It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Scientists Discover Massive Galaxy Made of 99.99 Percent Dark Matter !

page: 3
20
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 06:51 AM
link   


the team found a galaxy whose mass is almost entirely Dark Matter


How do they do that when they don't even know what Dark Matter is?




posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 07:24 AM
link   
a reply to: nOraKat

Because their accepted laws of physics do not match up to what is observed
So they have to call the missing elements of their laws something ... Hence Dark Matter and Energy

It is ongoing scientific investigation which throws up as many questions as it does answers

Edit to add: that is the beauty of science it strives for a fuller understanding




edit on 1-10-2016 by artistpoet because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 08:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: AshFan

Maybe its some kind of anti-black hole spewing out matter from our matter universe.


That would be a White Hole, hypotheticallyb speaking.

So Dragonfly 44 is a galaxy made up, almost entirely of matter we cannot detect and the only fact we know about it is that it weighs more than it should? Don't get me wrong, I find this fascinating but essentially they've just said "We've just found a new Galaxy and we know even less about it than we do about any other Galaxy we've found before!"

I hope I live to see Dark Matter identified...



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 06:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: artistpoet

It is ongoing scientific investigation which throws up as many questions as it does answers



That's the fun part, though.

Eventually, like the question 'why don't black body radiators emit all their energy in an ultraviolet flash that violates the law of conservation of energy?', the question of 'why do galaxies look like they have more matter than they do?' will be answered, and the answer might be just as disruptive and fun.

In both cases, you've got well observed predictable phenomena, and an example of it not quite working out in one situation. Science can't leave the 'oh, well, except for galaxies' thing alone. So they're making hypotheses and testing them. One is dark matter/energy. If they can't find it eventually, and a better explanation comes along, then that will be scrapped.



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Bare charge and the vacuum???😯 or sonething similar.



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 06:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Well, i think a starting point is understanding gravity. I mean, not that we don't understand it locally. We just don't know what it is. We feel its effect, but cannot see its source. Which is really maddening when you get right down to it. It would seem so fundamental if investigating it didn't show otherwise (i.e., not a force like em, strong, weak....)

I suppose that the lions share of the blame goes to media, who creates the perception of fact out of the conjecture that science is actually talking.



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 07:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: Bedlam

Bare charge and the vacuum???😯 or sonething similar.


'Twas the birth of quantum physics. Something as prosy as basic thermodynamics.

Basically, "We understand all this heat transfer stuff really well. But, why do black bodies emit ALMOST like we expect, but not quite? The theory, which works for other situations, gives you a really bogus result for this simple situation" And everyone knew it, but one day this Planck guy came up with the answer. And now you know...the rest of the story.



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Brownian?



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 08:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Hmm wait a minute. Theres a relationship between heisenbergs uncertainty and planck. Maybe similar scenario.



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 08:31 PM
link   
Dark Matter and Dark Energy just show we still know little, just like the Big Bang and Black Holes, none makes any sense



posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 09:26 AM
link   



posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Thank for responding to my post

Being a non scientist (a very non scientist) ...
Posts such as yours compell me to look up terms I do not understand
Simply so a can understand a little

They actually inform my art if that makes any sense
My daubings become more scientifically informed or perhaps stranger
I paint a lot of astronomical things within my work

Just something I was wondering
When science talks about a "constant" in regards of scientific laws regarding the Universe
Do you think it possible ...
That there is no actual constant and that things are mutable
So there will always be a spanner in the works regarding final answers

My somewhat clumbsy example being:-
The spin of the Earth is not exactly the same day to day



posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 10:57 AM
link   
Astronomers have NOT discovered a galaxy made mostly of dark matter. This is a totally inaccurate representation of the true reality. What they have merely done is to find a galaxy whose visible stars revolve around its centre so fast that about 99 times more invisible mass must be there to hold it together. In other words, they have not confirmed that dark matter actually exists. Their observations have merely uncovered an anomaly, ONE of whose explanations is that the galaxy is composed of invisible dark matter. It would suggest that dark matter is not just forms of baryonic matter that do not emit light because they contain no electrons. Why would such exotic forms of matter have all appeared conveniently in one region to gravitate into a galaxy? No, it would indicate that dark matter is far more fundamental than anything exotic that physicists can conceive of and that it extends over the entire universe as particles analogous to atoms of ordinary matter. This is consistent with its identification with "shadow matter", which is the E8-singlet state predicted by E8xE8' heterotic superstring theory. In fact, that it the only possibility that current theory allows.



posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: artistpoet

That is kinda my point. It seems just as plausible that we really can't rely on redshift due to various factors such as inconsistent speed of light, gravitational lensing effects, and the fact that we just don't know if gravity is even constant.

Not that we shouldn't try to study these things with our current understandings. Only that we seem to be risking a pigeon hole now, as we have flat out invented something that has never been observed simply to balance an equation: dark matter.

