Cosmology group finds measurable evidence of dark matter filament

Jul 05, 2012 by Bob Yirka report
Mass reconstruction of Abell 222/223. The background image is a three-colour-composite SuprimeCam image based on observations with the 8.2-m Subaru telescope on Mauna Kea, Hawaii during the nights of 15 October 2001 (Abell 222) and 20 October 2001 (Abell 223). Image: Jörg Dietrich.

(Phys.org) -- As time passes and more research is done, more evidence is compiled supporting the theory that suggests that dark matter is a real thing, even though no direct evidence for its existence has ever been found. Instead, the evidence comes about as measurements of other phenomenon are taken, generally involving gravitational pull on objects in the universe we can see that cannot be explained by other means. One of these instances is where weak gravitational lensing occurs, which is where light appears to bend as it passes by large objects. Theory suggests that in cases where lensing occurs but there is no detectable object behind its cause, the reason for it is dark matter exerting a gravitational influence. That has been the case with what are known as filaments; gravitational effects that connect galactic superclusters, keeping them bound together.

Now Jörg Dietrich and colleagues have added credence to the theory by finding a measurable example of lensing in one specific supercluster that cannot be attributable to a visible object. They outline their findings in their paper published in the journal Nature.

Abell 222/223 is a galactic supercluster system in the constellation Cetus. It’s made up of two parts, 222 and 223, separated by a gas cloud and something else that cannot be seen. In looking at data collected by telescopes used to study the supercluster in prior research efforts, Dietrich and his team found that lensing occurred as light behind the gas cloud made its way to us by passing between the two parts. But after careful study and mathematical analysis, they found that the observable matter that existed in the gas cloud could only account for about nine percent of the mass required to cause the degree of lensing that was occurring. Because there was nothing else in the area, the only possible explanation was that in the shape of a filament was the cause.

The results from this study are doubly interesting; one because they strengthen all of the theories surrounding dark matter, and two, because the team has found a means of not just demonstrating an example of dark matter at work, but have done so in a way that is so precise that they were able to determine the actual shape of a dark matter filament. This second part came about as measurements of lensing were taken at different parts of the area between 222 and 223 showing different degrees of light bending, a feat that was only possible because of the unique way the supercluster is situated relative to us, allowing a nearly straight on view.

Explore further: POLARBEAR detects curls in the universe's oldest light

More information: A filament of dark matter between two clusters of galaxies, Nature (2012) doi:10.1038/nature11224

Abstract
It is a firm prediction of the concordance cold-dark-matter cosmological model that galaxy clusters occur at the intersection of large-scale structure filaments1. The thread-like structure of this ‘cosmic web’ has been traced by galaxy redshift surveys for decades2, 3. More recently, the warm–hot intergalactic medium (a sparse plasma with temperatures…

Press release

Related Stories

Prof explores universe through gravity lens studies

Apr 30, 2012

(Phys.org) -- The National Science Foundation recently awarded Dr. Mustapha Ishak-Boushaki, associate professor of physics at UT Dallas, a $222,000 research grant for his investigations of the gravitational lensing technique ...

Astronomy without a telescope -- Through a lens darkly

Dec 06, 2010

Massive galactic clusters – which are roughly orientated in a plane that is roughly face-on to Earth – can generate strong gravitational lensing. However, several surveys of such clusters have reached ...

Recommended for you

Chandra's archives come to life

1 hour ago

Every year, NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory looks at hundreds of objects throughout space to help expand our understanding of the Universe. Ultimately, these data are stored in the Chandra Data Archive, ...

New robotic telescope revolutionizes the study of stars

1 hour ago

In the last 8 months a fully robotic telescope in Tenerife has been carrying out high-precision observations of the motion of stellar surfaces. The telescope is the first in the SONG telescope network and ...

Big black holes can block new stars

21 hours ago

Massive black holes spewing out radio-frequency-emitting particles at near-light speed can block formation of new stars in aging galaxies, a study has found.

