Slashdot Mirror


Hubble Finds Double Einstein Ring

Einstein Duble brings us news that astronomers using the Hubble Telescope have discovered an extremely rare double Einstein Ring. Occasionally, galaxies or other bright objects are located in such a way that they are behind another galaxy when viewed from Earth. When light from the further galaxy passes a sufficiently massive closer galaxy, the path of the light is bent inward from all sides, creating a "ring" effect. In this case, not one, but two galaxies are directly behind the foreground galaxy, so the gravitational lens produces two distinct rings. Quoting Presscue: "The distribution of dark matter in the foreground galaxies that is warping space to create the gravitational lens can be precisely mapped. In addition, the geometry of the two Einstein rings allowed the team to measure the mass of the middle galaxy precisely to be a value of 1 billion solar masses. The team reports that this is the first measurement of the mass of a dwarf galaxy at cosmological distance (redshift of z=0.6)."

16 of 168 comments (clear)

  1. Who said Hubble was a waste of money? by mastershake_phd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is a prime example of the kind of useful knowledge that can be gained with projects like Hubble.

    1. Re:Who said Hubble was a waste of money? by caramelcarrot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Given that they are only vastly different scales, it is important - there is still uncertainty as to how gravity acts on extremely large galactic scales.

    2. Re:Who said Hubble was a waste of money? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you're truly Libertarian, Hubble is exactly the sort of thing you'd be against having the government fund.

      C'mon, homefry. Walk the walk if you're gonna talk the talk.

    3. Re:Who said Hubble was a waste of money? by mastershake_phd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you're truly Libertarian, Hubble is exactly the sort of thing you'd be against having the government fund.

      C'mon, homefry. Walk the walk if you're gonna talk the talk.


      Some Libertarians might be against funding things like Hubble. I personally am more concerned with personal freedom, and a balanced budget. Private industry isn't going to do certain things, Hubble is a prime example. The last thing this country needs to do is cut scientific research.

    4. Re:Who said Hubble was a waste of money? by hyfe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you're truly Libertarian, Hubble is exactly the sort of thing you'd be against having the government fund.
      Being against spending money on a project doesn't mean you're not allowed to acknowledge its positive sides.

      Seriously, I hate this sort of thing. Any proposal has good and bad sides. When you're making a decision you count them and weigh them against eachother. Then you make a decision. Obviously, he values 'really free market' really highly, but that doesn't mean he's not allowed to acknowledge the cases when there are more cons to his approach than usual.

      Acknowledging arguments and still making a decision is a sign of intelligence. Trying to force somebody else to make false choices, or attributing false opinions to them is stupid.. and way too bloody common.

      --
      "" How about taking the safety labels off everything, and let the stupidity-problem solve itself? """
  2. Re:Yay Hubble by geekoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Wheres my flying car though?"

    They're called 'airplanes' and we even have a place to park them called 'airports'

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  3. Re:And to them, we are the ring by Pedrito · · Score: 4, Insightful

    One of the cool implications becomes clear if you realize this means our galaxy is the 4th galaxy in a line with these three. To someone standing on a planet in that backmost galaxy, 11B Ly away:

            * The one that's the "foreground galaxy" to us would be the inner ring.

            * The one that's the "first ring" to us would be the foreground galaxy for them and ...

            * The Milky Way would appear as the outer ring!


    Actually, that's not the case. I'll give you a hint. The reason is because of something the guy these rings are named after, figured out. These galaxies aren't aligned. They just look that way from our perspective. From the other direction, it's extremely unlikely these 4 galaxies ever aligned, as odd as that sounds.

  4. Extemely Rare? by tomhath · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It seems to me that there must be lots of Double Einstein Rings out there, probably millions of them. We're just not standing in the right place to seem most of them.

  5. Re:And to them, we are the ring by Rothron+the+Wise · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If the galaxies look aligned from our perspective, they will look aligned from theirs. The inverse path
    of the light will be exactly the same since the path is dictated by the perturbation of spacetime.

    --
    A witty .sig proves nothing
  6. You forgot about time by rewt66 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    These things line up in space-time as follows: Galaxy 1 is on the line 11 billion years ago, galaxy 2 is on the line 6 billion years ago, galaxy 3 is on the line 3 billion years ago, and the Milky Way is on the line right now.

    This does not mean that the reverse is true. It does not mean that there is a line that the Milky Way was on 11 billion years ago, and galaxy 3 was on 8 billion years ago, and galaxy 2 was on 5 billion years ago, and galaxy 3 is on now. Why not? Because galaxies move.

    Still, even if not technically correct, it was a really awesome thought by the OP...

    1. Re:You forgot about time by TapeCutter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "It would be a line at the reverse angle to the hypothetical centre of the big bang."

      We are at "hypothetical centre of the big bang", as is everything else.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  7. Re:Here come's the PR Blitz by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't worry, we can pay for the whole thing by leaving Iraq one or two days earlier. And plus, if you look at it from the financial angle, a space-industrial complex is just as good of an excuse for corporate welfare handouts as the military-industrial complex. The only difference is that if we spent $300 Billion a year on science, we'd probably get something good for humanity out of it.

    It's sad that spending money to unravel the secrets of the universe is sneered at (see parent) while large numbers of people and entire news networks (not necessarily including parent) champion spending trillions of dollars to keep poking the middle east hornet's nest (And apparently think that if we keep poking, the hornets will get tired and give up).

  8. Re:I agree, but... by SQLGuru · · Score: 3, Insightful

    the extreme sort are the most noisy The same could be said of those of any persuasion......(political, religious, etc.)

    Layne
  9. odds of this by v1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    for this to occur requires four galaxies to be very close to being colinear, and we have to be in one of the endpoints. Looking at the picture though there are several galaxies visible so I suppose they have quite a few to look at for this. I wonder just how rare it is? As in, is this the first one discovered? I'd asume if there were any other known double E rings it would have been mentioned in TFA. Hard to say how rare something is when you only have one of them to go by.

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  10. Re:Which part of the knowledge is useful? by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The measured mass of a galaxy useful? On its own, maybe or maybe not. Yet through this fortunate alignment we were given the chance to get information that, for lack of a better word, helps us 'calibrate' our astronomical tools.

    The universe is understood by using phenomenae like this to test our theories and provide a sort of astronomical 'yard stick' by which we can measure other objects. Objects that without this yard stick would be less well understood. One discovery is built upon another until, one by one, they form the sum of our understanding.

    So why not go out and measure the mass of that little rock in your backyard? Wouldn't it be amazing to discover that it had a density of 19.3 g/mL?

    --
    Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
  11. Re:Which part of the knowledge is useful? by Martian_Kyo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I am sure some people wondered in 1600s 'why is that newton guy researching gravity he is such a fool, I know if i drop an apple it falls. What does it matter how fast it falls, that won't help my crops grow.'
    There is no useless knowledge. There is knowledge we don't know how to use yet but no useless knowledge. Time will show, determining mass of a galaxy might turn out to be an essential calculation 300 years from now on, given civilization continues to evolve until then.