Slashdot Mirror


Giant Sheets Of Dark Matter Detected

Wandering Wombat writes "The largest structures in the universe have been, if not directly found, then at least detected and pounced upon by scientists. 'The most colossal structures in the universe have been detected by astronomers who tuned into how the structures subtly bend galactic light. The newfound filaments and sheets of dark matter form gigantic features stretching across more than 270 million light-years of space — three times larger than any other known structure and 2,000 times the size of our own galaxy. Because the dark matter, by definition, is invisible to telescopes, the only way to detect it on such grand scales is by surveying huge numbers of distant galaxies and working out how their images, as seen from telescopes, are being weakly tweaked and distorted by any dark matter structures in intervening space.' By figuring how to spot the gigantic masses of dark matter, hopefully we can get a better understanding of it and find smaller and smaller structures."

21 of 231 comments (clear)

  1. So ... by supun · · Score: 4, Funny

    is it 1x4x9?

    --
    :w!
    1. Re:So ... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Funny

      Actually, it's just the walls of the Universe. The simulation uses a 32 bit number to handle the coordinate system, so it needed to fit within 2^32 light years. I told God he should have used a 64-bit processor, but he complained that they were too expensive back in 1970. I bet he's kicking himself now, eh?

  2. Heh by TheLink · · Score: 4, Funny

    Given that > 90% of the stuff out there is not even made of the same stuff like us - in the great scheme of things we are:
    a) Interesting
    b) Not interesting
    c) Both (don't you love quantum superpositions ;) )

    --
  3. Sheets and Filaments by TheEmptySet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So we are to understand that dark matter, acted on only by gravity, forms sheets and filaments? We know very well what shapes distributions of particles form over time with only gravity acting on them and they look a lot like galaxies and very little like sheets and filaments. Can anyone clear this up for me?

    1. Re:Sheets and Filaments by KublaiKhan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Kind of an odd thing to do, isn't it?

      However, galaxies also form 'sheets and filaments' at extremely large scales, as well; presumably, should these folks figure out how to find smaller structures, they should look somewhat more familiar.

      --
      In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
      A stately pleasure dome decree
    2. Re:Sheets and Filaments by JustinOpinion · · Score: 5, Informative

      First, remember that the distribution of dark matter and ordinary matter are, actually, pretty similar (we find galaxies accumulated along the dark matter filaments, and at smaller scales see dark matter concentrated into galaxies).

      Second, my understanding is that dark matter (whatever it is) must be fairly weakly-interacting. The normal matter that we see aggregating into stars and galaxies interacts with itself (the particles bounce off each other, exchanging momentum, and also they repel each other at very short distances). This interaction, in addition to gravity, dictates the shapes we see for ordinary matter.

      Dark matter doesn't interact strongly (with matter, and presumably with itself), so it aggregates differently. Imagine a cluster of dark matter that is being gravitationally collapsed: as the particles get closer to each other, instead of bouncing off each other (and thereby e.g. transforming their large-scale kinetic energy into heat), they 'pass through' each other (actually just pass by each other without scattering). This means that the matter will aggregate differently (the dark matter particles will mutually gravitate and orbit, but can't coalesce).

      I'm painting a simplistic picture, but the point is that there are some fundamental differences about how dark matter interacts, versus ordinary matter. I believe the filamentary structure itself is an artifact of the universe's inflationary epoch, where massive expansion has amplified small-scale quantum fluctuations into the very large-scale distribution we now see.

    3. Re:Sheets and Filaments by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 5, Informative
      > We know very well what shapes distributions of particles form over time with only gravity acting on them and they look a lot like galaxies and very little like sheets and filaments.

      No. When we try to predict the large scale distribution of matter using simulations we get filaments.

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
  4. pounced upon? by Numbah+One · · Score: 5, Funny

    so the scientists are lol cats? Oh, hai drk mater! i pownse on u!

    1. Re:pounced upon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Lots of scientists are lol cats, remember Schrödinger's lolcat? I can has superposishun?

  5. The Rubber sheet analogy is WRONG!!! by jameskojiro · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The whole rubber sheet of space time analogy is wrong, it is missing something.

    Current analogy of space time:

    Take a rubber sheet and stretch it out over a frame and drop a bowling ball and marble and drop them on it, they push down and those dents are gravitation fields in space-time.