User comments : 47

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

kevinrtrs
Jul 05, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (29) Jul 05, 2012
No direct observational evidence of molecules to man evolution has EVER been found

And why should it? That's not how evolution works. you're just constructing an (extremely dumb) stawman for yourself. Presumably to make you feel good? Because anyone else reading your stuff will have hysterical fits of laughter at the shere enormity of the stuff you don't know.

but the interpretation of all available evidence has now firmly established it as fact in the minds of those who want to believe

Nope. Read the article. Evidence is compiling. That isn't the same as proof. In science there is never anything 'established' (and only stuff that is contradictory to experiment is 'automatically excluded').
Astoria
1.5 / 5 (19) Jul 05, 2012
The dark matter is essentially a higher-dimensional subject, which violates the 4D general relativity. At the 2D water surface it would be an evidence of the scattering of surface ripples (analogy of light waves) at the additional dimension of underwater. Therefore the dark matter exhibits some traits of behaviour of hyperdimensional fluids, composed of particles with extradimensional interactions (like the slimes, composed of linear and crosslinked molecules, atc.) and some traits on non-Newtonian fluids behaviour (Gregory-Laflamme instability), which are subject of http://phys.org/n...795.html in recent time. The evidence of dark matter filaments would therefore have a consequence for some hyperdimensional extensions of general relativity theory.
verkle
1.9 / 5 (15) Jul 05, 2012
So far the evidence for DM has been less than compelling. It reminds of the Tychonic system invented by Tycho Brahe to explain the movement of the Sun and planets. Sounded good until a much better (and true) explanation was found by Kepler.

I would place my bets that an alternative (and more compelling) explanation will be discovered in the next several years to explain observations that don't match the standard gravitational theories we have today.

TabulaMentis
4.1 / 5 (13) Jul 05, 2012
So far the evidence for DM has been less than compelling. It reminds of the Tychonic system invented by Tycho Brahe to explain the movement of the Sun and planets. Sounded good until a much better (and true) explanation was found by Kepler.

I would place my bets that an alternative (and more compelling) explanation will be discovered in the next several years to explain observations that don't match the standard gravitational theories we have today.
That is what they also said about the Higg's Boson.
TabulaMentis
2.8 / 5 (9) Jul 05, 2012
This is beginning to sound strangely similar to biological evolution. No direct observational evidence of molecules to man evolution has EVER been found, but the interpretation of all available evidence has now firmly established it as fact in the minds of those who want to believe that it actually occurred. There is no room left for any other interpretation - anything else to the contrary is automatically excluded. The same thing seems to be happening in the field of cosmology.
What is wrong with a God creating the Big Bang and then sitting back to see what happens? Maybe he might decide to have a Garden of Eden here and there for entertainment. I'm sure people who are suffering will not find that to be of much comfort.
Lurker2358
1.2 / 5 (17) Jul 05, 2012
These people are OBSESSED with the "Abell" galaxies.

They need to find more data from DIFFERENT SAMPLES for goodness sake.

At least half the articles I've ever seen on here used the same 2 galaxies as "evidence" for Dark Matter.

It's ridiculous.
Tuxford
1.3 / 5 (16) Jul 05, 2012
Again, the dark mistake is an assumption that matter must be present to bend light. In LaViolette's SubQuantum Kinectics - a systems theory applied to physics - the sub-critical pre-state matter-nucleation condition in the transmutation dimension actually refracts light. As I predicted in March, this state would eventually be shown to surround all galaxies, and be largely absent within galaxies, where the state has become critical and matter has largely formed.

http://phys.org/n...axy.html

This effect avoids the missing matter problem, which leads to all the wild dark matter assumptions.

This state eventually results in nucleation of matter and the formation of the observed tenuous gas clouds in intergalactic voids. However, the process is accelerated near regions containing matter, resulting in the observed gas clouds surrounding most galaxies.
barakn
4.8 / 5 (21) Jul 05, 2012
These people are OBSESSED with the "Abell" galaxies.

They need to find more data from DIFFERENT SAMPLES for goodness sake.

