(Phys.org)—ESA's Planck space telescope has made the first conclusive detection of a bridge of hot gas connecting a pair of galaxy clusters across 10 million light-years of intergalactic space.
Scanning the sky at microwave and sub-millimetre wavelengths with Planck, astronomers have unambiguously detected a 'bridge' of hot gas connecting two galaxy clusters, Abell 399 and Abell 401. The filament extends over about 10 million light-years and contains gas with a temperature of about 80 million K. At least part of this gas might derive from the warm-hot intergalactic medium (WHIM) - the elusive web of gaseous filaments which is believed to pervade the Universe.
The current understanding of cosmology suggests that the Universe is dominated by dark matter and dark energy. The remaining 'normal' matter – or baryonic matter – of which stars and planets are made, accounts for just a tiny fraction of the cosmic budget, less than five per cent. Baryonic matter can, in principle, be detected through the electromagnetic radiation it releases. But there's a problem: the amounts of baryonic matter detected via astronomical observations in the distant, ancient Universe and in the nearby one do not match. Astronomers have struggled to locate about half of the baryonic matter expected to be present in the local Universe.
A leading candidate for the location of these so-called 'missing baryons' is the warm-hot intergalactic medium or WHIM. The WHIM is the baryonic component of the cosmic web, a filamentary network of both dark and baryonic matter that is believed to pervade the Universe. Numerical simulations of the formation of cosmic structure predict that galaxies and galaxy clusters are embedded in the cosmic web, and that the WHIM might account for most of the baryonic matter in the local Universe. This network of tenuous gas ranges in temperature from 100,000 to several tens of millions of K and due to its extremely low density has proved very hard to detect.
In the past decade, astronomers have started to collect evidence supporting the WHIM hypothesis, mainly via X-ray observations and optical/ultraviolet spectroscopy. A recent study using data from ESA's Planck satellite has brought a new insight to the debate, opening a new spectral window for the study of the missing baryons based on observations at microwave and sub-millimetre wavelengths.
"Although the WHIM is mainly organised in long and diffuse filaments, we expect to find it also in the proximity to galaxy clusters, which are the largest gravitationally-bound structures in the Universe," explains José M. Diego, a Planck Collaboration scientist from the Instituto de Fisica de Cantabria (UC-CSIC) in Santander, Spain.
"Planck can detect galaxy clusters across the sky because the hot gas that fills them imprints a characteristic signature on the Cosmic Microwave Background known as the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect," Diego adds. "Based on the same principle, Planck could be sensitive to gas from the WHIM, too".
Astronomers in the Planck collaboration have been exploiting the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect in the search for galaxy clusters. The first results of Planck's hunt for these gigantic cosmic structures were presented in 2011, along with the public release of an extensive catalogue of clusters. Careful analysis of this rich data set is now starting to reveal the properties not only of galaxy clusters, but also of their surroundings.
"Detecting the WHIM via the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect is extremely challenging due to its low density," comments Juan Macias-Perez, a Planck Collaboration scientist from the Laboratoire de Physique Subatomique et de Cosmologie in Grenoble, France. "The best chance to detect it is to look at the regions between pairs of nearby galaxy clusters that are interacting with one another: as they approach each other, gas in the inter-cluster region becomes denser and hotter, hence easier for us to spot," he adds.
With this aim, astronomers from the Planck Collaboration inspected the catalogue of clusters compiled from data collected by Planck during its first two surveys, and the beginning of the third. "We looked for pairs of clusters which are close enough for a possible intervening filament to be detected, but also separate enough, on the plane of the sky, for Planck to resolve them as individual sources," explains Macias. The astronomers then identified a handful of candidates, which are all at very low redshifts – hence cosmologically short distances – to fulfil these requirements.
"A careful analysis revealed a 'bridge' of hot gas connecting two of the clusters in the sample: Abell 399 and Abell 401," comments Diego. These two clusters are located at redshift z~0.07 – about one billion light-years away from us. In contrast, the bridge has a length of about 10 million light-years.
