Distant quasar illuminates a filament of the cosmic web

Jan 19, 2014
This deep image shows the nebula (cyan) extending across 2 million light-years that was discovered around the bright quasar UM287 (at the center of the image). The energetic radiation of the quasar makes the surrounding intergalactic gas glow, revealing the morphology and physical properties of a cosmic web filament. The image was obtained at the W. M. Keck Observatory. Credit: S. Cantalupo, UC Santa Cruz

Astronomers have discovered a distant quasar illuminating a vast nebula of diffuse gas, revealing for the first time part of the network of filaments thought to connect galaxies in a cosmic web. Researchers at the University of California, Santa Cruz, led the study, published January 19 in Nature.

Using the 10-meter Keck I Telescope at the W. M. Keck Observatory in Hawaii, the researchers detected a very large, luminous nebula of extending about 2 million light-years across intergalactic space.

"This is a very exceptional object: it's huge, at least twice as large as any nebula detected before, and it extends well beyond the galactic environment of the quasar," said first author Sebastiano Cantalupo, a postdoctoral fellow at UC Santa Cruz.

The standard cosmological model of structure formation in the universe predicts that galaxies are embedded in a cosmic web of matter, most of which (about 84 percent) is invisible . This web is seen in the results from computer simulations of the evolution of structure in the universe, which show the distribution of dark matter on large scales, including the in which galaxies form and the cosmic web of filaments that connect them. Gravity causes ordinary matter to follow the distribution of dark matter, so filaments of diffuse, ionized gas are expected to trace a pattern similar to that seen in dark matter simulations.

Until now, however, these filaments have never been seen. Intergalactic gas has been detected by its absorption of light from bright background sources, but those results don't reveal how the gas is distributed. In this study, the researchers detected the fluorescent glow of hydrogen gas resulting from its illumination by intense radiation from the quasar.

Computer simulations suggest that matter in the universe is distributed in a "cosmic web" of filaments, as seen in the image above from a large-scale dark-matter simulation (Bolshoi simulation, by Anatoly Klypin and Joel Primack). The inset is a zoomed-in, high-resolution image of a smaller part of the cosmic web, 10 million light-years across, from a simulation that includes gas as well as dark matter (credit: S. Cantalupo). The intense radiation from a quasar can, like a flashlight, illuminate part of the surrounding cosmic web (highlighted in the image) and make a filament of gas glow, as was observed in the case of quasar UM287. Credit: Background image: A. Klypin and J. Primack; Inset: S. Cantalupo

"This quasar is illuminating on scales well beyond any we've seen before, giving us the first picture of extended gas between galaxies. It provides a terrific insight into the overall structure of our universe," said coauthor J. Xavier Prochaska, professor of astronomy and astrophysics at UC Santa Cruz.

The illuminated by the quasar emits ultraviolet light known as Lyman alpha radiation. The distance to the quasar is so great (about 10 billion light-years) that the emitted light is "stretched" by the expansion of the universe from an invisible ultraviolet wavelength to a visible shade of violet by the time it reaches the Keck Telescope. Knowing the distance to the quasar, the researchers calculated the wavelength for Lyman alpha radiation from that distance and built a special filter for the telescope's LRIS spectrometer to get an image at that wavelength.

"We have studied other quasars this way without detecting such extended gas," Cantalupo said. "The light from the quasar is like a flashlight beam, and in this case we were lucky that the flashlight is pointing toward the nebula and making the gas glow. We think this is part of a filament that may be even more extended than this, but we only see the part of the filament that is illuminated by the beamed emission from the quasar."

A quasar is a type of active galactic nucleus that emits intense radiation powered by a supermassive black hole at the center of the galaxy. In an earlier survey of distant quasars using the same technique to look for glowing gas, Cantalupo and others detected so-called "dark galaxies," the densest knots of gas in the cosmic web. These dark galaxies are thought to be either too small or too young to have formed stars.

"The dark galaxies are much denser and smaller parts of the cosmic web. In this new image, we also see dark galaxies, in addition to the much more diffuse and extended nebula," Cantalupo said. "Some of this gas will fall into galaxies, but most of it will remain diffuse and never form stars."

The researchers estimated the amount of gas in the nebula to be at least ten times more than expected from the results of computer simulations. "We think there may be more gas contained in small dense clumps within the than is seen in our models. These observations are challenging our understanding of and giving us a new laboratory to test and refine our models," Cantalupo said.

