Dark Matter mapped
-
It's incredible what astronomers can do nowadays. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6235751.stm[^].
the last thing I want to see is some pasty-faced geek with skin so pale that it's almost translucent trying to bump parts with a partner - John Simmons / outlaw programmer
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.i don't believe it. it's just a theory. nobody saw it happen.
image processing toolkits | batch image processing | blogging
-
It's incredible what astronomers can do nowadays. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6235751.stm[^].
the last thing I want to see is some pasty-faced geek with skin so pale that it's almost translucent trying to bump parts with a partner - John Simmons / outlaw programmer
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.Has anyone ever proposed what dark matter actually is? I mean if we got a box of it what would be in the box? I also assume it would be in our region of space, say within our solar system even?
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Shog9 wrote:
I don't see it happening, at least not until it becomes pointless.
-
While you are not asking me, I would nevertheless like to share some information on this;). There are also something call "dark-energy" which is required to interpretate observations using current cosmological model. You can treat the "dark-matter" as foreground (active part) and the "dark-energy" as the background (vacume, context, etc). The nature of "dark-energy" is one of the most elusive ones to know so far. I had a theory[^] that could pave the way leading to its understanding. But unfortunately, there is no chance for me to further develop it due to some reasons. A long story ...
Thanks - although thats pretty high-brow though for us laymen.... (I did 1st Year University physics only)
S. Ying wrote:
While you are not asking me
that doesnt matter - if I wanted an answer from Jeffry and only Jeffry I would have private emailed him so the question didnt show here (and show up my ignorance) - usually anyone whos qualified (and sometimes those who arnt) can give an answer - thats what makes CP, for better or worse 'g'
-
Assuming, of course, that there is such a thing as "dark matter". See here[^] for an alternative opinion. The existence of dark matter is an unproven theory - prehaps right, perhaps wrong - but certainly unproven. There is no known test for the detection of dark matter; it's composition is unknown; it is a purely theoretical construct. Which is why no one should speak of "mapping it"; such pseudo-scientific statements are simply misleading.
You're obviously more qualified on these matters than I am. A point I'd make is that as you say,
The Grand Negus wrote:
perhaps right, perhaps wrong
yes, but someone has to challenge the assumptions - wether right now that person/group is thought of as being heretical or not, I beleive the fundamental problem is that (having difficulty explaining here) we have issues with our viewpoint/understanding, because we tend only to understand things in terms of a known reference point to us as humans. .. so we need people to constantly challenge ideas, accepted or not, to push the boundaries of our thinking. Much like the struggle you've faced I imagine with your Plain English Compiler ps.. an interesting read is a book called 'Excuse me Mr Einstein'
-
Jeffry : Does this imply that "Ordinary matter - gas, stars, planets and galaxies" + Dark Matter = the Universe, or, are there still things that we cant see because we dont have the correct technology/viewpoint 'g'
Garth J Lancaster wrote:
are there still things that we cant see because we dont have the correct technology/viewpoint
Yes - the 'ether' for one. And the gluons that hold everything together are invisible, too.
"...a photo album is like Life, but flat and stuck to pages." - Shog9
-
Assuming, of course, that there is such a thing as "dark matter". See here[^] for an alternative opinion. The existence of dark matter is an unproven theory - prehaps right, perhaps wrong - but certainly unproven. There is no known test for the detection of dark matter; it's composition is unknown; it is a purely theoretical construct. Which is why no one should speak of "mapping it"; such pseudo-scientific statements are simply misleading.
-
Jeffry : Does this imply that "Ordinary matter - gas, stars, planets and galaxies" + Dark Matter = the Universe, or, are there still things that we cant see because we dont have the correct technology/viewpoint 'g'
Garth J Lancaster wrote:
or, are there still things that we cant see because we dont have the correct technology/viewpoint
This is the all time greatest answer, the answer to the question of life the universe and everything.... which of course is 42 as the answer. ;) We certainly have not accounted for everything, and we know we cannot. As energy spreads wide and becomes fainter, whether dark or not, entropy will mean it will become so faint that we will not be able to measure it, until we get better at measuring. The more sensitive our instroments the more we can see, but there is always more beyond that. So we are always in a perpetual state of learning more about our universe from macro, to the micro. Also things change as we are watching them, so this is a living "dynamic" environment that doesn't always follow our predictions. When it doesn't we have to ask ourselves why and learn why. As we learn more, we get better at finding more too.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
i don't believe it. it's just a theory. nobody saw it happen.
image processing toolkits | batch image processing | blogging
-
Assuming, of course, that there is such a thing as "dark matter". See here[^] for an alternative opinion. The existence of dark matter is an unproven theory - prehaps right, perhaps wrong - but certainly unproven. There is no known test for the detection of dark matter; it's composition is unknown; it is a purely theoretical construct. Which is why no one should speak of "mapping it"; such pseudo-scientific statements are simply misleading.
-
Has anyone ever proposed what dark matter actually is? I mean if we got a box of it what would be in the box? I also assume it would be in our region of space, say within our solar system even?