Hot gas can also be detected via its direct emission at X-ray wavelengths. A previous study of Abell 399 and Abell 401, based on X-ray data from ESA's XMM-Newton space observatory, hinted at the presence of hot gas not only within, but also between the clusters, but the evidence was not conclusive. The result based on Planck data is much more robust and confirms that the two structures are indeed connected by a bridge of material; this also represents the first detection of inter-cluster gas obtained via the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect.
"By combining Planck data with archival X-ray observations from the German satellite ROSAT, we estimated the temperature of gas in the bridge as about 80 million K," notes Torsten Enßlin, a Planck Collaboration scientist from the Max-Planck-Institut für Astrophysik in Garching bei München, Germany. This value is of the same order as the temperature of gas in the two clusters. Although it may be part of the WHIM, the origin of this inter-cluster gas is, as yet, unclear.
"It is still debated whether the gas derives from the WHIM or from the gas that was previously part of the two clusters; numerical simulations suggest that it could well be a mixture of both," explains Enßlin. "Further analysis of the complete Planck data might help to clarify this issue by revealing additional examples," he adds.
The astronomers have already identified another promising candidate: the composite system Abell 3391-Abell 3395, which is highly substructured and may in fact consist of three or four clusters. This system exhibits what appears to be a bridge of material linking its various components. Due to the complex nature of this object, a more detailed investigation will be needed to confirm this second detection.
"This discovery highlights the ability of Planck to probe galaxy clusters out to their outskirts and even beyond, allowing us to investigate the connection between intra-cluster gas and gas that is part of the cosmic web," concludes Jan Tauber, Planck project scientist at ESA.
Explore further:
X-ray discovery points to location of missing matter
More information:
"Planck Intermediate Results. VIII. Filaments between interacting clusters", is accepted for publication in Astronomy & Astrophysics. The Planck maps from which the cluster data have been extracted will be released to the public in early 2013.

cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (23) Nov 20, 2012Probably because it's not "hot gas" at all, this is plasma, A DISTINCT STATE OF MATTER. Not only does plasma organize itself into filamentary and cellular structures, but it will also delivery electric currents across intergalactic distances. What we are observing here is an intergalactic Birkeland current.
dtyarbrough
1.3 / 5 (12) Nov 20, 2012HannesAlfven
2 / 5 (21) Nov 20, 2012Without plasmas, the universe's fractal-like structure remains a mystery.
Tuxford
1.3 / 5 (15) Nov 20, 2012rubberman
3.5 / 5 (10) Nov 20, 2012HannesAlfven
1.8 / 5 (19) Nov 20, 2012The term "quasi-neutrality" was coined to distinguish neutrality in a plasma from neutrality in condensed matter. The point is that neutrality in a plasma does not mean non-conduction. Conduction is a function of charge mobility -- which is true for all plasmas.
HannesAlfven
1.8 / 5 (19) Nov 20, 2012We commonly hear today that, in order to build a "knowledge economy", we must stop teaching students what to believe, and instead focus on teaching them how to learn. This would be a great place to start that practice in earnest, for it's the students who lose.
rubberman
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 20, 2012I know they can still loose electrons.
http://physics.ap...v22/st17
I have never heard of plasma that didn't conduct current.
yyz
4.6 / 5 (16) Nov 20, 2012and on another recent thread you stated:
"We've known since the mid-50's that the Milky Way does not emit thermal radiation. The radiation mechanism is nonthermal"
This is just wrong. Galaxies, galaxy clusters and filaments emit both thermal and non-thermal radiation:
http://articles.a...ype=.pdf
http://arxiv.org/...37v3.pdf
(Note the paper on thermal emission from the Milky Way is from 1959!)
And FYI, the filament discussed in this article was detected via the *thermal* SZE:
http://arxiv.org/...5911.pdf
A2G
3.1 / 5 (15) Nov 20, 2012It looks like the charges originate within the two galaxies themselves and not from some unknown external source. Put two oppositely polarities in a vacuum chamber and you will see this same formation. But you have to supply the power, it doesn't just appear on its own.