Explore further: First detailed look at a normal galaxy in the very early universe

More information: Paper: dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature12898

Related Stories

A fiery drama of star birth and death

Nov 27, 2013

The Large Magellanic Cloud is one of the closest galaxies to our own. Astronomers have now used the power of ESO's Very Large Telescope to explore one of its lesser known regions. This new image shows clouds ...

Astronomers gain new knowledge about early galaxies

Jul 03, 2013

The early galaxies of the universe were very different from today's galaxies. Using new detailed studies carried out with the ESO Very Large Telescope and the Hubble Space Telescope, researchers, including ...

Recommended for you

Exomoons Could Be Abundant Sources Of Habitability

10 hours ago

With about 4,000 planet candidates from the Kepler Space Telescope data to analyze so far, astronomers are busy trying to figure out questions about habitability. What size planet could host life? How far ...

Partial solar eclipse over the U.S. on Thursday, Oct. 23

Oct 17, 2014

People in most of the continental United States will be in the shadow of the Moon on Thursday afternoon, Oct. 23, as a partial solar eclipse sweeps across the Earth. For people looking through sun-safe filters, from Los Angeles, ...

A newborn supernova every night

Oct 17, 2014

Thanks to a $9 million grant from the National Science Foundation and matching funds from the Zwicky Transient Facility (ZTF) collaboration, a new camera is being built at Caltech's Palomar Observatory that ...

User comments : 51

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

k_m
2 / 5 (4) Jan 19, 2014
Where are the Editors?
"led the study" should read "lead the study"?

Interesting article nonetheless.

And this is curious:
"The researchers estimated the amount of gas in the nebula to be at least ten times more than expected from the results of computer simulations."
Could this mean other calculations regarding mass in the Universe are similarly incorrect?
HannesAlfven
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 19, 2014
Re: "The standard cosmological model of structure formation in the universe predicts that galaxies are embedded in a cosmic web of matter, most of which (about 84 percent) is invisible dark matter."

It's amazing to me that people seem to not get how nonsensical this is: The word "predicts" serves a very specific function in science. Dark matter is a construct. So, what does it mean to suggest that a model predicts a construct? The construct is a temporary placeholder. To whomever this is a meaningful statement, have you considered that the construct is actively reformulated to fit observations?

You've got a prediction which leads directly to an observation, regardless of what that observation says. Guys, the way in which this is being conveyed offers no way to falsify the claim.

Regardless of one's views on the underlying theory of dark matter, everybody should be distancing themselves from this type of reporting.
Returners
2.3 / 5 (10) Jan 19, 2014
Could this mean other calculations regarding mass in the Universe are similarly incorrect?


Ironic isn't it?

They look for something, based on the computer model, but then when they find "something," (insert "anything",) they then claim it is that same something, even though the amount is off from the prediction by an order of magnitude.

If you made an order of magnitude error in any other science you'd throw out the model, or check to see if you've made a math mistake. instead, they declare that the observations support the model. Reeeeeeally....
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (7) Jan 19, 2014
"I have never thought that you could obtain the extremely clumpy, heterogeneous universe we have today, strongly affected by plasma processes, from the smooth, homogeneous one of the Big Bang, dominated by gravitation." Alfven
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 20, 2014
Where are the Editors?
"led the study" should read "lead the study"?

"Led" is the correct past tense of "lead". As results are already finished the usage is correct.

Could this mean other calculations regarding mass in the Universe are similarly incorrect?

The mass is probably still correct - the ratio of matter/dark matter may get a small revision.
GSwift7
5 / 5 (8) Jan 20, 2014
Ironic isn't it?


Yes, it is ironic. HannesAlfven and Cantdrive both read the same article as everyone else, and I've read it twice now, just to make sure, and they both seem to have seen something in the article that isn't there. Take away your preconceived assumptions of fault and just read the article for what it is.

One observation, of one small area, the only observation of this type ever made, doesn't really mean much in terms of confirming of refuting anything. There's absolutly no way to know anything beyond the extent of the observed gas. This could be part of a much larger structure, or a small island which is unique and unusual.

What are the odds that our very first observation of a nebula of this type would be a typical example of all the others out there? Is there any way to guess the upper and lower limits of variation, and the distribution between? What if this just happens to be the most dense intergalactic nebula in the Universe? The theory remains untouched.
no fate
3.5 / 5 (2) Jan 20, 2014
"What are the odds that our very first observation of a nebula of this type would be a typical example of all the others out there?"

The researchers seem to think it is: "It provides a terrific insight into the overall structure of our universe,"

"Take away your preconceived assumptions..."

"A quasar is a type of active galactic nucleus...powered by a supermassive black hole at the center of the galaxy."