    New more correct analogy:

    Take a swimming pool and fill it all the way to the top with water. THEN, stretch a rubber sheet over it and seal it so that no water leaks out. Then put your bolwing ball and marble on it. Draw a line running between the bowling ball and marble, and take that cross section, note that the bowling ball and marble behave the same way at close distance like they do above, but when they are a opposite sides of the pool there is a slight "repulsive" effect. We call that Dark Energy! This repulsive effect also can help stick objects together applying a "pressure" against all the other objects, hence "Dark Matter". This effect will also affect light waves moving past it, hence gravitational lensing.

    I'll take my Nobel prize now!

    --
    Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
    1. Re:The Rubber sheet analogy is WRONG!!! by Wandering+Wombat · · Score: 4, Funny

      Scientists never get invited to pool parties... you're just making them feel bad now.

      Makes a lot of sense, though.

      --
      I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
    2. Re:The Rubber sheet analogy is WRONG!!! by TobyRush · · Score: 4, Funny

      Scientists never get invited to pool parties...

      And there's good reason. I grew up in Los Alamos, NM, and the best part about doing our swimming merit badges at the county pool was having the dad of one of the scouts -- a LANL physicist -- come early to pick up his son. He'd have all of us at the shallow end of the pool, and he'd be standing there holding a pendulum. Based on the pendulum's swing, he'd either yell "jump in!" and we'd all jump in simultaneously, or "get out" and we'd all get out simultaneously. After doing this for four or five minutes, the entire pool was sloshing back and forth, spilling over onto the deck on each end, getting everyone's towels wet if they weren't on the bleachers.

      We thought it was awesome. The lifeguards didn't.

      --
      Sam! If you will let me be,
      I will try them.
      You will see.
    3. Re:The Rubber sheet analogy is WRONG!!! by JustinOpinion · · Score: 5, Informative
      The "rubber sheet" analogy is imperfect, but I don't think your revised analogy is correct.

      Draw a line running between the bowling ball and marble, and take that cross section, note that the bowling ball and marble behave the same way at close distance like they do above, but when they are a opposite sides of the pool there is a slight "repulsive" effect. We call that Dark Energy! "Dark energy" doesn't mean that normal matter is repulsive at large distances. Ordinary matter is always gravitationally attractive towards other ordinary matter, at all scales. Same for dark matter (whatever it is). "Dark energy" is, in fact, a "negative pressure" that pushes on spacetime itself, causing the universe to expand (and moreover gets stronger and stronger the lower its density becomes).

      If dark energy sounds counter-intuitive: it should! Of course we don't really know what it is (yet), but the experimental evidence available thus far does not suggest that matter is repulsive at large distances, but rather that "something" fills spacetime and exerts an expansion force that is inversely proportional to its density.

      This effect will also affect light waves moving past it, hence gravitational lensing. Just to be clear: gravitational lensing also has nothing to do with dark energy... and nothing to do with dark matter specifically. Any source of gravity (ordinary matter, dark matter, etc.) will deflect the path of light rays (the effect is small but measurable). Thus gravitational lensing is a great way to determine the "amount of mass" within a volume of space. When that mass is correlated with brightness, we say it's ordinary matter (stars, etc.) and when that mass is correlated with seemingly empty patches of space (dark), we call it dark matter.
  6. Re:Three times larger? by Wandering+Wombat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That's not really "One structure", though... it's a lot of small structures close together. A big pile of sand isn't the same as a big sheet of glass.

    --
    I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
  7. Re:Three times larger? by TheEmptySet · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's a good philosophical question though. When is a collection of things (say atoms, bricks and mortar, etc.) a thing and when is it just lots of things? Deep down atoms don't come anywhere near touching each other to make molecules and larger structures. I myself am just a collection of tiny dots floating in space a long way from each other.

  8. Journal Reference by phizix · · Score: 4, Informative

    The journal article is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361:20078522

  9. Re:What if.... by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 4, Informative
    > What if it isn't dark matter at all? But the Universe actually bending?

    But that's exactly how it's being treated by physicists. Here are the very equations that physicists use to described the bending of spacetime by matter, dark or not.

