Galaxies Floating on a Dark Matter Stream

Darkman, Walkin Dude writes "A team in Switzerland has discovered that most of the small satellite galaxies around the Milky Way's near-twin, Andromeda, are lined up in a single plane that slices through Andromeda's spiral disc. Using images from the Hubble space telescope, soon to be decommissioned, the researchers found that 9 of the 14 of Andromeda's satellites lay on a relatively narrow plane bisecting Andromeda. From the article: 'The team believes the plane could have formed in several ways. In one scenario, the galaxies may have fallen towards Andromeda along an invisible filament of dark matter. Computer simulations show these filaments can form a cosmic web along which galaxies flow.'"

Sombrero Galaxies and You

These are called Sombrero Galaxies [nasa.gov]. I believe M 104 [wikipedia.org] is the most famous since it was first noticed on May 11th, 1781.

Does dark matter hold our universe together in a web? Perhaps, though this would mean that there is no such thing as truly empty space as a small amount of dark matter would have to exist. Perhaps what lays beneath the edges of our universe is nothing in the sense of it being devoid of dark matter?

Check this out:

Consider this fact: In the air we breathe, each cubic centimeter contains roughly 5 X 1019 atoms. In contrast, the intergalactic medium has a density of only 10-6 particles per cubic centimeter--each atom inhabits a private box a meter on each side. This would seem to suggest that there is not much matter in the intergalactic medium. But, given the enormous volume between the galaxies, it quickly adds up: The combined atomic mass of intergalactic gas exceeds the combined atomic mass of all the stars and galaxies in the universe--possibly by as much as 50 percent! There is indeed something in empty space

From this article [americanscientist.org].

While this article only mentions computer simulations, many scientific groups have gone along further researching, convinced that the cosmic web does exist [ociw.edu]. Some people [roe.ac.uk] have based most of their work on dark matter and the cosmic web though I believe it is still speculation [wikipedia.org] and has yet to be accepted by the science community as a whole. I've read some crazy stuff about dark matter, like how it might be the "gravity particle" that is attracted to matter uniformly and causes the gravitational pull between objects. And even crazier books suggesting that the only way we'll ever be able to communicate between parallel existences is by lowering and raising these gravity particles.

Now, the slashdot community seems to be fairly educated and extremely opinionated so how about it--does dark matter exist? If so, since it is very difficult to detect, what are its defining properties?

Re:Sombrero Galaxies and You

Does dark matter hold our universe together in a web?

I think it's more like invisible strands of spaghetti.

Re:Sombrero Galaxies and You

so, in a sense, we are all touched by His Noodly Appendage?

Re:Sombrero Galaxies and You

Now, all we need to do is prove it's affecting evolution, and we've proven that His Noodleyness exists.

Or is that effecting evolution?

By the touch of His Noodly Appendage, this sentence could potentially use either affecting [answers.com] or effecting [answers.com] correctly! It truly is a miracle!

Grammar and Spelling Nazis tremble in the face of His Noodily Might!

Re:Sombrero Galaxies and You

Now, the slashdot community seems to be fairly educated and extremely opinionated so how about it--does dark matter exist? If so, since it is very difficult to detect, what are its defining properties?

If this [cerncourier.com] is correct, then the Dark Matter riddle has been solved. Basically, it was due to the fact that scientists thought they could safely use the Newtonian limit to General Relativity with galaxies. They were wrong and Dark Matter is a result of this error.

This was reported [slashdot.org] on Slashdot not to many moons ago.

Simon

Re:Sombrero Galaxies and You

Might want to do some actual research [arxiv.org] on the subject. From that list there are no articles in support of the Cooperstock-Tieu model other than a response by the orginal authors. The theoretical arguments and evidence against the model are quite convincing.

Dark matter is just the best model we have right now. It also amazes me how much Slashdot is against the dark matter model. Why is that?

Re:Sombrero Galaxies and You

"It also amazes me how much Slashdot is against the dark matter model. Why is that?"

Selection bias.

Those with an axe to grind shout the loudest and post the most often. The silent majority just keep scrolling.

Re:Sombrero Galaxies and You

Actually dark matter can be proved or disproved... it just hasn't been yet. Also there is indirect evidence for dark matter. Do you believe in String Theory? Dark matter has more evidence and theoretical weight than string theory.

Re:Sombrero Galaxies and You

The current consensus is that the paper is fundamentally flawed, and that when done correctly non-linearities from GR cannot explain the flat rotation curves of spiral galaxies (not to mention the vast amounts of other evidence for dark matter including hot gas in galaxy clusters, fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background, strong lensing arcs in clusters, weak gravitational lensing by galaxies, the distribution of galaxies on large scales, etc).

Unfortunately, the general public only hears about the initial press release, not the work of many other scientists in debunking those results.

Doug

Re:Sombrero Galaxies and You

"Computer simulations show..." is another way of saying "computer programmers imagine..."

[sigh] No, it's not.

ID

In another scenario, the Intelligent Designer put them on that specific plane just to see how long it took before somebody noticed and claimed that it must be Dark Matter.