"Gravity causes ordinary matter to follow the distribution of dark matter, so filaments of diffuse, ionized gas are expected to trace a pattern similar to that seen in dark matter simulations."

"The standard cosmological model of structure formation in the universe predicts that galaxies are embedded in a cosmic web of matter, most of which (about 84 percent) is invisible dark matter."

Three examples of preconceived assumptions made in the article. From a strictly scientific standpoint Hannes observation is logical and accurate.
GSwift7
5 / 5 (5) Jan 20, 2014
to no_fate:

Those are reasonable points, but keep in mind that this is merely a short piece of journalism. As with our comments, article like this are limited in length and scope. You and I both know that the statements you quoted are only theory, but those are the leading contemporary theories. I don't think the limited length and scope of these articles allows for full disclosure and explanation of all the fine points. Anyone really interested should already know those things, or be capable of looking them up. For example, I can easily find the wiki page on dark matter, which includes references to alternative theories and a fair explanation that it isn't universally accepted amongst all experts.

Sure, they could have just not mentioned it at all, but those theories are kinda the point of doing the above observation in the first place. The theory said fillaments should be there, so they looked for one, and 'perhaps' found one.
no fate
5 / 5 (4) Jan 20, 2014
Well said GSwift.
HannesAlfven
1.5 / 5 (4) Jan 20, 2014
Re: "You and I both know that the statements you quoted are only theory, but those are the leading contemporary theories. I don't think the limited length and scope of these articles allows for full disclosure and explanation of all the fine points. Anyone really interested should already know those things, or be capable of looking them up. For example, I can easily find the wiki page on dark matter, which includes references to alternative theories and a fair explanation that it isn't universally accepted amongst all experts."

Well, I'm in agreement with you that the medium does not support creative problem-solving. The real problem here is that you seem to be just fine with this stark difference in the way that scientific models are conceived. It contrasts very sharply with how businesses innovate products. It is NOT what is today called "design thinking", because there is no interest in mapping out the full problem space or reframing. It also plays to peoples' inherent biases.
HannesAlfven
1.3 / 5 (4) Jan 20, 2014
I strongly recommend that people pay close attention to what is happening with Daniel Kahneman and his book, Thinking, Fast and Slow. There are cultural changes occurring in the scientific community. If you go to YouTube and search on Kahneman, you can see him fill a lecture hall at Yale. Now, listen carefully to what he is saying, and you'll by the end of the lecture realize that Kahneman is having success convincing professional scientists that they are susceptible to the same irrational influences that ordinary people are, and that these mistakes without a doubt affect their research.

Once you know how Kahneman's "system 1" and "system 2" work, you will see exactly how the biases which tend to permeate the sciences can take hold of each individual in the same exact -- and predictable -- way, even though each person retains the capability for rational thought.
HannesAlfven
1.5 / 5 (4) Jan 20, 2014
I've basically been doing ethnography on this forum, and formerly slashdot and digg, for a number of years now. I've been posting EU claims in response to these press releases. The point has been to observe how people make decisions on the basis of incomplete information and a complex problem space. What I have observed perfectly reflects what Nobel laureate, Daniel Kahneman, has observed: That people are not evaluating the claims of these competing models on the basis of rational decision-making. What actually happens -- in practice -- is that people lack the tools they need to answer the questions they have about these competing models, and when this occurs, the rational mind (system 2) defers back to the original stories proposed by system 1 (the irrational, subconscious mind). The problem is that these stories are selected on the basis of associative coherence, NOT on the evidence.

I've been observing this for years now. Daniel Kahneman has finally explained it.
HannesAlfven
1.5 / 5 (4) Jan 20, 2014
So, part of the problem here is that the websites we use to get our science information are not helping us with the difficult task of questioning that information. They are simply harvesting our clicks, and if that means that they must make appeals to our subconscious, then that's fine with them.

What we need to do -- in light of Kahneman's predictive model -- is to redesign our science websites to elicit rational sense-making in peoples' responses to what they are reading. Kahneman's work is predictably going to unleash an entirely new breed of science reporting website which will be designed to actually support critical and creative problem-solving. And advocates for conventional theory, who have become stubbornly used to the glacially slow pace at which the public's scientific opinion moves, might be a bit startled at what is possible with science websites which are designed to make people smarter about science.

The new sites will help us to observe the biases in reporting.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (4) Jan 20, 2014
And, in due time, something very special will happen: When people are taught how their minds work, and are trained to understand the precise way in which associative coherence in particular works, it will inevitably alter those peoples' perceptions of how professional science works. Kahneman's work breaks through a barrier which to this point has precluded attempts to modernize the scientific methodology.

