Dark matter satellites trigger massive birth of stars

March 9, 2016 by Sean Nealon
A dwarf galaxy with a starburst. Credit: UC Riverside

One of the main predictions of the current model of the creation of structures in the universe, known at the Lambda Cold Dark Matter model, is that galaxies are embedded in very extended and massive halos of dark matter that are surrounded by many thousands of smaller sub-halos also made from dark matter.

Around large galaxies, such as the Milky Way, these dark matter sub-halos are large enough to host enough gas and dust to form on their own, and some of these galactic companions, known as , can be observed. These satellite galaxies can orbit for billions of years around their host before a potential merger. Mergers cause the central galaxy to add large amount of gas and stars, triggering violent episodes of new star formation—known as starbursts—due to the excess gas brought in by the companion. The host's shape or morphology can also be disturbed due to the gravitational interaction.

Smaller halos form dwarf galaxies, which at the same time will be orbited by even smaller satellite sub-halos of which are now far too tiny to have gas or stars in them. These dark satellites therefore are invisible to telescopes, but readily appear in run in computer simulations. A direct observation of their interaction with their is required to prove their existence.

Laura Sales, an assistant professor at the University of California, Riverside's Department of Physics and Astronomy, collaborated with Tjitske Starkenburg and Amina Helmi, both of the Kapteyn Astronomical Institute in The Netherlands, to present a novel analysis of computer simulations, based on theoretical models, that study the interaction of a with a dark satellite.

The findings were outlined in a just-published paper, "Dark influences II: gas and star formation in minor mergers of dwarf galaxies with dark satellites," in the journal Astronomy & Astrophysics.

The researchers found that during a dark satellite's closest approach to a dwarf galaxy, through gravity it compresses the gas in the dwarf, triggering significant episodes of starbursts. These star forming episodes may last for several billions of years, depending on the mass, orbit and concentration of the dark satellite.

This scenario predicts that many of the dwarf galaxies that we readily observe today should be forming stars at a higher rate than expected —or should be experiencing a starburst— which is exactly what telescope observations have found.

Furthermore, similarly to mergers between more massive galaxies, the interaction between the dwarf galaxy and the dark satellite triggers morphological disturbances in the dwarf, which can completely change its structure from mainly disk-shaped to a spherical/elliptical system. This mechanism also offers an explanation to the origin of isolated spheroidal dwarf , a puzzle that has remained unsolved for several decades.

Explore further: Galaxy quakes could improve hunt for dark matter

Related Stories

Galaxy quakes could improve hunt for dark matter

January 7, 2016

A trio of brightly pulsating stars at the outskirts of the Milky Way is racing away from the galaxy and may confirm a method for detecting dwarf galaxies dominated by dark matter and explain ripples in the outer disk of the ...

Mapping dark matter from galactic ripples

January 9, 2012

(PhysOrg.com) -- Sukanya Chakrabarti, Ph.D., an assistant professor of physics for the Charles E. Schmidt College of Science at Florida Atlantic University, has developed a way to discover and map dark matter in galaxies. ...

Recommended for you

Mars and Earth may not have been early neighbors

December 18, 2017

A study published in the journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters posits that Mars formed in what today is the Asteroid Belt, roughly one and a half times as far from the sun as its current position, before migrating to ...

No alien 'signals' from cigar-shaped asteroid: researchers

December 14, 2017

No alien signals have been detected from an interstellar, cigar-shaped space rock discovered travelling through our Solar System in October, researchers listening for evidence of extraterrestrial technology said Thursday.

78 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Phys1
3.5 / 5 (11) Mar 09, 2016
Tuxford? The work involves mergers.
Bigbangcon
2.9 / 5 (15) Mar 09, 2016
"Around large galaxies, such as the Milky Way, these dark matter sub-halos are large enough to host enough gas and dust to form small galaxies on their own, and some of these galactic companions, known as satellite galaxies, can be observed......These dark satellites therefore are invisible to telescopes, but readily appear in theoretical models run in computer simulations. A direct observation of their interaction with their host galaxies is required to prove their existence."

They absolutely know nothing about so-called "dark matter" and no one knows whether they exist al all! And here they are making simulation on theory! But simulation will give them back only as much the garbage they put in in the first place. I often see very little correspondence between the weather forecast based on the simulation of even REAL and known atmospheric data and here they are talking about the simulation of unknown unknowns!
And here is me thinking that fairy tales are absurd!



Bigbangcon
2.9 / 5 (15) Mar 09, 2016
And also, where does the "gas and dust" in "these dark matter sub-halos" come from? Are these "produced" by some magic from the fictitious "dark matter" or do these come from the mother galaxy? Even logic fails us! Ambartsumian and Arp and few others spent their whole creative astronomy career studying the dissipation, evaporation, ejection of matter from large mother galaxies giving rise to satellite galaxies; but here we see "Tuxford's merger maniacs" giving the exact opposite picture! "Black Magic", thy name is official astrophysics!
Phys1
3.1 / 5 (17) Mar 09, 2016
@Bigbangcon
All of your questions have reasonable answers within the context of DM.
Knowing your activity here, it is pointless to produce these again.
You can not draw conclusions from the fact that you do not have or accept these answers.
You would have to prove that these have no viable answers, but they do so you can't.
Also, it is now well known that Arp was wrong. It happens. Learn to live with it.
Tuxford
2.1 / 5 (9) Mar 09, 2016
This mechanism also offers an explanation to the origin of isolated spheroidal dwarf galaxies, a puzzle that has remained unsolved for several decades.