At least half the articles I've ever seen on here used the same 2 galaxies as "evidence" for Dark Matter.

It's ridiculous.

The Abell catalog has 4073 galaxy clusters and includes most nearby clusters with at least 30 members. It's not a matter of obsession, it's a matter of statistics.

So if "half the articles ... here used the same 2 galaxies," then it would be quite easy for you to tell us which two. Go ahead. We're waiting.
Shelgeyr
1.9 / 5 (23) Jul 05, 2012
...even though no direct evidence for its existence has ever been found.

Nice admission.

Instead, the evidence comes about as measurements of other phenomenon are taken, generally involving gravitational pull on objects in the universe we can see that cannot be explained by other means.

And here is where (at least) three flaws enter into their reasoning.
1) "...the evidence comes about..." their resulting calculations are not actually evidence. They're data, but not all data is de facto evidence. They simply choose to interpret the data that way.
2) "...that cannot be explained by other means." This is a highly flawed statement. It only means that *they* can't explain it, not that the discrepancy has no other explanation. They're actually admitting a knowledge gap, whether they realize it or not.
3) They're also assuming, and I do mean "assuming", that "the pull" must be gravitational in origin.
Mastoras
4.4 / 5 (25) Jul 05, 2012
Isn't there supposed to be a moderator on this spacecraft-thing-what-is-it?

I'm sick and tired reading nice science news, ...then come across the same ignorant people repeating the same ignorant remarks and claiming that they are saving us all from the bad reasoning habits of stupid scientists...

Should I give up reading the comments? But comments are often informative.
-.
Anda
1.9 / 5 (9) Jul 05, 2012
So far the evidence for DM has been less than compelling. It reminds of the Tychonic system invented by Tycho Brahe to explain the movement of the Sun and planets. Sounded good until a much better (and true) explanation was found by Kepler.

I would place my bets that an alternative (and more compelling) explanation will be discovered in the next several years to explain observations that don't match the standard gravitational theories we have today.
That is what they also said about the Higg's Boson.

So you have yet confirmed its existence. So tell to Cern people who still aren't sure.
You seem to be someone who believed in faster than light neutrinos.
Just wait for discoveries being confirmed.
tadchem
1 / 5 (5) Jul 05, 2012
Dark matter? Solve the Schrödinger Equation for the hydrogen atom with 1/N I(+). That will yield solutions that are *periodically* stable, and for which no l transitions are allowed (no photon emission/absorbtion). Such states are created in hydrogenic plasma by inelastic collisions rather than electromagnetic processes.
Objectivist
2.9 / 5 (9) Jul 05, 2012
Bob Yirka, I find your journalism to be very poor. You make absolutely no effort in trying to understand what you write about, and it really shines through your work.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (20) Jul 05, 2012
What is wrong with a God creating the Big Bang and then sitting back to see what happens?
There is a great deal of evidence for the big bang but absolutely none for god. We have found absolutely nothing which requires the existence of some god to fully explain it. And why would god create a universe wherein he is superfluous?

AND we have a great deal of evidence to conclude that kevins god, the god of the religious novels, never existed.

Kevin is apparently a paid spokesperson for some religion or other. He works one day a week and prowls the internet the other 6 I assume.

Kevin! Expose your affiliations. Put a link on your profile or something. This would be honest, friendly and forthright.
TabulaMentis
1.2 / 5 (13) Jul 05, 2012
There is a great deal of evidence for the big bang but absolutely none for god. We have found absolutely nothing which requires the existence of some god to fully explain it. And why would god create a universe wherein he is superfluous?
Until people understand what the Holy Ghost is then they will remain in the dark. The Holy Ghost is the first person, not the last. The Holy Ghost is capable of FTL speeds. The Holy Ghost is a female capable of having offspring. Take a baby Holy Ghost, blow it up and you have a universe we call home where some people live who claim a God could never exist.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.3 / 5 (12) Jul 05, 2012
Cold dark matter is *hot* nowadays! Not only productive in other areas, but also filling in the last missing piece in structure formation. Well done.

