Update (5/7/08): The image I had posted originally was distorted due to the wrong picture being made available to the press (like me!). I got a nice email from Joerg Dietrich, one of the astronomers who took the data, with a link to the correct image. I have updated both the image and the link. Sorry, and enjoy!
We’ve known for a long time that most of the Universe is invisible. 72.1% of it is dark energy, about which we know very little. 23.3% of it is dark matter, which was only recently tagged for real and for sure; we still don’t know what particles make it up, but we’re on the verge of finding out.
Normal matter — us — makes up just 4.6% of the Universe’s energy and mass budget. But here we are! At least, here we mostly are: actually, we only see roughly half of the normal matter in the Universe. Stars, galaxies, and warm-to-middling gas aren’t too hard to spot in general, but they only make up about half of what we expect to see of normal matter.
Where’s the other half?
Let’s turn the wayback machine to about 13.6 billion years or so ago. The Big Bang is old news at this point, but the first stars have yet to be born. Matter and energy are mixed everywhere, but some of it is different. What we now call dark matter is starting to clump together through gravity, forming long sheets and filaments far bigger than any galaxy we see today. This forms a grid, a framework, upon which normal matter starts to fall. Eventually, galaxies and clusters of galaxies and clusters of clusters of galaxies will form along these cosmic skeletons.
Fast forward to today. Bang! We see galaxies everywhere… well, not exactly everywhere. We see them lying in those long sheets and filaments, showing us where the dark matter structures are, like dew drops on a spider’s web.
But that’s just the stars and galaxies, remember? It’s only half. Where’s the other normal matter?
The hypothesis is was that it would be in the form of very hot gas strung out along those filaments as well. Hunting for it would be hard: it would be very diffuse, making it dim, and very hot, meaning it would only emit at short wavelengths, like extreme ultraviolet or X-rays.
Hey, we have telescopes that can see those!
And now we have (and more pictures can be found here). Astronomers upped the odds of finding the gas by looking around galaxy clusters, where it would be denser, and also doing something clever: looking near clusters that are near each other in the sky due to perspective. One would actually be farther away than the other, but peering very nearly along the angle separating them they would look like they’re right next to each other. Since we’d be looking along a long thin cylinder of gas, that would make it appear brighter than if we saw it through its side.
The picture above shows the galaxy clusters Abell 222 and 223, both about 2.5 billion light years away. The visible light image just shows them as clumps of points, but remember: each dot is a massive galaxy like our own! The technicolor bit is from the XMM-Newton orbiting X-ray observatory, and shows the hot gas. Since these are separate clusters, they should be detached from each other. But instead, they’re connected by a gas bridge of ten-million-degree plasma. That’s the missing stuff! That’s made up of baryons; particles like protons and neutrons, atomic nuclei and the like. Look around you: everything you see is made of baryons (and leptons, which include electrons), so this gas is your kin.
It’s a bit more rarified, though: there are only about 30 baryons per cubic meter in this bridge. Good thing it’s big (about 4 million light years wide) and we’re looking down its length! But then, that’s why so much of this stuff is missing. It’s really hard to detect.
According to the models, there is enough stuff in this bridge to extrapolate the existence of the rest of the missing normal matter. Of course, we only have a data set of one, which is a bit rocky, but I suspect more of these will be found now that we know they’re out there.
And may I add, phew! It’s always nice when half the stuff you can’t find finally turns up.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Noob question: Why would the dark matter collect through gravity into structures before the regular matter did? Why not both kinds at the same time?
May 6th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
For a minute there I thought the image was a screen shot from a Star Trek TOS episode.
Did somebody choose that look on purpose?
May 6th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
C Murdock,
As I understand it, dark matter is thought not to react electromagnetically with itself or other particles. It would slide right by other particles in its relentless fall inward under only the influence of gravity.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
I think Halton Arp was talking about these very bridges as evidence for ejection of matter from galactic cores.
.
According to him, one cluster is effectively the ‘parent’
Most people who dismissed Arp’s claims said that these connecting bridges were an optical illusion and that these were mere coincident alignments.
.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
C Murdock: The dark matter only interacts via the gravitational force. By contrast, things like atoms, when brought closer together can interact in a variety of ways, which sometimes can counteract structure formation (examples include heat, explosive events like supernovae, and radiation). By and large, the dark matter acts as the anchor where the baryonic (atoms) matter can do its thing.