So why do these two galaxies have opposite charges that allow for this plasma flow. If it was coming from the outside of these two systems we would see evidence of this and yet there is none.
Although the EU guys point to this as proof of the EU concept it actually points in the other way. It is clear proof that the electrical charges originate within the galaxies themselves.
Maybe the current mainstream theories are lacking, but the EU model is not the answer.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (16) Nov 20, 2012Please explain the "cosmic web", how matter in the Universe is arranged on very large scales, forming a wispy network of clusters, filaments and voids. That alone seems to refute your claim there is no inter-connectivity. You personal vendetta against the "EU guys" is silly. While you state the "possibility" that the mainstream theories are lacking, in the same sentence you unequivocally state the EU model is not the answer, as if you had all the answers. Looks like you have ten days left in November to provide your incontrovertible evidence the EUT is wrong. Oh right, you forgot to mention it was November of 2013, or 2014, or 2015...
rubberman
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 20, 2012Stars generate a tiny bit of power.....
CD85- He didn't say there wasn't interconnection, he just said the power source was internal. If it's the EU theory that stars are powered externally via the interstellar medium, I understand why it fails.
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (20) Nov 20, 2012When will they wake up and realize that Aristotle and Ptolemy were right. The earth stands still. That EUT & PC are at the center of all that is? (Even Aristotle knew how lightening bolts and the crystals of the heavenly spheres were shaped.)
Infinion
3.6 / 5 (14) Nov 20, 2012it says it in the article "At least part of this gas might derive from the warm-hot intergalactic medium (WHIM) - the elusive web of gaseous filaments which is believed to pervade the Universe."
what the gravity model and electric model disagree on is whether those filaments are current-carrying or not, which is why they are calling it gas instead of plasma
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (18) Nov 20, 2012obama_socks
2.1 / 5 (11) Nov 20, 2012j/k :P
yyz
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 20, 2012A2G
2.6 / 5 (13) Nov 20, 2012You will see how dumb you really are and you shouldn't really be in a hurry for that. Real scientists do not release their studies without all their ducks in a row. The EU guys could learn from that.
Case in point.
How's that electrical activity on Io going since it seems that Wal was totally wrong about that one?
aroc91
3.3 / 5 (3) Nov 21, 2012Why the atmosphere of gas around the Earth? Why doesn't this follow gas laws and disperse as gas should?
cantdrive85
1.2 / 5 (9) Nov 21, 2012StarGazer2011
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 21, 2012Seems like a vaguely pertinent question.
My POV is that if the observable universe (baryonic) is 99% plasma
then plasma physics is likely to have some answers about the observable universe.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (8) Nov 21, 2012It follows gas laws. You just don't understand what gas laws are (or under which conditions the laws you are probably refrring to apply under which they don't...as well as which other laws come into play with large amounts of matter on significant scales).
Awesome38
1.6 / 5 (5) Nov 21, 2012Trails fanning out in straight lines, branching off like road networks, pushing dust and particles/rocks out with them travelling those routes over billions of years, with the occasional kink like they're going round a black hole.
Just saying.. we'd be naive to assume we're the only life out there or that we would have emerged at the same time as the rest like star trek. Also to assume to perceive to comprehend the pinnacle of technology.
Awesome38
2 / 5 (4) Nov 21, 2012barakn
4.6 / 5 (8) Nov 21, 2012cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 21, 2012That's as far as you need to go to explain the phenomenon. Plasma reacts to EM and is filamentary and cellular, gravity is of little importance and has little effect on electrified plasma. If you weren't completely ignorant of plasma physics you'd know this to be true.
How does this fictional gravity well explain the filamentary aspects? Please produce the correct model and math for these supposed gravity wells that produce the observed "cosmic web". How can these filaments extend for many parsecs between galaxies? Do these filaments that are at least 100 times more diffuse than a puff of cigarette smoke create their own gravity wells? Why doesn't dark energy disperse these filaments? Being that you're so well versed in the gravity only theory this shouldn't be a problem for you. And while you're at it, please produce a "gas" that is 80 million K, or even 10,000K to help support your notion that this is indeed a gas.
