Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Astronomers Spot Baby Galaxies Cradled In Dark Matter (phys.org)

Posted by Soulskill on from the stake-a-claim-early dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Astronomers discovered a nest of monstrous baby galaxies 11.5 billion light-years away using the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA). The young galaxies seem to reside at the junction of gigantic filaments in a web of dark matter (abstract). These findings are important for understanding how monstrous galaxies like these are formed and how they evolve in to huge elliptical galaxies. The team found that their young monstrous galaxies seemed to be located right at the intersection of the dark matter filaments. This supports the model that monstrous galaxies form in areas where dark matter is concentrated. And since modern large elliptical galaxies are simply monstrous galaxies which have mellowed with age, they too must have originated at nexuses in the large scale structure.

73 comments

  1. They're cute by jpellino · · Score: 1

    when they're small.

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
    1. Re:They're cute by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but like so many other babies - it's probably surrounded by gas, namely methane. (Did not RTFA.)

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  2. Dark Matter Filaments by Capt.Albatross · · Score: 2

    Is it not a matter of conjecture that these galaxies are forming in regions where dark matter is concentrated? - a reasonably well-founded conjecture perhaps, but not corroborated by any evidence beyond that which is the basis of the conjecture?

    1. Re: Dark Matter Filaments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Hmmm... filament structures. More in the growing evidence in favor of electric universe theory.

    2. Re:Dark Matter Filaments by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Hence the use of the word "seem."

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    3. Re: Dark Matter Filaments by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Keep stringing words together. You may actually hit on something that makes sense one day.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    4. Re: Dark Matter Filaments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It made complete sense to me. Check your reading comprehension?

    5. Re: Dark Matter Filaments by tarpitcod · · Score: 1

      How so?

    6. Re: Dark Matter Filaments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You too will see the light when someone flicks the switch

    7. Re:Dark Matter Filaments by burtosis · · Score: 2

      The dark matter filiments are observable by the lensing effect of the gravity they exhibit. So it's not conjecture is an observable and repeatable fact that there is something equivelant to mass there.

    8. Re: Dark Matter Filaments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that your string theory?

    9. Re:Dark Matter Filaments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      That is a bit of a leap, don't you think?

      There appears to be something equivalent to a gravitational center there. Saying that it is equivalent to mass goes beyond the observation.

    10. Re:Dark Matter Filaments by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I think equivalent is fine. Unless you've a compelling theory or some information that changes some very basic physics then, by all means, the outcome appears to be equivalent (which is not to say the source is the same) to mass. I could be missing something as I am not an astrophysicist. I am, however, a mathematician and I've noticed some similarities between a theoretical physicist and a philosopher of mathematics, at least by name if not by effect.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    11. Re:Dark Matter Filaments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last year it was discovered that a cosmic web of dark matter existed and that the regular matter of course fell into the web due to gravity. Where the gravity is highest (at the nexus of the web filaments) they knew there was more matter based on observations.

    12. Re: Dark Matter Filaments by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      It makes more sense than "the nexus of filaments of dark matter" does. What the fuck is a filament of dark matter?

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    13. Re: Dark Matter Filaments by delt0r · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you could use your fingers, try typing and look it up. The universe is not required to conform to what you feel is reasonable or sensable.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    14. Re:Dark Matter Filaments by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Look, we know about neutrinos, which have mass and move at almost the speed of light. Take neutrinos, make them much more massive and slower, and you've got a candidate for dark matter. It isn't really exotic.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    15. Re:Dark Matter Filaments by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I figure it's probably something that's logical and makes complete sense that we've just not yet figured out how to see and measure. Somewhere in this thread, I linked a couple of article about filaments. So, we're getting there. I think the phrase Dark Matter is as bad as the God Particle. Well, no... Almost as bad.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    16. Re:Dark Matter Filaments by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Better than the God Particle, but it's wrong. If it were dark, we'd detect it because it would occult things. It's invisible, although "invisible matter" doesn't sound all that good either.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    17. Re:Dark Matter Filaments by KGIII · · Score: 1

      "Buggered if we know but we know something's causing these effects" really doesn't roll off the tongue very well. I do wonder if some other verbiage would have made this easier for people to swallow. It's strange that folks seem to balk at the idea and I really wonder if it's something to do with the verbiage or, perhaps, the state of science journalism. Maybe they just should have stuck with calling it "unexplained gravitational lensing" which was, I think, how I first heard it though I think it went on to say "also now being called Dark Matter."

