Mystery deepens around dark core in cosmic collision

Mar 02, 2012

Five years ago, San Francisco State researcher Andisheh Mahdavi and his colleagues observed an unexpected dark core at the center of Abell 520, a cosmic "train wreck" of galaxy clusters. With new space-based telescope observations, they have confirmed that the core really does exist. But they are no closer to explaining why it is there.

When crash into each other, the bright matter of sticks together with the mysterious substance called , leaving behind hot . Or at least that is what astronomers have observed in similar cosmic wrecks like the Bullet Cluster. But Myungkook James Jee of the University of California, Davis, Mahdavi and their colleagues say Abell 520 has a definite -- but bewildering -- dark matter core that is completely separated from its usual bright partners.

"We tried to come up with models that would explain this, but there were not any good models," said Mahdavi, an assistant professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy. "There is no way that you could have piling up like this in a region with so few galaxies."

The researchers first identified the dark core in 2007 using a technique called gravitational lensing. Even though the dark core isn't visible, astronomers can get an idea of its location and size by observing how light from galaxies behind it is distorted by the core's .

"We cannot see dark matter because it does not radiate. What we see is the 'effect' of dark matter," Jee explained. "It's similar to how we cannot see wind directly, but we can tell the presence of wind by looking at the vibration of leaves on a tree."

In this case, the galaxies behind the dark core are the tree leaves. But the 2007 observations came in part from ground-based telescopes, which can detect only a few of the galaxies lurking behind Abell 520. The Earth's atmosphere also distorts the view from the ground, "like looking at a tree inside a house through a frosty window," Jee said.

The researchers decided that they needed further observations from the space-based Hubble to confirm the dark core's presence. "For every ten galaxies that we were able to see from the ground, we can see 100 from space with the Hubble," they noted, "for a total of about 4000 galaxies from space versus 400 from the ground."

The 2007 study was "a result that basically everyone wished would go away," Mahdavi said, but the new observations published in the Astrophysical Journal show "without a doubt that there is a dark matter concentration in that piece of the sky."

Their results do not put the mystery to rest, however, since the researchers also note in their study that there are no plausible scenarios yet to explain the existence of the dark core. In all other known collisions, bright galaxy matter and dark matter stay together.

Why is Abell 520 so different? It may be that our understanding of how galaxies grow and collide is incomplete, Mahdavi suggests. Alternatively, a new theory of dark matter interaction could be necessary to explain the mysterious core.

Mahdavi thinks that the first scenario is more likely, and that perhaps there are "some sort of freak initial conditions that would create this amount of dark matter."

"But the only way we understand how galaxies grow up is with supercomputer simulations," he noted. The simulations--which would include recreating galaxy cluster collisions under a variety of conditions -- help to calculate how likely it would be to spot an oddball like Abell 520. "My colleagues tell me the likelihood is nil, but now we have the responsibility to go and do the hard work to check the simulations," he said.

If the simulations don't turn up anything to show that Abell 520 is possible, Mahdavi said the mystery might be best left in the hands of particle physicists to revisit their theories about the nature and interactions of dark matter.

"I'm just as perplexed as I was back in 2007," he said. "It's a pretty disturbing observation to have out there.

Explore further: A spectacular landscape of star formation

Related Stories

Centuries-old math formula helps map galaxy clusters

Jun 09, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Across the universe, galaxies band together in clusters so huge it can take 10 million years for light to travel from one end of a galaxy cluster to the other. Probing these metropolises is ...

A galactic crash investigation

Jun 22, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- A team of scientists has studied the galaxy cluster Abell 2744, nicknamed Pandora’s Cluster. They have pieced together the cluster’s complex and violent history using telescopes ...

Dark matter mystery deepens

Oct 17, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Like all galaxies, our Milky Way is home to a strange substance called dark matter. Dark matter is invisible, betraying its presence only through its gravitational pull. Without dark matter ...

Recommended for you

Swirling electrons in the whirlpool galaxy

9 hours ago

The whirlpool galaxy Messier 51 (M51) is seen from a distance of approximately 30 million light years. This galaxy appears almost face-on and displays a beautiful system of spiral arms.

A spectacular landscape of star formation

15 hours ago

This image, captured by the Wide Field Imager at ESO's La Silla Observatory in Chile, shows two dramatic star formation regions in the Milky Way. The first, on the left, is dominated by the star cluster NGC ...

Exoplanet measured with remarkable precision

Aug 19, 2014

Barely 30 years ago, the only planets astronomers had found were located right here in our own solar system. The Milky Way is chock-full of stars, millions of them similar to our own sun. Yet the tally ...

New star catalog reveals unexpected 'solar salad'

Aug 19, 2014

(Phys.org) —An Arizona State University alumnus has devised the largest catalog ever produced for stellar compositions. Called the Hypatia Catalog, after one of the first female astronomers who lived in ...

