Hubble's first frontier field finds thousands of unseen, faraway galaxies

Jan 07, 2014
This long-exposure Hubble Space Telescope image of massive galaxy cluster Abell 2744 is the deepest ever made of any cluster of galaxies. It shows some of the faintest and youngest galaxies ever detected in space. Abell 2744, located in the constellation Sculptor, appears in the foreground of this image. It contains several hundred galaxies as they looked 3.5 billion years ago. The immense gravity in Abell 2744 acts as a gravitational lens to warp space and brighten and magnify images of nearly 3,000 distant background galaxies. The more distant galaxies appear as they did longer than 12 billion years ago, not long after the big bang. This image is part of an unprecedented long-distance view of the universe from an ambitious collaborative project among the NASA Great Observatories called The Frontier Fields. Over the next several years select patches of the sky will be photographed for the purpose of better understanding galaxy evolution. This visible-light and near-infrared composite image was taken with the Wide Field Camera 3. Credit: NASA

(Phys.org) —The first of a set of unprecedented, super-deep views of the universe from an ambitious collaborative program called The Frontier Fields is being released today at the 223rd meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Washington, D.C.

The long-exposure image taken with NASA's Hubble Space Telescope is the deepest-ever picture taken of a cluster of , and also contains images of some of the intrinsically faintest and youngest galaxies ever detected.

The target is the massive cluster Abell 2744, which contains several hundred galaxies as they looked 3.5 billion years ago. The immense gravity in this foreground cluster is being used as a "gravitational lens," which warps space to brighten and magnify images of far more-distant background galaxies as they looked over 12 billion years ago, not long after the big bang.

"The Frontier Fields is an experiment; can we use Hubble's exquisite image quality and Einstein's theory of General Relativity to search for the first galaxies?," said Space Telescope Science Institute Director Matt Mountain. "With the other Great Observatories, we are undertaking an ambitious joint program to use galaxy clusters to explore the first billion years of the universe's history."

Simultaneous observations of this field are being done with NASA's two other Great Observatories, the Spitzer Space Telescope and the Chandra X-ray Observatory. The assembly of all this multispectral information is expected to provide new insights into the origin and evolution of galaxies and their accompanying black holes.

The Hubble exposure reveals nearly 3,000 of these background galaxies interleaved with images of hundreds of foreground galaxies in the cluster. The many background galaxies would otherwise be invisible without the boost from gravitational lensing. Their images not only appear brighter, but also smeared, stretched, and duplicated across the field.

Thanks to the gravitational lensing phenomenon, the background galaxies are magnified to appear up to 10 to 20 times larger than they would normally appear. What's more, the faintest of these highly magnified objects have intrinsic brightnesses roughly 10 to 20 times fainter than any galaxies ever previously observed.

The Hubble data are immediately being made available to the worldwide astronomy community where teams of researchers will do a detailed study of the visual crazy quilt of intermingled background and to better understand the stages of galaxy development.

Though the foreground cluster Abell 2744 has been intensively studied as one of the most massive clusters in the universe, the Frontier Fields exposure reveals new details of the cluster population. Hubble sees dwarf galaxies in the cluster as small as 1/1,000th the mass of the Milky Way. At the other end of the size spectrum, Hubble detects the extended light from several monster central cluster galaxies that are as much as 100 times more massive than our Milky Way. Also visible is faint intra-cluster light from stars inside the cluster that have been stripped out of galaxies by gravitational interactions. These new deep images will also help astronomers map out the dark matter in the cluster with unprecedented detail, by charting its distorting effects on background light. An unseen form of matter, dark matter makes up the bulk of the mass of the cluster.

As the Abell cluster was being photographed with Hubble's Wide Field Camera 3, the telescope's Advanced Camera for Surveys was trained on a nearby parallel field that is 6 arc minutes away from the cluster. In this field, Hubble resolves roughly 10,000 galaxies seen in visible light, most of which are randomly scattered galaxies. The blue galaxies are distant star-forming galaxies seen from up to 8 billion years ago; the handful of larger, red galaxies are in the outskirts of the Abell 2744 cluster.