With this new approach, the computer can more seamlessly extend the human mind. In order for a knowledge tool to work well, it has to approximate our actual processes for sense-making. We can now see quite plainly that humans have in a very general sense not fully learned how to think like rational scientists, so the newer tools will make us smarter by first helping us to be rational. And since the newer tools will be based upon helping people to reflect upon the biases of others, in due time, they'll expose our biases to ourselves.

Mind, meet computer. Computer, meet mind.
no fate
3 / 5 (1) Jan 20, 2014
Hannes, I doubt that a high percentage of the population can "think like a scientist". Anyone is capable of being taught how to apply logic inside their own circumstances of existence. But thinking like a scientist requires the ability to understand and apply scientific concepts...to evaluate all aspects of something and discard those which have no value to the problem at hand or are not coherent with what is actually known.

For example: The doppler effect is well known and red shift is an observed scientific phenomenon. My own opinion is that it does not indicate that space is expanding, if actual physical space was expanding we would never be able to detect it. All space would be expanding at the same rate whether inside or outside of atomic structure (and any smaller structures such as photons). Therefore in order for us to measure the shift whatever is causing it has to only be acting upon the photons we are measuring, not us. I am not saying that I am correct....cont
no fate
2 / 5 (1) Jan 20, 2014
but to convince me that I am not would require an explanation as to how we are exempt enough from the effect to measure it when the effect is posited to be universal.

The concepts in my example aren't understood by most people. I have tried explaining an IRF (or non IRF as I am informed they are called now) to intelligent friends and family members all of whom have a degree in their chosen fields and it is still above most of them. Not to mention that most people do not set out to prove themselves wrong after working very hard on something they believe to be right. Scientists are the only lot masochistic enough to build a career doing this but it is at the heart of how we learn. Everyone's mind works differently, otherwise we would all be capable building LHC's and formulating equations that describe or predict reality, so I don't believe there is a blueprint to the concious mind that is universal nor do I think everyone is capable of understanding how their own mind works.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Jan 20, 2014
The concepts in my example aren't understood by most people. I have tried explaining an IRF (or non IRF as I am informed they are called now) to intelligent friends and family members all of whom have a degree in their chosen fields and it is still above most of them. Not to mention that most people do not set out to prove themselves wrong after working very hard on something they believe to be right. Scientists are the only lot masochistic enough to build a career doing this but it is at the heart of how we learn. Everyone's mind works differently, otherwise we would all be capable building LHC's and formulating equations that describe or predict reality, so I don't believe there is a blueprint to the concious mind that is universal nor do I think everyone is capable of understanding how their own mind works.

So, let me get this straight - scientists are a "breed apart" (therefore better)? Sounds like a bias to me...
yyz
4.5 / 5 (2) Jan 20, 2014
A preprint of the Nature paper "A cosmic web filament revealed in Lyman-alpha emission around a luminous high-redshift quasar" is available here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.4469
GSwift7
4.5 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2014
With this new approach, the computer can more seamlessly extend the human mind. In order for a knowledge tool to work well, it has to approximate our actual processes for sense-making. We can now see quite plainly that humans have in a very general sense not fully learned how to think


So you want the computer to use heuristics and have the same types of biases as the human mind? Google search already does this to a great extent, as do other algorithms such as those inside Netflix software.

As a Lean Manufacturing agent, I am well aware of selection bias theories, and the ways in which it can introduce errors. On the other hand, subconscious heuristics are an unavoidable process in human thought. They can also be faster and more reliable than purely analytical methods in some cases, especially when dealing with incomplete information. Some people call this intuition, but Kahneman did a great job on this. You can see the results of his work almost every time you see an ad.
GSwift7
5 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2014
Now, when it comes to Plasma Cosmology or Electric Universe, or several other whacky alternative theories, selection bias has nothing to do with it. Sure, my intuition tells me that something 'smells funny' about those theories, but my intuition has nothing to do with it. PC and EU theory both violate fundamental physical rules and cannot agree with observations. It's not a matter of whether General Relativity or Quantum Field Theory is the 'correct' choice. It doesn't matter if they are both proven wrong. PC and EU are already proven wrong.