Yes, merger maniacs in desperate search for yet another patch. In LaViolette's model, these isolated galaxies grow naturally from within, without the need for inventing unseen magic matter.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (14) Mar 09, 2016
Tuxford? The work involves mergers.
@Phys1
well... you called that one on the nose!!

all we need now are the eu nut-jobs, anti-gravity expansion trolls, conspiratorial "aliens built the pyramids before destroying atlantis"or similar crowd and religious fanatics...

in 5...
4...
...
Gigel
3.8 / 5 (10) Mar 10, 2016
In LaViolette's model, these isolated galaxies grow naturally from within, without the need for inventing unseen magic matter.

Isn't the "grow naturally from within" a kind of magic?
I'm cautious about theories that break conservation laws, as they can easily run into something like exponential growth that can quickly fill the whole universe with some infinitely dense form of matter, which would question the existence of the universe in the end.
Phys1
2.5 / 5 (8) Mar 10, 2016
Tuxford? The work involves mergers.
@Phys1
well... you called that one on the nose!!

all we need now are the eu nut-jobs, anti-gravity expansion trolls, conspiratorial "aliens built the pyramids before destroying atlantis"or similar crowd and religious fanatics...

in 5...
4...
...

Thought I'd beat him to it.
Bigbangcon
1.8 / 5 (8) Mar 10, 2016
@ Gigel
"Isn't the "grow naturally from within" a kind of magic?"

No. The QED and dialectics based Arp-Malek hypothesis can explain the formation, the evolution, the dynamics and the structures of the galaxies and of the universe in general. The quantum vacuum exist as a virtual reality in "dialectical unity of the opposites" with the material universe. Both are infinite in space and time. The quantum vacuum (containing virtual particles) can produce as well as absorb elementary matter particles through quantum fluctuation and tunnelling processes, following the Uncertainty Principle. These Matter particles accumulate to form celestial structures. The universe is therefore is infinite, eternal, ever changing, like a living, self-regenerated entity.

http://redshift.v...2MAL.pdf

http://www.ptep-o...9-04.PDF

http://www.amazon...40414445

Contd. below:
Bigbangcon
2.1 / 5 (9) Mar 10, 2016
Contd. from above

This process is facilitated where chance-accumulated matter already exists in high concentration, like the galactic cores. Both matter and antimatter are created and chance-accumulate more within the galaxies. The large-scale annihilation process of matter-antimatter provides the energetics and the dynamics in the universe.

http://www.ptep-o...9-03.PDF

http://redshift.v...2MAL.pdf

So the mighty Big Bang "free lunch", and the mathematics driven fairy tales of the workings of the dark/black monsters, or a one-time and a magic-created finite universe etc., are un-necessary to understand and to explain the universe.
Gigel
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 10, 2016
Well, magic could explain the universe too. Why wouldn't the Arp Malek theory be magic? Why would the Big Bang be more magical than an eternal, infinite universe? By our common experiences, it is reasonable to presume that the universe appeared at one time and that it may also disappear; we really don't know much about the inner workings of eternal things. Also, living things don't simply regenerate, they are born and die. So why would the Arp Malek theory be better than current ones?
Bigbangcon
2.5 / 5 (8) Mar 10, 2016
@ Gigel
It is because Arp-Malek universe does not need any mystery, a creation by a supernatural being, no "first cause" mystery or the divine push on a button. The universe is living in a sense that it is dynamic, ever-changing, not a entity fixed in quantity and quality. There is no leap (of Big Bang etc.) in this universe, because it consists of (infinite) leaps both qualitative and quantitative!

This hypothesis can explain what is known so far in the observable universe, better than the idealized mathematics derived theories which are based on mysteries and creation stories and in turn only generates more and more "mysteries". It corresponds to our historical experience on this planet. We are part of the dialectical process by which the universe, nature, life, society and consciousness (thought) evolve. We progressively know the infinite by knowing the finite. The finite and the infinite are dialectical "unity of the opposites", like the real-virtual universe.
Tuxford
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 10, 2016
Isn't the "grow naturally from within" a kind of magic?
I'm cautious about theories that break conservation laws, as they can easily run into something like exponential growth that can quickly fill the whole universe with some infinitely dense form of matter, which would question the existence of the universe in the end.


The model doe not break conservation laws. The laws must simply be applied to the larger structure that is the universe. Science misses the unseen undetectable since it cannot fathom systems dynamics and the implications therefrom.

The universe includes this larger undetectable structure. Our detectable universe is simply a subset of this larger structure which is present everywhere, occupying the same physical space in which we exist. The new matter entering our subset comes from this unseen undetectable larger structure. We are simply the salt in the ocean.
Bigbangcon
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 10, 2016
The universe includes this larger undetectable structure. Our detectable universe is simply a subset of this larger structure which is present everywhere, occupying the same physical space in which we exist. The new matter entering our subset comes from this unseen undetectable larger structure. We are simply the salt in the ocean.

This does not add up! This universe is as mysterious as the "Big Bang" as well as Hoyle-Narlikar "Steady State" universe! The "undetectable larger structure" is where God or the "mystery" resides and feeds "new matter" to "our subset" when, where and the amount necessary?