Hubble will again view these two Frontier Fields in May 2014, but Hubble's visible-light and infrared camera will switch targets. This will allow for both fields to be observed over a full range of colors, from ultraviolet light to near-infrared.

With each new camera installed on Hubble, the has been used to make successively deeper, groundbreaking views of the universe. To get a better assessment of whether doing more deep field observations was scientifically compelling or urgent, the Space Telescope Science Institute or STScI in Baltimore, Md. chartered a "Hubble Deep Field Initiative" working group. The Hubble Frontier Fields initiative grew out of the working group's high-level discussions at STScI concerning what important, forward-looking science Hubble should be doing in upcoming years. Despite several deep field surveys, astronomers realized that a lot was still to be learned about the far universe. Such knowledge would help in planning the observing strategy for the upcoming James Webb Space Telescope.

The astronomers also considered synergies with other observatories, such as Spitzer, Chandra, and the new Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array or ALMA. Over the coming years five more pairs of fields will be imaged. The next scheduled target is the massive cluster MACSJ 0416.1-2403, for which observations are starting this week.

Explore further: NASA's great observatories begin deepest ever probe of the universe

Related Stories

A space-time magnifying glass

May 15, 2013

(Phys.org) —Bright arcs are smeared around the heart of galaxy cluster Abell S1077 in this image taken by the NASA/ESA Hubble space telescope. The arcs are stretched images of distant galaxies distorted ...

NASA Hubble sees sparring antennae galaxies

Nov 18, 2013

The NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope has snapped the best ever image of the Antennae Galaxies. Hubble has released images of these stunning galaxies twice before, once using observations from its Wide Field ...

Recommended for you

The Great Cold Spot in the cosmic microwave background

Sep 19, 2014

The cosmic microwave background (CMB) is the thermal afterglow of the primordial fireball we call the big bang. One of the striking features of the CMB is how remarkably uniform it is. Still, there are some ...

Mystery of rare five-hour space explosion explained

Sep 17, 2014

Next week in St. Petersburg, Russia, scientists on an international team that includes Penn State University astronomers will present a paper that provides a simple explanation for mysterious ultra-long gamma-ray ...

User comments : 42

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

shavera
4.7 / 5 (12) Jan 07, 2014
When we're using GR as a tool, via gravitational lensing, I think that's a sufficient case against the GR haters.
Returners
1.3 / 5 (16) Jan 07, 2014
When we're using GR as a tool, via gravitational lensing, I think that's a sufficient case against the GR haters.


No, it just shows how fallacious astrophysics really is. For example, in the article they talk about Dark Matter as though they definitely know it's nature to be actual "Matter" when they know no such thing, and have no evidence whatsoever to corroborate the conjecture that "Dark Matter" even has mass.

Why does Dark Matter have the opposite density distribution to OM if you assume it actually is a massive substance? The ordinary amtter objects show us that the bulk of mass "wants" to be concetrated near the center of systems. Yet the proposed "Dark Matter" grows in amount, and at other times stays about the same, as you go out from the center of mass and density of ordinary matter. Thus the "Dark Matter" does not at all behave like the distribution of massive substances we can already see. Because of this, there is actually good reason to believe it isn't matter.
Q-Star
4.7 / 5 (14) Jan 07, 2014
@ Returners,

Ya might wish to study up on what the astrophysicists actually say and think before ya make such absurd remarks. Ya obviously have no idea what the conventional thoughts on dark matter are or how ordinary and dark matter interact in the cosmos.

Dark matter does have mass, it must have mass, that is the way we detect it. It doesn't collapse into compact dense objects because of the nature of being "dark" only interacts through gravity. It can not radiate away energy as ordinary matter does which is necessary for dense bodies of matter to undergo collapse. That is why it remains in halos of mostly uniform density.

It doesn't "grow in amount" whatever that means. It was frozen out in the early universe and remains a constant quantity.

Ya would do well to begin with learning the first principles before ya start trying to explain what makes sense and what does not make sense.
Returners
1 / 5 (15) Jan 07, 2014
Anyway, as I was saying, there is good reason NOT to believe DM actually is matter or "mass," since it has opposite apparent distribution to ordinary matter.

there are several common sense possibilities:

1, Theory Error in Relativity/Gravity theory.