User comments : 17

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Lurker2358
1 / 5 (11) Mar 02, 2012
Standard Model Fail Number: SMF-2274.1.02a

"My text book and computer says it's impossible, so your observations must be wrong." - physicist.

the true culprit here continues to lie in properly calculating the GRAVITY of the ordinary matter, seeing as how the over-simplification of treating matter as point masses does not work. This only works when almost all of the mass in the system is in the larger object.

To even begin to model 1000 galaxies properly you need 100 trillion to 400 trillion point masses representing stars, and you must do all combinations of vector sums for each star's gravitational acceleration on each other star, which is 400 trillion vector sums, each having 400 trillion terms, and it must be done with partitions of time approaching infinitesmal.

Using the "center of mass" thing does not work, as it severely under-estimates the gravitational acceleration caused by ordinary matter, producing the illusion of Dark Matter.
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (11) Mar 02, 2012
The above requires, a bare minimum of at least 9 multiplications, 1 division, and 3 additions per vector, per star. Not counting load and save operations to store data in the vectors for temporary use, etc.

But ignoring the control structures and loads, etc, it's 2E30 operations, PER partition of time, 3/4 of which are multiplications and divisions.

So to model a mere linear approximation of one second's worth of acceleration requires 2E30 calculations, even without control structures loads, and saves.

It would actually take 2 million years to run that calculation for a LINEAR APPROXIMATION of a 1 second partition worth of simulation on an 8 million core computer @ 4ghz per core, and again, ignoring actual "code". that's just idealism.

This is why your stupid model can't figure this out, and your simulations cannot predict the real world.
HannesAlfven
2.1 / 5 (9) Mar 02, 2012
Lurker, we also see major problems with simulating plasmas. Since the plasmas' electromagnetic behavior feeds back in as an input in real-time, astrophysicists look to ways of simplifying the computations. But, in the process, this also makes the computations pretty useless under most scenarios. Setting the E-field for a plasma to zero makes the computations much easier, but it also switches the fundamental behavior of the plasma from plasma to fluid/gas.

Perhaps the simulation approach to physics is not all it's cracked up to be, eh?
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (9) Mar 02, 2012
The other source of "Dark Matter" is a mathematical fallacy in integration.

It is standard practice to discard the "constant of integration" after performing an integral, favoring the solution where the constant equals zero.

If you take a non-zero constant of integration, you get solutions that potentially resolve some of the "missing mass", as well as explaining some other freaky effects.

i.e. the constant of integration, K, that should be left over when you integrate for acceleration appears to have units as.

GMK

since you can take out the G and M, treating them as constants when integrating acceleration over distance from CoG.

Since G has units (m^3/kg*s^-2), then GMK has units of (m^3/s^2).

What does that look like?

That is a measure of acceleration of the rate of expansion of a sphere.

(m^3/s) is an expansion rate.
(m^3/s^2) is an acceleration of an expansion.

GMK looks a lot like "Dark Energy".

But we have to ignore the constant of integration...or should we?
GSwift7
3.4 / 5 (13) Mar 02, 2012
the true culprit here continues to lie in properly calculating the GRAVITY of the ordinary matter, seeing as how
blah blah blah...

I'm SO glad you figured it all out. Quick! Write a letter to MIT and let them know.

The above requires, a bare minimum of at least 9 multiplications, 1 division, and 3 additions per vector, per star


It's calculus and differential equations silly.
Lurker2358
1.6 / 5 (9) Mar 02, 2012
the true culprit here continues to lie in properly calculating the GRAVITY of the ordinary matter, seeing as how
blah blah blah...

I'm SO glad you figured it all out. Quick! Write a letter to MIT and let them know.

The above requires, a bare minimum of at least 9 multiplications, 1 division, and 3 additions per vector, per star


It's calculus and differential equations silly.


It does not work, and it's piss easy to prove it doesn't work.

You need vector sums no matter what you do anyway.

If you don't believe me, just take a system of a line of 5 adjacent balls of radius 1, and mass 1, which means each end of the line is 5m from the CoG. For simplicity, ignore G and M and just work with unitary expressions.

Now find gravitational acceleration for a particle at 5m from the center, i.e. at either end of the line.

If you do it individually and add vector sums, you get

A = 1 1/9 1/25 1/49 1/81 = 1.183864

continued...
Lurker2358
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 02, 2012
Those are the sums of accelerations between the point particle and each of the five balls.

If you use the INCORRECT center of gravity calculation, which is what models have always done, you get:

A = 5/25 = 0.2, under-estimating acceleration by a factor of nearly 600%

Ironically, this is the discrepancy almost identical to Dark Matter, if you imagine that the balls represents stellar systems distributed across the cross-section of a galaxy.

Dark energy supposedly represents 23% of the universe, while ordinary matter supposedly represents just 4%.

23%/4% = ~6.

Which is EXACTLY the error predicted by the above example.