Quantum dynamics and dialectics is mediated by "chance and necessity" and not "cause and effect", which we depend on in classical physics and everyday life experience and which always lead to a "first cause" - a mystery! Conservation laws are valid only in classical physics - not in quantum dynamics and dialectics. This is the reason Einstein rejected quantum dynamics!
Phys1
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 10, 2016
Conservation laws are valid only in classical physics - not in quantum dynamics

They are also valid in QM

and dialectics.

whatever
This is the reason Einstein rejected quantum dynamics!

Did he?
Bigbangcon
3 / 5 (6) Mar 10, 2016
Conservation laws are valid only in classical physics - not in quantum dynamics

They are also valid in QM

and dialectics.

whatever
This is the reason Einstein rejected quantum dynamics!

Did he?


You have no idea on the quantum phenomena and Einstein's life-long stance on it, then?

The creation of the Big Bang and the Higgs field (that gives mass/energy to the quantum particles in QFT), do not break the conservation laws? From where and how does mass/energy come? Official physicists say, "these are the ultimate free lunch!" If you say it comes from God, where does God get it from, without breaking the conservation laws? My last post for now, Adieu!
Phys1
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 10, 2016
What has the Big Bang to do with quantum mechanics ?
Gigel
3.8 / 5 (10) Mar 11, 2016
If the universe is eternal, then where are the red dwarfs in their late stages of life?
Where are the second or third generation stars formed directly from heavier elements like carbon or silicon? Those should be particularly easy to detect, as they are low mass and very hot.
Where are the iron brown dwarfs, which are formed straight from iron and don't burn much but should be hot after being formed?
Where are the intermediate-mass black holes that should form from smaller ones given enough time?
And where are all those civilisations that should trample upon us at any instant if the universe is eternal?
Bigbangcon
2 / 5 (8) Mar 11, 2016
If the universe is eternal, then where are the red dwarfs in their late stages of life? etc.?


For quantum dynamics and dialectics everything in the universe from the quantum level to the macroscopic (galactic) level, comes into being in their various ways, have finite existence and goes out of existence at various time scale; nothing endures!. But the universe as a dynamic process and the "unity of the opposites" (of being-nothing) always exits. It can never be all "being" or all "nothing" - an impossible unchanging state!

An alternative view (as it prevails now) has to depend on an omnipotent and omniscient power to create the universe in one-go in the finite past and also finite in extent - this view is convenient for theology, and mathematics, because among other limitations, they can only deal with the finite and cannot comprehend the infinite. Please see the article on the "Infinite" in the references I provided in my comments above
Gigel
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 11, 2016
As they get older, red dwarfs become hotter, turning into so-called blue dwarfs (because they would appear as blue small mass stars). If the universe is infinite, then there should be hot red dwarfs and blue dwarfs out there and they would be easier to detect than cool red dwarfs that are already known. But where are they?

Mathematics can deal with infinites in a rigorous way; check for Lebesgue and other set measures or the aleph notation. Theology can accept the infinite; it was the first part of human knowledge to talk about the infinite.
Benni
2.8 / 5 (9) Mar 11, 2016
Zwicky's DM Cosmic Fairy Dust is the most glaring example of the pinnacle of pseudo-science that pop-sci aficionados have ever quaffed on.

In private meetings, Einstein warned Zwicky to keep his DM away from our solar system, this because he (Einstein) had already proven 20 years earlier in his Photon Deflection calculations (made within 0.02% error), that there could no DM in our Sun or anywhere else in the solar system.

All the pop-sci aficionados who live day by day on this site should take up a study of the section of General Relativity in which Einstein did his calculations for Photon Deflection. If you'd actually study that section of GR, you's better understand why Zwicky was smart enough to keep his Cosmic Fairy Dust in envelopes surrounding Spiral Galaxies, to prevent all that hypothesized gravity from coming into conflict with Einsteins field equations in his calculations for the mass of the Sun in turn leading to his calculations for Photon Deflection.

Bigbangcon
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 11, 2016
How do you know that red dwarfs become hotter and turn into blue dwarf. How do red dwarf turn hotter when their fusion process cannot go beyond hydrogen turning into helium and hydrogen content is exhausted?

The Inquisition burnt Giordano Bruno alive on the Stake for claiming that the universe is infinite! Einstein had to assume a finite universe, because his Machian principle based cosmology collapses in an infinite universe, If Mach's principle is followed, then an infinite universe means that the inertia and the mass of atoms etc. also become infinite! Also, Einstein's geometry and mathematics based theories are helpless in such an universe, where expansion, contraction, size, shape, quantity, measure, numbers etc. of an infinite entity has no meaning! In mathematics, Cantor's pursuit of the infinite led him to the ridiculous idea of the "infinity of infinities", and no other mathematicians followed his steps. More than one infinite means that these are mere finites! Adieu!
Gigel
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 11, 2016
Red dwarfs turn blue while still burning hydrogen:

http://onlinelibr...abstract

Anyway, say they cool down as they age. In an eternal universe one would expect old red dwarfs to exist. They would have anomalous temperatures wrt. their mass according to current stellar evolution theories. So where are they if the universe is eternal? Where are all the other old objects, trillions of years old, that should appear in an eternal universe?