2, Math and/or interpretation error. Galaxy models don't at all do the proper calculation. This is known, so how can take seriously alleged mass discrepancies attributed to alleged DM?

3, Unrelated/unknown force (Beats DM theory since DM doesn't behave like mass) .

If DM was actually "Mass" in the form of particles, 4 or 5 times as common as OM, then why don't "Stellar Mass" black holes grow exponentially, from capturing this invisible stuff, after their Event Horizon forms?

Why don't SMBH grow exponentially right before our eyes? The amount of alleged Dark Matter you people propose dwarfs even the largest known SMBH to the point that it should be falling into them always.

The obvious answer is that Dark Matter simply is not mass
Returners
1 / 5 (13) Jan 07, 2014
It doesn't "grow in amount" whatever that means. It was frozen out in the early universe and remains a constant quantity.


Reading comprehension that bad, eh?

By "Growing in amount" I was talking about the physical distribution as you move outward from the center of a galaxy, not the amount changing in time.

Fact is the density distribution increases (or grows, idiot) as you move outward from the center of a galaxy, IF you believe the bogus claim that the DM is a massive particle.

Ya would do well to begin with learning the first principles before ya start trying to explain what makes sense and what does not make sense.


You'd do well to establish at least a 5th grade English reading comprehension before replying to me.

Also, even weakly interacting particles would be captured and permanently trapped by a black hole of any size, or often even just the gravity field of a star.
Zephir_fan
Jan 07, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Returners
1.7 / 5 (13) Jan 07, 2014
Get this everyone, the Mystery "Massive" Dark Matter particles just magically avoid being concentrated in the Hub of the galaxy, where we find the highest concentration of the Ordinary Matter we know and see.

In fact, based on the absurd theory, little or no DM appears in the hubs of galaxies, even though there is no sensical reason for it not to be there if it were an actual massive particle. If it were massive, then it should behave the same basic way (interacting or not) and have a very similar distribution (interacting or not,) yet whatever DM is, the "Mystery voodoo particles" the mainstream believes in simply do not behave like massive particles.

It does not behave like a distribution of massive particles.

It behaves like a math error, or rather the misapplication of a mathematical formula, namely not doing the correct n-body calculation on stellar masses within galaxies.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (13) Jan 07, 2014
Reading comprehension that bad, eh?


So it's my fault if ya don't express yourself clearly?

Fact is the density distribution increases (or grows, idiot) as you move outward from the center of a galaxy,


Fact is the density does NOT increase as you move outward, it stays relatively uniform.

Ya would do well to begin with learning the first principles before ya start trying to explain what makes sense and what does not make sense.


You'd do well to establish at least a 5th grade English reading comprehension before replying to me.


Ya would do well to learn simple physics before posting such comments on a site where many of the posters know physics intimately.

Also, even weakly interacting particles would be captured and permanently trapped by a black hole of any size, or often even just the gravity field of a star.


Who said they don't fall into a BH if they get to close? WIMPs do just as anything else does, why does that imply anything?
Zephir_fan
Jan 07, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
IMP-9
5 / 5 (10) Jan 07, 2014
1, Theory Error in Relativity/Gravity theory.

2...

3, Unrelated/unknown force


4. Models of galaxies are incomplete as is our understanding of matter. i.e. dark matter

2 is flat out wrong. people have been checking the numbers for decades it's a simple calculation. So we have possibilities 1,3 and 4. Common sense has nothing to do with it, that prejudice, so we build models and attempts to build one which reflects reality. This is what people are doing, all 3 possibilities are being explored and have been for some time. Dark matter is the dominant idea because it is the most successful model. That may change but at the moment that's how it is.

Dark matter is not "distributed oppositely to matter", if it were it would fill the void between galaxies. instead it clumps around them. Not all mass needs to behave like baryonic mass, even MACHOS could form a halo in a different distribution to the luminous matter. DM is concentrated at the galactic center in models.
IMP-9
5 / 5 (12) Jan 07, 2014
If DM was actually "Mass" in the form of particles, 4 or 5 times as common as OM, then why don't "Stellar Mass" black holes grow exponentially, from capturing this invisible stuff, after their Event Horizon forms?