You seem to be saying that 'rational thinking' demands that we consider all those whacky alternative theories each time we evaluate a new observation. I say that is only practical when the alternative hasn't already been invalidated, so only plausible theories need to be considered.
no fate
5 / 5 (1) Jan 21, 2014
Whydening Gyre: It is definitely a bias, although not directed specifically at any group.It is not a chosen bias so much as one born of observation. Every member on a team (be it athletic or research or business unit) knows who the weakest link is on the team. I have been on both sides of this and the reactions of the team members to the weakest member demonstrate what kind of person each one is. From an ability standpoint the weakest team member can still outclass 96% of the rest of the people on earth in that particular skill set. How many physicists do their own car repairs?

No matter how "gifted" one individual is and how inept another is, Mr. Inept will still be better than Mr. Gifted at at least one thing...if that happens to be swimming and both are on a sinking ship who would you rather be? This is the reason we have aptitude testing.
no fate
4 / 5 (1) Jan 21, 2014
You seem to be saying that 'rational thinking' demands that we consider all those whacky alternative theories each time we evaluate a new observation. I say that is only practical when the alternative hasn't already been invalidated, so only plausible theories need to be considered.


What is the acceptable amount of time to declare something implausible? DM has been theorized to exist for over 20 years, never been found, therefore no definite properties can be ascribed to it. Yet models are constructed using it as a variable. To do this it has to have defined properties as it has to react with the other variables in the model in a defined manner. The problem with a model like this is that the properties that are assigned are the ones required to meet the observations otherwise the model would not match the observations. But it is never worded that "we think DM has to have properties x,y and z because these are the properties that it must have for our model to work". cont....
no fate
1 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2014
Instead it is worded "The bulk of the DM concentration in the Milky way lies outside the main spiral in the galactic Halo"...or something equally definitive. The statement is made because it is based on the assumption it is there, this is how it has to be structured to make the observations fit the model.

Not scientifically plausible.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2014
What is the acceptable amount of time to declare something implausible?

Exactly that amount of time until sufficiently sensitive measurement techniques are available to check on any predictions the theory makes. That may take a day (as in the case of most crackpot theories) or more than a thousand years (e.g. in the case of atoms postulated by the ancient Greeks).

"we think DM has to have properties x,y and z

We know dark matter must have mass (or at the very least something that has a gravitational effect. Since currently mass is the only thing that has that it's a good starting point to suppose that mass is a property of DM).

Not scientifically plausible

What does that even mean? Something is testable or it is not. Plausibility doesn't enter into it. (QM certainly isn't very 'plausible'. But it certainly is testable)
no fate
1 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2014
"We know dark matter must have mass (or at the very least something that has a gravitational effect. Since currently mass is the only thing that has that it's a good starting point to suppose that mass is a property of DM)."

Not scientifically plausible means that statements like the one above cannot be tested for accuracy and therefore have no place in science. We don't know because we can't find any to examine. It is more plausible that gravity is not responsible for the structure of the universe than it is that 75% of the mass is undetectable in the EM spectrum, doesn't gather in concentrations that we can find anywhere even though we know exactly where it would have to be in order to observe the structures we do.

How plausible is it that you will find something outside the EM spectrum from inside it? If it interacts in anyway at all in the EM spectrum how plausible is it that we cannot find a shred of evidence of it when it supposedly comprises 75% of the mass in the universe?
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2014
"We know dark matter must have mass (or at the very least something that has a gravitational effect. Since currently mass is the only thing that has that it's a good starting point to suppose that mass is a property of DM)."


Not scientifically plausible means that statements like the one above cannot be tested for accuracy and therefore have no place in science.


There's a simpler proof, we know dark matter has mass because massless particles travel at the speed of light hence must exceed the escape velocity of any structure other than a black hole. We know DM forms concentrations from gravitational lensing hence it must have mass.
no fate
1 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2014
Fleetfoot: You don't KNOW that it is a particle any more than I KNOW it is a magnetic field. Gravity is much LESS effective at bending light than EM fields, the EM field of any mass extends it's influence much farther than gravity....again which is more plausible?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2014
Exactly that amount of time until sufficiently sensitive measurement techniques are available to check on any predictions the theory makes.
Funny how PC/EU is dismissed offhandedly without the acceptable amount of time to confirm with the proper instruments. Take for example Birkeland's theory of the aurora and birkeland currents. Both offhandedly dismissed for decades by "standard" theorists only to be proven correct by direct observation. Alfven predicted galactic magnetic fields and developed MHD only to be mocked, same results. The results described in this article are explicitly and predictably expected by PC/EU, the "standard" theory arrived at this conclusion a posteriori and ad hoc. Other arguments against EU claims double layers are not possible as predicted by PC, well, same result found by observation.
http://prl.aps.or.../e235002
Given the "acceptable" amount of time to show "proof" the EU/PC theories do just fine, unlike the "standard" theory

