in the hour or so after nucleon formation then every single proton would have run into a neutron or two and there would be almost no plain old hydrogen in the universe--everything would be helium and deuterium. On the other hand, if the the universe were extremely diffuse during that single hour there would be hardly any helium--only the few percent made by stellar fusion and supernova in the past ten billion years. As it is, we are pretty sure based on observations and theory that about 20% of the helium in the universe was formed in the Big Bang. That, plus some more problematic numbers from deuterium and lithium and helium-3, give us a very good estimate of the total baryonic mass in the universe.
The visible mass is quite a bit smaller than the total baryonic mass, and there is some reason to believe that the flat rotation curves of spiral galaxies are due to baryonic dark matter, although it would have to be in the form of small clumps of matter like comets or dead stars or something to not do any significant scattering of light.
Dark matter on larger scales is completely unrelated to galactic dark matter--the use of the single term "dark matter" for these totally unrelated problems is unfortunate and confusing, as I point out every time this topic comes up on
The observation reported here, like the colliding galactic clusters observation reported a month or so ago, is amongst our first clear view of extra-galactic dark matter, which is too copious to be explained as normal baryonic matter.
The problem that cold dark matter theorists have to deal with is that the extra-galactic dark matter can't just interact gravitationally, because gravity is too weak a force to produce structures in the short time the universe has been around. To clump in the manner observed, extra-galactic dark matter has to have some mechanism for losing energy. Otherwise two pieces of dark matter (or a piece of dark matter and a peice of ordinary matter) would just pass through each other. The dark matter would never be slowed down by anything, and so would never form clumps on any scale.
So it is probable that extra-galactic dark matter is pretty exotic, or that something was sufficiently different in the early universe to make gravity sufficiently dissipative to form the observed clumps. Either way, the flood of observations using these new microlensing techniques is going to start killing off theories in droves--at least those theories that make actual predictions.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Damned facts, always getting in the way.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I fail to see how it is a "poor excuse" for anything, it's mearly a description of something we don't fully undersatnd but can indirectly observe and therfore label. Maybe our elegant theories will need to change to account for future observation but right now our notion of what we label as "dark matter" explains the observed a
Re:Enlighten me (Score:4, Informative)
There are a wide variety of dark matter searches being conducted which directly search for the particle. The general idea is to see their interaction through the recoil of an atom when one strikes the atom's nucleus. This is very difficult. The most common current technique is searching for the "sound" a dark matter particle interacting with cryogenically cooled germanium crystals produces.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
dark matter does not exist (Score:3, Insightful)
What standard theories? Dark matter does not exist, as least not as far as anyone (except astronomers with good imaginations) knows. There is a very nice (and complete!) standard model of physics, and dark matter holds no place.
I should qualify, I'm talking about theroes of non-baryonic dark matter [wikipedia.org] and even worse dark energy [wikipedia.org].
Regular matter, that is simply dark - i.e. cold, and not emiting light, does not bother me. But making up particles no one has ever seen just because you don't understand what you are seing is fitting facts to the data.
Scientists often discuss new theories, etc, and in that context dark matter has it's place, but to claim it exists - as this story does - without being able to actually measure anything is quite silly and premature. If you don't understand something, say so, don't invent plausable explanations that have nothing supporting them except your lack of knowledge.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:dark matter does not exist (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:dark matter does not exist (Score:5, Informative)
- 70% of dark energy
- 30% of matter
- out which, stars, gas, neutrino are making at most 5%
- so we are left with 25% of dark matter
So yes, dark matter is widely accepted. It's not satisfying because we have no clue about what it is (it clearly does not interact electromagnetically), but we can feel its gravitational pull. Coming up with a good theory on its nature is one of the hardest challenges in modern astrophysics.Parent
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that science is 'just' fitting theoretical models to data, do you? And that, while a model survives by being able to fit more types of data, it usually starts by fitting one or a handful?
Scientists often discuss new theories, etc, and in that context dark matter has it's place, but to claim it exists - as this story does - without being able to actually measure anythi
Re: (Score:2)
Because galaxies don't rotate the way our current theory of gravity says they should, because gravitational lensing isn't working the way our current theory of gravity says it should, because of a bynch of other thing I guess, the accepted solution it to declare that 95% of the universe is made of stuff we can't directly detect, can't do experiments on, doesn't exist locally, and is completely different from the universe we do obse
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Because galaxies don't rotate the way our current theory of gravity says they should, because gravitational lensing isn't working the way our current theory of gravity says it should, because of a bynch of other thing I guess,
You act as if having a bunch of observational evidence for dark matter is unimportant.
the accepted solution it to declare that 95% of the universe is made of stuff we can't directly detect,
Would dark matter be more palatable to you if it only made up 5% of the universe? Why does it suddenly become more implausible if it makes up most of the universe. It's because it makes up most of the universe that we can even tell it's there.
can't do experiments on,
That remains to be seen; we may be able to create such particles in accelerators, and we may also be able to detect them in the Sun, in cosmic ray experiments, etc.