If it has no mechanism of friction then there is little to cause it to actually accrete onto the black hole. Most of the material that falls towards a black hole misses but fiction in the accretion disk or with debris can cause it to fall in. If it's nonbaryonic then there would be no friction. DM also isn't very dense, it makes up an enormous halo but it's thinly spread. Run some calculations and actually see how fast it would grow.
Captain Stumpy
4.8 / 5 (9) Jan 07, 2014
Returners
they talk about Dark Matter as though they definitely know it's nature to be actual "Matter" when they know no such thing,


You should read these links BEFORE you say anything worse:
https://en.wikipe...k_matter
Dark matter cannot be seen directly with telescopes; evidently it neither emits nor absorbs light or other electromagnetic radiation at any significant level. It is otherwise hypothesized to simply be matter that is not reactant to light.[1] Instead, the existence and properties of dark matter are inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter, radiation, and the large-scale structure of the universe


therefore, we can see that it has EFFECTS, but we cannot see the actual item, as it does NOT interact with light.
it also affects gravity and has mass,
therefore it is either a catholic or it is MATTER.
i am putting money on MATTER.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (10) Jan 07, 2014
Returners babbles on:
By "Growing in amount" I was talking about the physical distribution as you move outward from the center of a galaxy, not the amount changing in time.
Fact is the density distribution increases (or grows, idiot) as you move outward from the center of a galaxy, IF you believe the bogus claim that the DM is a massive particle.

References please

You'd do well to establish at least a 5th grade English reading comprehension before replying to me.

seems to me that it is YOU who is having comprehension problems. I TOLD you to get those meds checked! The ones YOU posted are contra-indicated.

You really SHOULD pay attention to Q-Star when he says
Ya would do well to learn simple physics before posting such comments on a site where many of the posters know physics intimately.

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Jan 07, 2014
Returners pokes himself in the eye with this one
It does not behave like a distribution of massive particles.
It behaves like a math error, or rather the misapplication of a mathematical formula, namely not doing the correct n-body calculation on stellar masses within galaxies.

references please?

@Q-Star and anyone else wishing to know
he has been in other posts pushing Creation science as well.
See: http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
returners posted:
So technically, the God of the Bible, by definition, must exist, since he is defined in the Bible as being the governing principle of the universe (among other things).


as I posted before, Returners:
Faith has NO PLACE in Science. It breeds fanaticism and by definition exempts itself from Scientific knowledge or logic

keep your fanaticism to itself as it has no basis in fact or scientific proof. only in your faith and your belief system.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 07, 2014
Dark Matter particles just magically avoid being concentrated in the Hub of the galaxy
-But only a little research tells us that according to current scientific theory:

"The visible disk of the Milky Way Galaxy is embedded in a much larger, roughly spherical halo of dark matter. The dark matter density drops off with distance from the galactic center"

-and there are many similar references such as this one:

"Probing a dark matter density spike at the Galactic Center
Thomas Lacroix, Celine Boehm, Joseph Silk
(Submitted on 1 Nov 2013)"

-and:

"Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope reveal an excess of gamma-rays coming from the galactic center that could be produced as particles of dark matter annihilate one another..."
http://news.scien...r-galaxy

-So it seems YOUR theory is based on a fundamental misunderstanding and lack of info.

AGAIN.
Benni
5 / 5 (4) Jan 07, 2014
".......the Frontier Fields exposure reveals new details of the cluster population. Hubble sees dwarf galaxies in the cluster as small as 1/1,000th the mass of the Milky Way. At the other end of the size spectrum, Hubble detects the extended light from several monster central cluster galaxies that are as much as 100 times more massive than our Milky Way."

........above copied from the article itself was the most interesting part. Galaxies 12 Gly distance that are even more massive than Andromeda as well as our own. This has repercussions that may very well stand on end the present consensus of the hypotheses of galaxy formation in the early universe. Leaves me to wondering what "stuffs" those galaxies were formed of then & their content now.