GSwift7
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 21, 2012That's where you always get it wrong. Clouds like this do not have uniform charge separation. They are a homogenous mix of positive and negative charge carriers, as well as neutral particles. Individual charge carriers collide and trade charges, but there's no medium to carry charges accross vacuum. At 80 million K, the net motion of the gas is just random collisions. You're not going to see any organized flow of electrons in any given direction under these conditions. The particles that compose this type of structure, are bouncing around and vibrating like crazy in there, but it's several orders of magnitude less dense than what it would take to conduct a current. You don't have charge carriers anywhere near enough to one another to carry current. The high temperature prevents it.
ValeriaT
1.2 / 5 (9) Nov 21, 2012rubberman
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 21, 2012The sun is composed of electrified plasma. I'm pretty sure that gravity is having an effect on that plasma.
"You're not going to see any organized flow of electrons in any given direction under these conditions". GS7
If there was, the synchrtron emmissions would be detectable from structures this large.
Why doesn't dark energy disperse these filaments? CD85
This is a valid question.
GSwift7
3.1 / 5 (8) Nov 21, 2012Perhaps the situation is that dark energy has driven away all the gas except these filamanets. Perhaps the space between the clusters is still filled with gas because they shield this space from the effects of dark energy. You see similar effects in star forming regions of planetary nebulea.
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 21, 2012Thank you for clarifying the fact that you do not understand the characteristics of plasma. For the sake of not portraying yourself as being so sure of your "facts", while at the same time being so remarkably ignorant of the behavior of space plasma, I would suggest you enlighten yourself on said behavior.
http://public.lan...ers.html
If gravity was the primary force involved then I'm curious as to why solar physicists are "baffled" by the near perfect roundness of the Sun. I don't discount that gravity has an effect, however, that effect will be 39 orders of magnitude WEAKER than that of the EM forces imposed upon the electrified plasma.
cantdrive85
1.2 / 5 (9) Nov 21, 2012Nice ad hoc guess, the problem lies in the observed "cosmic web". Such an explanation could possibly be used in certain rare conditions where "shielding" could take place. The probability of said shielding creating the filamentary and cellular structure of the entire universe while at the same time causing the entire Universe to expand seems highly unlikely. Being that even NASA acknowledges that over 99% of the "visible" Universe is plasma, disregarding the observed similarities of laboratory plasma and space plasma (filamentary and cellular) seems quite unscientific.
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (10) Nov 21, 2012The gravity is compressing the matter. Which is creating heat. Which started & maintains the fusion of hydrogen,which is releasing the energy, which provides the thermal pressure, which creates a hydrostatic equilibrium.
By the by, the astrophysicists that are baffled by why the Sun being so round? The mainstream scientists aren't so baffled. It's simple physics, the thermal pressure balances the gravitational pressure. Freshman physics.
It is a valid question. One that NO ONE knows a certain answer to. The prevailing idea is that it does, but the matter driven era constrained it until the energy driven era kicked in. Started accelerating the expansion we find ourselves in today.
The difficulty is in the fact that we're speaking of things unfolding over billions of years.
barakn
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 21, 2012It never ceases to amaze me what a moron cantdrive85 is.
cantdrive85
1.2 / 5 (10) Nov 21, 2012http://phys.org/n...sts.html
Q-Star
3.3 / 5 (16) Nov 21, 2012How silly of me. Of course: There is no God but Plasma and cantdrive is His Prophet. A voice in the wilderness preparing the way for the Son, Peratt and the Spirit, Hannes. And the Pope, His vicar on earth Arp.
Dead scientists, crackpots and gad-fly wannabes.