      I dunno... Dealing with people isn't my thing and I can't really explain 'em. Try as I might, some folks still just make me shake my head. It's not even like this is controversial. Now, what it is, specifically, has had some controversy but that's a given.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    18. Re:Dark Matter Filaments by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The problem with "unexplained gravitational lensing" is that it doesn't account for other reasons to hypothesize dark matter, which include galactic rotational curves and something about the elementary particle composition of the Universe that I never did understand well. Sigh.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    19. Re: Dark Matter Filaments by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      Yes, yes it does.

    20. Re: Dark Matter Filaments by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      Because magic dark matter and dark energy which do not interact with real matter, except when they do, makes so much sense. How about you leave science to those who are capable of questioning what they are told.

    21. Re: Dark Matter Filaments by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      No, string theory is a separate thing and inconsequential to the Electric Universe theory, unless they come up with another contending theory that involves electricity or magnetic forces. There are getting to be a lot of those string theories these days.

    22. Re: Dark Matter Filaments by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      And I would say the same to you.

    23. Re:Dark Matter Filaments by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      On the basis of this equation, the optical energy flow can be deflected by a magnetic field

      found here http://lpm2c.grenoble.cnrs.fr/...
      Funny, there seems to be something else that can bend light in our universe.

  3. Dark Matter is for Cows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are all Cows. Cows say Mooo. Mooo! Moooo! Mooooo say the Cows. YOU DARK MATTER COWS!!!!

    1. Re:Dark Matter is for Cows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dark Matter is for monstrous Cows

      You are all monstrous Cows. Monstrous cows say Mooo. Mooo! Moooo! Mooooo say the monstrous Cows. YOU MONSTROUS DARK MATTER COWS!!!!

  4. Monstrous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Monstrous monstrous monstrous. Would someone please get them a thesaurus!

  5. God's hands. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See you disbelievers, God's hands at work can be observed. Amen.

    1. Re:God's hands. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be sacrilegious. God's hands are white, not dark.

    2. Re:God's hands. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He existed before he said let there be light.

    3. Re:God's hands. by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      The semitic tribes are certainly darker than my northern European complexion. And they are ones who are the original "made in his image" group.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
  6. In related news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Astronomers have discovered a new level of epicycles in Jupiter's orbit around the Earth.

    1. Re:In related news by rmdingler · · Score: 0
      There are seemingly enough comments that have a disturbing lack of faith on the /.

      More blasphemy than you can shake sticks at! Questioning the US-centric view has become bovine-like in its ubiquitous-ness.

      Now, we are hurling compressed clumps of mineral at the glass domicile of the earth-centric tenet?

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    2. Re:In related news by Maritz · · Score: 1

      I love how slashdot has a vehement anti-dark matter crowd. Truly bizarre thing to get quite so emotional about.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  7. Long ways away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Considering that the universe is thought to be between 12 and 14 billion years old, and they are saying these are 11.5 billion light years away, and nothing travels faster than light (especially since these are photons we're supposedly receiving that have travelled for 11.5 billion years), if our universe really was created from a Big Bang at a single point in space then we have been collecting photons that are practically from the beginning of the universe in the first place. If the age of the universe is accurate, say if it was 12 billion years, wouldn't this mean that these photons are from 0.5 billion years to the other side of the center, and we're 11 billions years away the opposite direction? Sure it could be 5 billion one way and six the other, but since there's a center, and nothing can move faster than the speed of light, how could a galaxy be forming 4.5 billion light years beyond the reach of the universe 0.5 billion years after the universe had formed?

    Yeah, I know I must not understand anything about quantum mechanics, but I'm sure I don't speak for the minority of the human species.

    What really bothers me is the summary speaks of this distant galaxy as though it currently exists, when it's currently a more modern galaxy like the one they are comparing it to.

    1. Re: Long ways away by Frankzy · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that the universe has been expanding for all those years, so we and that galaxy has in essence been 'running' away from each other..

  8. mo43 up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    condu3ted at MIT

  9. Dark Matter? by CAHutch · · Score: -1, Troll

    The most amazing part of this article is not the formation of these galaxies but that the existence of Dark Matter has finally been proven. Oh wait,maybe the person who wrote this is lying and doesn't realize that Dark matter doesn't really exist.

    1. Re:Dark Matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and doesn't realize that Dark matter doesn't really exist

      That's what people used to think about the neutrino, which was a theoretical model until they finally found it decades later.
      And that same neutrino is an almost-dark particle, with 1e11 of them going through every square inch of your body, every second, but only about one of them interacting with your atoms every 30 years or so. These ghostly particles are real, so is it that hard to imagine that there may exist even less-interacting particles?

