Dark Matter Can Form Tiny, Cold 'Clumps.' Scientists Have Found the Smallest Ones Yet.

[Admin]

It turns out that dark matter forms smaller "clumps" than scientists thought, confirming a fundamental prediction about the mysterious substance.

Dark Matter Can Form Tiny, Cold 'Clumps.' Scientists Have Found the Smallest Ones Yet. : Read more

 

[rod]

It turns out that dark matter forms smaller "clumps" than scientists thought, confirming a fundamental prediction about the mysterious substance.

Dark Matter Can Form Tiny, Cold 'Clumps.' Scientists Have Found the Smallest Ones Yet. : Read more

The report shows HST images that support Einstein GR and gravitational lensing. I like to dig a bit deeper, here are two reports on WFI 2033-4723 (one of the HST views shown) showing its redshift number or z number and arcminute resolution in the spectra. H0LiCOW - X. Spectroscopic/imaging survey and galaxy-group identification around the strong gravitational lens system WFI 2033-4723

Here is another report, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.tmp.3214N/abstract

 

[Torbjorn Larsson]

Precision astronomy is doing amazing things on dark matter structure right now!

The upper range for the dark matter blob masses in the paper are 1 - 1,000 Msolar mass [ https://hubblesite.org/uploads/science_paper/file_attachment/526/stz3480.pdf ].

That fits nicely with the GD-1 streamer hole with its associated local sinusoidal wave centered on the hole. The discovery paper suggest - due to lack of visible candidates and a need for an extended mass - a passing by dark matter blob of ~ 10 Msolar mass [ https://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/evidence-dark-matter-clump-milky-way/ ]: "According to the group’s simulations, the object would have been hefty — at least 5 million solar masses — but would have spanned between 60 and 130 light-years."

And that span is about the size of the Radcliff Wave similar hole that the ongoing AAS conference showed us the other day [ https://phys.org/news/2020-01-milky-reveals-giant-stellar-nurseries.html ]. There isn't any satellite galaxies on distances that could have passed by at the time I think [but in another coincidence, I think the paper claim the solar system did, the distances fit!] , so a dark matter blob could be behind the sinusiodal GD-1 like wave.

 

[rod]

Precision astronomy is doing amazing things on dark matter structure right now!

The upper range for the dark matter blob masses in the paper are 1 - 1,000 Msolar mass [ https://hubblesite.org/uploads/science_paper/file_attachment/526/stz3480.pdf ].

That fits nicely with the GD-1 streamer hole with its associated local sinusoidal wave centered on the hole. The discovery paper suggest - due to lack of visible candidates and a need for an extended mass - a passing by dark matter blob of ~ 10 Msolar mass [ https://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/evidence-dark-matter-clump-milky-way/ ]: "According to the group’s simulations, the object would have been hefty — at least 5 million solar masses — but would have spanned between 60 and 130 light-years."

And that span is about the size of the Radcliff Wave similar hole that the ongoing AAS conference showed us the other day [ https://phys.org/news/2020-01-milky-reveals-giant-stellar-nurseries.html ]. There isn't any satellite galaxies on distances that could have passed by at the time I think [but in another coincidence, I think the paper claim the solar system did, the distances fit!] , so a dark matter blob could be behind the sinusiodal GD-1 like wave.

Good information and links provided, thanks.

 

[sgtnos]

The report shows HST images that support Einstein GR and gravitational lensing. I like to dig a bit deeper, here are two reports on WFI 2033-4723 (one of the HST views shown) showing its redshift number or z number and arcminute resolution in the spectra. H0LiCOW - X. Spectroscopic/imaging survey and galaxy-group identification around the strong gravitational lens system WFI 2033-4723

Here is another report, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.tmp.3214N/abstract

Okay, so this is my argument. We already know about the fact that space is not a perfect vacuum and that we are even in a dust cloud. We constantly find things we could not have seen before (usually not something new). The idea that dark matter is what "holds" everything together is incorrect. Again, it requires that gravity be a constant. Since it is not, I would argue that it is plasma and due to electromagnetic forces. They have already found powerful electric currents in space and are constantly surprised by the magnetic fields in our solar system. Things they never predicted. We ignore that the only planets/moons that have weak atmospheres have weak magnetic fields and the opposite for the ones that have a decent atmosphere. Stars that are older than the galaxy and stars that have transuranic elements exist. The effect they are usually claiming is gravitational lensing is typically atmospheric/photospheric lensing. This is the effect you see when the light gets super bright during an eclipse. We do not see star formation that occurs in a similar way to gravitational collapse because that would mean that a force is acting upon itself and that violates thermodynamics.