This discovery (if upheld by other observations) is a very big deal, since we can account for the location of the atoms at a variety of times in the universe. At a few minutes after the bang, we think we know where the atoms are, and in what form. At a few hundred thousand years after the bang, we still think we know where they are and in what form. It’s only when structure begins to form that things get (or got, if this experiment is right) very troubling.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Cool. Now if only I could find the other half of my sandwich, I’d be set.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
There is nobody else that posts blogs like the BA for stuff like this. Discovering what we are actually made of and the reasons why-I am jealous.
This universe we live in, the Big Bang, I am too stupid to figure it out, but I try to appreciate it. BA sheds some important light on the processes-B
May 6th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
C Murdock,
Why would the dark matter collect through gravity into structures before the regular matter did? Why not both kinds at the same time?
Not sure what the conventional answer would be, but I would assert that the correct answer is that dark matter was created first, then it formed into black holes which around its periphery created all baryonic matter, primarily electrons and protons which created the first galaxy surrounding the black hole.
Alan, she looks good to me!!
HvP — besides your statement which I believe is true, the push of dark matter, collectively are the pushing forces of gravity. This inward flow of dark matter field plus WIMP field vectors make up the totality of gravity.
Superstring,
I believe it is a parent black hole, which produces, as Halton calls it, a low-particle-mass plasmoid child which becomes an initially high red-shifted galaxy which in time becomes a less red-shifted galaxy that progressively produces increased quantities of stars becoming a separate galaxy.
As you stated, in some cases there appears to be a visually apparent bridge between the two.
your friend forrest
May 6th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
I keep hoping for an explanation of where the antimatter went, and instead we get puzzles like dark matter and dark energy. Astronomy keeps responding to deep questions with deeper questions. Every time we learn something new we expose entire realms of ignorance. We seem to be piling up questions faster than answers.
At least there’s always something to look forward to.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
HvP and John -
I have a real problem with this, exactly because dark matter only interacts gravitationally… Gravity is a conservative force. There has to be some other force involved to convert gravitational potential energy into heat. Otherwise, the particles of dark matter fall toward each other (converting potential energy into kinetic energy) and keep right on going, like the energizer bunny, hopping right back out the gravitational well, converting all their kinetic energy right back into potential energy, until they encounter the next mass concentration.
By contrast, baryonic matter interacts a lot (I was going to say “strongly”, but that implies the strong force, which does affect baryons, but only in very close, high energy collisions.) When a baryon cloud collapses, the particles interact, converting some of the kinetic energy into light and heat. Since the kinetic energy is reduced, the particles can no longer climb out of the well, or if they succeed this time, they have less surplus kinetic energy, and eventually will get stuck in a hole.
On this basis, baryonic matter should coalesce first, long before dark matter does. (Only once stars form can baryons convert internal energy into a usable form, by fusing light atoms into heavy ones and ultimately exploding as supernovas.)
Or when people say “dark matter doesn’t interact”, they mean with baryonic matter, and the collisional cross section of dark matter particles with each other is actually quite large?
May 6th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Ah man, dark matter is just plain ol’ baryonic matter not the cool nonbaryonic stuff.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Awesome news, and thanks for the good write-up as always, Phil.
I know some astronomy professors back from my college days who are doing to be ecstatic about this. It’s always a good thing when you discover the missing half of all of the normal matter in the universe!
Now I’m left wondering, why is it half? How did fully half of the normal matter in the universe end up not incorporated into galaxies? Is this just a dynamic interplay between the force of gravity and the rate of expansion of the universe? I’m guessing that, if the universe hadn’t expanded so quickly, there would be more matter in galaxies and less as rarefied gas, and vice-versa if the universe had expanded more quickly.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
zwitterion: No, dark matter is not baryonic matter. What this article talks about is the missing normal matter, not the missing dark matter.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:22 am
I know that we don’t know much about dark matter but does it too form planets and stars? Since it has gravity you would think so.. Could there be life in dark matter? Or is there something about it’s lack of interaction that would hinder this?
May 7th, 2008 at 12:42 am
Let me guess. It was hidden under God’s sofa?
May 7th, 2008 at 12:53 am
I have a naive question about the massive size vs. the very hot temperature. The BA described ten-million-degree plasma over a span of 4 million light years, yet also “only about 30 baryons per cubic meter”. Does that mean if we were in a hypothetical Starship zipping through it we couldn’t detect baryons or heat very well because its so gigantic and we’re so minuscule? In other words, is the temperature detected on the scale of 4 million light years or is it that hot on the tiny human scale?