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jan 21, 2014
no fate says
No matter how "gifted" one individual is and how inept another is, Mr. Inept will still be better than Mr. Gifted at at least one thing

this is uncorroborated and cannot be validated
if I am wrong, please link me an article that supports this claim, thanks
DM has been theorized to exist for over 20 years,

according to Dr. Tyson, it has be measured for that long, not just theorized
ergo, it IS there, we just dont know (fully) what "IT" is
To do this it has to have defined properties

and some properties are well defined, therefore they are used
but some are unknown

@cantdrive85
PC/EU is dismissed offhandedly without the acceptable amount of time

not dismissed offhandedly
proven wrong
BIG DIFFERENCE
EU=no predictability
EU-references itself
EU=debunked as CRACKPOT science by physicists

therefore, we can conclude
Cantdrive=EU=CRACKPOT

logic!
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2014
We know dark matter must have mass (or at the very least something that has a gravitational effect. Since currently mass is the only thing that has that it's a good starting point to suppose that mass is a property of DM)
Did someone say crackpot? Some believe that dm is a dense form of hydrogen.
http://www.blackl...22PM.pdf

-Sounds plausible to me.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2014
not dismissed offhandedly
proven wrong
BIG DIFFERENCE
EU=no predictability
EU-references itself
EU=debunked as CRACKPOT science by physicists

Really?
You still haven't pointed out where that proof is, just a mention of a couple "scientists" who as has been plainly shown misrepresent and misunderstand the physics involved, but if you want to keep lying with Maggnutts, so be it. And I'm still waiting on that response from the last discussion. How's that going? Not done yet?
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (6) Jan 21, 2014
Fleetfoot: You don't KNOW that it is a particle any more than I KNOW it is a magnetic field. Gravity is much LESS effective at bending light than EM fields, the EM field of any mass extends it's influence much farther than gravity....again which is more plausible?


Magnetic fields don't bend light AT ALL while the amount of mass calculated from gravitational lensing studies matches the amount calculated from the galactic velocity curves so EM is totally implausible while simple mass works on both counts.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jan 21, 2014
@cantdrive85
your comments are off topic- but I will answer- still working on it. I have several papers to go through, and your site.
thoroughness counts, takes time

Most likely will not change the outcome though
most research thus far concludes:

your EU references itself mostly
it is not capable of verifiable predictions – all are after the fact
there are SOME pieces of real science
still debunked by Scientists/ left for dead circa 1978-80 ish (for the most part- there ARE exceptions)
picked up mostly by fanatics and acolytes - people with a vested interest in making money of the ignorant
already posted most of the relevant links
one or two papers of real science peer reviewed does NOT a theory make...

EU=no predictability
EU-references itself
EU=debunked as CRACKPOT science by physicists

therefore, we can conclude
Cantdrive=EU=CRACKPOT

logic!
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (1) Jan 21, 2014
We know dark matter must have mass (or at the very least something that has a gravitational effect. Since currently mass is the only thing that has that it's a good starting point to suppose that mass is a property of DM)
Did someone say crackpot? Some believe that dm is a dense form of hydrogen.
http://www.blackl...22PM.pdf

-Sounds plausible to me.

Essentially saying there appears to be a lot of energy dense hydrinos hanging around?
These guys are good...
Tuxford
2 / 5 (2) Jan 22, 2014
Sorry to intrude....So the quasar is undergoing at least a 2 million year old growth spurt? From continuous accretion? Source?

http://www.huffin...541.html
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (1) Jan 22, 2014
Essentially saying there appears to be a lot of energy dense hydrinos hanging around?
These guys are good

@Whydening Gyre
I dont know...
I am going to hold back judgment until I see better data on this one
read this link

https://en.wikipe.../Hydrino

pay attention to the areas: Patents;
Kepplinger said that her "main concern was the proposition that the applicant was claiming the electron going to a lower orbital in a fashion that I knew was contrary to the known laws of physics and chemistry", and that the patent appeared to involve cold fusion and perpetual motion.

[sic]
other areas to read are: claims; analysis of Mills' models; commentaries;

ESPECIALLY the commentaries!

i found those most interesting
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (2) Jan 22, 2014
Did someone say crackpot? Some believe that dm is a dense form of hydrogen.
http://www.blackl...22PM.pdf

-Sounds plausible to me.

@Otto
you read this yet?

https://en.wikipe.../Hydrino

pay attention to the areas: Patents;
Kepplinger said that her "main concern was the proposition that the applicant was claiming the electron going to a lower orbital in a fashion that I knew was contrary to the known laws of physics and chemistry", and that the patent appeared to involve cold fusion and perpetual motion.