Btw, there is more than one infinite. Integers and reals form infinite sets. But integers are also reals. There is a hierarchy of infinites in set theory. It's easy to jump above an infinite set by taking the set of parts of the first set.
TehDog
5 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2016
Ah, infinities, fascinating things :)
https://en.wikipe...nd_Hotel
Sorry about all the numbers and equations, but that's maths for you :]
If you can find a copy of https://en.wikipe...novel%29
it explains a lot of stuff without too many numbers (alas, my copy has long since disappeared)
RealityCheck
3.2 / 5 (9) Mar 11, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
What has the Big Bang to do with quantum mechanics ?
Keep up, mate. The latest version of BBang scenario trying to reconcile Relativity with Quantum theory is that the 'bang' resulted from a QUANTUM FLUCTUATION in a PRE-EXISTING universal context. Apparently the said quantum fluctuation did not self-cancel and EVOLVED to what was termed "Big Bang" inflation/expansion 'event' starting NOT from 'nothing' but a previous context in which a quantum fluctuation did not cancel itself out. The question now is: What was that pre-big bang universal context and what were its physical characteristics, laws etc? Phys1, try to keep up if you are going to sound so 'certain' all the time while casting aspersions on others' comments which might sometimes be more correct than yours in that instance. Not supporting any one 'side' here, mind you; just saying all 'sides' should allow for changing paradigm which, if not kept up with, might lead to holding old opinions. Cheers. :)
Phys1
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2016
@RC
The latest version ... is that the 'bang' resulted from a QUANTUM FLUCTUATION in a PRE-EXISTING universal context.

The idea has been around for decades and in my opinion is fundamentally flawed.
Phys1
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2016
@RC
The wonderful property of science, specifically physics, is that it enables you to say things with confidence.
Phys1
3 / 5 (8) Mar 12, 2016
@Benni
The density of DM required to explain the rotation of spiral galaxies, the dynamics of galaxy clusters and the gravitational lensing is too small to have any impact on solar system dynamics, even if it were not spread out evenly over its volume, as it would be.
This argument can be understood without knowledge of the minutes of Einstein-Zwicky private meetings a century ago, even without knowledge of GRT. It can be understood by a smart high school kid.
Why not by you ?
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (8) Mar 12, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
@RC. The idea has been around for decades and in my opinion is fundamentally flawed.
Only more recently has mainstream begun to accept that as a serious alternative to their previous 'something from nothing' hypothesis. That's why I was surprised to see you ask "what does quantum mechanics have to do with the BBang?"
@RC. The wonderful property of science, specifically physics, is that it enables you to say things with confidence.
Agreed. But when paradigm changes so should confidence for superseded stance. That's why important to keep up to date if you are to properly critique others' comments.
@Benni. The density of DM required to explain the rotation of spiral galaxies, the dynamics of galaxy clusters and the gravitational lensing
Recent astronomical discoveries of previously undetectable material indicate that DM is mostly Baryonic, not NON-Baryonic. Rethink of gravitational/motional 'profile' gives non-DM explanation for 'Rotation Curve'. :)
Phys1
3 / 5 (8) Mar 12, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
@RC. The idea has been around for decades and in my opinion is fundamentally flawed.
Only more recently has mainstream begun to accept that as a serious alternative to their previous 'something from nothing' hypothesis.

It obvious is exactly that: something from nothing. Sorry you missed that, RC.
Phys1
3 / 5 (8) Mar 12, 2016
@RC. The wonderful property of science, specifically physics, is that it enables you to say things with confidence.
Agreed. But when paradigm changes so should confidence for superseded stance.

Then I am ok, since I don't do paradigms.
That's why important to keep up to date if you are to properly critique others' comments.

Keeping up to date is good. Howling with the crackpots is not.
Recent astronomical discoveries of previously undetectable material indicate that DM is mostly Baryonic, not NON-Baryonic.

You have got that wrong.
Rethink of gravitational/motional 'profile' gives non-DM explanation for 'Rotation Curve'. :)

Not a viable one, I'm sure.
Anyway you make sweeping statements but produce no evidence or references.
There aren't any so no surprises there.
RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (10) Mar 12, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
Only more recently has mainstream begun to accept that as a serious alternative to their previous 'something from nothing' hypothesis.
It obvious is exactly that: something from nothing.
Your personal belief. Mainstream science has 'moved on' from that obviously illogical/unscientific hypothesis. And if you knew about the Quantum theory based BB hypothesis, even if you disagree, why did you ask what quantum mechanics had to to with BB?
Recent astronomical discoveries of previously undetectable material indicate DM is mostly Baryonic, not NON-Baryonic.
You have got that wrong.
You're obviously not up to speed re recent astronomical discoveries of previously undetected baryonic material many times old estimates for total baryonic material.
Rethink of gravitational/motional 'profile' gives non-DM explanation for 'Rotation Curve'.
Not a viable one, I'm sure.
How would you know if you're not up to date? Your old beliefs not science. :)
Phys1
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 12, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
Only more recently has mainstream begun to accept that as a serious alternative to their previous 'something from nothing' hypothesis.
It obvious is exactly that: something from nothing.
Your personal belief. Mainstream science has 'moved on'

You should read that again.
Creation of a universe from Heisenberg uncertainty is a 'something from nothing' hypothesis.
Also it is not a serious hypothesis. In QM you do not create something from nothing, ever.
Phys1
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2016
Not a viable one, I'm sure.
How would you know if you're not up to date?