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Shog9 wrote:
I don't see it happening, at least not until it becomes pointless.
Paul Watson wrote:
Can I touch it?
No, you and it would blow up and destroy the whole neighborhood and you would be marked down as a terrorist in the history books. Never mind, thats antimatter. -- modified at 18:22 Sunday 7th January, 2007
█▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██
-
Garth J Lancaster wrote:
or, are there still things that we cant see because we dont have the correct technology/viewpoint
This is the all time greatest answer, the answer to the question of life the universe and everything.... which of course is 42 as the answer. ;) We certainly have not accounted for everything, and we know we cannot. As energy spreads wide and becomes fainter, whether dark or not, entropy will mean it will become so faint that we will not be able to measure it, until we get better at measuring. The more sensitive our instroments the more we can see, but there is always more beyond that. So we are always in a perpetual state of learning more about our universe from macro, to the micro. Also things change as we are watching them, so this is a living "dynamic" environment that doesn't always follow our predictions. When it doesn't we have to ask ourselves why and learn why. As we learn more, we get better at finding more too.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
Nice reply, thanks ..
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote:
Also things change as we are watching them
wasnt that a Heisenberg principle - very roughly for us laymen, the more you observe something the more you are likely to interfere with whats happening ?... Ive suggested the same thing in monitoring real-time message flows at 'my shop' 'g'
-
It's not pseudo science, just because it hasn't been proven yet. Dark matter is currently the most creditable theory to explain the extra gravitation detected in galaxies
ed welch wrote:
It's not pseudo science
It's pseudo science when one "maps" what cannot be detected. What they mean to say is, "We've draw a map of where the dark matter should be, and how much of it there should be, IF AND ONLY IF (a) it exists in the first place, and (b) it has the exact properties we have theoretically attributed to it. If it has other properties than we've imagined, or if other unknowns interact with it, or if it doesn't exist at all because the problem can be solved without recourse to imaginary elements - as proposed by those other guys - then our map is nonsense. That's significantly different than the headline: "Dark Matter Mapped".
-
I don't trust anything that comes from MSN/MSNBC. I hate that news organization and I hate MSN.
█▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██
Captain See Sharp wrote:
I don't trust anything that comes from MSN/MSNBC. I hate that news organization and I hate MSN.
Be as wary as you like; that's good. But don't reject true things simply on account of the source; that's bad. As the Apostle said, "Test all things; hold fast the good".
-
Assuming, of course, that there is such a thing as "dark matter". See here[^] for an alternative opinion. The existence of dark matter is an unproven theory - prehaps right, perhaps wrong - but certainly unproven. There is no known test for the detection of dark matter; it's composition is unknown; it is a purely theoretical construct. Which is why no one should speak of "mapping it"; such pseudo-scientific statements are simply misleading.
The Grand Negus wrote:
See here[^] for an alternative opinion.
Which if you follow the current dark matter evaluations, is no longer possible. Although it does not tell us "what" dark matter is, the usage of gravitational lens measuring shows that "something" is there, the first step to showing the evidence of a gravitational object that is unseen, or "dark matter." In the case of your explanation, the so-called alternative, there would be no gravitational lens effects because there is no "something" unseen and only motion feeds motion, thus gravitational effects are un-necessary in the explanation. The current study shows that there is, in fact, a gravitational effect present that can be measured through the gravitational bending of light. Unless there are a zillion elves out there bending the light to tease us, dark matter is the best explanation available. The current dark-matter measuring project does tell us that dark-matter is present, it simply does not explain to us what dark-matter is. Is it superstring objects in multidimensional form? is it compacted 4D objects or 3D objects that we are unfamiliar with? Measuring the existance of gravitation where there is no lit objects only shows that something is producing gravity without light/energy. That is the origin of dark matter, something we cannot see that emits gravitational influence. Now we know that "something" really is there through gravitational lens effects where there should be none. Your alternate explanation would have moved higher if no gravitational lens had been measurable, and dark matter would have moved down as less probable. Since gravitational lenses do exist, and are measurable, then "something is there", thus dark matter. People treat dark-matter like UFOs, automatically assuming it is some mystical convergence of something beyond our space-time, just as UFOs are automatically assumed to be little grey men from who knows where. UFOs are simply unknown objects, that is all, unknown, eventually they will be known. Dark matter is the same, it is simply an unknown object, that we have for the first time measured it by its affect of surrounding energy, the distortion of light through gravitational bending of light. We will eventually find out what it is, but not knowing what it is doesn't make it odd or bizarre, only unknown. Measuring dark matter in this instance would be akin to measuring firewalled computers by measuring their affects on the backbones of the internet.
-
Nice reply, thanks ..