Help me here, where is all this electricity in the Sun coming from? And will my tin-foil hat protect me from it?
jsdarkdestruction
5 / 5 (2) Nov 21, 2012Really? With as much ignorance(willful ignorance no less) he's already shown nothing he says surprises me anymore.
cantdrive85
1.1 / 5 (8) Nov 21, 2012The phenomenon of the "gravity well" (if it exists) seems to be a bit misleading, wouldn't it be more accurate to called it a "gravity bubble"? I always see the "artist's impression" of a gravity well dipping below the equator of the body. In reality it should have a mirror of the "well" to create a bubble. Why don't I ever see such a depiction?
cantdrive85
1.1 / 5 (8) Nov 21, 2012This might be a good place to start.
http://science.na...uthpole/
http://ulysses.jp...ary.html
and compare that data with the Electric Sun model here,
http://electric-c.../sun.htm
In an electric galaxy the currents flow in along the galactic arms (powering the stars along the way) and the current exits the galaxy along the collimated jets that exit the poles of the galaxy. Being that the Plasma Universe is scalable, the same action will take place on a solar level. The electric energy will flow into the Sun along current sheets (described by NASA) and a majority of that energy will exit through similar polar jets (discovered by Ulysses). Don Scott explains it in much more detail in 'The Electric Sky'.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but don't rule out malice." Heinlein's Razor
rubberman
3 / 5 (4) Nov 22, 2012cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Nov 22, 2012barakn
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 22, 2012I'm not sure if you realize the Easter Bunny is sitting on your head.
rubberman
3 / 5 (4) Nov 22, 2012I like this one:
http://www.rdmag....-mystery
We know why the suns gravity doesn't affect the wind. It's an aspect of solar dynamics that PC models well.
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (11) Nov 22, 2012Naaa, that wasn't much help. You didn't say anything at all about whether my tin-foil hat will offer any protection from the plasmas.
Let me ask another really stupid question. If this plasma and electric force is so much stronger than gravity,,, and if on average throughout the universe the positive charges equals the negative charges shouldn't 1 added to -1 equal zero net? And even though the electromagnetic force is so much stronger than gravity, it works in two directions, so half of the charges are pulling, and half of the charges are pushing.
But with gravity, you have a force working only in one direction, every body pulls. Shouldn't after 14 billions of years all the negative charges have met up with a positive charge and neutralized? The battery gone dead so to speak?
Something is recharging that battery. What keeps the generator spinning?
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (4) Nov 22, 2012cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Nov 23, 2012cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Nov 23, 2012http://public.lan...ers.html
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." Aldous Huxley
rubberman
3 / 5 (4) Nov 23, 2012Moons in stable planetary orbits
The pluto/Neptune crossover
Comets (although there is some anomalous stuff here)
Good one on the plasma charges though. The magnetic fields either couple and strengthen or repulse.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Nov 23, 2012"Most people today still believe, perhaps unconsciously, in the heliocentric universe..."
Hannes Alfven
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (7) Nov 23, 2012See predictions of comets Deep Impact and Stardust;
http://www.thunde....htm#cdi
Q-Star
3.9 / 5 (11) Nov 23, 2012If this is so, why I wonder is the "Einteinian GR universe" so successful in PREDICTING the exact location of of the all these erratically plasma driven bodies. The two most successfully tested and verified big items in physics are 1) Quantum dynamics and 2) General relativity.
If they are so wrong, why are their predictions so right? Lucky guesses I suppose you'll say.
By the way, the coyote's step? The gravity acting on him doesn't "turn on" when he steps off. It was there along, but the air he steps into is less dense than the rock he's stepping off of, hence he begins to fall.
Please tell us about ONE experiment shows that gravitational fields are not constrained by light speed?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Nov 23, 2012Q-Star
3.8 / 5 (13) Nov 23, 2012That goes without saying.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (8) Nov 23, 2012http://www.common...11n4.pdf
It provides for a better model than GR a directly explains the observed helical orbits.
Q-Star
4 / 5 (12) Nov 23, 2012You are trying to be funny. Right?
Charles W. Lucas?
The creationist guy?
The young earth guy?
The electromagnetic GOD guy?
The fingerprints of the Creator guy?
