Hubble Captures a Stunning 'Einstein Ring' Magnifying The Depths of The Universe (sciencealert.com) 29
Michelle Starr writes via ScienceAlert: Gravity is the weird, mysterious glue that binds the Universe together, but that's not the limit of its charms. We can also leverage the way it warps space-time to see distant objects that would be otherwise much more difficult to make out. This is called gravitational lensing, an effect predicted by Einstein, and it's beautifully illustrated in a new release from the Hubble Space Telescope. In the center in the image is a shiny, near-perfect ring with what appear to be four bright spots threaded along it, looping around two more points with a golden glow. This is called an Einstein ring, and those bright dots are not six galaxies, but three: the two in the middle of the ring, and one quasar behind it, its light distorted and magnified as it passes through the gravitational field of the two foreground galaxies. Because the mass of the two foreground galaxies is so high, this causes a gravitational curvature of space-time around the pair. Any light that then travels through this space-time follows this curvature and enters our telescopes smeared and distorted -- but also magnified. [...]
This, as it turns out, is a really useful tool for probing both the far and near reaches of the Universe. Anything with enough mass can act as a gravitational lens. That can mean one or two galaxies, as we see here, or even huge galaxy clusters, which produce a wonderful mess of smears of light from the many objects behind them. Astronomers peering into deep space can reconstruct these smears and replicated images to see in much finer detail the distant galaxies thus lensed. But that's not all gravitational lensing can do. The strength of a lens depends on the curvature of the gravitational field, which is directly related to the mass it's curving around. So gravitational lenses can allow us to weigh galaxies and galaxy clusters, which in turn can then help us find and map dark matter -- the mysterious, invisible source of mass that generates additional gravity that can't be explained by the stuff in the Universe we can actually detect. [...] You can download a wallpaper-sized version of the [...] image on ESA's website.
This, as it turns out, is a really useful tool for probing both the far and near reaches of the Universe. Anything with enough mass can act as a gravitational lens. That can mean one or two galaxies, as we see here, or even huge galaxy clusters, which produce a wonderful mess of smears of light from the many objects behind them. Astronomers peering into deep space can reconstruct these smears and replicated images to see in much finer detail the distant galaxies thus lensed. But that's not all gravitational lensing can do. The strength of a lens depends on the curvature of the gravitational field, which is directly related to the mass it's curving around. So gravitational lenses can allow us to weigh galaxies and galaxy clusters, which in turn can then help us find and map dark matter -- the mysterious, invisible source of mass that generates additional gravity that can't be explained by the stuff in the Universe we can actually detect. [...] You can download a wallpaper-sized version of the [...] image on ESA's website.
Spaceship.. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it is an alien spaceship mimicking an Einstein ring.
It's obviously a giant Stargate -- duh.
Stargate (Score:3)
And 4 symbols are already locked in. At this distance, it could have finished dialing by now!
Re: (Score:2)
Just imagine the size of the "woosh" when that gate activates. Those whole galaxies could be atomized.
Gravitational lensing from dark matter? (Score:3)
If there is dark matter providing lots of gravity, could we use that for gravitational lensing in any useful way? Or is it (believed to be) too evenly or unpredictably distributed?
Re:Gravitational lensing from dark matter? (Score:4, Informative)
The Light Shines.... (Score:1)
Once again he predicted something like this, and the light is literally shinning out of Einsteins Ring for us all to see!
Same old, same old. (Score:2)
And, this is how science gets its funding. [sydneypadua.com]
By making beautiful, marketable images.
Re: Same old, same old. (Score:3)
Sometimes, yes. But I bet there's some good science to be had in those images as well.
Would love to see if Chandra sees the same awesomeness in x-ray.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the ESA - funding from general taxation, not GoFundMe. To quote (I think) Mencken, "I like paying taxes ; with them, I buy civilisation."
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Well, I don't think the Bible was meant to be awe-inspiring, beautiful or poetic.
I dunno - plenty of people find it that way.
Half of it contradicts the other half, and the big guy loves to kill what's his greatest creation. And demands we kill each other for small infractions, and wants us to kill our neighboring tribe except for the little girls. So he follows the "shock and awe" principle.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Verily did we create a god in our own image.
If your God hates everything you hate, you're making God in your own image.
I forget who said that, but he was right.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, that would be everyone in another tribe to me, or who believes something different to me. It's there in the holy book of the monotheistic religions. Enjoy your reading.
Pretty much. Read Numbers 31. If that isn't orders to kill anyone different from you, and get a little action from underage Chickita slave girls, I don't know what is.
Of well, they got rid of those pesky Midians!
Re: (Score:2)
Half of it contradicts the other half, and the big guy loves to kill what's his greatest creation. And demands we kill each other for small infractions, and wants us to kill our neighboring tribe except for the little girls. So he follows the "shock and awe" principle.
That's the Quran, not the Bible.
Bible doesn't get off without my claim. You better read Deuteronomy. And a lot of pervy Christians uses Numbers 31 as a guide
Fritz Zwicky (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Fritz Zwicky was the first to propose Dark Matter in 1933, and even coin the term (Dunkle Materie).
He was one of the people who came up with the idea, but there are others too. Read what Ethan Siegel wrote about this topic [forbes.com].
Regarding Zwicky, it is not as simple as one incident of name calling. The link above explains why his work was not accepted at the time for valid reasons.
And there is his personality: I once watched a Colloquium at Harvard (on Youtube), and those who worked with him said the he was very
"Dark matter" is most probably not a particle, btw (Score:1)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Particle scientists just thought it might be a particle, because that was the easiest first thought. You know, if your favorite tool is a hammer, you look at everything like it's a nail. A nice example for the fallacy in the popular misinterpretation of "Occam's razor". (In reality, it just means it's statistically on average the most efficient, to test the simplest solutions first. NOT that the simplest solutions are also necessarily more right. Cases in point: Quantum phys