[sic]

other areas to read are: claims; analysis of Mills' models; commentaries;

ESPECIALLY the commentaries!

let me know what you think...

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Jan 22, 2014
I am going to hold back judgment until I see better data on this one
read this link- https://en.wikipe.../Hydrino
pay attention to the areas: Patents;
Kepplinger said that her "main concern was the proposition that the applicant was claiming the electron going to a lower orbital in a fashion that I knew was contrary to the known laws of physics and chemistry", and that the patent appeared to involve cold fusion and perpetual motion.

Cp'n.
I read the pdf and asked the question that came to mind, is all.
Comment about their abilities was meant to imply - either they really know their stuff or they got a great scam coming. I did note the patent app was based on modeling only. However, I do not hold bureaucratic judgment processes in very high regard either, so...
I, too, am waiting to see how it shakes out...

Would be funny, tho, if it was somewhere an accidental division by 0....
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Jan 22, 2014
I dont know...
I am going to hold back judgment until I see better data on this one
pay attention to the areas: Patents;
Kepplinger said that her "main concern was the proposition that the applicant was claiming the electron going to a lower orbital in a fashion that I knew was contrary to the known laws of physics and chemistry", and that the patent appeared to involve cold fusion and perpetual motion.

Cap'n,
I merely read the pdf and asked the first question that came to mind.
Comment on their abilities was to acknowledge knowing their stuff ether as scientists or really good scammers.
Noted the patent app was for model only. However, my regard for bureaucratic entities is not the most positive, so...
I, too, will wait to see how things shake out.

Would be kinda funny, tho, if all this was due to an accidental division of 0 by someone...
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Jan 22, 2014
Not scientifically plausible means that statements like the one above cannot be tested for accuracy and therefore have no place in science

Since tests are already under way... I guess you should read more on physorg to keep up with the latest.

It is more plausible that gravity is not responsible for the structure of the universe than it is that 75% of the mass is undetectable in the EM spectrum

And you would test that statement..how? You're comitting in that very sentence the thing you claimed was unscientific just one sentence earlier. Do you even read what you write to check that it is self consistent? (I already know you don't check whether it makes sense)

How plausible is it that you will find something outside the EM spectrum from inside it?

What does that even mean? Speak english...not gibberish.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Jan 22, 2014
@cantdrive85
your comments are off topic- but I will answer- still working on it. I have several papers to go through, and your site.
thoroughness counts, takes time

Most likely will not change the outcome though
most research thus far concludes:

your EU references itself mostly
it is not capable of verifiable predictions – all are after the fact
there are SOME pieces of real science
still debunked by Scientists/ left for dead circa 1978-80 ish (for the most part- there ARE exceptions)
picked up mostly by fanatics and acolytes - people with a vested interest in making money of the ignorant
already posted most of the relevant links
one or two papers of real science peer reviewed does NOT a theory make...

EU=no predictability
EU-references itself
EU=debunked as CRACKPOT science by physicists

therefore, we can conclude
Cantdrive=EU=CRACKPOT

logic!

You said you'd answer, but still it's just...
http://www.oxford...d-waving
GSwift7
5 / 5 (3) Jan 22, 2014
How plausible is it that you will find something outside the EM spectrum from inside it? If it interacts in anyway at all in the EM spectrum how plausible is it that we cannot find a shred of evidence of it when it supposedly comprises 75% of the mass in the universe?


Yes, that seems incredible, doesn't it? Imagine how the first guys to figure that out must have felt. How many times do you think they went back and checked their work before asking someone to peer-review it?

It's been one of the most debated subjects in science in the last century, so you're not alone in that. Still, despite all the attention this has gotten, nobody has found any show-stopping fault with the theory. It just seems impossible, but that could be said of a lot of things we now know to be true, right?

Theory says that there's still plenty of room for particles to hide below our threshold of detection with our best methods. Until we eliminate that, we can't know for sure.
no fate
3 / 5 (3) Jan 22, 2014
"Magnetic fields don't bend light AT ALL"

Woops....

http://www.gizmag...l/25261/

The paper by van Tiggelen And Rikken can be easily googled but not linked as the URL is too long. (typed "magnetic bending of light")

Given the size of galactic magnetic fields and the evidence of their existence...again far more plausible...and given the link/search tip above testable as well.

Let me know when the DM testing reveals it's actual properties Anti, regardless of how it's reported and modelled, DM is nothing more than a theory until it is physically found.