That being sai
Re:dark matter does not exist (Score:5, Informative)
Sure, everyone would love it if we could detect dark matter particles directly — and if they interact non-gravitationally, we hopefully will someday. But what's silly is to claim that we have little reason to believe that dark matter particles exist.
Parent
Standard Model Complete... With Caveats (Score:2)
There's also the unresolved matter of actually observing a little particle that is in the Standard Model called the Higgs boson.
Trust me, the standard model is really really good, but it's far from complete.
Re:dark matter does not exist (Score:5, Informative)
So let's start at the beginning, shall we? Galaxy rotation curves indicate that there is more mass in galaxies than would be inferred from the luminous matter. How do we know that it's not clouds of cold gas? Because that's ruled out by 21cm observations and by studying the absorption spectra of extragalactic objects. How do know that it's not clouds of hot gas? Becasue that's ruled out by UV and X-ray observations. How do we know that it's not brown dwarfs and black holes? Because that's ruled out by microlensing surveys.
Now, studies of galaxy dispersion velocities in clusters indicates that there's more mass in galaxy clusters than than would be inferred from the galaxies themselves, plus the intracluster medium which is observed in the X-ray. This is verified to high accuracy (i.e., the estimates of the total cluster mass are in close agreement) by hydrostatic X-ray mass measurements and by weak lensing observations. How do we know that it's not clouds of cold gas? Because that couldn't coexist with the hot gas, and because the dark matter spatial distributions are clearly different from the gas distributions. How do we know that it's not clouds of hot gas? See "intracluster medium" above. How do we know that it's not brown dwarfs and black holes? Because there's no mechanism for moving large numbers of objects out of the galaxies into the ICM (there are some intracluster stars, yes, but relatively very few--and the number of those gives us hints as to the number of non-luminous objects similarly ejected). How do we know that it's not neutrinos? Because neutrinos are experimentally shown to be too light and too fast, and cosmological constraints show that too few would have been produced in the Big Bang.
Now, studies of cosmological structure formation indicate that the size and number of galaxy clusters in the universe are not consistent with what would be expected given an all-baryonic universe. How do we know that...er...well, that's that. Cold collisionless dark matter is required to make the simulations work.
How do we know that modified gravity isn't the answer? See multiple independent lines of evidence above. There are no theories of modified gravity that come even close to explaining all of the above. The MOND people cheerfully acknowledge this, even if their advocates on Slashdot don't.
Look, the history of physics is replete with things whose existence was inferred long before they could be directly observed--neutrinos, quarks, atoms themselves, and much, much more. It's simply asinine to suggest that "we haven't directly measured it" means "it doesn't exist". Heck, we only really "see" subatomic particles because of the photons given off when they interact with one thing or another--"seeing" dark matter via measurements of its gravitational effects is hardly less direct.
And we'll just ignore the nonsensical "fitting facts to the data". The bottom line is, there are multiple, independent lines of evidence that dark matter exists, and that it is non-baryonic. Uninformed posters on Slashdot can pat themselves on the back for their intelligence as much as they want, but they're only fooling themselves.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
That said, as the universe is explored in more detail, we increasingly see that the standard model is robust but has some issues, in the same way that mor
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
On one level, I consider dark matter to have the same credibility as the æther. An interesting concept, but largely created as hack to the model.
Aether theories didn't make any predictions that correctly explained any new observations. Dark matter does.
Certain unexplained acceleration in the cosmos has renwed interest in the Einstein cosmological constant, which if it exists, renews the presence of the æther, albeit in a different form.
The cosmological constant is a modification of the laws of gravitation, not anything like what was historically referred to as the aether.
Dismissing a concept simply because it is a mathematical hack is a mistake. In reality we use mathematics because it is a precise language that will often lead us to an unobserved reality.
This point is well taken. However,
Recall that special relativity is based on Einstein's assertion that equations should be symmetric.
That wasn't Einstein's motivation for introducing special relativity. (On the other hand, the complete form of Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism were based on Maxwell's assertion that the equations should be symmetric.)
RTFA (Score:2, Insightful)
So this map is based on what they assume the universe should look like. Then they use how its different to find where the dark matter might be. Doesnt sound 100% certain by any means, but its a nice picture.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Isotropy is an assumption, but we have never detected a significant deviation from isotr
Density Issues affecting the shape? (Score:2)
Seems to me there would be a wide range of density distributions. If so there must have been a human decision to decide
which level of density constitutes matter vs. empty space in this 3d depiction. I wonder how the 3d shape would change
if we arbitrarily moved this balance point of requisite density up or down the scale.
HubbleSite.org press release (Score:2)
I've tried to find something about whether this tells us something new about the properties of dark matter, but so far no luck. Anyone have a link to something more informative?
wtf is "dido"? (Score:2)
What's It Like, Other Than Dark? (Score:2)
excellent.... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Does Dark Matter exist? (Score:5, Funny)
That's dark matter.