- As always, creationists shouldn't comment on science. Laughable.

- And the same goes for cosmology denialists. It was really hard to replace DM theory before, since the Eris simulation it does better than alternates on every area, and now it is self consistent as well. DM is confirmed, in fact I believe it passed 3 sigma all by itself in CMB testing, as only inflation were shy of 3 sigma in WMAP.

And no, there are no constraints or other hypotheses (aka 'assumptions') that aren't tested along with the other data and hypotheses as the theory is tested. If they don't work, they are replaced with the theory as it goes (except the data, natch). Elementary mistake.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.3 / 5 (11) Jul 05, 2012
@ Astoria:

No, dark matter _rejects_ "alternative gravity" theories in general, and is based on GR. Nothing is added to GR to achieve the observations.

@ TabulaMentis:

Indeed, the Higgs field is an "invisible" mechanism permeating all of space. Like gravity, dark energy, neutrinos and ... oh, dark matter.

@ Lurker2358:

"the same 2 galaxies". Funny. Abell is a large catalog, for Newton's sakes!

@ Objectivist:

Yet you provide no examples, making your comment "very poor". I think the article was an excellent write. The one thing missing would be that filaments were the last large structure missing. But that is me...
radek
1 / 5 (6) Jul 05, 2012
what if Higgs field is not constant in The Universe as SM assumes? Fluctuations of values of Higgs field are the simplest solution of "lacking" mass
TabulaMentis
2.1 / 5 (7) Jul 05, 2012
No, dark matter _rejects_ "alternative gravity" theories in general, and is based on GR. Nothing is added to GR to achieve the observations.
Never in a zillion years will Einstein's gravitational waves get a flying saucer off the ground.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 05, 2012
radek, that would mean fundamental particle having different masses at different places. But spectroscopy shows they haven't to high accuracy.

Besides, there are observations like this one where there are no baryonic particles in places, you need new dark ones.
radek
1 / 5 (3) Jul 05, 2012
radek, that would mean fundamental particle having different masses at different places. But spectroscopy shows they haven't to high accuracy.

Besides, there are observations like this one where there are no baryonic particles in places, you need new dark ones.


that`s what I meant - different Higgs field value = different mass. You mentioned spectroscopy as a tool of mass measuremant. But if I understood well considerig distant objects (for eg galaxies) we can measure only EM waves (with 0 mass) which allow us to measure mass indirectly (eg we know that object consists of H and He in same ratio and we can estimate mass based on Earth mass of H and He). Correct me I`m wrong
dogbert
2 / 5 (23) Jul 05, 2012
Sigh. Until/unless we ever discover why our theories of gravitation do not match our observations, we will continually have to deal with this dark matter kludge.

Unfortunately, since the notion of dark matter has become entrenched, despite absolutely zero observation of it, it becomes less and less likely that we will seek to find the answer.

Kludges get in the way of reasoning when they are considered real.
HannesAlfven
2.1 / 5 (15) Jul 05, 2012
Re: "I would place my bets that an alternative (and more compelling) explanation will be discovered in the next several years to explain observations that don't match the standard gravitational theories we have today."

Take your logic one step further, to its natural conclusion: Somebody or some group already knows the right answer, but he's being shouted down so loudly that we cannot hear him, and the peer reviewers are likely rejecting his papers because they diverge too much from established, conventional wisdom.

Re: "Unfortunately, since the notion of dark matter has become entrenched, despite absolutely zero observation of it, it becomes less and less likely that we will seek to find the answer ... Kludges get in the way of reasoning when they are considered real."

Monolithic science is a dangerous addiction, for it invites scientists to confuse their paycheck for a theory. If each time we criticize the theory, they are defending their paycheck, we're all screwed.
TehDog
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 05, 2012
Dammit, upvoted dogbert with a 5, shoulda been a 1 :(

Sigh. Until/unless we ever discover why our theories of gravitation do not match our observations, we will continually have to deal with this dark matter kludge.

