Slashdot Mirror
"Dark Flow" Outside Observable Universe
DynaSoar writes "NASA astrophysicists have discovered what they claim is something outside the observable universe exerting an effect on the observable. The material is pulling clusters of galaxies towards a region of space known not to contain sufficient matter to create the effect. They can only speculate on what the material is and how space might differ there: 'In these regions, space-time might be very different, and likely doesn't contain stars and galaxies (which only formed because of the particular density pattern of mass in our bubble). It could include giant, massive structures much larger than anything in our own observable universe. These structures are what researchers suspect are tugging on the galaxy clusters, causing the dark flow.'"
> NASA astrophysicists have discovered what they claim is something outside the observable universe exerting an effect on the observable.
The third episode of Brian Greene's "Elegant Universe" documentary miniseries on PBS said that while matter is confined to the known dimensions, its possible that gravity isn't and so can move through dimensions. The example they feel is that we could possibly detect the gravity of 'something' in another Universe by its gravity, even though we could never actually touch it. Wonder if this is it?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/
Suddenly, the predicted "end of the universe" models look a little dusty.
I record my sleeptalking
The speed of light is also the maximum speed of causation...if these "super structures" are outside the observable universe, how in the hell are they affecting anything within the observable universe? If they can exert causal influence on these galaxies, and the light from these galaxies has time to reach us... I could be wrong but I feel like someone, somewhere, is seriously contradicting themselves. Maybe those string theorists can tell us if its possible there's cosmic string tied between the galaxies and a giant tug boat in hyperspace...
What bugs me is that this "bubble" of the known universe really isn't a bubble at all, it's just the physical limit of our ability to observe; we have no means of determining the extent of this "bubble". Therefore, claiming that there could be "giant, massive structures much larger than anything in our own observable universe" just outside this bubble seems somewhat... convenient.
While I agree that this is one of the more interesting stories on slashdot in years, there are many aspects of contemporary cosmological theories that I remain highly skeptical of.
SIG: TAKE OFF EVERY 'CAPTAIN'!!
Ok, here's a question for you. The "observable universe" isn't just the observable universe for us, it is that for the whole universe. Nowhere in the universe that is observable to us can you go and observe beyond 13.7 billion light years. We're all in the same boat. However, in the area of the universe that is being affected by this phenomena, they must be able to observe what is causing it. Elsewise, it couldn't be affecting them. There is nothing that can affect me that is unobservable. You can't be so far away that you are beyond my observation range and yet still affect me, unless you are exerting FTL influence on me. So, if this is truly an influence from beyond the visible universe, then that would seem to me to imply FTL.
Either I'm confused or the write up and author of the space.com article are just confusing. Granted, I'm not a physicist but it seems to me that the papers are saying something very different from the write up and the article say. Instead of some mysterious new force from outside the universe, the two papers are based on an analysis of the Cold Dark Matter theory which has been around for some time.
The article is also confusing when it talks about the "known universe." The Inflationary Theory of the origin of the universe says that early on in its existence, the universe underwent a drastically fast expansion. When physicists talk about the "observable universe," they are referring to the idea that Inflation caused parts of the universe to expand so rapidly that their light cannot reach us in the age of the universe. Now those regions are still part of our universe, we just can't see them because they are "over the horizon" so to speak like a ship on the ocean which disappears from view once it gets so far away from shore that the Earth curves away from our field of vision.
In fact this last point appears to be the most interesting part of the papers if I understand them correctly. The papers suggest that it is possible to peak over the horizon and get an idea of what the universe looks like beyond the limits of what we can see with our telescopes. Like the mast of a ship peaking out from the edge of the horizon, clusters of galaxies that we could not see otherwise can be detected by carefully measuring the effects of their gravity on regions of the universe that we can see.
Does this
I would agree that if there is life, it is certainly not life as we know it.
But IMO the fundamental thing needed for life is an energy flow. Possibly you also need a state of matter corresponding to what we regard as solid i.e. one in which components tend to stay put without needing to expend energy. Given those two components, and enough time, I think that something that we could tentatively call life will emerge, occasionally, anywhere. How long it will take to get past the bacterial level is a much more complex question.
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
Let's start with a recap of some statements that are true under current physical theories: (1) space itself is expanding (Hubble Expansion); (2) early in the history of the universe, the expansion of space was faster than the speed of light (Inflationary Big Bang theory); (3) nothing can exceed the speed of light, not even gravity or information (Special and General Relativity); and (4) we are confined our "observable universe": a bubble 92 billion light-years in diameter (General Relativity plus Inflationary Big Bang theory — 13.7 billion light-years, plus inflation, plus 13.7 billion years of Hubble expansion).
Given these facts, neither gravity nor information from outside our observable universe can enter it.
Sure, parts of what we currently consider the observable universe might, in their own relativistic timeline, be "currently" experiencing a gravitational tug from parts of the universe that we can't currently observe, even in principle. However, if that is true, then either (a) such observable places will exit our field of observation before we observe that gravitational tug (i.e. the universe will expand faster than light), or (b) such unobservable places exerting a gravitational tug will enter our field of observation before we see the tug on things we can currently see (i.e. the universe will expand slower than light).
There's no way that information could take a roundabout path to us and arrive faster than information traveling in a straight line (or, more correctly in GR, a geodesic). Think about it: if light/gravity/information cannot travel directly to us, because the direct path is too long and too slow, how could it travel indirectly to us? The indirect path is, by definition, longer and slower than the direct path.
I suppose that, if a large mass was once observable but now is not (i.e. it tugged on some galaxies, then inflation happened), the theory in the article might make a certain amount of sense. But the timescale of inflation (fractions of a second after the Big Bang) doesn't really leave a lot of time for that to happen. It sounds much more plausible to my ears that either (a) there is a previously-undiscovered conglomeration of dark matter in that direction, but it still lies within our observable bubble; or (b) the galaxies in question are at high velocity but no longer accelerating, indicating leftover momentum from an ejection, collision, or some other high-energy event in the early universe.
OTOH, I'm no physicist, so maybe I'm missing something, or maybe the actual theory being promoted makes more sense than Space.com's rather awful writeup.
Range Voting: preference intensity matters
But I look forward to anything that seems to pin down the concept of 'dark matter'.
This new theory isn't an alternative to dark matter.
I'm not drinking his dark matter kool-aid until I can get a better explination for it than 'its invisible, supermassive, unobservable, and so totally there'.
You believe neutrinos exist, right? How hard is it to believe that there's something else like a neutrino out there, but heavier?
Dark matter-like particles have been predicted for decades. Within the Standard Model, there's the axion which is supposed to solve the strong CP problem in QCD. In the supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model, there is the neutralino. In fact, most theories beyond the Standard Model naturally require some heavy scalar particle which could be a dark matter candidate.
Modifying gravity doesn't appear to consistently explain all the gravitational behavior we observe. The other alternative is modifying the source of gravity, i.e. there's something out there we can't see for some reason. And that does account for the gravitational behavior we observe.