No wonder no one with a real interest in science has any respect for anything you might say.
http://www.common...ers.html
My link is not to a fanciful pdf file, it's to his actual web page. Who peer reviewed his work? Pat Robertson?
rubberman
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 23, 2012Dude, you're talking about helical orbit if viewed from a fixed point in the universe...find one.
Q-Star
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 23, 2012The concept of all the bodies in the solar system moving right along through the universe as a group is quite beyond him. But then, he also has trouble with idea of anything being conserved. Mass-energy, momentum, charge,,,, none of it could possibly be conserved, plasma doesn't allow for that.
(Except plasma it's not only conserved. It is continually being "Created" by the hand of God. God's got his fingerprints all over the plasma. Plasma is all there is. And all there ever will be. If it's not plasma, it's not worth knowing about. Which is why he resists learning so hard.)
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Nov 23, 2012[Expressing his belief that the Big Bang is a myth devised to explain creation. He said he heard Lemaître (who was, at the time both a member of the Catholic hierarchy and an accomplished scientist) say in private that this theory was a way to reconcile science with St. Thomas Aquinas' theological dictum of creatio ex nihilo—creation out of nothing.]
Isaac Newton, as Wiki states, "Although an unorthodox Christian, Newton was deeply religious and wrote more on Biblical hermeneutics and occult studies than on science and mathematics."
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Nov 23, 2012ValeriaT
1 / 5 (4) Nov 23, 2012ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Nov 23, 2012Psiotic
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 24, 2012According to Mainstream "Scholars", the earth was once believed to be flat, earth was believed to be the center of the galaxy/universe and the list goes on. Each of those cackled hysterically at the ideas we now accept to be fact and those who supported them were forced to change. Change is imminent. Einstein himself noted that his theory of relativity was missing something... therefore all that is grounded on the theory are also 'missing' something. Fact, like it or not.
Q-Star
3.8 / 5 (10) Nov 24, 2012Not to worry, there was no pun there, intended or otherwise.
By the By: Don't worry about me getting smacked in the face by the God of Plasma. I have a tin-foil hat and copper chain-mail underwear to protect me.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (8) Nov 24, 2012It happened with epicycles, and it'll happen with Einstein's metaphysical nonsense pervading science today. One day history will look back upon the "standard theory" just as we see the flat earthers, with incredulity and contempt, the difference being we've got the tools to know better.
Q-Star
3.7 / 5 (12) Nov 24, 2012If I were you, I would be less concerned with what the future historians might think, because apparently you seem not to know that we are in the 21st century. You have a long way to go.
By the By: You do not have "the tools to know better". Your tool kit is sorely lacking. And the only way you might change that is begin at the beginning.
The problem with you "internet" gurus, is you just don't know the fundamentals. It takes effort to learn the basics. Much like the person who wants to be a brain surgeon but doesn't want to spend the time to learn high school biology.
You are like the guy who goes to the bookstore when he wants to learn "the calculus", picks out a book, memorizes the jargon, but yet doesn't think it's of any benefit to first learn rudimentary algebra.
You are a pretender,,,,
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (3) Nov 24, 2012I'm not proponent of mainstream physics and I don't consider this model naive and obsolete too. The Plasma Universe cannot estimate, which portion of matter is ionized, so that the amount of electromagentic effects is freely adjustable parameter in this model. And Plasma Universe proponents tend to confuse the effects of classical plasma physics with effects gravitoelectromagnetism, which appear similarly but which manifests itself at large scale and which belongs into "new physics". They cannot realize, that the majority of matter in the Universe has no EM charge at all (dark matter formed with neutrinos). The dark matter fibers have nothing to do with plasma fibers and they consist of EM neutral particles.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (8) Nov 24, 2012I despair at the utter lack of scientific understanding displayed by the bulk of posters on this science site.
Benni
2 / 5 (4) Nov 27, 2012....for sure.....the "flat earth society" has graduated to the "flat universe society" leading to their inability to comprehend the math of the basics of the principles of Conservation of Energy, resulting in misguided beliefs that "infinity" exists somewhere inside a finite universe.