OK, if you've got a better idea than this "kludge", lets hear it (and see the maths)
rah
1.3 / 5 (14) Jul 05, 2012
This article is either a joke or a total fraud. It really is Not Even Wrong!
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (5) Jul 05, 2012
Monolithic science is a dangerous addiction, for it invites scientists to confuse their paycheck for a theory. If each time we criticize the theory, they are defending their paycheck, we're all screwed.
You are reminding me of the National debt and Senator John McCain. If you are an American and mess with his war fighting pet projects, and elite corporate friends, then he is willing to have a drone stick a missile up you know what! Soon, Congress will have to start killing Americans so they can continue to bankrupt America! John McCain is a murderer!
rah
1 / 5 (13) Jul 06, 2012
This article and the image appearing with it are a total fraud. Not Even Wrong! Recycled fraud on top of it.
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (14) Jul 06, 2012
Monolithic science is a dangerous addiction

Then it's a good thing that we don't have "monolithic science" anywhere in the world (much less on a global sclae), don't you think?
If each time we criticize the theory, they are defending their paycheck, we're all screwed.

being wrong or right on a theory has nothing to do whether a scientist gets a paycheck or not. Only if he/she does excellent determines that.
(And you can't defend anything against the facts in science. That just doesn't work. Science is not like religion or politics where an opinion counts anything.)
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (8) Jul 06, 2012
Brian Greene and Eward Witten appear to be milking string theory/M-theory. But when you start talking FTL, they are dumbfounded. And then they try to make you believe we need to begin at eleven dimensions instead of 0, 1 & 2. What is wrong with those people?
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (12) Jul 06, 2012
Brian Greene and Eward Witten appear to be milking string theory/M-theory. But when you start talking FTL, they are dumbfounded. And then they try to make you believe we need to begin at eleven dimensions instead of 0, 1 & 2. What is wrong with those people?

There's nothing wrong with these people.
They're just thinking out of the box - which is something you have to do in science (otherwise you aren't doing science but engineering).
Often that does lead to some crazy stuff. Mostly that has to get dumped, but sometimes it works - you never know.

M-theory has its drawbacks, but the 11 dimensions isn't one. The main drawback of M-theory is that you can get any results. It has no predictive power - which makes it currently useless until they find a way to match it up with some experiment that limits the free variables.
Without testability, falsifiability it isn't even science in the strictest sense.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (8) Jul 06, 2012
@Antialias Physorg:
When Edward Witten tells people they should be thinking in eleven dimensions and not lower dimensions, then there is something wrong with them. I love higher-dimensions, but everything starts at zero, then works it way up to one and then two. Higher-dimensions are only two-dimensional particles folded into higher-dimensions. It is just that simple!
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
3.6 / 5 (8) Jul 06, 2012
@ radek:

I already commented why we know fundamental particles have the same mass, the emission and absorption lines of atoms are the same (because the energies are the same, because the masses are the same).. You just ignored the evidence we know of.

@ dogbert:

DM is no kludge, see the article: it is very fruitful. There are no more viable alternatives left, because _they_ were the "kludge".

@ TabulaMentis:

They are very "right", they adopt what works. Your fantasies has no relation to reality or even math (a point particle has zero dimension, say).
BCampbell
1 / 5 (3) Jul 06, 2012
Okay, This might be off the wall but humor me for a sec. You know that some scientists think that there are parallel universes. And that, if your were to see it it would look like 'hanging sheets' one after another (last time I checked they were at 11). Anyway, how about if this universe were are in presently in has a 'tear' which the parallel universe behind (or in front of) is somehow have some type of 'gravational pull' ? Sometimes it is weak and sometimes it is stronger. Not just gravatational, perhaps even a type of energy ? The concentration of that energy concentrated in that one spot makes it denser? And that there are similar 'tears' all over our universe.... Hense the dark matter' ... just a thought
Shelgeyr
1.9 / 5 (9) Jul 06, 2012
@Torbjorn_Larsson_OM said:
DM is no kludge,...


The article itself said:
...even though no direct evidence for its existence has ever been found. Instead, the evidence comes about as measurements of other phenomenon are taken, generally involving gravitational pull on objects in the universe we can see that cannot be explained by other means.


