Hubble Space Telescope Detects Ring of Dark Matter

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."

The Telescope Nobody Wanted..

[QuantumG]

except, of course, all the astrophysicists who often pointed out that exactly this kind of discovery was just around the corner.

Re:We Impress Me

[rts008]

"Has science always been this inexorable in it's progress?"

I don't beleive so. My take on it:

Timely communication over wide areas has started the 'inexonerable progress'. Telegraph, railroads, telephones, 2-way radio,and now the internet have boosted progress dramatically as each were implemented.

I may be wrong, but the concept you seem to be looking for is 'singularity'. It's happening quicker as time goes- like a snowball rolling downhill, it may not reach the bottom of the hill (true singularity), but it's headed that way.

Typical

[malsdavis]

Why does the title read "Hubble Space Telescope Detects Ring of Dark Matter" when - as the first line of the summary states -, the HST actually only " may have finally found dark matter".

"Has found" and "may have found" are very different things. I "may have" the lotto ticket which is going to win me millions of dollars in Saturday's draw; on the other hand, I may not. To pre-emptively state a conclusion before it has been made is foolish and extremely unscientific and simply not an accurate description.

We predict luminiferous aether

[vlad_petric]

We find no luminiferous aether.

Not all scientific predictions are made equal.

Re:We predict luminiferous aether

[Lijemo]

"We find no luminiferous aether.
Not all scientific predictions are made equal."

that was a very useful prediction.

We predicted luminous aether: it was a logical theory. We had good reason to believe that light was a wave, we had no reason to imagine that a wave could exist without a physical medium (air, water, etc.)

It was a falsifiable theory.

For a long time people tried to prove it, but measurements weren't sensitive enough. Finally, a sensitive enough experiment was developed, and it found-- nothing!

This was far more useful than if they had found something.

On discovering that the theory was wrong, they didn't try to argue that it was really still correct. They puzzled about what it could mean: how can a wave exist without a substance to wave through?

Many incredibly significant scientific advances of the next few decades came out of this enigma. If there had been no luniniferous aether theory, there would have been no enigma, and perhaps many of these discoveries would not yet have come about.

The usefulness of a theory is not in whether it's correct or not. The usefulness of a theory comes from what you learn while trying to discover whether or not it is correct.

Re:We Impress Me

[amRadioHed]

I think you got it in the other way around. Specialization is result of progress. In the past it was possible to have a strong grasp of science in general, now there is so much to know it just can't be done.

Dark matter: prediction or requirement?

[perturbed1]

Parent says: "We predict dark matter exists, then we show it exists."

Err. No. We did *not* predict dark matter. We were not expecting dark matter or anything like it when the Zwicky first saw that there had to be some "more" matter in the galaxies to explain the observed rotational curves. He probably first said: "Gee, well, that looks funny!" Zwicky probably said something a lot better actually, as he was known for his, often rude, mannerisms.

The astonishing discoveries in science come when humans really have no clue what is coming next! Case in point: The November Revolution in Physics [cerncourier.com]. That was the last time that the whole paradigm of understanding of particle physics shifted! That was back in 1974 and hasn't changed since! One new totally-unexpected particle, called the J/psi, was found and boom... the consequences were huge, for now, you *knew* that there had to more particles, namely the top and the bottom and that the W and the Z were predicted as well. Only after the discovery of all these predicted particles did the public came to accept the Standard Model and particle physics became a mature field. But, back in 1974, there were those who could see ahead in the light of this new discovery.

A large shift in the understanding of the universe happened already in astrophysics with the CMB(Cosmic Microwave Background) measurements. I liken it very much to the November Revolution. The CMB observations, first from COBE [nasa.gov] and later from WMAP and various other ground based observations, show with high statistics that there is something missing if we assume that the universe is all baryonic matter. Imagine a puzzle where there is a missing piece and now, you think of a piece that fits in this place. Well, dark matter fits the bill very well and other observations, also back it up. So somehow, dark matter is required by experimental results... Now, those who can see ahead make predictions on what we will --hopefully -- discover next: a dark matter candidate particle at the LHC, annihilation products of dark matter in space, a signal in gamma rays from annihilation, plenty of lensing examples in galaxies,.. This is called phenomenology for a reason. You get an idea inspired by experimental results from an experiment and look at what other phenomena you would observe in the light of your idea/theory.

End of my rant.

To put your "inexorableness" theory in perspective. There are more humans living on the planet right now, then has ever lived in total in the history of earth. So take humans and divide them into two groups: Group1: from the beginning of human evolution to 1920 and Group2: from 1920 to today. Group2 is significantly larger in population. Do you think Group2 achieved more? Really?!! I dont think so! I see most of the population watching TV and going to work where they try to minimize thinking! Group1 had to struggle more for survival and had to be more inventive to survive. The pressure is off on Group2. Laziness is settling in fast.

Re:I see a house of cards

[Abcd1234]

So where's your published paper where you provide an alternative theory to explain galatic rotation?