May 7th, 2008 at 1:47 am
Bad Jim the “answers” to your questions are as follows: Non conventional theory (NCT) concerning anti-matter: positrons and electrons are pair created surrounding glactic black holes. Electrons are more readily created and are also stable. Positrons often form as virtual particles in pair creation so that there is no lasting symmetry. The same thing is true of protons and anti-protons. Anti-protons are creating more often as virtual particles and “spin out” where protons are stable particles that last.
Unlike positrons, anti-protons are not stable particles and cannot exist without their spin being reinforced magnetically in a cyclotron. Even so, they still “evaporate” (spin-out of existence like a virtual particle) almost as fast as they have been created. Again symmetry is broken. Why is there more matter than anti-matter in the universe? A few positrons out there but relatively no anti-protons.
Dark matter NCT: its real and its everywhere about the same density. NCT:It might be called the new particle aether. These particles however are millions of times smaller than atomic particles. Dark Energy: I believe is only a mis-interpretation of observed data which is a condition of matter relativity. I doesn’t exist.
“Every time we learn something new we expose entire realms of ignorance.” It’s not astronomy that has the problem, it’s the erroneous BB paradigm that I believe must be replaced. A new opthalmic prescription and our vision will be much better.
Buzz,
Non-conventional Theory: all baryonic matter spins. As it spins it creates a vortex of dark matter within its surrounding field. These spinning particles radiate away some of the vortex material in the form of photons creating a continuous influx of new field material into all matter. This is the essence of the force of pushing gravity. As matter is pushed together it heats up based upon the kinetic compression forces of gravity.
Dark matter can become engaged in a dense field. These engagements create less reaction force and therefore continuously would become larger in the absence of spinning baryonic matter which could break initial “engagements”. The result of huge volumes of compressed dark matter are black holes. The in-rushing field of gravity will push all matter and dark matter together. If there are equal quantities it will become a star. If there is more dark matter it will become a black hole.
For the most part if it starts out as a black hole it will have a minimum mass and most in-falling matter will become short strands of dark matter as the black hole grows. If it doesn’t explode while ingesting to much material it will eventually create all the matter for an entire surrounding galaxy of stars — no BB needed.
zwitterion — don’t worry there’s plenty of dark matter to go around just because we found a little bit more of the other stuff.
Cyde — I feel certain we’re not talking about an exact portion. Only a finding of some of the missing mass that most already would have predicted was there. Like predicting other habitable planets. “Everyone” knows that they’re there but we’re still happy to find them.
NCT: galaxies are created from the inside out. Have you observed the pictures of galactic jets. They often extend well beyond the bounds of the galaxy and provide a lot of baryonic matter for inter-galactic space.
Marius,
Dark matter: “does it (too) form planets and stars? Since it has gravity you would think so. Could there be life in dark matter?”
(NCT) Dark matter is the simplest form of matter. You might call it strings of elementary particles, millions of times smaller than an electron. The only way dark matter could create stars and planets is if it first is converted into baryonic matter through the processes and gravitational forces that surround large black holes, which are themselves just compressed versions of dark matter. As far as any kind of life, even as we don’t know it — these are very simple strings, containing one to millions of dark matter particles. There only form is their coiled shape and a resistance to being bent. No life could evolve from them unless through external forces they might be formed in an unknown way to create some speculative form. But I would assert that it would be probably impossible. Baryonic matter, I believe, is the only stable form of matter which all of observable reality is made from.
your friend forrest
forrest_forrest@netzero.net
May 7th, 2008 at 2:21 am
Could you ask them to check through the matter they found and see if my car keys are in there?
Thanks Phil. I’ve already looked everywhere else.
May 7th, 2008 at 6:45 am
Wow… so, that’s actually something I was expecting, honestly, but it’s great to have actual evidence for blind supposition. If the perceived large scale structure model of dark matter formation was accurate, you would expect this accumulation of matter along these lines. Does this jibe with galaxy cluster formation? That is: do these represent separate accumulations, or the leavings of galaxies that migrated to clusters? Are they galactic fossils, or galactic coprolites?
May 7th, 2008 at 7:30 am
How does this rarified gas maintain such ridiculously high temperatures in relatively empty regions of space? My understanding of the situation has a lot of holes in it, so somebody help me with this one.