If you increase the number of balls to 7, the error goes to:

A = 1 1/9 1/25 1/49 1/81 1/121 1/169 = 1.9804657

vs

A = 7/49 = 1/7 = .142857

Which is actually an even bigger error.

But it's ok, because Galaxies have a LOT of mass in the center, making up for this, but not enough.

Point is, the ENTIRE damn thing is a bad application of a theory
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (5) Mar 02, 2012
so you can hate me for saying it, but the majority of Dark Matter is in fact caused by INCORRECT use vector sums, or rather the complete lack thereof; apparently just fudging it with a two-body over simplification in many cases where such is totally inappropriate.

And then you can work on vector sums for balls that are not in a line, to simulate a disk with a big bulge in the center, and using the cosine to find the portion of the acceleration which should be in the direction of the center of the galaxy, and this again will be different value than the over-simplification crap.

I've shown this before in several different ways, and people don't pay it any attention, but it's the truth, and for the same reason the MOON is more strongly attracted to the Earth than to the Sun...

You MUST calculat every vector for every objects relationship to every other object.

Calculus and differentials do not work, because they assume a smooth distribution of mass for a differentiable curve.
Lurker2358
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 02, 2012
Galaxies are not smooth distributions of mass.

They have stars and planets, but with huge voids of space between, which is not continuous matter distribution, but rather a STEP distribution, which therefore is not differentiable, because it cannot be represented by a continuous curve.

This produces acceleration vectors which interact both constructively and destructively, which is most certainly NOT being modeled properly by "everything orbits the center of mass at a velocity calculated by the center of masse's gravity" BS.

that's bad math. Very, very bad.
GSwift7
3.8 / 5 (12) Mar 02, 2012
It does not work, and it's piss easy to prove it doesn't work.

You need vector sums no matter what you do anyway


lol, you really don't even know enough to understand what you are not understanding.

You have to use integrals to get this right. You can't use Newtonian math. You are so far away from being right that I don't know where to begin to explain.

You know we actually do a good approximation of the multibody problem inside every single GPS navigation system on the planet, right? It's just an approximation using a differential equations "trick" but it works. You are right that the math is too complex to work it out exactly, but you obviously don't understand why that is true. Where you are wrong is that it is not unreasonable to do a close approximation and simpley keep in mind that it will be off by some small amount. We do this all the time for many applications.
bewertow
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 02, 2012
Lurker just finished "baby's first calculus" course and now he thinks he knows better than the world's most brilliant scientists.

Your arrogance and stupidity is incredible
dtyarbrough
1 / 5 (1) Mar 02, 2012
Perhaps the black holes where left behind during the collision.
Tuxford
2 / 5 (7) Mar 02, 2012
Not so confusing when one realizes that dark matter should be detected in the central region in direct association with newly created inter-galactic gas clouds, especially when said region is surrounded by large galactic masses. (Recently, galaxies have been shown to be surrounded by vast halos of gas.) The presence of the surrounding galaxies enhances the conditions in the underlying etheric substrate that lead to the nucleation of new matter into our subset of the greater etheric universe. (One must consider the possibility of our universe to be an open-system.)
Tuxford
1.9 / 5 (8) Mar 02, 2012
This process, the formation of the central gas cloud, occurs over extremely long periods, rather than the more rapid process within the core of a supermassive non-black black-hole which ejects vast quantities of new matter, as has been recently observed. This etheric condition also refracts light, leading astronomers to infer the presence of dark matter.

This is not rocket science, just cosmology. See LaViolette's 'Subquantum Kinectics'.
hylozoic
1 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2012
Steady state or BUST
Urgelt
not rated yet Mar 03, 2012
In the friendly spirit of crankishness which is so pervasive among comments on this site, I will offer a question.

"Dark Matter" is the term used for gravitational phenomena for which no visible matter can be observed.

Buried in the term is an assumption: that gravitational phenomena are always associated with matter, and matter with gravitational phenomena.

How confident are we that we're making a good assumption there?

Stupid question, you say? Eh, I'm sure you're right.

Yeah, they'll find the Higgs, show how it works, everything will be fine. No gravitational fields in nature will ever be found which aren't connected to and a property of matter. Invisible, tricky, half-sticky matter, often enough.

That creaking sound you hear is how my vertebrae always sound when I'm bending over backward to conform to the prevailing wisdom.

If they don't find the Higgs, though, the Standard Model's explanations will be looking a mite ragged. What then? How solid is that assumption?
vidyunmaya
1 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2012
Sub: Abell 520 data- Core
Three Tier- Three mode Spread needs to be understood with comprehension. My papers ar carnegie-Jan 2003 and STSCI-Astrophysical Lab Symposium-May 2003 clearly explains the concepts.
see Cosmology Review articles- Dec 1999 by me.Read more in my books-COSMOLOGY VEDAS INTERLINKS-BOOKS INFORMATION May 2011 ISBN:978-1-257-96228-0