    --
    Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
  10. Gravity, it is wrong by sweetser · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Or at least our current mathematical description of it is wrong. We cannot explain how disk galaxies spin. We cannot explain how the big bang happens without the magic fairy dust for inflation. Now we have a large wall of dark matter. Oh, and there is dark energy for galaxy acceleration. One more thing, we cannot quantize our approach to gravity.

    These are the reasons I work on a rank 1 field theory for gravity. For the details, read as much of this thread as you like: http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=87097 This is a LONG thread, more than 36k views, I make learn things along the way. Right now I am trying to find derive the Maxwell equations, and then the unified field theory, instead of using tensors. Quite a bit of fun. I have never had to write so many partial differential equations in my life.

    Doug

    --
    Working on new views of old physics at http://VisualPhysics.org
  11. Simulation error by 0xABADC0DA · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You joke, but consider if the universe were a simulation -- quantum mechanics makes a lot more sense in term of a simulation. Things like spooky action at a distance become lazy evaluation. Quanta become memory locations, variables. And so on. Quantum mechanics is easy to simulate.

    But how does one simulate gravity? It has to propagate in every direction at the something like speed of light or else -- god forbid -- information could travel faster than light. The whole concept of gravity, that every individual particle affects however slightly every other particle, is not possible to compute directly.

    Now suppose the universe were simulated as a sparse matrix. Each cell could contain a gravity component that stored the aggregate gravity force from each of a certain number of directions (perhaps expressed as several point masses). Depending on the number of directions this would give highly accurate simulation at a small scale, where error is absorbed as noise, while being computable for the overall universe as a whole. However the error would magnify over great distances due to 'floating point' type errors accumulating.

    What if what these people are seeing as dark matter is not matter at all, but simulation error. Perhaps even dark matter is related to a sparse simulation of the universe where intervening space is approximated by invisible masses that gravity affects but nothing else does. These mass would act to consolidate cells in the matrix to reduce the overall memory requirements.

    1. Re:Simulation error by teslar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You joke, but consider if the universe were a simulation -- quantum mechanics makes a lot more sense in term of a simulation. Things like spooky action at a distance become lazy evaluation. Quanta become memory locations, variables. And so on. Quantum mechanics is easy to simulate. But how does one simulate gravity? It has to propagate in every direction at the something like speed of light or else -- god forbid -- information could travel faster than light. The whole concept of gravity, that every individual particle affects however slightly every other particle, is not possible to compute directly. Now suppose the universe were simulated as a sparse matrix. Each cell could contain a gravity component that stored the aggregate gravity force from each of a certain number of directions (perhaps expressed as several point masses). Depending on the number of directions this would give highly accurate simulation at a small scale, where error is absorbed as noise, while being computable for the overall universe as a whole. However the error would magnify over great distances due to 'floating point' type errors accumulating. What if what these people are seeing as dark matter is not matter at all, but simulation error. Perhaps even dark matter is related to a sparse simulation of the universe where intervening space is approximated by invisible masses that gravity affects but nothing else does. These mass would act to consolidate cells in the matrix to reduce the overall memory requirements.
      That always gets me. People assume the universe is a simulation (unprovable in my opinion) and then proceed to explain a very small subset of physical phenomena in terms of computations they understand. Where does this idea that the Universe simulator would work anything like our computers come from? Consequently, how does the assumption that the Universe is a simulation help in any way given that it is unknown what computations give rise to it?

      Another way to look at it: Every time a physicist describes a new effect with a formula, he has in fact given you a (mathematical) simulation of this effect. But that does not mean that this effect is a result from a simulation in the first place. And just because it is possible to think of a computational implementation that might behave similarly to an observed effect (which is a crude way of describing it mathematically if you can't do the maths) doesn't mean it is the result of a computational implementation in the first place. Assuming the Universe is a simulation does not add any insights, so why bother?

      Also kinda reminded me of that old joke... An engineer thinks his equations are an approximation of reality but a Physiscist thinks reality is an approximation of his equations (meanwhile, the mathematician doesn't care....).
    2. Re:Simulation error by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > "Aw, shucks... you guessed it! Now I have to stop the simulation and start over."

      "There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable."

      "There is another theory which states that this has already happened."

        - Douglas Adams, HHGTTG