May 7th, 2008 at 7:32 am
Now this is BA at its BA Best. It stimulates thought all around.
May 7th, 2008 at 8:38 am
Yeah right there with Vox Day’s dad’s check to the IRS.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:07 am
glad u and ur science things are back ?? o0
enough religion and politics ENOUGH !!!
May 7th, 2008 at 9:10 am
@Michael Lonergan
“Let me guess. It was hidden under God’s sofa?”
Actually, I have it on good authority that a little ferret named Kiki stole it and hid it in someone’s shoe.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:33 am
enough religion and politics
Call me crazy, but I just skip articles that don’t sound interesting.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:03 am
@ Todd W: LOL Kiki RULZ, and Bun-Bun Kills
Actually all that missing matter are the socks you loose in the laundry.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:20 am
Hi,
nice to see, that our work here turns out some realy interesting results. Now I know why I’m doing all those bleeding nightshifts
Thanks for that interesting post Phil.
Greetings
Alex
May 7th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Buzz,
The key point is that the potential well that the dark matter is falling into is actually due to the dark matter itself… so it’s not a question of a particle falling into a pre-existing well and then climbing an equal distance out the other side. What happens is that particles fall together (due to some originally tiny density enhancement), which makes the potential well deeper, and so those particles can’t climb out the other side; i.e. they get trapped. Therefore, the density is even higher than it was before and attracts more dark matter, which deepens the potential well and gets trapped, etc. Here’s a nice movie of a computer simulation of this happening (which also shows the expansion of the universe and the hierarchical nature of structure formation):
http://www-theorie.physik.unizh.ch/research_groups/astrophysics/movies/expand_wrbb.mpg
dre,
Actually, it’s the fact that it’s so sparse that helps it stay that hot… heat is just a measurement of the random motions of the particles, so once they’re moving around fast enough (because they’ve been accelerated by the gravity of the dark matter), they’ll stay hot unless forces act on them to slow them down. In this case, the main force that would slow them down is the electrostatic interaction between the ions and free electrons(*). But they’re so sparse that they don’t encounter each other very often, and so don’t slow down very much… and therefore they stay hot!
(*) When this process does occur, it produces light called brehmsstrahlung, which literally translates as “braking radiation” precisely because it slows down the particles! In fact, the X-rays that are being detected are produced by exactly this mechanism.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
What I find interesting is that we call the 4.6% percent of matter that is baryonic “normal matter” It seems to me that the other 95.4% is the normal matter and we’re made up of the odd stuff. Since we really only see 4% of the univers it’s mind boggling to think about all we don’t know. Over 90% of our universe is largely unobservable with our current techniques! Luckily we are creative critters and now that we have actually detected dark matter it’s only a matter of time before we get good at it and discover new ways to observe it. Sign me up for a pair of dark matter binoculars when they get invented!
Also, I have a question for any real physicists out there – I have a decent understanding of physics (read as : can do some of the math for myself)…. but I’m wondering if anybody has any good hypothesis’ as to how dark matter plays into our current theories? Does anybody know of any layman level (or undergrad even) works exploring how dark matter affects our understading of the quantum and relativistic models we have now? Or, as I suspect is probably the case, is our current level of accepted physics knowledge largely restriced to the baryonic universe we know and love?
May 7th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Stark, “normal” is a relative word. The stuff that we identified first, that we have studied for centuries and deal with daily, that is “normal”. Even if it is the tiniest bit of “stuff” out there.
May 7th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
I know… but still, it’s amusing to me!
May 7th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Pat,
Are they (newly observed gas bridge) galactic fossils, or galactic coprolites?
Non-conventional theory (NCT): They are fossils of previous galactic jets that have not as yet merged with a galaxy. As indicated above we are probably “looking along a long thin cylinder of gas, that would make it appear brighter than if we saw it through its side.” A cylindrical form like this probably is continuously agitated by vortex currents of dark matter. This would accordingly be a low pressure area within the field because a great deal of the surrounding dark matter is being radiated away as EM radiation that we are now observing.
These inflowing gravity currents maintain the temperature of the gas until the evolution of the form of the gas cylinder will eventually change their present vortex flow. At that time the gas will begin to cool off and slowly become separate condensing clouds that, depending on their individual size could eventually become irregular satellite galaxies of the cluster, with seemingly little chance of a central black hole developing.