 

[orsobubu]

I don't believe dark matter does exist in the first place (nor dark energy) and I'm waiting for the moment when it will turn out these images are something totally different

 

[sgtnos]

The report shows HST images that support Einstein GR and gravitational lensing. I like to dig a bit deeper, here are two reports on WFI 2033-4723 (one of the HST views shown) showing its redshift number or z number and arcminute resolution in the spectra. H0LiCOW - X. Spectroscopic/imaging survey and galaxy-group identification around the strong gravitational lens system WFI 2033-4723

Here is another report, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.tmp.3214N/abstract

Cosmological constant abandoned
Main article: Cosmological constant
After Hubble's discovery was published, Albert Einstein abandoned his work on the cosmological constant, which he had designed to modify his equations of general relativity to allow them to produce a static solution, which he thought was the correct state of the universe. The Einstein equations in their simplest form model generally either an expanding or contracting universe, so Einstein's cosmological constant was artificially created to counter the expansion or contraction to get a perfect static and flat universe.[31] After Hubble's discovery that the universe was, in fact, expanding, Einstein called his faulty assumption that the universe is static his "biggest mistake".[31] On its own, general relativity could predict the expansion of the universe, which (through observations such as the bending of light by large masses, or the precession of the orbit of Mercury) could be experimentally observed and compared to his theoretical calculations using particular solutions of the equations he had originally formulated.

In 1931, Einstein made a trip to Mount Wilson to thank Hubble for providing the observational basis for modern cosmology.[32]

The cosmological constant has regained attention in recent decades as a hypothesis for dark energy.[33]

Einstein had a different theory until Hubble "Proved" him wrong through his observations. Again, we are in a cloud of dust that Hubble did not know about when he made his measurements. The equipment he used to do this is less accurate than what people have at home and this effectively ended the search for an answer. If Hubble was wrong, then it doesn't allow for Einstein work, his own WORDS. The bending of light that has been observed is better explained through atmospheric lensing.

Hubble was able to plot a trend line from the 46 galaxies he studied and obtain a value for the Hubble constant of 500 km/s/Mpc (much higher than the currently accepted value due to errors in his distance calibrations). (See cosmic distance ladder for details.)


Hubble's law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This is so wrong it is terrible. It acts as if space is homogenous and it is in the article very clearly.

Idealized Hubble's law[edit]
The mathematical derivation of an idealized Hubble's law for a uniformly expanding universe is a fairly elementary theorem of geometry in 3-dimensional Cartesian/Newtonian coordinate space, which, considered as a metric space, is entirely homogeneous and isotropic (properties do not vary with location or direction). Simply stated the theorem is this:

Any two points which are moving away from the origin, each along straight lines and with speed proportional to distance from the origin, will be moving away from each other with a speed proportional to their distance apart.
Click to expand...

In fact this applies to non-Cartesian spaces as long as they are locally homogeneous and isotropic; specifically to the negatively and positively curved spaces frequently considered as cosmological models (see shape of the universe).

An observation stemming from this theorem is that seeing objects recede from us on Earth is not an indication that Earth is near to a center from which the expansion is occurring, but rather that every observer in an expanding universe will see objects receding from them.

 

[Common Sense Dictates]

Go look again. Those are photos from Hubble, not artist renditions.

 

[egribble]

It turns out that dark matter forms smaller "clumps" than scientists thought, confirming a fundamental prediction about the mysterious substance.

Dark Matter Can Form Tiny, Cold 'Clumps.' Scientists Have Found the Smallest Ones Yet. : Read more

 

[egribble]

We are talking about theoretical physics here. It does not surprise me that dark matter is clumpy, as dark matter curves space inwards (i.e. gravity) so should congregate and even orbit it's centre of mass. The problem with theoretical physics is that people can only suggest theories based on what is observable. When we look at things on a very small or very large scale our whole concept of reality disappears. Our brains evolved to cope with survival on the two dimensional African Savannah. It is a bit hard to contemplate concepts like three dimensional curving, time being the flow to increasing entropy etc. It is simply not known whether or not any of these theories are correct, scientists can only observe.

 

[egribble]

Go look again. Those are photos from Hubble, not artist renditions.

 

[egribble]

I agree with your statement that the science of the Universe may never be knowable to man. As to God (I should not get into religious arguments) which God? Every religion has the one and only God. Finally it is currently believed that what we witness as time may be the flow of everything to increased entropy. This began with the big bang. Consciousness is dependent on chemical reactions happening in sequence. I cannot contemplate a place where there is no time. How could there be a conscious God before the big bang if time began with the big bang? However a religious person will simply say everything we observe was placed here by God for us to observe. It is impossible to prove nor disprove such philosophical arguments.