You are misinterpreting recent work on some missing mass. And where is that evidence that supports a "non-DM explanation for 'Rotation Curve'" ?
Phys1
3.2 / 5 (9) Mar 12, 2016
How would you know if you're not up to date? Your old beliefs not science

You argue like a used car sales man ?
It was you who said that and you did not show any evidence yet.
RealityCheck
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 12, 2016
HI Phys1. :)

The 'something from nothing' hypothesis of prior years was because there was no physical argument/ evidence to identify the actual precursor state of what became the BB universe. That was the 'original' BB hypothesis from Le Maitre's "ex Nihilo" Cosmic Egg "beginning" concept. The later "something from nothing" was just an assumed postulate because no-one could provide any prior state concept. Then came 'Brane' theory 'The Bulk' concept as prior existing state within which 'spacetime membranes' collide etc. Then came Quantum Theory 'backtracking' to a Quantum Fluctuation concept which did NOT specify WHAT 'fluctuated' in WHAT. Now we have the situation that most of those who constructed/promulgated BB hypothesis began to consider "What came 'before' BB?" That question was previously dismissed as 'meaningless' because it was assumed 'time' started with the BB, so 'before' was 'meaningless' concept. That was a cop-out which is no longer resorted to by mainstream.
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (8) Mar 12, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)

Recent astronomical discoveries, which you would have read about if you were up to date, have discovered many times the previous total baryonic matter estimates which were arrived at before the recent discoveries. They include many galaxies, star clusters, stars and clouds of material of many stellar mass worth; all of which were previously undetectable by older telescopes. The quantities of newly discovered baryonic cloud/stellar material EVEN in our OWN Milky Way galaxy is astounding. That you apparently missed all these new astronomical discoveries means you are not informed enough about the current situation re DM being mostly baryonic not exotic non-baryonic. And old 'Rotation Curve' explanations also outdated by new understandings of gravitational accelerative effect progression in spiral galaxy disc distribution case. The old naive appllication of the 'rule' based on 'clean' solar system 'profile' is invalid for spiral galaxy case. Can't say more now. :)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Mar 12, 2016
I would suggest consideration of the Ombron. (Combined with a few other elemental shapes)
Phys1
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 13, 2016

That you apparently missed all these new astronomical discoveries means you are not informed enough about the current situation re DM being mostly baryonic not exotic non-baryonic.

You make two mistakes. You assume that I did not read those articles and you assume that the results in them imply that DM is baryonic.
viko_mx
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 13, 2016
Nothing is definition for non existance. Nothing can not exist and something can not move in nothing. How to know nothing how to pass particles or electromagnetic waves trought itself? Nothing can be programmed.
Waves in nature are distributed always in the physical environment. They represent oscillation with periodic nature of some of the some states of this physical environment caused by energetic impact. The waves can not be considered as separate physical phenomenom from the environment in which are propagating. They are part of it and and manifestation of some of its properties. So the unvisible and elusive for the scientific equipment virtual phenomena must maintain artificial respiration for long ago discredited metaphysical theories for mass consumption, which have no connection with physical reality and diligently seek to circumvent the obvious facts and truths.
viko_mx
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 13, 2016
Cosmic vacuum is real physical environment with certaint properties and limitations which define the behavior of elementary particles and their energetic interactions. The matter is desolved in this structure and actifely interact with it. This structure is 3d matrix which can be reporgramed by the will of the Creator localy or globaly and with this for one short period of time to be changed its physical propetais according to His ideas and will, and as consequence the physical laws, constants and fundamental power interactions.
Phys1
2.8 / 5 (9) Mar 13, 2016
Does anybody ever listen to this , viko ?
viko_mx
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 13, 2016
Mаny people for sure. This is called awakening.
Benni
3.2 / 5 (9) Mar 13, 2016
Does anybody ever listen to this , viko ?


.....or to you due to your inability to get beyond 1st Semester Physics.
Old_C_Code
2.8 / 5 (9) Mar 13, 2016
Dark matter: the unicorn that broke the straw's back.

Pseudoscience is mainstream now. No wonder EU is gaining popularity.

katesisco
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 13, 2016
Just look at all this argument. How I wish we could just say PLASMA or CHARGE FIELD because we know what that is. How stupid is this?
dogbert
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 13, 2016
We create imaginary matter (i.e., dark matter).

Next we create simulations of the universe with imaginary matter.

Next we analyze our simulation of a universe with imaginary matter.

The scientific method is far more flexible than we once thought. ;-)
Gigel
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 13, 2016
You are forgetting the last step: compare simulation with astronomical observations.
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (10) Mar 13, 2016
Hi Gigel. :)

Careful, mate; putting too much reliance on what may be coincidental similarities between simulations and observations is fraught with confirmation bias potential. I recall some here at PO ridiculed alleged 'trolls' for noting similarities between lab plasma and astronomical plasma features. The ridicule of such comparisons was usually a variant of: "Just because it looks like a duck it doesn't mean it's necessarily a duck."

Anyhow: Simulations of Cold Dark Matter Hypothesis by experts using supercomputers 'concluded' that because the resulting visualization looked similar to observable universal structure then DM was predominantly CDM. After recent LHC experimental outcomes, CDM lost ground; so Hot Dark Matter was Simulated by same expert group. That too looked similar to observable universal structure.