I think that should be a modifier. -1, Dark Matter
Don't be mad that you didn't think of it...
Parent
Re:Does Dark Matter exist? (Score:5, Informative)
Astronomers have ways to measure the mass of objects, like galaxies, and cluster of galaxies, using a theory of the gravitation. For galaxies, the classical newtonian theory is enough: they just measure how fast the stars and the gas orbit around the galaxy, and derive directly their mass from kepler laws. For clusters of galaxies, or large structure, they use the bending of light by mass from general relativity. These measure are getting reasonably accurate. When they compare these masses to the mass they actually can see (stars, gas, etc..), they find that they can only account for 1/6 of the total mass they measure, well above all the uncertainties of the measurments. Therefore, there must be some matter (that is, something with a mass), that we cannot see (that does not interact via electromagnetism). This is the dark matter.
For more info, there is a [wikipedia] [wikipedia.org] entry.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is what I don't get about dark matter, and this is just how I see it, and no one has ever given me a decent explanation. Why is it that scientists think that dark matter exists simply because the observed galaxies don't conform to Newton's Laws? Wouldn't a simpler solution be to take a step back and consider that, maybe, Newton's Laws are flawed? I am not trying to disprove dark matter, I certainly am no cosmologist, but it just seems odd that so much attention is given to dark matter, and very litt
Re:Does Dark Matter exist? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Dark matter == epicycles? (Score:3, Insightful)
Some skepticism is certainly in order. Since we currently have no way of independently confirming the existence of dark matter, we also have no way of distinguishing between two possible cases: one case is that dark matter corresponds to some real, physical material; the other is that the theory of gravity we're using is flawed. The fact that a better theory of gravity hasn't been produced doesn't mean that the current one is correct.
There are pretty st
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean, apart from the fact that you need to create 90+ percent more matter in the universe than what is visible to prevent galaxies from flying apart?
i.e. without dark matter (and dark energy), gravity doesn't predict much.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Does Dark Matter exist? (Score:4, Interesting)
Some time ago, a man named Hannes Alfven, who is today considered the father of plasma physics, founded the field of magnetohydrodynamics, which astrophysicists have been using to model plasma in the universe for several decades now. This field treats plasma as a fluid and assumes that currents cannot flow through the plasma because it treats plasma as an ideal conductor with no resistance. This is actually not *anything* like the way that plasma operates in the real world, and since plasma represents 99%+ of all observable matter within the universe, this massively incorrect assumption yields absurd results in astrophysics today. Plasma is in fact electrically conductive and its electrical properties interact with its mechanical motions, and vice-versa. If you've ever seen a novelty plasma globe, then you intuitively know that plasma is not like a fluid. You can tell by looking closely at a plasma globe that the plasma creates filaments and these filaments pair up and twist around one another. These twisting currents are called Birkeland Currents. As the current flow increases through them, they pinch together with increasing force and this pinching action can actually condense matter into a ball. This is a big deal because there is no good reason to believe that molecules will gravitationally collapse from a diffuse collection of matter in space; in fact, gases obviously expand in a vacuum. Contrary to the more popular beliefs propagated in astrophysics and the media today, the z-pinch effect is likely actually how planets and stars form. Astrophysicists don't understand this because of their earlier assumptions regarding plasma being a fluid with no currents. But we can see strong evidence of Birkeland Currents and Z-Pinches happening through our telescopes.
The thing is, astrophysicists will see what they want to see through the telescope. All observations today are interpreted through mainstream concepts like stellar evolution and Big Bang theory. When an anomaly pops up, it can be a very simple matter to propose a "patch" for the theory to keep it going. Astrophysicists will invoke collisions, black holes, gravitational lensing or malformed electrical theory in order to explain away anomalies. But you will notice that anomalies are discovered nearly every week these days (especially with stellar evolution), and this is a problem because things like collisions should not actually be happening as often as they are being invoked to dismiss the anomalies.
When Hannes Alfven received his nobel prize for plasma physics in the 70's, he recused himself from the field that he created (MHD) and warned astrophysicists to abandon it, and that the path they were taking would eventually dead-end. But they completely ignored him and continue to do so. So, now we have mysterious forces tugging on matter throughout the universe that we can't see. This is what we call dark matter. Dark energy is supposed to be matter that can gravitationally repel. Electrical forces can accomplish both of these feats without any mysterious matter. All you have to do is drop the earlier incorrect assumptions about plasma and accept that extremely diffuse plasma flows can and do exist. You will notice over time that the dark matter studies will reveal some details that correspond with the properties of electricity over plasma. For this particular article, it was noticed that the structure of the dark matter was in places filamentary. Filamentary structures are far easier to generate with electricity than with gravity. It was also mentioned that dark matter can exist in the absence of physical matter. This is to be expected with plasma because plasma can consist of just electrons and ions, or it can also be coexisting with or collecting dust.
Some brave scientists and electrical engineers called Electric Universe Theorists are working on understanding the universe in terms of real plasma physics -- which makes p
Parent
Re:"There's something out there" (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)