|
rrrADAM
Sep 25, 2008, 10:53 AM
Post #1 of 19
(876 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
NASA wrote: Scientists Detect Cosmic 'Dark Flow' Across Billions of Light Years 09.23.08 Francis Reddy / Rob Gutro Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. 301-286-4453 / 4044 francis.j.reddy@nasa.gov / robert.j.gutro@nasa.gov Release No. 08-83 WASHINGTON -- Using data from NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), scientists have identified an unexpected motion in distant galaxy clusters. The cause, they suggest, is the gravitational attraction of matter that lies beyond the observable universe. "The clusters show a small but measurable velocity that is independent of the universe's expansion and does not change as distances increase," says lead researcher Alexander Kashlinsky at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. "We never expected to find anything like this."
Read the rest here:
http://www.nasa.gov/.../2008/dark_flow.html
|
|
|
|
|
robbovius
Sep 25, 2008, 11:02 AM
Post #2 of 19
(870 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 20, 2002
Posts: 8406
|
rrrADAM wrote: NASA wrote: Scientists Detect Cosmic 'Dark Flow' Across Billions of Light Years 09.23.08 Francis Reddy / Rob Gutro Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. 301-286-4453 / 4044 francis.j.reddy@nasa.gov / robert.j.gutro@nasa.gov Release No. 08-83 WASHINGTON -- Using data from NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), scientists have identified an unexpected motion in distant galaxy clusters. The cause, they suggest, is the gravitational attraction of matter that lies beyond the observable universe. "The clusters show a small but measurable velocity that is independent of the universe's expansion and does not change as distances increase," says lead researcher Alexander Kashlinsky at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. "We never expected to find anything like this." Read the rest here: http://www.nasa.gov/.../2008/dark_flow.html
this is both awesome and exciting...
I forget exactly the person who made this statement (stephen hawking? )but it seems appropos here: "Not only is the univese weirder than we imagine, its wierder than we CAN imagine."
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Sep 25, 2008, 12:19 PM
Post #3 of 19
(860 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
Sounds like Sagan or Tyson.
|
|
|
|
|
epoch
Moderator
Sep 25, 2008, 12:21 PM
Post #4 of 19
(858 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2005
Posts: 32163
|
Dont' google image the thread title with the filter off at work! 
Fuck!
|
|
|
|
|
boymeetsrock
Sep 25, 2008, 4:49 PM
Post #5 of 19
(840 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 11, 2005
Posts: 1709
|
So if I understand this correctly, some gasses or energy waves from various parts of the universe are moving toward a single point which is not outside of the visible universe? And also not in relation to general universe expansion?
Could there be a black hole there?
Very interesting and mind boggling stuff. Thanks for sharing!
|
|
|
|
|
sungam
Sep 25, 2008, 5:15 PM
Post #6 of 19
(835 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26804
|
boymeetsrock wrote: Could there be a black hole there?
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
Sep 25, 2008, 6:35 PM
Post #7 of 19
(815 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
boymeetsrock wrote: So if I understand this correctly, some gasses or energy waves from various parts of the universe are moving toward a single point which is not outside of the visible universe? And also not in relation to general universe expansion? Could there be a black hole there? Very interesting and mind boggling stuff. Thanks for sharing!
[jaded ex-astronomy researcher]I think whatever is causing this is much more interesting than just a black hole.[/jaded ex-astronomy researcher]
Some thing that's measurable over an isotropic sample of galactic clusters points at something a little bit more elemental, a little bit more intrinsic to our universe. The existence of any one black hole is not necessary to the existence of the universe (although their overall existence is necessary). But some thing that big? That is beyond our visual horizon? This is sexy stuff.
Of course, since we're essentially looking backwards in time, this apparent motion could be any number of things, including redshifting due to the extreme mass density of the infant universe. That is, the light warping we measure could be from the still lingering footprint of the fires of creation.
|
|
|
|
|
gogounou
Sep 25, 2008, 6:44 PM
Post #8 of 19
(810 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 20, 2006
Posts: 542
|
Excellent link. Prompted me to look into cosmic inflation, as well. I had never been aware of that aspect of Big Bang theory.