Dre,
As TMB pointed out the rarity of the gas acts as an insulator, it would very slowely radiate away its heat if it was not being continuously agitated by dark matter gravity currents. It will remain heated until its cylindrical form changes which would charge the gravitational dark matter vortex currents within the bridge.
Stark,
(NCT) Dark matter binoculars would be cool but you don’t need them.
Dark matter is omni-present. There would accordingly be countless trillions of them within the vortex that surrounds every atom. Its energy of motion can be seen in a lab as fluxuational changes called zero point fluctuations (ZPF). It is truly the “Higgs” particle concerning pushing gravity. At that small size however they can only be seen in particle reactions which they now call quark jets, which are relatively massive jets of dark matter. Until this is recognized, dark matter will never be found, only inferred. An individual particle would be way too small for CERN to ever observe it. Accordingly there would be no Higgs boson.
Stark,
(NCT) “I’m wondering if anybody has any good hypothesis as to how dark matter plays into our current theories? Does anybody know of any layman level (or undergrad even) works exploring how dark matter affects our understanding of the quantum and relativistic models we have now?”
Current theories of dark matter are generally unrelated to quantum theory. Relativistic theories concerning dark matter are very numerous.
The most prominent were formulated by Lorenz calling this theoretical particle field and aether. Many of these theories equate dark matter with a particle aether proposed by Newton, and hundreds of others. In these theories the word dark matter is interchangeable with the word aether excepting that dark matter would consist of many other entities.
This is the first definition of dark matter on Google: Dark Matter: Is matter that is not visible to us because it emits no radiation that we can observe, but it is detectable gravitationally.
By this definition Dark matter would necessarily consist of many entities: some of these entities when once observed visually (meaning that they can be observed by their EM radiation) would no longer be considered dark matter. The greatest quantity related to gravitational influences would be the omni-present fields themselves which vary in density an current flow, and the dark matter particles the comprise the field, the energy of which today is called Zero Point Fluctuations/ Field (ZPF).
The second largest constituent would accordingly be atomic particles and neutrinos, protons, electrons, and electron neutrinos. The third largest constituent would probably be neutral hydrogen atoms, then molecular hydrogen. Next would be nuclei such as helium and larger nuclei, and lastly stellar and planetary remnants of nearly countless sizes and varieties of atomic and molecular matter formed in huge thinly dispersed clouds. Additionally there are vast quantities of photons and the energy of their orbiting EM radiation which encircles both galaxies and galaxy clusters, which also has extensive gravitational influences.
(NCT) Concerning dark matter and everything in the quantum realm: Quantum Mechanics is the best evolved mathematical system today to predict interactions in the quantum realm. Quantum theory is the verbal explanation of why quantum mechanics works. This quantum theory will be almost completely replaced based upon future observations (being almost completely non-relevant to reality) while the system of quantum mechanics will, at the same time, continue to evolve into a progressively improving mathematical system.
your friend forrest
forrest_forrest@netzero.net
May 7th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
I have a hard time deciding if the big bang universe got bigger or banger – but definitely more exciting.
I’m not a cosmologist or particle physicist – but it seems the answer is possibly yes and no. Yes, early and odd star formation has IIRC some speculating that dark matter was responsible for such baryonic matter early structuring. And no, the absence of strong and EM interactions should prohibit dark matter analogs to atomic nucleus and electron shell so no analogs to ordinary matter objects as we know them.
Well, AFAIU dark energy may be vacuum energy (by way of the cosmological constant), which is odd but “normal” and measurable in the lab in the form of the Casimir effect. We’ll see.
May 7th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
The Plasma Universe people have been predicting precisely this observation for decades. (If Arp hadn’t had his telescope access pulled, he might have done this one himself.) I think it’s conventional among real scientists to acknowledge a successful prediction as evidence in favor of the theory that predicted it. I’m not sure if astronomers do that, though.
If this “gas” is as “hot” as is reported, no amount of dispersed gravitation would keep it in place for gigayears. If, on the other hand, it’s not really “hot”, but merely plasma moving fast in a monstrously scaled-up Birkeland current, that problem’s solved. Then, however, there would be no need for the dark matter.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
forrest noble:
¿Do you troll or is this the physics or your homeuniverse?
May 8th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
This finding has nothing at all to do with Arp’s claims. The two clusters are near each other in space (they have the same redshift), while Arp was trying to connect objects of highly disparate redshifts. Also, he was trying (and failing) to connect galaxies and quasars, while these are clusters. Also, the bridges he predicted (and claimed, erroneously, that he saw) were in optical light, not X-ray.
