Astronomers Spot Baby Galaxies Cradled In Dark Matter

An anonymous reader writes: Astronomers discovered a nest of monstrous baby galaxies 11.5 billion light-years away using the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA). The young galaxies seem to reside at the junction of gigantic filaments in a web of dark matter (abstract). These findings are important for understanding how monstrous galaxies like these are formed and how they evolve in to huge elliptical galaxies. The team found that their young monstrous galaxies seemed to be located right at the intersection of the dark matter filaments. This supports the model that monstrous galaxies form in areas where dark matter is concentrated. And since modern large elliptical galaxies are simply monstrous galaxies which have mellowed with age, they too must have originated at nexuses in the large scale structure.

They're cute

[jpellino]

when they're small.

Re:

[KGIII]

Yeah, but like so many other babies - it's probably surrounded by gas, namely methane. (Did not RTFA.)

Dark Matter Filaments

[Capt.Albatross]

Is it not a matter of conjecture that these galaxies are forming in regions where dark matter is concentrated? - a reasonably well-founded conjecture perhaps, but not corroborated by any evidence beyond that which is the basis of the conjecture?

Re:

[wonkey_monkey]

Keep stringing words together. You may actually hit on something that makes sense one day.

Re:

[beastofburdon]

No, string theory is a separate thing and inconsequential to the Electric Universe theory, unless they come up with another contending theory that involves electricity or magnetic forces. There are getting to be a lot of those string theories these days.

Re:

[I'm New Around Here]

It makes more sense than "the nexus of filaments of dark matter" does. What the fuck is a filament of dark matter?

Re:

[delt0r]

Perhaps you could use your fingers, try typing and look it up. The universe is not required to conform to what you feel is reasonable or sensable.

Re:

[beastofburdon]

And I would say the same to you.

Re:

[beastofburdon]

Because magic dark matter and dark energy which do not interact with real matter, except when they do, makes so much sense. How about you leave science to those who are capable of questioning what they are told.

Re:

[tarpitcod]

How so?

Re:

[beastofburdon]

Yes, yes it does.

Re:

[wonkey_monkey]

Hence the use of the word "seem."

Re:

[burtosis]

The dark matter filiments are observable by the lensing effect of the gravity they exhibit. So it's not conjecture is an observable and repeatable fact that there is something equivelant to mass there.

Re:

[KGIII]

I think equivalent is fine. Unless you've a compelling theory or some information that changes some very basic physics then, by all means, the outcome appears to be equivalent (which is not to say the source is the same) to mass. I could be missing something as I am not an astrophysicist. I am, however, a mathematician and I've noticed some similarities between a theoretical physicist and a philosopher of mathematics, at least by name if not by effect.

Re:

[david_thornley]

Look, we know about neutrinos, which have mass and move at almost the speed of light. Take neutrinos, make them much more massive and slower, and you've got a candidate for dark matter. It isn't really exotic.

Re:

[KGIII]

Yeah, I figure it's probably something that's logical and makes complete sense that we've just not yet figured out how to see and measure. Somewhere in this thread, I linked a couple of article about filaments. So, we're getting there. I think the phrase Dark Matter is as bad as the God Particle. Well, no... Almost as bad.

Re:

[david_thornley]

Better than the God Particle, but it's wrong. If it were dark, we'd detect it because it would occult things. It's invisible, although "invisible matter" doesn't sound all that good either.

Re:

[KGIII]

"Buggered if we know but we know something's causing these effects" really doesn't roll off the tongue very well. I do wonder if some other verbiage would have made this easier for people to swallow. It's strange that folks seem to balk at the idea and I really wonder if it's something to do with the verbiage or, perhaps, the state of science journalism. Maybe they just should have stuck with calling it "unexplained gravitational lensing" which was, I think, how I first heard it though I think it went on to

Re:

[david_thornley]

The problem with "unexplained gravitational lensing" is that it doesn't account for other reasons to hypothesize dark matter, which include galactic rotational curves and something about the elementary particle composition of the Universe that I never did understand well. Sigh.

Re:

[beastofburdon]

On the basis of this equation, the optical energy flow can be deflected by a magnetic field

found here http://lpm2c.grenoble.cnrs.fr/... [grenoble.cnrs.fr]
Funny, there seems to be something else that can bend light in our universe.

Re:

[I'm New Around Here]

The semitic tribes are certainly darker than my northern European complexion. And they are ones who are the original "made in his image" group.

Re:

[rmdingler]

There are seemingly enough comments that have a disturbing lack of faith on the /.

More blasphemy than you can shake sticks at! Questioning the US-centric view has become bovine-like in its ubiquitous-ness.

Now, we are hurling compressed clumps of mineral at the glass domicile of the earth-centric tenet?