Zephir_fan
Jan 07, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (6) Jan 07, 2014
I tell you lurker/qc/returner I admire your sincerity and enthusiasm. But it appears you're operating under some extremely distorted and inflated misperceptions about your ability to reason. Have you heard this before?

You latch on to ideas as if no one could have thought of them but you. You fail to do any research to find out if this were true or not, and you fail to check or confirm what you think you remember from 10yo tv shows.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Jan 07, 2014
I tell you lurker/qc/returner I admire your sincerity and enthusiasm. But it appears you're operating under some extremely distorted and inflated misperceptions about your ability to reason. Have you heard this before?

He has - many times

You latch on to ideas as if no one could have thought of them but you. ...

Maybe that delusional conduct will end when he sees the doc re the possible side affects of the mixing of 2 of those meds he's taking...
And Returners. When Q talks about astro-physics, you might want to take him at his word. Not 100% sure, but I think it's his job. Yours seems to be more of a pharmacological nature...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Jan 08, 2014
".......the Frontier Fields exposure reveals new details of the cluster population. Hubble sees dwarf galaxies in the cluster as small as 1/1,000th the mass of the Milky Way. At the other end of the size spectrum, Hubble detects the extended light from several monster central cluster galaxies that are as much as 100 times more massive than our Milky Way."

........above copied from the article itself was the most interesting part. Galaxies 12 Gly distance that are even more massive than Andromeda as well as our own. This has repercussions that may very well stand on end the present consensus of the hypotheses of galaxy formation in the early universe. Leaves me to wondering what "stuffs" those galaxies were formed of then & their content now.

Less heavy elements?
davidivad
1 / 5 (8) Jan 08, 2014
these threads are proof that evolutionists have no more to offer than creationists and religious fanatics. it is my concern that current evolutionist trends are a form of reverse darwinism. you cannot remove religious freedoms because you prove you have nothing better to offer.
Drjsa_oba
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 08, 2014
these threads are proof that evolutionists have no more to offer than creationists and religious fanatics. it is my concern that current evolutionist trends are a form of reverse darwinism. you cannot remove religious freedoms because you prove you have nothing better to offer.


What has this thread got to do with evolution. And how does that relate to your definition of Darwinism?
Drjsa_oba
5 / 5 (4) Jan 08, 2014
The night sky view from some of those galaxies must be pretty spectacular. Imagine looking up and seeing a galaxy taking up a large chunk of the night sky.

I know we can see the 'clouds' in the night sky from here, but a full on spiral galaxy would be much more impressive.
ROBTHEGOB
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 08, 2014
Perhaps DM exists, and perhaps it does not. Our understanding of the universe, including physics, is limited by our perception, which is limited by our biology. Also, most humans have cultural and academic assumptions, which often distort our supposed impartial scientific discussions. As for religion, the Bible says that no man has seen God. Neither has any man seen gravity; this does not mean that they do not exist.
davidivad
3 / 5 (2) Jan 08, 2014
@drjsa;

i am tired of reading threads involving people bashing each other. my comment was not intended to be taken literally.

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Jan 08, 2014
Perhaps DM exists, and perhaps it does not. Our understanding of the universe, including physics, is limited by our perception, which is limited by our biology.

@ROBTHEGOB
"dark matter" (DM) is just a place holder term. It is shorter than saying "that funky stuff that we know is there because we can measure its effects but we can't tell what it is because it doesn't interact with light or give off light"
it's MUCH shorter to just say DM. Think of the term DM like using X in algebra, it is representative of an unknown variable which we know will have some result, but we are unsure what it is as of yet.
We WILL solve it eventually.

as for religion... it just has no place in science. science is about proof. religion is about the LACK of proof.
the two just DONT mix.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 08, 2014
@drjsa;

i am tired of reading threads involving people bashing each other. my comment was not intended to be taken literally.



@davidivad

serious question here: then why post it?

it seems to be baiting someone into a response or into a discussion...
Benni
5 / 5 (1) Jan 08, 2014
Galaxies 12 Gly distance that are even more massive than Andromeda as well as our own. This has repercussions that may very well stand on end the present consensus of the hypotheses of galaxy formation in the early universe. Leaves me to wondering what "stuffs" those galaxies were formed of then & their content now.