" Since tests are already under way..." - so they have a sample of it then....one would have thought it would be big news.

"And you would test that statement..how?" - Modelling based on estabished physical parameters observed through experimentation...established and experimentation being the key words here. Not calculated based on assumptions and inference.



no fate
not rated yet Jan 22, 2014
"Yes, that seems incredible, doesn't it?"

It is nice to see you speak gibberish. (kidding)

"It's been one of the most debated subjects in science in the last century, so you're not alone in that. Still, despite all the attention this has gotten, nobody has found any show-stopping fault with the theory. It just seems impossible, but that could be said of a lot of things we now know to be true, right?"

I don't think the show can start without it's star player, right now there is just "evidence" that he is in the building, but it is circumstantial in that it does not point definitively to HIS presence.

"while the amount of mass calculated from gravitational lensing studies" -FF

The reason for this debate is the claim by the AP community that observations of motion show that calculations of mass are off by 75%. Claiming that "now we've got it right because we added the mass" without a sample of the mass you're adding means that the only place it exists is an equation.



TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jan 22, 2014
I knew was contrary to the known laws of physics and chemistry"
I bet there are lots of these laws we don't know about yet.
and that the patent appeared to involve cold fusion and perpetual motion
Funny how they lump these 2 together. Cold fusion is now LENR and has NASA patents. Maybe if they gave perpetual motion a new name like 'zero point energy' or 'casimir effect' it would work as well.

" I came across an 1899 edition of Punch Magazine that had been donated to Harvard University by the Pulitzer family. In that edition, the comedy magazine offered a look at the "coming century." In colloquy, a genius asked "isn't there a clerk who can examine patents?" A boy replied "Quite unnecessary, Sir. Everything that can be invented has been invented."
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jan 22, 2014
I bet there are lots of these laws we don't know about yet

@Otto
i cannot refute the above.

Since the potential energy of atomic hydrogen is
27.2 eV , one or more ( m ) H atoms can act as a catalyst for a given H by accepting
m ⋅ 27.2 eV from it. Following the nonradiative energy transfer, further energy as characteristic
continuum radiation having a short-wavelength cutoff of m 2 ⋅13.6 eV is released as the hydrino
transitions to a final stable radius of 1/ (1 + m ) that of H

[sic] from the paper
i am not sure it fully explains the mechanism for the catalytic transfer of energy, and it references back to itself/himself/his team too often (41 of 98ref's)

maybe i just dont understand, but it appears, to me, that he is attempting to get more energy out of the system than that put into it with no mechanism or explanation

doesnt this mean a violation of conservation of energy?
this may be where the perpetual motion reference comes from?

i dont know, any ideas?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jan 22, 2014
maybe i just dont understand, but it appears, to me, that he is attempting to get more energy out of the system than that put into it with no mechanism or explanation
Youre right you don't understand. How do I know? I suggest going to a website where there has been much discussion on the subject
http://www.e-catworld.com

-because it's pointless for me to try to repeat what is readily available on the internet. Isn't it?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jan 23, 2014
@Otto
I took your advice
I suggest going to a website where there has been much discussion on the subject

and I found this
In this paper, we have considered the theoretical foundations of the hydrino hypothesis, both within the theoretical framework of CQM, in which hydrinos were originally suggested, and within standard quantum mechanics. We found that CQM is inconsistent and has several serious deficiencies. Amongst these are the failure to reproduce the energy levels of the excited states of the hydrogen atom, and the absence of Lorentz invariance. Most importantly, we found that CQM does not predict the existence of hydrino states!

[sic]
from:
http://iopscience...ulltext/

TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jan 23, 2014
Good for you. But that doesn't answer your question now does it? That being what is blacklights theory for all that power generation, you know, the process that has been reviewed by scientists at MIT and elsewhere and which will be demonstrated on the 28th ?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jan 23, 2014
Good for you. But that doesn't answer your question now does it? That being what is blacklights theory for all that power generation, you know, the process that has been reviewed by scientists at MIT and elsewhere and which will be demonstrated on the 28th ?

it DID answer some of my questions
as for the 28th, i will wait and see
CrossMan
5 / 5 (2) Jan 24, 2014
@no fate
That gizmag article does NOT say that light is bent by a magnetic field. What the researchers did was engineer a crystal structure that modulated the phase of light as it propagated so that the interference results in the light following a curved path LIKE the way a magnetic field bends the path of charged particles. This is why they use the terms "effective magnetic field" or "synthetic magnetic field." The apparent phenomenon is the same, but the underlying physics is quite different. It's an analogy.