Thanks!
J
|
|
|
|
|
boymeetsrock
Sep 25, 2008, 7:48 PM
Post #9 of 19
(799 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 11, 2005
Posts: 1709
|
I see.... well no I don't but that did give me a better sense of what we're talking about.
Now when you say fires of creation do you mean of the universe as a whole, or perhaps a particular galaxy/ system?
Also the report made it sound like they are seeing this phenomenon (mahna-mahna?) in only one corner of the universe and not all around the edges. Is that correct and if so why.
OK, I know this isn't astronomy class so you guys don;t have to keep humoring me. This is all just very interesting and apparently far beyond my comprehension.
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
Sep 25, 2008, 10:30 PM
Post #10 of 19
(788 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
boymeetsrock wrote: I see.... well no I don't but that did give me a better sense of what we're talking about. Now when you say fires of creation do you mean of the universe as a whole, or perhaps a particular galaxy/ system? Also the report made it sound like they are seeing this phenomenon (mahna-mahna?) in only one corner of the universe and not all around the edges. Is that correct and if so why. OK, I know this isn't astronomy class so you guys don;t have to keep humoring me. This is all just very interesting and apparently far beyond my comprehension.
The image in the article shows that galaxy clusters spread pretty evenly over the sky all seem to be heading for this beasty. That seems to pretty strongly point towards a universal effect. Read more carefully, the report states that everything seems to be attracted towards one particular neighborhood. Since we can't see what they're attracted towards, we can speculate all we want about what's going on.
In the interest of rigor though, we are compelled to state most especially that there is something causing all of these clusters (which are really, REALLY big) to head towards a single point in the universe. It is, in all probability, something very massive (or acts, at least in a gravitational sense, like something very massive). But we can't see what it is, so it might be dark matter, it might be the intrinsic shape of the universe, it could be the gravitational waves of the pre-cosmic soup. But no matter what causes it, if this effect is real, its pretty fuckin' sweet.
(This post was edited by petsfed on Sep 25, 2008, 10:31 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
bender
Sep 26, 2008, 5:04 AM
Post #11 of 19
(755 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 23, 2002
Posts: 188
|
robbovius wrote: I forget exactly the person who made this statement (stephen hawking? )but it seems appropos here: "Not only is the univese weirder than we imagine, its wierder than we CAN imagine."
you really aught not get that excited by such prognostications
remember these are at heart science nerds
they get excited by a .1 change in calculable magnitude whenever the furtherance of instermentation allows the refinement of vantage
their enthusiasm is mostly for the unpreceptable
i wouldnt run to far with their exuberance
|
|
|
|
|
sungam
Sep 26, 2008, 12:05 PM
Post #12 of 19
(743 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26804
|
bender wrote: robbovius wrote: I forget exactly the person who made this statement (stephen hawking? )but it seems appropos here: "Not only is the univese weirder than we imagine, its wierder than we CAN imagine." you really aught not get that excited by such prognostications remember these are at heart science nerds they get excited by a .1 change in calculable magnitude whenever the furtherance of instermentation allows the refinement of vantage their enthusiasm is mostly for the unpreceptable i wouldnt run to far with their exuberance
Thanks, bender.
|
|
|
|
|
boymeetsrock
Sep 26, 2008, 1:45 PM
Post #13 of 19
(738 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 11, 2005
Posts: 1709
|
Thanks for explaining Petsfed. I'll keep reading as this is interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
Sep 26, 2008, 2:45 PM
Post #14 of 19
(724 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
bender wrote: robbovius wrote: I forget exactly the person who made this statement (stephen hawking? )but it seems appropos here: "Not only is the univese weirder than we imagine, its wierder than we CAN imagine." you really aught not get that excited by such prognostications remember these are at heart science nerds they get excited by a .1 change in calculable magnitude whenever the furtherance of instermentation allows the refinement of vantage their enthusiasm is mostly for the unpreceptable i wouldnt run to far with their exuberance
Beat 'em up in high school and now you work for one?