Less heavy elements?


Yep, that's what I'm wondering about. This will become a big topic of discussion in our astronomy club at the next meeting. Are those huge massive galaxies that are being reported just precursors to the apparent more prolific quantity of smaller ones? That seems to me to be the really big question. I wished the report could have come up with some kind of ratio & compared that to our local cluster of large to small galaxies & types. Hope there will soon be followups to this observation.
davidivad
1 / 5 (2) Jan 08, 2014
@captain stumpy;

only for those who need it.

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Jan 08, 2014
The night sky view from some of those galaxies must be pretty spectacular. Imagine looking up and seeing a galaxy taking up a large chunk of the night sky.

I know we can see the 'clouds' in the night sky from here, but a full on spiral galaxy would be much more impressive.

We USED to be able to see the Milky Way...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Jan 08, 2014
these threads are proof that evolutionists have no more to offer than creationists and religious fanatics. it is my concern that current evolutionist trends are a form of reverse darwinism. you cannot remove religious freedoms because you prove you have nothing better to offer.

C'mon. This thread has nothing to do with evolution. Someone saw early galaxies - let's talk about THAT...
skippy_skippys
5 / 5 (1) Jan 08, 2014
Ya would do well to learn simple physics before posting such comments on a site where many of the posters know physics intimately.


@ Q-Skippy don't mind him no, he likes to pull the stuffs out of his ass and post them here. The poor couyon really thinks he has scientifical stuffs down pat.


Yet the crank returners may actually say something correct before a time about it simply by the volume of their posts, which is a more probability for it then the stupid troll zephir_fan who says no points.

Is the crank better or worse than the troll, zephir_fan skippy ira? The crank posts incorrect stuffs that gets the learning by the QStar and like good peoples so the readers of the comments learn again too, no?, but the Ira Skippy says nothing of value for anyone to increase their knowing with it.
Zephir_fan
Jan 08, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
skippy_skippys
5 / 5 (1) Jan 08, 2014
Is the crank better or worse than the troll, zephir_fan skippy ira? The crank posts incorrect stuffs that gets the learning by the QStar and like good peoples so the readers of the comments learn again too, no?, but the Ira Skippy says nothing of value for anyone to increase their knowing with it.


Exactimaint, which is why you get the good karma points. But the Returnering Lurker Skippy not getting the hint, eh Neg? He is the grand couyon like that.


No it is the zephir_fan boat monkey who does not get the hint of it. It is the cranks and incorrect posters that have the more value than the useless trolls like you ira-skippy. You didn't even getting this point from me before.

couyon ? The ghostofotto likes to use other languages insults too. Is the Ira his pet?
Zephir_fan
Jan 08, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ROBTHEGOB
1 / 5 (3) Jan 09, 2014
Captain Stumpy: I have no opinion about dark matter either pro or con; your explanation may be correct. Further explorations will no doubt improve our understanding of the nature of matter. As for the existence of a God or supernatural being of another name, I would not rule that out; a true scientist has an open mind and if not a believer, would at least be agnostic. A good book to read is "God and the Astronomers" by Robert Jastrow.
rockwolf1000
5 / 5 (2) Jan 09, 2014
Captain Stumpy: I have no opinion about dark matter either pro or con; your explanation may be correct. Further explorations will no doubt improve our understanding of the nature of matter. As for the existence of a God or supernatural being of another name, I would not rule that out; a true scientist has an open mind and if not a believer, would at least be agnostic. A good book to read is "God and the Astronomers" by Robert Jastrow.


Are you suggesting that a good scientist should also consider the existence of leprechauns, unicorns, fairies, mermaids, minotaurs and the Kraken?
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (1) Jan 09, 2014
and have no evidence whatsoever to corroborate the conjecture that "Dark Matter" even has mass.


Quite the contrary, there is a significant amount of evidence that it has mass. All the variable gravity explanations about the orbital speeds within galaxies and lensing anomalies don't explain things as well as DM. Come up with a better idea and people will listen....
rockwolf1000
5 / 5 (1) Jan 09, 2014
and have no evidence whatsoever to corroborate the conjecture that "Dark Matter" even has mass.