So ANYTHING may constitute 'missing mass' DM. Now huge quantities of previously undetected BARYONIC matter being discovered. REAL matter; not 'simulated' DM. :)
Phys1
2.5 / 5 (8) Mar 13, 2016
So ANYTHING may constitute 'missing mass' DM. Now huge quantities of previously undetected BARYONIC matter being discovered. REAL matter; not 'simulated' DM. :)

You persist in your misinterpretation of recent results.
All of the articles below are about baryonic mass that had not been located yet.
The results do not pertain to DM.
http://phys.org/n...rse.html
http://www.scient...y-found/
http://physicswor...smic-web
Phys1
2.6 / 5 (10) Mar 13, 2016
Does anybody ever listen to this , viko ?


.....or to you due to your inability to get beyond 1st Semester Physics.

You keep repeating the same unwarranted assumptions.
You goal is to damage reputations with these simple tactics.
You present text from Physics FAQ pages as your own writing.
Otherwise your posts are completely empty.
You are a fraud and a psycho.
RealityCheck
3.2 / 5 (9) Mar 13, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
So ANYTHING may constitute 'missing mass' DM. Now huge quantities of previously undetected BARYONIC matter being discovered. REAL matter; not 'simulated' DM. :)
All of the articles below are about baryonic mass that had not been located yet.
Those don't even scratch the surface of all the recent astronomical discoveries of previously 'unseen' Baryonic matter. We've found huge 'streams' of material within our galaxy space and nearby within/around satellite clusters/galaxies. Also previously UNSEEN material clouds/NEWLY discerned stars, both of many times previously estimated mass using the FEW previously visible stars there. Further afield we find new galaxies not previously detectable. Further still we now expect 'cold baryonic matter' exists which previously/still undetectable (new scopes being designed). And deep space 'voids' wherein near-absolute-zero temps put baryonic matter into Bose-Einstein-condensate type states. LOTS 'stuff' findings. :)
obama_socks
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 14, 2016
I'll just leave this here as part of my "what if" collection of stories.

http://homepages....ouse.pdf
Benni
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 14, 2016
.....or to you due to your inability to get beyond 1st Semester Physics.


You keep repeating the same unwarranted assumptions.
You goal is to damage reputations with these simple tactics.
You present text from Physics FAQ pages as your own writing.
Otherwise your posts are completely empty.
You are a fraud and a psycho.


What is this? Why would you resent those who follow your lead? You're the one who starts it with the name calling, you know, the "psycho" stuff, etc. Then when it gets shoved back in your face you resent it. On top of this, you amply demonstrate your inability to get beyond basic elementary physics as we watch you struggle in your comprehension of the subject matter, upon which you embark on the name calling routine.

The old wacko Zwicky behavior is the only thing you're about because, and it's all because you're unable to reach conversant level of 1st semester Physics evidenced by the proliferation of your foul mouthed name calling routines.
obama_socks
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 14, 2016
Benni....Phys1 aka Piss1 is most likely Otto's boy. Stumpy/Otto has admitted in his little note to gkam that he has the PRIVATE INFORMATION of several Phys.org commenters, including antialias_physorg. Antialias asked/begged Stumpy/Otto to not reveal it to other Phys.org commenters (or anywhere online), aside from his credentials as a scientist. This means that Stump/Otto has antialias over a barrel = extortion. He did that also to gkam and said in his note that he did it to others (by asking to PROVE their claims so that he could validate those claims).
Piss1 is a novice at ad hominem attacks and is also a prude. Forget Zwicky. Move on. There's so much more to discover.
Phys1
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 14, 2016
@RC
I am still waiting for references to these discoveries that were not even reported at PO.
Phys1
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 14, 2016
@RC
putting too much reliance on what may be coincidental similarities between simulations and observations

That is not what Gigel is saying. He says "compare".
RealityCheck
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 14, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
still waiting for references to these discoveries that were not even reported at PO.
I am not making stuff up, mate. It was all on PO over at least last couple years; one discovery after another in various scales/contexts. Those who know me know I don't lie. Every time trolls have claimed I have, they were proven wrong and suffered embarrassment which could have been avoided if only they were not so eager to personally attack rather than check for themselves.
That is not what Gigel is saying. He says "compare".
After 'comparisons' come conclusions; latter may be dependent on 'similarities' which may/may not have meaning other than similarities which may be due to any number of inputs/assumptions/coincidences etc. Hence the experts warning others in past: "Just because it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, it doesn't mean it's a duck". I think Gigel gets my meaning in context.

PS: Do you now know DM originally hypothesized as 'ordinary' stuff? :)
Captain Stumpy
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 14, 2016
I am not making stuff up
@rc
how does anyone know that if you can't substantiate your claim
It was all on PO
so why can't you link any of it? search button broke? you can contact site admin and ask them to fix that for you...
Those who know me know I don't lie
or so you say
problem is, you can't actually prove this at all, because that would require you to actually produce evidence and link proof of your claim
Every time [anyone] have claimed I have, they were proven wrong and suffered embarrassment
i aint seen that here yet... and i read most of your posts
in fact, i would appreciate you linking where you proved the BICEP 4 fatal flaws so that we can show how embarrassed you made everyone on PO...
THANKS

what colour is the sky in your world?
Uncle Ira
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 14, 2016
Those who know me know I don't lie.
Well Really-Skippy, that is a good theory Cher. But you been here for 9 or 8 years now. In all that time are you saying nobody has got to know you? Not one person? Well then, maybe you could get one person who will say: 1) They know you. And 2) You don't lie. (A person with a history of lying don't count, non. I mean a normal person not one with mental conditions.)