And perhaps continuing studying it will help us identify novel dimensions and such. Who knows. But at the same time alternate theories should be funded to find a way to balance the equation without the dark matter kludge.



posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Also if gravity is associated with mass
Then "Dark Energy" is inertia

The force which escapes gravity and is supposedly pushing galaxies and stars apart
They say this "Dark Energy" is creating space

So my question is ... If "Dark Energy" is creating space thus expanding the Universe
What is it expanding into ...

The miserable idea of entropy is somehow accepted as the way the Universe will go
According to the use of reshift of distant galaxies that are speeding away
But what if the Universe actually pulses in a way
Humans have not observed the Universe long enough to know much of there must be to know

Like you I do not trust red shift as gospel
Light perhaps does not even have a constant speed
It depends like energy on what it is passing through
Energy is slowed down by denser matter yet returns to it's original speed when it has passed through

Even the colour of stars is affected by inter stellar material
To the naked eye that is

I doubt we will ever come to any final solution but to accept we do not fully know all that is
But I guess for scientists that is the quest
But ... Every question throws up more questions






edit on 2-10-2016 by artistpoet because: typos



posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 10:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: artistpoet

That is kinda my point. It seems just as plausible that we really can't rely on redshift due to various factors such as inconsistent speed of light, gravitational lensing effects, and the fact that we just don't know if gravity is even constant.

There are multiple checks and balances when measurements such as these are taken, the way you describe your criticism of the appears not to take into account actually how these measurements are typically taken and tries to vastly simplify the process as through astronomers whip out a little telescope, eyeball something and scribble down a few numbers.

Truth is that redshift and blueshift are used in order to determine movements of material at these kinds of distances.

What will happen for a target galaxy is that spectrographs will be taken at many points within a galaxy's observable shape. The global red/blue shift will be determined by looking at specific adsorption and emission lines. This determines the background radial velocity which is subtracted.

Now, the part when people say "Oh but the speed of light can be variable" i find it hard for that to be a justifiable criticism because the physics we know and understand as determined by constants such as the speed of light appear to work here just as well as they work remotely. That is, if the local speed of light at a target galaxy is different, then you would expect atomic emission lines to not only be in the wrong place, but doppler shifts such as redshifts to have total inconsistencies when observing galaxies that are the same distance but, different locations in the sky... truth is, its not, everything appears quite nicely consistent.

So what is observed? well for a normal galaxy after the bulk doppler shift has been removed, you determine the geometric rotation of the target object. if it is a disk like the milkyway, and is roughly side on, you will see one side with a redshift and the other with a blue shift. You take all of this data, put it into a model of a disk galaxy and you figure out what the rotation curve looks like for matter positioned at different distances from the galactic centre.

Now, what we find is that the rotation curves for ALL disk galaxies are roughly flat out to very large distances, theoretically if basically what we can see is all the matter there is, the rotational velocity should fall with a roughly 1/r^2 relation.

Now thus 'FUDGE' factor as people so often want to call it, is a theoretical correction. we ask the question

"Observation and theory are so different something has to be happening... but what?" We come with several possibilities
1) Unobserved material
Dust, blackholes, rogue planets.
- We put these into the models and still it doesn't work, such objects would have a similar distribution as the observable material! We would have to think up some weird and exotic things to happen (in every galaxy) to get what we see.

2) Unobserved Exotic material
WIMPs , Axions... etc
- If a particle that only interacted gravitationally but not strongly in any other way was present, it wouldn't have to clump in the same way a galaxy does, and could, take far longer to form dense clumps, sounds like this could for clouds around regular material and give us exactly the rotation curves we observe with almost NO effort and fine tuning magic. Pretty much put it in the model as a sphere that a galaxy sits in, boom it works

3) Modified Newtonian dynamics.
Gravity doesn't work the same everywhere and that on larger scales it doesn't have a 1/r^2 drop off.
- This is an ok idea except it quickly turns into a fine tuning mess of fudge factors that do not appear to have any physical meaning. That is, every galaxy has different tuning factors, and two galaxies at the same distance from the earth, with roughly the same gravitational environment around them will have tuning factors that are completely different... This sounds like a complicated and none physical idea

4) Speed of light is different
See above. The thing about physics is that we see repeatable patterns and the ultimate goal is to devise experiments and tests that will give you repeatable results in order to test theories. Theories can then be thrown out dependant upon these results.

If the speed of light is truly different at different locations, then the universe as we observe it just wouldn't work. Think about it... nuclear processes are dependant upon the speed of light... why? well the old none relativistic form...E=mc^2

There would be a paradox in something as simple as positron emission energies. why? well, you have an inverse beta decay that gives you a positron, now lets assume that a positron here is the same as a positron there... you collide that with an electron and boom, you get 2 gammas equal to their rest mass energy... only, if the speed of light is different in their local, then the energy produced by that WONT be the same everywhere... it will be more, or less depending on if the speed of light is higher or lower. We have zero... i repeat ZERO evidence that this occurs and yet we have lots of evidence that we do actually observe 511keV gammas originating all over the galaxy... sooooo yeah speed of light does appear to be constant.