In other words, it is plainly, obviously, definitively, only, and intrinsically a kludge. If you don't grasp that, you must be using a different definition for the word "kludge" than is commonly understood.

The kludge is the sine qua non of the dark matter hypothesis.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (12) Jul 07, 2012
When Edward Witten tells people they should be thinking in eleven dimensions and not lower dimensions, then there is something wrong with them

Despite the fact that I don't hold out much hope for M-theory there is nothing wrong with such statements.

Consider quantum theory. We have so gotten used to thinking in superposition of states, tunneling through - nominally - insurmountable energy barriers, stuff going two/many paths at once, stuff interfering with itself, stuff becoming virtually one entity even though they are separated by kilometers distance (entanglement), etc. , etc.
Then there's all the weird stuff in relativity,...

None of these 'sound sensible' at first glance. But all of these have been shown to be the way they are by experiment, Our modern lives wouldn't function without the application of many of these.
So what we think 'sounds crazy' doesn't come into it.

If it agrees with reality then we'll just have to get used to it.
Bewia
1 / 5 (2) Jul 07, 2012
This article and the image appearing with it are a total fraud. Not Even Wrong! Recycled fraud on top of it.
What's your actual problem with this article? Nearly every cosmological simulation appears so: the galaxies are sitting in the nodes of foam or string mesh formed with more sparse matter.
Bewia
1 / 5 (2) Jul 07, 2012
For example, here you can find the results of Millenium simulation, where the structure of Universe appears very similar. Because this simulation did run as a classical simulation of gravitational collapse of sparse matter formed after Big Bang, then it's evident, that if such fibbers exist for dark matter, it would support the material character of dark matter a lot: they were formed with mechanism, which corresponds the gravitational condensation of sparse gas into more dense structures.
Daleg
4 / 5 (4) Jul 07, 2012
For al you DM doubters, it is the exact solutions of GR that determne how much matter/energy conent is necessary to cause the curvature of space measured to be the cause of gravitational lensing. There is absolutly no problem with our gravitational theories, the issue is how to account for an observed degree of curvature(i.e. lensing) with insufficient visible matter to account for it. I.E. something not visible or DARK must be contributing to the total. There has been plenty of observation of the presence of that something over the last 80 years. The only speculation about DM is what it is composed of, not whether it exists or not.
baudrunner
1 / 5 (4) Jul 07, 2012
Okay, here's a theory, and a way to test it. The Aether Model (bogus!) of space was invented to explain why light can apparently propagate without a medium. The fact is, space IS a medium, because it doesn't matter how far apart the particles in space - which describe the medium - are in order to effect electromagnetic wave propagation. So, I predict that if we were able to determine the particulate density of space in any or all regions, we will find correlating values that reflect what we used to theorize was "dark matter". Who's in?
baudrunner
1 / 5 (4) Jul 07, 2012
If I'm right, then of course that would invalidate "gravitational" lensing, since those light waves would be merely subject to refraction, which I've been arguing for decades is the reason that we observe light waves "bending" around massive objects. It goes to follow that the particulate density of space is greater the closer one gets to a massive object.
Shelgeyr
1.8 / 5 (10) Jul 07, 2012
@Daleg said:
There is absolutly no problem with our gravitational theories,...

Wow. Such certainty! How cute!

The only speculation about DM is what it is composed of, not whether it exists or not.

Factually wrong. There is plenty of informed, scientific speculation regarding whether it exists or not.

So insist all you want that you've got your facts right, and try as you may to put boundaries around the argument, but your efforts are in vain because you don't actually have your facts correct, and your attempt to constrain the subject is laughable.

There has been plenty of observation of the presence of that something over the last 80 years.

No. The presence of that something has NEVER been observed. It is only called for in order to make other "scientific" dogma (which leads to results contrary to what is observed) work.