So trying to squeeze these findings into Arp’s cosmology is as bad or worse than the multitude of other squeezings that have done before.
May 8th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
It’s always easy to invent excuses to dismiss others’ work.
The fact is that plasma astronomers have long predicted
plasma connections between stars, between galaxies in a
cluster, and between clusters. Here we see a plasma
connection between clusters, precisely as predicted.
Arp *also* talked about connections between galaxies at
different redshifts, and about quasars, but that’s not the
topic here. If you’re looking for a valid excuse to dismiss
plasma astronomy in this case, you haven’t found it.
May 8th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
Walabio,
You’re right it’s from my home galaxy the Milky Way, but I’m not saying from what part. Hey our physics must be pretty good if we’re here. Troll, meaning grunting and pointing in the Harry Potter Universe?
Hey Phil,
You’re right, Halton wouldn’t take credit for this one but might take some credit for the one a couple of weeks ago where a large galaxy size black hole was found racing out of a galaxy. This was exactly one of his predictions as the source for some quazars, and that initially it would accordingly become a high red-shifted relatively nearby galaxy core, and progressively a lower red-shifted galaxy. Maybe just an ill conceived theory, but it has been his prediction for decades that it would start start by observing a fast moving galactic size black hole being ejected from the inner core area (or black hole) of a galaxy, that the black hole would leave a trail behind it maybe something like what is being seen above — which astronomers have not seen (as yet).
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/31606/description/
I just talked to him by e-mail concerning the above link which I sent him. Many others probably did too. I don’t think he would mind me sharing it.
Dear Forrest,
Yes, what Komossa calls a black hole I would call a low particle
mass plasmoid. By any other name it would still refer to the
observations. The low particle masses, however, enable the
plasmoid to evolve into a galaxy and enable the initially high
red-shift to evolve into a low, galaxy red shift
Regards, Halton
your friend forrest
May 11th, 2008 at 12:47 am
Nathan,
You’re right. This would be a “playground” observation for Plasma Physicists Like Eric Lerner and Co. Plasma Physicists might present a theory/ hypothesis like this:
Looking at the picture of galaxies it appears that both galaxies are distended in a tear drop form in the direction from the photo of about 10:30.
In essence one galaxy seems to be “facing” the other. This might be due to a preferred magnetic field direction of which spiraling plasma particles move at high speeds from the “lower” galaxy to the upper galaxy. If this is the case, a spiraling high speed particle plasma flowing from bottom to top might create the observed cylindrical structure and greatly heat up neutral atomic and molecular hydrogen and other cloud matter. The interaction of the streaming plasma with more stationery clouds could produce soft X-rays.
With such magnetic fields and a preferred direction from bottom to top, for instance, it would seem feasible (if this were the case) that someday we might be able to use this to our advantage not only for propulsion but for speed records. Similar alignments might be the future galactic highways for us, or maybe other space faring craft which are using it now, maybe fanciful but interesting speculation none the less.
What do you think?
your friend forrest
May 11th, 2008 at 11:32 am
Forrest: I don’t know. Science as I understand it isn’t about speculation.
The problem faced by aplasmic astronomers like our gracious if inconsistently skeptickal host is twofold: they must (1) explain what they see without resort to unfamiliar plasma-dynamic processes, and they must (2) arrange somehow for the unavoidable plasma-dynamic flows of millions or trillions of tons of material to have no observable effect. The former can be achieved by inventing from whole cloth such unobservable abstractions as neutron stars, and carefully not acknowledging confounding observations. The latter is momentarily easier — their like-minded colleagues give them a free pass — but posterity will not be so kind.
The present generation of astronomers will someday be seen as an embarrassment more referable to phrenology than to phlogiston. The data, anyhow, will endure.
May 11th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Nathan, I believe science is 100% about theory which is an accepted form of speculation called pre-interpreted observation based upon an existing paradigm, supposedly deductive and inductive reasoning are involved. Although the reasoning can be almost crazy like in quantum theory, the observations, in that case, have been turned into a great mathematical system of predictability. Those theories that predict nothing in advance that might be disproved are the theories that are most vulnerable as far as being completely disposed of. I think this describes the BB theory.