One should not be hard, there has to one person (a normal person mind you Cher, don't try to slip in a really stupid person) who will step up and defend your dishonoring the scientists and humans.
bluehigh
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 14, 2016
Dont put too much emphasis on what the Captain says today.

He's high on drugs and is speaking in tongues.

Maybe he's getting religion.

(See what you started, Captain).

Phys1
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 15, 2016
@RC
One more time then as this is about content.
There has not been ANY article here at PO that stated that DM is really baryonic.
You keep on saying that there have been.
Put on your reading glasses before you read the next line:
SHOW ME ONE!
RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 15, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
There has not been ANY article here at PO that stated that DM is really baryonic
I see why you are upset. I did not say there have been PO articles claiming that DM is Baryonic/Ordinary stuff. What I actually said is that there have been PO articles reporting mainstream discoveries of much ordinary matter which was previously 'dark' to our telescopes. And that as these telescopes have improved we have found much more previously 'dark matter' which is NOT 'exotic non-Baryonic' as per more recent DM hypotheses. See the difference? You have been laboring under a misapprehension of what I was saying; which explains your (understandable given that misapprehension) impatient tone.

I comment/observe/caution on many things. I can't spend my life doing everyone else's checking (which they should be doing for themselves in PO, esp. re. recent ordinary matter discoveries previously 'dark' to us.

PS: Again, do you now know DM originally hypothesized as ordinary?
RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 15, 2016
PPS: @ Phys1. Like I said before, when I get a chance I will look for some references. Until then, re-search for relevant PO articles over the last couple years at least, and according to what I just clarified as to what I was actually saying about recent mainstream astronomical discoveries of previously 'undetected' ordinary matter, near and far and all scales. Cheers, :)
Phys1
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 15, 2016
@RC
Two days ago you wrote:
So ANYTHING may constitute 'missing mass' DM. Now huge quantities of previously undetected BARYONIC matter being discovered. REAL matter; not 'simulated' DM. :)

You were evidently suggesting that baryonic matter was reported, here at PO, that constitutes DM. Anyone disagreeing was in your opinion not up -to-date.
Now you say that you actually meant
I did not say there have been PO articles claiming that DM is Baryonic/Ordinary stuff. What I actually said is that there have been PO articles reporting mainstream discoveries of much ordinary matter which was previously 'dark' to our telescopes. And that as these telescopes have improved we have found much more previously 'dark matter' which is NOT 'exotic non-Baryonic' as per more recent DM hypotheses.

You are not worth my time.
Phys1
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 15, 2016
That is not what Gigel is saying. He says "compare".
After 'comparisons' come conclusions; latter may be ... blah blah blah ...

Gigel did not draw any conclusions.
Phys1
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 15, 2016
PPS: @ Phys1. Like I said before, when I get a chance I will look for some references.

Your average smoke screen to hide that you have nothing.
Be a grown-up and admit that you misinterpreted these article
and tried to hide that fact by saying that the bridge was off, you had a flat tyre, and that Phys1 was not up-to-date. That last part motivated me to corner you on this.
That and your preaching habits. And the straw man you are trying to pull on Gigel.
Plus you are feeding the worst troll this blog has seen.
Repent, RC !
RealityCheck
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 15, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)

Last try.

Originally, DM hypothesized as ORDINARY baryonic etc material which was 'dark' and undetectable THEN. But later theorists/hypothesizers took to characterizing DM as 'exotic NON-baryonic'. Have you got that straight? Good.

Npw, these new astronomical discoveries of ORDINARY previously 'undetectable' material is ALSO STILL called DARK MATTER if it is UNDETECTABLE yet Baryonic/ordinary stuff. Get that straight? Good.

So whatever we find NOW that was undetectable then which is now shown to be E-M telescope 'observable' is STILL the 'DM' of the ORIGINAL DM HYPOTHESIS type (ordinary/baryonic).....now 'found'.

There is NO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE for any other type of DM (except for the NEUTRINO type we already know about and have factored into the calculations/observations).

MORE ORDINARY DM types like bose-einstein-condensate and other cold 'ordinary' aggregations expected to be found by NEW E-M 'observing' telescopes in train.

Check PO for all this. :)
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (6) Mar 15, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)

That is not what Gigel is saying. He says "compare".
After 'comparisons' come conclusions; latter may be ... blah blah blah ...

Gigel did not draw any conclusions.
Why so obtuse/strawmanning, mate? The caution was about the generic reliance on simulations/similarities, as I explained with the examples I gave re previous simulations of CDM and then HDM which produced similar visuals. And the caution about drawing conclusions from same was also generic, not about Gigel. It was a GENERIC caution to Gigel NOT to draw conclusions. Please stop this sort of misunderstandings based exchanges if you cannot get things straight because of your reading confirmation bias or just plain reading comprehension deficit. How can one carry on a serious conversation when one 'side' deliberately/consistently misunderstands/misrepresents what is said? If you are really a Physics person, then you must learn NOT to let ego/bias invade communications. Bye. :)
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 15, 2016
Repent, RC !
Good luck with one Cher.