 

[Wolfern]

Go look again. Those are photos from Hubble, not artist renditions.

Isn't photo-shop wonderful?

 

[sgtnos]

Go look again. Those are photos from Hubble, not artist renditions.

You are not correct and do not seem to understand observable light and how images work for objects that far away. They do not actually get images, as much as they get data points and try to determine what they mean. They have to make up the explanation for what they see. No landmark discovery of dark matter has been announced and it doesn't look like they actually did anything. They were looking for something to be there and found something to be there. Nothing shows they actually discovered anything. I really hate the way they write articles to make it seem like they are doing more than they are.

The Hubble observation yields new insights into the nature of dark matter and how it behaves. "We made a very compelling observational test for the cold dark matter model and it passes with flying colors," said Tommaso Treu of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), a member of the observing team.

The researchers used Hubble’s Wide Field Camera 3 to capture the near-infrared light from each quasar and disperse it into its component colors for study with spectroscopy. Unique emissions from the background quasars are best seen in infrared light. "Hubble's observations from space allow us to make these measurements in galaxy systems that would not be accessible with the lower resolution of ground-based telescopes—and Earth's atmosphere is opaque to the infrared light we needed to observe," explained team member Simon Birrer of UCLA.

Hubble Detects Smallest Known Dark Matter Clumps - NASA Science

Using NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope and a new observing technique, astronomers have found that dark matter forms much smaller clumps than previously known. This result confirms one of the fundamental predictions of the widely accepted “cold dark matter” theory. All galaxies, according to this...

www.nasa.gov

 

[rod]

FYI. I already posted this information.

The report shows HST images that support Einstein GR and gravitational lensing. I like to dig a bit deeper, here are two reports on WFI 2033-4723 (one of the HST views shown) showing its redshift number or z number and arcminute resolution in the spectra. H0LiCOW - X. Spectroscopic/imaging survey and galaxy-group identification around the strong gravitational lens system WFI 2033-4723

Here is another report, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.tmp.3214N/abstract

If people study and read the original reports (quite extensive and math intense modeling, all available at the links), it is the velocity dispersions measured that leads to the explanation of dark matter in the galaxies studied. "We use the Gemini and ESO-Very Large telescopes to measure the spectroscopic redshifts of the brightest galaxies towards the lens, and use the ESO-MUSE integral field spectrograph to measure the velocity-dispersion of the lens (σ _{los}= 250^{+15}_{-21} km s-1) and of several nearby galaxies."

The space.com report did indicate some of the metrics in their report "These Hubble Space Telescope images include reveals four distorted images of a background quasar and its host galaxy surrounding the central core of a foreground massive galaxy. Using the effects of gravity within this system, researchers were able to indirectly detect dark matter and find clumps of "cold dark matter" smaller than any similar clumps ever detected. "

FYI, all measurements for dark matter going back to 1933 with Zwicky - are indirect vs. seeing dark matter directly like carbon or iron in the spectra of the Sun or stars.

 

[sgtnos]

FYI. I already posted this information.

The report shows HST images that support Einstein GR and gravitational lensing. I like to dig a bit deeper, here are two reports on WFI 2033-4723 (one of the HST views shown) showing its redshift number or z number and arcminute resolution in the spectra. H0LiCOW - X. Spectroscopic/imaging survey and galaxy-group identification around the strong gravitational lens system WFI 2033-4723

Here is another report, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.tmp.3214N/abstract

If people study and read the original reports (quite extensive and math intense modeling, all available at the links), it is the velocity dispersions measured that leads to the explanation of dark matter in the galaxies studied. "We use the Gemini and ESO-Very Large telescopes to measure the spectroscopic redshifts of the brightest galaxies towards the lens, and use the ESO-MUSE integral field spectrograph to measure the velocity-dispersion of the lens (σ _{los}= 250^{+15}_{-21} km s-1) and of several nearby galaxies."

The space.com report did indicate some of the metrics in their report "These Hubble Space Telescope images include reveals four distorted images of a background quasar and its host galaxy surrounding the central core of a foreground massive galaxy. Using the effects of gravity within this system, researchers were able to indirectly detect dark matter and find clumps of "cold dark matter" smaller than any similar clumps ever detected. "

FYI, all measurements for dark matter going back to 1933 with Zwicky - are indirect vs. seeing dark matter directly like carbon or iron in the spectra of the Sun or stars.