Big Bang theorists, I believe for example, go wrong when they don’t start questioning things like Dark Energy, “Old galaxies found at the edge of the universe”, intergalactic hydrogen radiates within the milky Way at about 2 degrees K as predicted for over 80 years; fully developed, dense, inactive galaxies found at 12B light years. The list is almost endless as far as the BB theory contradictions.
But on the other hand you can’t be too quick to jump the ship when it has some holes in it. First you try to patch the holes. That’s the logical thing to do. While waiting, the smartest of sailors who believe the holes can’t be fixed are reading the maps. When the ship is taking on too much water and it is clear to everybody, get in line, lower the life boats and abandon ship.
That’s when its very important to have knowledge of your location, in this case alternative theory that you can steer your life boat toward a safe haven.
Since there is no Captain to this ship, the leaders will become those that have maps, in this case it would be more than trivial knowledge of conventional theory where they’ve already studied the map extensively of the theoretical oceans of alternative theory. Alternative often means something very different.
Nobody likes to study a theory that is very likely wrong. That’s why I have a big problem with a lot of today’s theories, like the BB, quantum theory, particle theory, quark theory. All of these theories, in my opinion are sinking ships, within lets say 20 years I believe you will see life boats all over the theoretical ocean.
Quantum Mechanics (as apposed to the joke of Quantum Theory) on the other is a mathematical system which I believe will never be replaced but continuously improved as time goes on. Every perspective of reality related to quantum mechanics, I also believe, is almost completely wrong — but that’s OK because its a mathematical system. Nobody really has to understand it. For those few that do, I suggest for them to keep a low profile right now. The time is not quiet right for logical theory.
My perspective is that these are still the dark ages of science, work technically and mathematically only, if your equations or observations show value, you will be a hero. Only when logic comes back in vogue, I believe, will it be OK to promote new logical concepts of science, otherwise you will be talking to deaf ears. No one wants to hear a better perspective of reality. In truth theories/ hypothesis are a dime a dozen and who has time to analyze them all, so the rationalization goes.
The great sciences of this day, as far as new understandings are concerned, I believe are biology, evolution, improving technologies, observational astronomy (those that look to find without preconceived ideas like the observational group above, but without the 1/25 th statement or other single interpretations), chemistry, optics, and others. Theorists are also great as long as they qualify every theory they make including the prevailing, overriding paradigm. I know this becomes a problem. It’s hard to be humble when you think you know the answers to important questions. as a theorist, make as few assumptions as you believe is possible.
But don’t worry Nathan, the winds are turning against these ill conceived ship designs, AKA theories as you suggested. In reality, these theoretical ships are not seaworthy. Many are presently trying to patch the holes. It won’t be long now. For the brightest of practitioners, I believe, they already are looking at the maps to find an island where they can board a sturdier ship. The name of the island is “reasonable doubt”.
forrest_forrest@netzero.net
your friend forrest
May 11th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
[...] scientists are able to guess the amount of the rest of the matter out there in this state, but as Phil Plait says, the current data set is exactly one, so stay [...]
May 11th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Science isn’t about theory. It’s about integrating observations. Quantum mechanics, like electromagnetics before it, and quantum chromodynamics after, has been such a success precisely because it proceeded directly from evidence to mathematical model, disregarding any reservations about what the model might mean.
Astronomers can restore their field to a science any time they choose. To continue as astrophysicists they will need to unlearn MHD, and learn to apply actual plasma physics. Unfortunately in practice that means vacuum-chamber experiments and supercomputer simulations, because the mathematics is intractable. Possibly the majority of astrophysicists elected their field largely because they could eschew lab work and simulation, and work instead with abstruse mathematical abstractions. They will need to adapt or be bypassed and ultimately forgotten.
My heart goes out to all the young astrophysicists today being trained up in what amount to epicycles, celestial spheres, and phrenology.
May 11th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Nathan,
I follow your logic above and agree with it, but I do believe we need “good” theories, whether it be Plasma Cosmology/ Plasma Physics or other types of theories in any scientific field, to precede experimentation and have an idea of where we might look to find further clues to the “puzzle”. As theory “improves”, based upon observations, eventually better logical understandings of reality should evolve. This assumes that at least some of the observations are not mis-interpreted like I believe most observations are concerning cosmology.
your friend forrest
May 27th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
[...] A team of researchers in Italy are claiming to have directly detected dark matter particles. More: Half of 1/25th of the missing Universe is found. [...]