In other words, they "see" DM solely because they're convinced their dogma is infallible, and don't question their basic assumptions.
rah
1 / 5 (7) Jul 08, 2012
Sorry Mr. Yirka, you got scammed by this guy. This article is totally fraudulent. You can replace his pretty blue diagram with a picture of a bull taking a big number two. The "astronomer" in this story has been obsessing on this topic for many years and continues to fabricate "evidence" and to recycle the same story for years, using more and more misleading illustrations. It should be a criminal charge, and it is obviously academically and journalistically, corrupt. Not your fault, a lot of so called professionals have been scammed into believing this realistic looking picture. Since image manipulation has become so advanced that everyone with a computer has the tools, more and more of this fraud is turning up.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (2) Jul 08, 2012
They are very "right", they adopt what works. Your fantasies has no relation to reality or even math (a point particle has zero dimension, say).
Antialias Physorg said it very well: "The main drawback of M-theory is that you can get any results. It has no predictive power - which makes it currently useless until they find a way to match it up with some experiment that limits the free variables."

Read it, learn it, live it, love it!

Zero is your nothing and my something. I am not going to tell you; so if you think you are so smart, then explain to me how you can go from the zero-dimension of space to the first dimension.
Skultch
1 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2012
explain to me how you can go from the zero-dimension of space to the first dimension.


Why not? It's good enough for me. It doesn't have to be 'why not' for everything at every time, just this one big thing at that one time. It's just as good an answer as any other, afaik, and it might be as good as we're gonna get.

(I took your comment as a first mover problem of causation, not necessarily specific to the math of the emergence of dimensions, if that's really a thing.)
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (3) Jul 08, 2012
Why not? It's good enough for me. It doesn't have to be 'why not' for everything at every time, just this one big thing at that one time. It's just as good an answer as any other, afaik, and it might be as good as we're gonna get.
To add to the mystery of how our universe originated from the zero-dimension of space "somethingness" to our multidimensional universe, there are five (5) structures that could have existed prior to our universe's existence that created our universe. Nothingness is not a structure and is not one of the five answers.

But the next question is from where did those five structures originate? There is an answer to that question. However, for each dimension of space a person adds to the structure that existed prior to our universe's creation it makes it that much more difficult to create our universe from somethingness.

Finally, if a person uses the qutrit method of 0, 1 and 2 dimensions of space, then the math is much simpler compared to M-theory.
docmordin
5 / 5 (5) Jul 09, 2012
So far the evidence for DM has been less than compelling.


I take it, then, that you refute the claims in:

The CDMS II Collaboration, "Dark Matter Search Results from the CDMS II Experiment", Science 327: 1619-1621, 2010
D. Clowe, et al., "A direct empirical proof of the existence of dark matter", Astrophys. J. Lett. 648: L109, 2006
M. Markevitch, et al., "Direct constraints on the dark matter self-interaction cross-section from the merging galaxy cluster 1E0657-56", Astrophys. J. 606: 819-824, 2003

and instead support theories like modified Newtonian dynamics (and its marriage with ordinary hot neutrinos of 2eV, as established in: G. W. Angus, et al., "On the Proof of Dark Matter, the Law of Gravity, and the Mass of Neutrinos", Astrophys. J. Lett. 654: L13, 2007) or tensor-vector-scalar gravity, despite that both have numerous flaws?
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (4) Jul 09, 2012
There is a great deal of evidence for the big bang but absolutely none for god. We have found absolutely nothing which requires the existence of some god to fully explain it. And why would god create a universe wherein he is superfluous?
The Holy Ghost created the Big Bang to her Son's specifications, not Father in Heaven (her 1st Son).

AND we have a great deal of evidence to conclude that kevins god, the god of the religious novels, never existed.
You mean Kev's Father in Heaven. I have never meet the guy, but I did see his Mother 21 years ago. However, there was one dude in ghost form checking me out after I saw the Holy Ghost, but he could have been anyone.

I wish to make a correction from my previous blog: "There are five (5) structures that could have existed prior to our universe's existence that 'could have' created our universe."

It is possible that the Big Bang could have originated directly from somethingness, but the odds (math) does not look very good.