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote:
Also things change as we are watching them
wasnt that a Heisenberg principle - very roughly for us laymen, the more you observe something the more you are likely to interfere with whats happening ?... Ive suggested the same thing in monitoring real-time message flows at 'my shop' 'g'
Garth J Lancaster wrote:
wasnt that a Heisenberg principle - very roughly for us laymen, the more you observe something the more you are likely to interfere with whats happening
wellllll.... now you get into some of the iffy conjectures of quantum physics. I seriously doubt mapping the 2x2 degrees of the night sky in any way affected the obverved objects. Rather it is like trying to take a live backup of your computer as you use it. Every page you visit generates more files, every file you delete or move changes things around. A static image of one location can be taken, but when dealing in fine measurements, things are changing when you are not looking at them, and when you look back they are changed. Thus taking images of any object is a constant changing background of information. Comets are often detected using this mechanism. Take a long exposure of an area, move on the next until you map the entire sky, say over a 100 day period. Then you come back and repeate and look for differences. The differences over a period of only 100 days, would have to be a local object or REALLY fast distant object. Since physical speed is limited by the speed of light, we can basically set our measurment cycle to rule out anything outside our solar system by limiting our compare frequency. Objects that move from measure cycle to measure cycle are found, measured over longer periods and cataloged. It is a never ending cycle as we get finer equipment we can measure smaller and/or more distant bodies, even measuring to oort cloud. I wasn't meaning the quantum observation theory (by viewing you affect outcome), but rather that you are viewing a living changing thing that you have to measure in tiny pieces over a long period of time, when you look away something is still happening though very slow, you simply cannot see everything at once.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
Garth J Lancaster wrote:
wasnt that a Heisenberg principle - very roughly for us laymen, the more you observe something the more you are likely to interfere with whats happening
wellllll.... now you get into some of the iffy conjectures of quantum physics. I seriously doubt mapping the 2x2 degrees of the night sky in any way affected the obverved objects. Rather it is like trying to take a live backup of your computer as you use it. Every page you visit generates more files, every file you delete or move changes things around. A static image of one location can be taken, but when dealing in fine measurements, things are changing when you are not looking at them, and when you look back they are changed. Thus taking images of any object is a constant changing background of information. Comets are often detected using this mechanism. Take a long exposure of an area, move on the next until you map the entire sky, say over a 100 day period. Then you come back and repeate and look for differences. The differences over a period of only 100 days, would have to be a local object or REALLY fast distant object. Since physical speed is limited by the speed of light, we can basically set our measurment cycle to rule out anything outside our solar system by limiting our compare frequency. Objects that move from measure cycle to measure cycle are found, measured over longer periods and cataloged. It is a never ending cycle as we get finer equipment we can measure smaller and/or more distant bodies, even measuring to oort cloud. I wasn't meaning the quantum observation theory (by viewing you affect outcome), but rather that you are viewing a living changing thing that you have to measure in tiny pieces over a long period of time, when you look away something is still happening though very slow, you simply cannot see everything at once.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
thanks - your explanations and analogies are better than my lame ones cheers, 'g'
-
ed welch wrote:
It's not pseudo science
It's pseudo science when one "maps" what cannot be detected. What they mean to say is, "We've draw a map of where the dark matter should be, and how much of it there should be, IF AND ONLY IF (a) it exists in the first place, and (b) it has the exact properties we have theoretically attributed to it. If it has other properties than we've imagined, or if other unknowns interact with it, or if it doesn't exist at all because the problem can be solved without recourse to imaginary elements - as proposed by those other guys - then our map is nonsense. That's significantly different than the headline: "Dark Matter Mapped".
The Grand Negus wrote:
It's pseudo science when one "maps" what cannot be detected.
you misuse the phrasing. We have mapped dark matter by detecting its gravitational influence. Thus it is detected. It is simply unseen. Just because it does not emit energy does not mean it is not measurable. This series of measurements was to see if there was gravitational influence, thus it was looking and measuring and mapping gravitational affects on surrounding energy emitted from other visible objects. This showed that there was extra measurable/detectable/quantifiable gravitational influence in the area, we simply cannot "see" it because it emits no energy in a currently visible spectrum to our instruments. Therefore this is not "imagined" but measured through gravitational influence. Unless you are declaring that gravity does not exist? or cannot be measured?
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
thanks - your explanations and analogies are better than my lame ones cheers, 'g'
Garth J Lancaster wrote:
your explanations and analogies are better than my lame ones
nothing you said was lame. There are no lame questions. I tried to explain as best I could. It is possible I could have been talking about quantum viewing theories. So you questioned, I answered. :-D the disadvantage in any spoken language is that several meanings could be found. You found one I had not intended so I explained better. :) no harm, no foul. :)
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
It's not pseudo science, just because it hasn't been proven yet. Dark matter is currently the most creditable theory to explain the extra gravitation detected in galaxies
ed welch wrote:
It's not pseudo science, just because it hasn't been proven yet.
That's so funny. Do you use that same reasoning when talking about god or angels? And yet religion is scoffed at because it falls in to the realm of dark matter--completely unprovable, at least for now. Marc
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh Smith -
Chris Losinger wrote:
i don't believe it. it's just a theory. nobody saw it happen.
That doesn't sound like the kind of attitude that helps advance technology and science. X|
█▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██