So which seems a better theory? one that works and is simple? oooor one what is terribly complicated and probably doesnt work even with all the kinks ironed out.





Not that we shouldn't try to study these things with our current understandings. Only that we seem to be risking a pigeon hole now, as we have flat out invented something that has never been observed simply to balance an equation: dark matter.

And perhaps continuing studying it will help us identify novel dimensions and such. Who knows. But at the same time alternate theories should be funded to find a way to balance the equation without the dark matter kludge.


Again, you make it sound like it is a horrendus kludge... when it really isn't, if you studied the field fully you would see for yourself that alternative theories are funded and there are more theories than i can even count...



It wouldnt be the first time that physics 'invented' something to fix a problem, that actually turned out to be true... neutrinos are a fine example.
Back then, the very notion of conservation of energy and momentum... something that worked perfectly in every observable instance, EXCEPT in beta radiation... why? why and how could that be?
Well they couldn't see the neutrinos being produced and the invention (as they saw it back then) of this third particle of the interaction that was unobservable was also a terrible travesty/cop out/kludge.... science proved its existence though... so... not a kludge after all.

Could Dark Matter prove to be the same? Dont know... but I and a whole host of physicists intend to find out one way or another


edit on 2-10-2016 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-10-2016 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 11:42 PM
link   
a reply to: ErosA433

To be fair, im an accountant. LOL, so my armchair gets pretty worn.

Thanks for the explanation, and feel free to go on as long as your fingers can type.



posted on Oct, 3 2016 @ 12:19 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

sorry lol bad habit of mine writing ridiculously long posts!

Just really to say that, it is absolutely good and the correct thing to keep our minds open at all times, never to only probe one path. Many have the impression of the 'dogma' of science, and yet the truth is that scientists are very open minded generally and we do not only walk down a single path or train of thought.

I mean, one iv said many times (and im in the business of searching for dark matter) that theoretically there could easily be a sad scenario where we have a sterile right handed massive particle that is a big bang relic, which only interacts gravitationally. Has zero coupling with the weak, electromagnetic or strong nuclear forces at our energy regime.

Im trying to measure dark matter (part of a larger collaboration, not me solo by any means) and even I can easily admit that, it might very well be impossible. Doesn't necessarily mean the solution is incorrect however.... but... yep... would be impossible to prove or believe. If so, science would keep looking at other ways.



posted on Oct, 3 2016 @ 01:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Alien Abduct

It just seems so unscientific.

Typically, science is about recording and analyzing observations. With dark matter, you are observing a shadow of a shadow. Not that its hogwash....only that if you get right down to it, "dark matter" and "dark energy" really only amount to a kludge to stand in for an effect of the mathematics. It could be dark matter. Or it could be calculation errors derived from misunderstanding measurements/results (i.e., a million light years is a long way for something to travel, with even minor variations accumulating exponentially along the way).

Right here on Earth we have ghosts that are photographed and recorded through anecdotes. They are no more observed/measured than dark matter....but one is science, the other isn't.


The affects of dark matter have been detected in our very solar system. The misunderstanding of the mathematics involved isn't likely so much as the mathematics itself is wrong (which is probably what you mean) , it could be some sort of anomaly in the math. But not likely.

Dark matter ( however the true nature of which may come to light) exists. Truth be told they have only guesses about what exactly it is and they do seem to convey this fact pretty well from what I have read.

The ghost thing..I have never seen one but have seen the affects of a poltergeist ( no lie) but yet no official recognition on that subject. I can see where you are coming from.

I feel like even the smartest of humans in their attempt at understanding the nature of the universe are akin to monkeys trying to learn calculous.....

...not impossible but will take a long time.

Great post BFFT!



posted on Oct, 3 2016 @ 05:48 AM
link   
I asked the question in a previous post :-
"What is the Universe expanding into"

The honest answer I found is:-

Nothing, meaning nothing science has observed

I personally love this type of thread ... being an non scientist ... I learn so much from scientists who can explain things in simple everyday terms that I am able to understand
I am sure many others feel the same

Regarding the speed the light:-

Light being the product of other proccesses?

"The Einstein Cross"
Einstein wrote of the bending of light rather than assuming it travelled in straight lines
When one galaxy lines directly up behind another galaxy
The light of the more distant galaxy is affected by the nearer one
Creating multiple images of itself
I read years ago in an Astro Mag that this has been observed to be so

Link to images
&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjm7YPiur7PAhWFsxQKHa_9DGwQsAQIKg&biw= 1268&bih=893

So my next question is :-
If light can be bent ... a curve in this case would be longer than a straight line
So would appear to be travelling faster
Is this consideration taken into account when the speed of light constant is applied?



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join