Re:

[Maritz]

I love how slashdot has a vehement anti-dark matter crowd. Truly bizarre thing to get quite so emotional about.

Re: Long ways away

[Frankzy]

Keep in mind that the universe has been expanding for all those years, so we and that galaxy has in essence been 'running' away from each other..

Re:

[Bengie]

I've heard it described that if you have a 1 light-year long piece of solid lead and sent a neutrino down it, it would have only a 50% chance to interact with the lead.

Re:

[KGIII]

This should be interesting...

Without cheating and using a search engine, what do you think dark matter is? No, not what it theoretically is but what it is? Meh, I'll save some time.

Dark matter isn't really *anything* so much as it is *something* and that something is subject to debate. However, it is *something* that we can neither see nor measure. That's where the name comes from. We can see that something is having an effect and, as yet, that somethingremains unknown. But something that we can neither see

Re:

[Maritz]

I just think you've hit on a particular bugbear for some people, such as CAHutch. They get angry that one of the possible explanations for things like galactic rotation curves is non-baryonic matter that interacts gravitationally but weakly or not at all with other forces. This makes them mad. Don't ask me why. Maybe it exists, maybe it doesn't, CAHutch has made up his mind already and he ain't for budging.

#blackmatterlives

[Applehu Akbar]

How are we doing on finding those dark matter filaments that supposedly lurk in our own solar system? Now that New Horizons has uploaded all its Pluto flyby JPGs and is sending the Raws, it could soon perform some experiment that would test this possibility.

Re:

[KGIII]

Hmm... What sensing equipment does New Horizons have on it that can perform tests to find dark matter filaments? I guess they could go old-school and do the camera thing?

Anyhow, assuming you're serious:
http://www.space.com/16412-dar... [space.com]
http://www.americaspace.com/?p... [americaspace.com]

Re:

[chipschap]

If Dark Matter is real, does it produce gravity waves or does it block gravity waves ? I have the troubling suspicion dark matter actively blocks gravity waves , or maybe it's dark energy. Does anyone think there's a link between these unseen forces ?

Yes. Global warming.

Re:

[lucien86]

Another answer is that maybe gravity waves are not real, but dark matter probably is..

Re:

[Bengie]

Blocking gravity waves is akin to blocking gravity itself.

Question for physicists

[Okian Warrior]

I was of the impression we detect dark matter indirectly, by the orbital velocities of galaxies and by gravitational lensing effects.

How did we determine that dark matter forms filaments, and how did we map the positions of these filaments?

Re:

[burtosis]

Through microlensing of objects located behind the filiments. So yes by the lensing effects.

Don't Anthropomorphize Galaxies!

[Irate Engineer]

They hate it when you do that!

Re:

[Carewolf]

They hate it when you do that!

And don't infantalize them either, or they will throw a tantrum.

Re:

[ZincFinger]

How is that trolling ? Title implies Dark Matter as a fact. Show me the proof for Dark Matter.

Re:

[KGIII]

The proof is the lensing. You're thinking that dark matter is something that it is not and that's not surprising given the reporting that I've seen on the subject. No, dark matter is real. What is *really is* is in question.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

No, what we have is a need for large amounts of matter to explain observations.
Well either that or we are wrong in our equations.
But since our equations are the best we can come up with and they seem to work for everything else, then there must be a whole lot of matter we can't see.
Lensing is a symptom of matter, but we knew that from the rotational speed of the edge of galaxies, which started the whole thing in the first place.
Once again however show me a direct observation of 'Dark Matter', there isn't AF

Re:

[KGIII]

Even if we found that large amount of matter (or any other reason), it'd still be "dark matter." Dark matter isn't really anything but a generic term that's used to describe what's causing the effects we're seeing per the microlensing. Also, I think someone's claimed to find dark matter filaments. I've not followed that closely as I prefer to wait a while before getting excited. I linked to it in a reply on this page somewhere.

At any rate, dark matter is - as far as I know, just a generic description that's

Re:

[Maritz]

You aren't going to get a direct observation of something that doesn't interact with the electromagnetic force. No photons absorbed and none emitted.

Re:

[Bengie]

Dark Matter is a fact with 9 sigmas of confidence. We just don't know what it is.

Re:

[delt0r]

There is more evidence of dark matter than global warming. Look it up.

Re:

[Maritz]

I would fully expect your dark-matter-denier (which I didn't know existed until Slashdot) to also be an AGW denier. Makes sense. Therefore this probably won't help much as an argument. ;)

Define 'monstrous'

[hackertourist]

TFA uses an annoyingly vague term and fails to define it. How large are these galaxies?

Re:

[hackertourist]

Even 'n times larger than the Milky Way' would be better than "monstrous", which gives no information at all.