I find absolutely nothing wrong with the child like wonder that most scientists approach their given field. I wonder how different the world would be if we could all get so excited about subtle refinements of the evidence.
Incidentally, ".1 change in calculable magnitude"? Does that mean a factor of .1 (so technically an order of magnitude) or a superposition of .1 of whatever you're measuring? Since we tend to prefer scientific notation, that's only the second significant figure, so we're still talking in terms of hundredths of the total. 3.6x10^8 vs 3.7x10^8 doesn't seem like much, but its still a shift of 1,000,000. Your criticism is basically incomprehensible, however warranted you may believe it to be. Try to rephrase, being careful not to use trigger words like "magnitude" unless they are actually the words you mean to.
My real point though is that if you can't get excited by how complex and yet how simple the universe is, then what the hell keeps you interested in the world at large? The day I realized that I could be filled with the same sense of awe staring at a mountain vista or working out some new fact about the universe, I knew I'd found a calling.
|
|
|
|
|
sungam
Sep 26, 2008, 3:01 PM
Post #15 of 19
(721 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26804
|
petsfed wrote: Incidentally, ".1 change in calculable magnitude"? Does that mean a factor of .1 (so technically an order of magnitude) or a superposition of .1 of whatever you're measuring? Since we tend to prefer scientific notation, that's only the second significant figure, so we're still talking in terms of hundredths of the total. 3.6x10^8 vs 3.7x10^8 doesn't seem like much, but its still a shift of 1,000,000. Your criticism is basically incomprehensible, however warranted you may believe it to be. Try to rephrase, being careful not to use trigger words like "magnitude" unless they are actually the words you mean to.  Bender just got served...
|
|
|
|
|
Maddhatter
Sep 26, 2008, 10:52 PM
Post #16 of 19
(709 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 28, 2008
Posts: 1752
|
Dark matter. All mass is in fact energy.
We really need to know WTF dark matter is before any of this shit even matters.
Just say'n.
|
|
|
|
|
hafilax
Sep 26, 2008, 11:07 PM
Post #17 of 19
(706 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 12, 2007
Posts: 3025
|
or...
this shit is important because it might help us figure out wtf dark matter is.
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
Sep 26, 2008, 11:49 PM
Post #18 of 19
(694 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
Maddhatter wrote: Dark matter. All mass is in fact energy. We really need to know WTF dark matter is before any of this shit even matters. Just say'n.
Spoken so naively. Kinda makes me smile.
We're not justified in believing that dark matter follows the same matter-energy equivalency that regular matter does. All we know about dark matter is that warps space-time the same way that regular matter does, but does not radiate or absorb energy in any detectable fashion.
We could just explain this away with a wave of the hand as dark matter, the bogeyman we blame all of our evidentiary weirdness on, but we're not really justified in saying even that because if it was dark matter, it would affect all galaxy clusters equally. And that's pretty clearly not the case.
|
|
|
|
|
kachoong
Sep 27, 2008, 3:01 AM
Post #19 of 19
(678 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: 15304
|
gogounou wrote: Excellent link. Prompted me to look into cosmic inflation, as well. I had never been aware of that aspect of Big Bang theory. Thanks! J
This phenomenon could also be the beginning of a cosmic deflation that began 3.8 billion years ago (from our reference point)... and their point of reference could essentially be the "center" of the visible universe... not necessarily the same center that started the big bang, but the inward concentration of the universe's elasticity... I mean, the universe should surely return back in on itself at some point, whether to the same point or not... this could be the "trashcan" everything will at some point be heading towards eventually...
|
|
|
|
|
|