Like Really-Skippy told you, he's been around here (and lots other places too) and everybody that knows him, knows it just ain't in him. He's still looking for that one person who knows him that knows he don't tell fibs or wild tales.
RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 15, 2016
Hi Ira/Phys1. :)
Repent, RC !
Good luck with one Cher.

Like Really-Skippy told you, he's been around here (and lots other places too) and everybody that knows him, knows it just ain't in him. He's still looking for that one person who knows him that knows he don't tell fibs or wild tales.
This Atheist thanks you for your kind thoughts and your abject apologies for being less than relevant here or anywhere that science, humanity, reason and compassion is required as a pre-requisite before participating in any meaningful, substantive and constructive way. Good luck with your future choices in that respect, guys. It's been a 'hoot'!:)
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 15, 2016
Hi Ira/Phys1. :)
Hi for you too Cher and how you are? I will let Phys-Skippy give you his own hi back if he wants to.

This Atheist thanks you for your kind thoughts
You don't need to keep thanking me on every postum. One will do and that we don't have to keep saying "Thanks" and "De rien" and waste a lot letters we could be using to fool around with.

and your abject apologies for being less than relevant here or anywhere that science,
De rien Cher and that is the last one you are getting today.

humanity, reason and compassion is required as a pre-requisite before participating in any meaningful, substantive and constructive way
Well I am about as qualified as anybody with that stuffs.

Good luck with your future choices in that respect, guys. It's been a 'hoot'!:)
I don't believe in luck in that respect but thanks anyway.
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 15, 2016
Check PO
@still stupid illiterati-rc
the burden of proof is on *you* when you make a claim

that is the way of the scientific method - otherwise you are (as i noted in another threads) making an argument from a faith (your own) that something is true

until you can provide evidence, you are saying that because you say it is true, it is true, which is directly contradictory to the scientific method
This Atheist
doesn't matter what you call yourself... until you can prove anything, you are making a pseudoscience religious argument
*again*

in order to make *any* claim in a scientific argument
said claim or argument must be authenticated and then validated with evidence

therefore any claim made where the respondent refuses to supply evidence is a religious one
(IOW- argument from faith, or the lack of evidence, which is also pseudoscience)

if you had already linked it, i can understand you saying "go look it up"
but since i know you never link proof...
Phys1
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)

Last try.

Originally, DM hypothesized as ORDINARY baryonic etc material which was 'dark' and undetectable THEN. But later theorists/hypothesizers took to characterizing DM as 'exotic NON-baryonic'. Have you got that straight? Good.

What makes you think I do not know this?
Looks like a straw man.
Check PO for all this.

I know what was written here in spite of you falsely pretending that I don't.
It is not what you keep claiming and what keep failing to back up.
Oh yes, no time, flat tyre, bridge is off, ...
Phys1
4 / 5 (8) Mar 16, 2016
That is not what Gigel is saying. He says "compare".
After 'comparisons' come conclusions; latter may be ... blah blah blah ...

Gigel did not draw any conclusions. Why so obtuse/strawmanning, mate?
Because you are warning him about the conclusions he did not draw.
In the mean time you yourself draw conclusions from articles here that are plain wrong.
you must learn NOT to let ego/bias invade communications.

This is exactly what you are doing yourself.
You make unwarranted statements accusing others of overlooking evidence that you do not have and drawing conclusions that they did not draw.
You have no content, only ego.
It's a mess, RC.
Gigel
3 / 5 (4) Mar 16, 2016
I just made a general statement about the way simulations have to be used. I didn't say anything about conclusions. But since there are more than just 1 scientist out there, comparisons will be done and wrong conclusions will be detected. Simulations have their own value in determining the nature of DM. And they are done for 1 good reason: it's pretty hard to do much else with DM right now.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 17, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
Originally, DM hypothesized as ORDINARY baryonic etc material which was 'dark' and undetectable THEN. But later theorists/hypothesizers took to characterizing DM as 'exotic NON-baryonic'. Have you got that straight? Good.

What makes you think I do not know this?
Looks like a straw man.
Check PO for all this.

I know what was written here in spite of you falsely pretending that I don't.
It is not what you keep claiming and what keep failing to back up.
Oh yes, no time, flat tyre, bridge is off, ...

Thanks for confirming that. Not many people do know that. Lately, DM papers/articles speak of 'exotic' NON-Baryonic DM. Now I know you are aware of Baryonic DM, we can converse with mutual understanding of the history/nature of DM hypotheses. Re recent astronomical discoveries of 'ordinary' Baryonic DM previously undetected: there are MANY PO articles which you apparently missed. I already found a pageful....and still going! Links tomorrow. :)
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 17, 2016
Hi Gigel, Phys1. :)
I just made a general statement about the way simulations have to be used. I didn't say anything about conclusions. But since there are more than just 1 scientist out there, comparisons will be done and wrong conclusions will be detected. Simulations have their own value in determining the nature of DM. And they are done for 1 good reason: it's pretty hard to do much else with DM right now.
I know what you mean. No alternative...except to get 'input assumptions' realistic for simulations. Which is why I cautioned generically to take current 'exotic matter DM' based simulations with more than just a pinch of salt because such a-priori 'exotic NON-Baryonic DM' assumptions may give 'similar' structures to what is 'observed', but so do OTHER assumptions that do NOT involve 'exotic' non-baryonic DM. That was all, mate; just a generic sensible caution not to accept or conclude anything YET from ANY simulation, until more revised/definitive information. :)

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.