An alternate approach is to measure quasar nuclear-narrow line emission, which is free from microlensing and present in virtually all quasar lenses. In this paper, we double the number of systems which can be used for gravitational lensing analyses by presenting measurements of narrow-line emission from a sample of 8 quadruply imaged quasar lens systems,

That is saying that you only find lensing sometimes, which you are ignoring. It also shows inconsistent lensing, which should be the case because they are actually using atmospheric lensing. They have not detected anything

We fit the lensed image positions with smooth mass models and demonstrate that these models fail to produce the observed distribution of image fluxes over the entire sample of lenses

They are pretty much saying that the models do not match what they see when it comes to lensing, maybe because I am actually correct.

 

[rod]

An alternate approach is to measure quasar nuclear-narrow line emission, which is free from microlensing and present in virtually all quasar lenses. In this paper, we double the number of systems which can be used for gravitational lensing analyses by presenting measurements of narrow-line emission from a sample of 8 quadruply imaged quasar lens systems,

That is saying that you only find lensing sometimes, which you are ignoring. It also shows inconsistent lensing, which should be the case because they are actually using atmospheric lensing. They have not detected anything

We fit the lensed image positions with smooth mass models and demonstrate that these models fail to produce the observed distribution of image fluxes over the entire sample of lenses

They are pretty much saying that the models do not match what they see when it comes to lensing, maybe because I am actually correct.

You are not correct and failed to provide the quote in context.

"We fit the lensed image positions with smooth mass models and demonstrate that these models fail to produce the observed distribution of image fluxes over the entire sample of lenses. Furthermore, typical deviations are larger than those expected from macromodel uncertainties. This discrepancy indicates the presence of perturbations caused by small-scale dark matter structure. The interpretation of this result in terms of dark matter models is presented in a companion paper."

 

[rod]

"That is saying that you only find lensing sometimes, which you are ignoring. It also shows inconsistent lensing, which should be the case because they are actually using atmospheric lensing. They have not detected anything"

Comments like this indicate Electric Universe Theory claims. There is a simple way to test here. Quasar WFI 2033-4723 is a good test.

The research paper and abstract stated "In this work, we present a detailed characterization of the environment of the lens system WFI 2033-4723 (z_src = 1.662, z_lens= 0.6575), one of the core targets of the H0LiCOW project for which we present cosmological inferences in a companion paper. We use the Gemini and ESO-Very Large telescopes to measure the spectroscopic redshifts of the brightest galaxies towards the lens, and use the ESO-MUSE integral field spectrograph to measure the velocity-dispersion of the lens (σ _{los}= 250^{+15}_{-21} km s-1) and of several nearby galaxies."

Electric Universe must publish the correct z number for the quasar and correct velocity-dispersion values in km/s that were obtained by the other research and study groups in these reports. Remember, science testing is repeatable so use the exact same targets and publish the z values and velocities in km/s.

 

[rod]

Getting this discussion back on target, the HST images show quasars that are gravitational lensed by closer galaxies that the quasar light passes through, on the light's journey to Earth. This supports Einstein General Relativity and not pseudoscience claims in astronomy. That is why the quasars studied in the report have much larger redshifts or z numbers then the gravitational lensing galaxies do.

Phys.org report explains this well, ""Using this method, the team uncovered dark matter clumps along the telescope's line of sight to the quasars, as well as in and around the intervening lensing galaxies. The dark matter concentrations detected by Hubble are 1/10,000th to 1/100,000th times the mass of the Milky Way's dark matter halo. Many of these tiny groupings most likely do not contain even small galaxies, and therefore would have been impossible to detect by the traditional method of looking for embedded stars. The eight quasars and galaxies were aligned so precisely that the warping effect, called gravitational lensing, produced four distorted images of each quasar. The effect is like looking at a funhouse mirror. Such quadruple images of quasars are rare because of the nearly exact alignment needed between the foreground galaxy and background quasar...The quasars are located roughly 10 billion light-years from Earth; the foreground galaxies, about 2 billion light-years. The number of small structures detected in the study offers more clues about dark matter's nature.", ref - Hubble detects smallest known dark matter clumps

The difference in z numbers between the quasars compared to the lensing galaxies and distances determined is based upon the cosmological redshift model.

 

[slikslikslik]

It turns out that dark matter forms smaller "clumps" than scientists thought, confirming a fundamental prediction about the mysterious substance.

Dark Matter Can Form Tiny, Cold 'Clumps.' Scientists Have Found the Smallest Ones Yet. : Read more

Could this mean that space is not infinite ? I was just think about that... dust. And the environment condensing them to form matter.

 

[slikslikslik]

Could this mean that space is not infinite ? I was just thinking about that... dust. And the environment condensing them to form matter explaind by entropy. But can those explosions not very solid ones go on forever?