    2. Re:Dark Matter? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      This should be interesting...

      Without cheating and using a search engine, what do you think dark matter is? No, not what it theoretically is but what it is? Meh, I'll save some time.

      Dark matter isn't really *anything* so much as it is *something* and that something is subject to debate. However, it is *something* that we can neither see nor measure. That's where the name comes from. We can see that something is having an effect and, as yet, that somethingremains unknown. But something that we can neither see nor measure is, truly - no doubt about it, causing these effects (known as gravitational lensing).

      What that substance is, is very much an unknown. However, for now, that substance (or substances) are called dark matter and is an inclusive term for known and unknown theories. No matter what it turns out to be, it is still dark matter.

      Make sense? It's a bit confusing, I guess, but not really if you can get someone to explain it to you well. There are a few competing theories as to what it is, specifically, but the effect is absolutely, certainly, repeatably proven to be there. That effect is caused by something. That something is dark matter. It's a generic term for wont of a better descriptor.

      Sorry, I'm not the most articulate but that's a summary as well as I think I can describe it without getting into some maths that won't be supported by the markdown here. I'm not a physicist but I have a layman's background and an almost scholarly interest.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    3. Re:Dark Matter? by Bengie · · Score: 1

      I've heard it described that if you have a 1 light-year long piece of solid lead and sent a neutrino down it, it would have only a 50% chance to interact with the lead.

    4. Re:Dark Matter? by Maritz · · Score: 1

      I just think you've hit on a particular bugbear for some people, such as CAHutch. They get angry that one of the possible explanations for things like galactic rotation curves is non-baryonic matter that interacts gravitationally but weakly or not at all with other forces. This makes them mad. Don't ask me why. Maybe it exists, maybe it doesn't, CAHutch has made up his mind already and he ain't for budging.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    5. Re:Dark Matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pardon my AC reply but I think I'm nearing my post limit for the day. Sadly, no matter how high my karma goes, I'm limited at 50 posts per day. Judging by the stats, we all are and I can go no further.

      That said, I think you're right. I don't know what it is - otherwise smart people go crazy and assume that Dark Matter is something it isn't. No, whatever it turns out to be - it's Dark Matter. (Unless I'm missing something?) It could be purple unicorn farts causing the effect that is being seen and those purple unicorn farts will be Dark Matter. It can be one thing, it can be several things, it can be something we've not even imagined yet but the fact is - the effect is taking place, repeatable, verifiable, and is beyond doubt (with any sane interpretation of doubt - call it beyond reasonable doubt).

      One interesting conclusion... I should make note of this thread. In a few places, I've taken the time to respond and explain, as best as I can, why it is that they're seemingly not understanding this. I'm a mathematician, not a physicist, and I'm not that articulate but I think I've done an acceptable job. Not one person has responded to say thank you and expressed interest in changing their mind. Not one has refuted my claims. I should note this thread so that I can return here later and see who continues to make these claims in a separate thread at a later date.

      Alas, I'm lazy and will probably waste my posts on more frivolous things. We're generally a bunch of geeks here who like things like physics and astrophysics. It's one of the reasons that I come here. I enjoy the posts from people who are smarter than I and I learn. I'm not sure what happened. :(

    6. Re:Dark Matter? by CAHutch · · Score: 0

      I ain't exactly made up my mind yet, but given a choice between Dark Matter and "Some other explanation" I think that some other explanation is much more likely. What angers me is articles like this that accept Dark Matter as a given. The article mater of factly states that Dark Matter is present in these Galaxy formations when in fact there is no way for them to know that since there is no way to detect dark matter.

  10. #blackmatterlives by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    How are we doing on finding those dark matter filaments that supposedly lurk in our own solar system? Now that New Horizons has uploaded all its Pluto flyby JPGs and is sending the Raws, it could soon perform some experiment that would test this possibility.

    1. Re:#blackmatterlives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How are we doing on finding those dark matter filaments that supposedly lurk in our own solar system?

      We found that they are all coming out of your ass.

    2. Re:#blackmatterlives by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Hmm... What sensing equipment does New Horizons have on it that can perform tests to find dark matter filaments? I guess they could go old-school and do the camera thing?

      Anyhow, assuming you're serious:
      http://www.space.com/16412-dar...
      http://www.americaspace.com/?p...

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  11. Something I haven't heard yet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If Dark Matter is real, does it produce gravity waves or does it block gravity waves ? I have the troubling suspicion dark matter actively blocks gravity waves , or maybe it's dark energy. Does anyone think there's a link between these unseen forces ?