Quite the contrary, there is a significant amount of evidence that it has mass. All the variable gravity explanations about the orbital speeds within galaxies and lensing anomalies don't explain things as well as DM. Come up with a better idea and people will listen....


Exactly. My understanding is that mass was the first known property of DM. Actually the mass, and hence the gravity, was discovered before DM was even postulated and is the reason why it was postulated in the first place. ie. invisible mass and gravity source.
ROBTHEGOB
3 / 5 (2) Jan 09, 2014
rockwolf: I am just saying that a good scientist should keep an open mind; there are many things we don't understand.
rockwolf1000
5 / 5 (1) Jan 09, 2014
rockwolf: I am just saying that a good scientist should keep an open mind; there are many things we don't understand.


Indeed. I am still quite uncomfortable with the underlying concepts of both DE and DM as of yet. Waiting for other explanations eagerly!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jan 12, 2014
@ROBTHEGOB
I have no opinion about dark matter either pro or con; your explanation may be correct. Further explorations will no doubt improve our understanding of the nature of matter.

WRT dark matter- just telling you what we HAVE measured, and letting you know that we still dont know WHAT it is...
as you say "Further explorations"...
As for the existence of a God or supernatural being of another name, I would not rule that out; a true scientist has an open mind and if not a believer, would at least be agnostic. A good book to read is "God and the Astronomers" by Robert Jastrow

religion has no place in science. They dont mix. Religion is about faith, which is, by definition, non-provable (belief in the absence of proof)
SCIENCE is about PROOF.
And I always keep an open mind. But if you dont draw the line somewhere, you are likely to be suckered (see Creation science- which is NOT SCIENCE)
Benni
4.5 / 5 (2) Jan 12, 2014
Just hordes & hordes of galaxies, mind boggling to say the least. Too bad the article didn't mentioned the the most distant ones are at a redshift of z=10 about 13.2 Gly. Go to First Galaxies to get better info.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Jan 14, 2014
".......the Frontier Fields exposure reveals new details of the cluster population. Hubble sees dwarf galaxies in the cluster as small as 1/1,000th the mass of the Milky Way. At the other end of the size spectrum, Hubble detects the extended light from several monster central cluster galaxies that are as much as 100 times more massive than our Milky Way."

........above copied from the article itself was the most interesting part. Galaxies 12 Gly distance that are even more massive than Andromeda as well as our own. ...


Have another read, the galaxies described in the section you quote are in the Abell cluster, not the background.
Osteta
Jan 14, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Jan 14, 2014
For example, in the article they talk about Dark Matter as though they definitely know it's nature to be actual "Matter" when they know no such thing, and have no evidence whatsoever to corroborate the conjecture that "Dark Matter" even has mass.


If it had no mass, it would have to move at the speed of light so would exceed escape velocity for the clusters. The fact that it is localised means it must have mass.

Why does Dark Matter have the opposite density distribution to OM if you assume it actually is a massive substance?


It doesn't, it is best described by the Einasto or Navarro–Frenk–White profiles in both of which the density falls with radius.

http://upload.wik...asto.jpg

http://ned.ipac.c...re20.jpg

or on linear scales:

http://inspirehep...fig3.png
Osteta
Jan 14, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Osteta
Jan 14, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 14, 2014
Somewhat ironically, most of this lensing comes from dark matter, which does violate the GR (until we find the material particles responsible for it).

@Osteta
not sure I understand this... how can lensing from dark matter (DM) violate general relativity (GR)?
Osteta
Jan 14, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 16, 2014
Osteta writes
Because the DM does the "gravitational" lensing with no apparent matter responsible for it

and you know this based upon what?
DM is not regular matter, nor is it visible to known methods
so:
References / Links please
the presence of dark matter violates the behavior of general relativity even for matter, which is residing inside of it

what do you mean "residing inside of it"
then:
references / links please
why they don't merge seamlessly with the observable matter

you are assuming that DM is regular matter
whereas we already know that it is NOT normal regular matter

are you making these assumptions based upon a hypothesis that you are going to share that you believe explains everything?