Re:ID

"In another scenario, the Intelligent Designer put them on that specific plane just to see how long it took before somebody noticed and claimed that it must be Dark Matter."

Yeah yeah, we get it, fanatics suck. Let's not be fanatical about bringing up the

Eric Lerner

The team believes the plane could have formed in several ways. In one scenario, the galaxies may have fallen towards Andromeda along an invisible filament of dark matter. Computer simulations show these filaments can form a cosmic web along which galaxies flow.'

Eric Lerner [wikipedia.org] is looking less and less like a crank with every new cosmological experiment, I think this is exactly what his plasma filament theory [bigbangneverhappened.org] of the intergalactic medium has been predicting.

He has fellow-travellers...

...here [thunderbolts.info]. With some uberkewl photos to back up what they're saying.

In another scenario...

In one scenario, the galaxies may have fallen towards Andromeda along an invisible filament of dark matter.

In another scenario, the Flying Spaghetti Monster [venganza.org] might have used His Noodly Appendage to intelligently design it that way. Scientists speculate the arrangement makes it easier for Him to make a bank shot on the 9-ball galaxy.

Right.

Am I the only one who thinks this headline sounds like something some scientist completely pulled out of his ass? "Yeah...so you know dark matter? All the planets are, like, floating on it. And I am TOTALLY stoned...."

a name for it

If they eventually find more evidence for these "dark matter streams", and start naming them, I think "the styx" would be a completely awesome name for such a stream.

Old Lady

Galaxies Floating on a Dark Matter Stream

So, the old lady was right... it's turtles all the way down.
 

Occam's Razor Please

So we have two theories:

a) dark matter filaments (modeled on a computer no less). Matter we cannot see; who's existence is contentious, etc.

b) the remnants of a cannibalized galaxy. Solid evidence of this principle abundantly available.

Why leap to the more complicated and, arguably esoteric, explanation?

Dark Matter bullshit, admit scientists

AP - Scientists at the prestigious CERN institute in Switzerland announced late Friday that the so-called 'dark matter', which makes up 90% of the universe, is actually bullshit.
"These findings come as a surprise," stated Dr. Weissmann, lead scientist at the institute. "Before today, we thought dark matter might be, say, an agglomeration of exotic subatomic particles, like muons or 'strange' quarks, signifying a problem with the equations governing space-time. Instead, all that turns out to be bullshit."
Other hypotheses included Cheez-puffs and intelligent end-users. But the conclusive evidence for the new Bullshit Theory of Matter came from the Hubble space telescope, which since 1995 has been sending back data that, according to scientists, is "complete and utter bull."
"Over and over we ran through the equations, and each time we came up with the same answer: This is crap," affirmed Weismann. "It's satisfying, in a way, to be able to say that about your life's work."

-C.

Dark matter and the multiverse

I've heard Dr. Michio Kaku theorize that dark matter is the gravitational effect of the matter of other universes that are close to ours. I found that to be an intriguing thought, bringing two pretty wild ideas, dark matter and multiple universes, together in a coherent and even intuitive way.

ahref=http://www.mkaku.org/rel=url2html-18972 [slashdot.org]http: //www.mkaku.org/>

Re:Hubble soon to be decommissioned

"North Korea is making far bigger noises about making their own nuclear bombs, but no one seems to make such a fuss ...."

[OT, Sorry.]

Um, yeah, that's because several countries have diplomatic relations with NK and are negotiating with them. The US is actu

Hubble won't decommissioned soon

In his zeal to take a political potshot Zonk has ignored the most recent developments. Don't be deceived. NASA administrator Michael Griffin has reconsidered [spacedaily.com] earlier the earlier decision to scrap Hubble servicing. A shuttle crew will indeed have to risk th

Re:Hubble Space Telescope

Well let's see, NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe says it will never be visited by a space shuttle repair mission again

Um dude, O'Keefe has been gone from NASA for nine months now, your article link is almost a year old. One of the first things that the new administrator Michael Griffin did when he took over the reins was to try to figure out ways to keep Hubble alive. Griffin's an actual scientist, unlike O'Keefe who's a career-track manager. And thus sees the important of Hubble, which has been indispensible for astronomical research.

Direct from NASA's Hubble page [nasa.gov], it says

"At his April, 2005 confirmation hearing before the U.S. Senate, as well as in subsequent statements, new NASA Administrator Michael D. Griffin testified to the extraordinary scientific value of Hubble. He indicated his desire to take the robotic servicing mission "off the plate" on the basis of mission complexity, and reconsider an SM4 Shuttle-astronaut mission to Hubble. His rationale is that after the Shuttle's Return to Flight ("RTF", currently scheduled for July of 2005), and in particular after all the Shuttle improvements that precede RTF, NASA will essentially have a "new" Shuttle vehicle and system in the context of astronaut and mission safety. After successes in RTF and the following flight, if analysis shows that the risk levels associated with a Hubble mission are sufficiently low and manageable, SM4 could be reinstated by the Administrator."

Yup

your article link is almost a year old

I even noted that in my post, to pre-emptively head off any nitpicking. Looking at the page you link to, I see no concrete plans. I see "if", I see "possibility", I see "could", and I see "might". Nothing that says