    1. Re:Something I haven't heard yet. by chipschap · · Score: 0

      If Dark Matter is real, does it produce gravity waves or does it block gravity waves ? I have the troubling suspicion dark matter actively blocks gravity waves , or maybe it's dark energy. Does anyone think there's a link between these unseen forces ?

      Yes. Global warming.

    2. Re:Something I haven't heard yet. by lucien86 · · Score: 1

      Another answer is that maybe gravity waves are not real, but dark matter probably is..

      --
      Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
    3. Re:Something I haven't heard yet. by Bengie · · Score: 1

      Blocking gravity waves is akin to blocking gravity itself.

  12. Question for physicists by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1

    I was of the impression we detect dark matter indirectly, by the orbital velocities of galaxies and by gravitational lensing effects.

    How did we determine that dark matter forms filaments, and how did we map the positions of these filaments?

    1. Re:Question for physicists by burtosis · · Score: 2

      Through microlensing of objects located behind the filiments. So yes by the lensing effects.

    2. Re:Question for physicists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.gizmag.com/dark-matter-filaments-found/23281/

  13. Don't Anthropomorphize Galaxies! by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 1

    They hate it when you do that!

    --

    Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

    Vote for Bernie in 2016!

    1. Re:Don't Anthropomorphize Galaxies! by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      They hate it when you do that!

      And don't infantalize them either, or they will throw a tantrum.

  14. The summary for this article is "monstrous" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ....interesting news though....

  15. Galaxies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But are they monstrous?

  16. So we found Dark Matter ? by ZincFinger · · Score: 0, Troll

    Wouldn't finding evidence of Dark Matter be the real news in this article ? Save from all the conjectures of course...

    1. Re:So we found Dark Matter ? by ZincFinger · · Score: 2

      How is that trolling ? Title implies Dark Matter as a fact. Show me the proof for Dark Matter.

    2. Re:So we found Dark Matter ? by KGIII · · Score: 2

      The proof is the lensing. You're thinking that dark matter is something that it is not and that's not surprising given the reporting that I've seen on the subject. No, dark matter is real. What is *really is* is in question.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    3. Re:So we found Dark Matter ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, what we have is a need for large amounts of matter to explain observations.
      Well either that or we are wrong in our equations.
      But since our equations are the best we can come up with and they seem to work for everything else, then there must be a whole lot of matter we can't see.
      Lensing is a symptom of matter, but we knew that from the rotational speed of the edge of galaxies, which started the whole thing in the first place.
      Once again however show me a direct observation of 'Dark Matter', there isn't AFAIK.
      Chances the first team to get there will collect a Nobel prize.

    4. Re:So we found Dark Matter ? by Bengie · · Score: 1

      Dark Matter is a fact with 9 sigmas of confidence. We just don't know what it is.

    5. Re:So we found Dark Matter ? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Even if we found that large amount of matter (or any other reason), it'd still be "dark matter." Dark matter isn't really anything but a generic term that's used to describe what's causing the effects we're seeing per the microlensing. Also, I think someone's claimed to find dark matter filaments. I've not followed that closely as I prefer to wait a while before getting excited. I linked to it in a reply on this page somewhere.

      At any rate, dark matter is - as far as I know, just a generic description that's based on what we're seeing. No matter what it turns out to be, it will have been dark matter. It might not even be matter at all. It's dark because we can't see it and it's matter because we don't know what else would cause this but, for now, it's just a description of an affect more than anything else. Others have sort of had a go at making it more than it is but it's a rather generic thing.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    6. Re:So we found Dark Matter ? by delt0r · · Score: 1

      There is more evidence of dark matter than global warming. Look it up.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    7. Re:So we found Dark Matter ? by Maritz · · Score: 1

      You aren't going to get a direct observation of something that doesn't interact with the electromagnetic force. No photons absorbed and none emitted.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    8. Re:So we found Dark Matter ? by Maritz · · Score: 1

      I would fully expect your dark-matter-denier (which I didn't know existed until Slashdot) to also be an AGW denier. Makes sense. Therefore this probably won't help much as an argument. ;)

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  17. Define 'monstrous' by hackertourist · · Score: 1

    TFA uses an annoyingly vague term and fails to define it. How large are these galaxies?

    1. Re:Define 'monstrous' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does it matter?
      I means, they can state a number of light years, but will adding or subtracting a bunch of zeroes at the end actually give you a better sense of the size?

    2. Re:Define 'monstrous' by hackertourist · · Score: 1

      Even 'n times larger than the Milky Way' would be better than "monstrous", which gives no information at all.

    3. Re:Define 'monstrous' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes it will.
      And second: I don't think there was any way the original poster could have put "monstrous" in there even once more. WTF?