Dwarf dark galaxy hidden in ALMA gravitational lens image

April 14, 2016, National Radio Astronomy Observatory
Composite image of the gravitational lens SDP.81 showing the distorted ALMA image of the more distant galaxy (red arcs) and the Hubble optical image of the nearby lensing galaxy (blue center object). By analyzing the distortions in the ring, astronomers have determined that a dark dwarf galaxy (data indicated by white dot near left lower arc segment) is lurking nearly 4 billion light-years away. Credit: Y. Hezaveh, Stanford Univ.; ALMA (NRAO/ESO/NAOJ); NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope

Subtle distortions hidden in ALMA's stunning image of the gravitational lens SDP.81 are telltale signs that a dwarf dark galaxy is lurking in the halo of a much larger galaxy nearly 4 billion light-years away. This discovery paves the way for ALMA to find many more such objects and could help astronomers address important questions on the nature of dark matter.

In 2014, as part of ALMA's Long Baseline Campaign, astronomers studied a variety of astronomical objects to test the telescope's new, high-resolution capabilities. One of these experimental images was that of an Einstein ring, which was produced by the gravity of a massive foreground galaxy bending the light emitted by another galaxy nearly 12 billion light-years away.

This phenomenon, called gravitational lensing, was predicted by Einstein's general theory of relativity and it offers a powerful tool for studying that are otherwise too distant to observe. It also sheds light on the properties of the nearby lensing galaxy because of the way its gravity distorts and focuses light from more distant objects.

In a new paper accepted for publication in the Astrophysical Journal, astronomer Yashar Hezaveh at Stanford University in California and his team explain how detailed analysis of this widely publicized image uncovered signs of a hidden dwarf dark galaxy in the halo of the more nearby galaxy.

"We can find these invisible objects in the same way that you can see rain droplets on a window. You know they are there because they distort the image of the background objects," explained Hezaveh. In the case of a rain drop, the image distortions are caused by refraction. In this image, similar distortions are generated by the gravitational influence of dark matter.

Current theories suggest that dark matter, which makes up about 80 percent of the mass of the Universe, is made of as-yet-unidentified particles that don't interact with visible light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. Dark matter does, however, have appreciable mass, so it can be identified by its gravitational influence.

For their analysis, the researchers harnessed thousands of computers working in parallel for many weeks, including the National Science Foundation's most powerful supercomputer, Blue Waters, to search for subtle anomalies that had a consistent and measurable counterpart in each "band" of radio data. From these combined computations, the researchers were able to piece together an unprecedented understanding of the lensing galaxy's halo, the diffuse and predominantly star-free region around the galaxy, and discovered a distinctive clump less than one-thousandth the mass of the Milky Way.


Analysis of the ALMA observations of SDP.81, a gravitational lens, reveals an intriguing object in the halo of the foreground lensing galaxy that is possibly a dwarf dark galaxy. Credit: Y. Hezaveh, Stanford Univ.; ALMA (NRAO/ESO/NAOJ); NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope

Because of its relationship to the larger galaxy, estimated mass, and lack of an optical counterpart, the astronomers believe this gravitational anomaly may be caused by an extremely faint, dark-matter dominated satellite of the lensing galaxy. According to theoretical predictions, most galaxies should be brimming with similar dwarf galaxies and other companion objects. Detecting them, however, has proven challenging. Even around our own Milky Way, astronomers can identify only 40 or so of the thousands of satellite objects that are predicted to be present.

"This discrepancy between observed satellites and predicted abundances has been a major problem in cosmology for nearly two decades, even called a 'crisis' by some researchers," said Neal Dalal of the University of Illinois, a member of the team. "If these dwarf objects are dominated by dark matter, this could explain the discrepancy while offering new insights into the true nature of dark matter," he added.

Computer models of the evolution of the Universe indicate that by measuring the "clumpiness" of dark matter, it's possible to measure its temperature. So by counting the number of small dark matter clumps around distant galaxies, astronomers can infer the temperature of dark matter, which has an important bearing on the smoothness of our Universe.

"If these halo objects are simply not there," notes co-author Daniel Marrone of the University of Arizona, "then our current dark matter model cannot be correct and we will have to modify what we think we understand about ." 

This study suggests, however, that the majority of dwarf galaxies may simply not be seen because they're mainly composed of invisible dark matter and emit little if any light. "Our current measurements agree with the predictions of ," said team member Gilbert Holder of McGill University in Montreal, Canada. "In order to increase our confidence we will need to look at many more lenses."

"This is an amazing demonstration of the power of ALMA," said Hezaveh. "We are now confident that ALMA can efficiently discover these . Our next step is to look for more of them and to have a census of their abundance to figure out if there is any possibility of a warm temperature for particles."

Explore further: Dark matter satellites trigger massive birth of stars

More information: "Detection of Lensing Substructure Using ALMA Observations of the Dusty Galaxy SDP.81," Yashar Hezaveh et al., 2016, Astrophysical Journal, Arxiv: arxiv.org/abs/1601.01388

Related Stories

Dark matter satellites trigger massive birth of stars

March 9, 2016

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 ...

Image: Hubble sees spiral in Serpens

September 8, 2014

(Phys.org) —This new NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope image shows a beautiful spiral galaxy known as PGC 54493, located in the constellation of Serpens (The Serpent). This galaxy is part of a galaxy cluster that has been ...

Image: Hubble looks into a cosmic kaleidoscope

March 28, 2016

At first glance, this cosmic kaleidoscope of purple, blue and pink offers a strikingly beautiful—and serene—snapshot of the cosmos. However, this multi-colored haze actually marks the site of two colliding galaxy clusters, ...

Another amazing ALMA result

May 30, 2013

Observations with the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) have revealed some of the most distant and actively star forming galaxies in our universe, thanks to an effect called gravitational lensing, which ...

Recommended for you

Active galactic nuclei and star formation

October 15, 2018

Most galaxies host a supermassive black hole (SMBH) at their nucleus. (A supermassive black hole is one whose mass exceeds a million solar-masses.) A key unresolved issue in galaxy formation and evolution is the role these ...

62 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 14, 2016
Gravitational lensing is an unfounded bit of poppycock. These images are more likely due to refraction than nonsensical gravity wells and fanciful mathematics.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=fePQdJNVF9g&ebc=ANyPxKrbI0CXK0nwWQIvD9fM5lVKgmKKCNbi-cjRPVQUM6hXGQMa7IN40qwecmy1d0SVSJZoVqx82qeEO9MrOVclc6O84XAnPQ
Mike_Massen
2.4 / 5 (20) Apr 14, 2016
cantdrive85 (c85) claims
Gravitational lensing is an unfounded bit of poppycock
No !

Where is Math of Einstein & observations/math of Eddington flawed ?

c85 says
These images are more likely due to refraction than nonsensical gravity wells and fanciful mathematics
No !

Tell us about refraction through a gas across wide density range (& chaotic) from corona outwards, observations/experimental evidence in conjunction with scattering as well ?

Re youtube video link, alternate view as refraction can't prove lensing wrong, just a different idea but, refraction based on major static assumptions ie *significantly* flawed !

1. Star/galaxy's gas doesn't have uniform density across distance from mass
2. Observations re lensing from fast moving objects ie satellites aren't consistent with refraction

@c85 lol :-) You can do the Simple geometry Yourself on a piece of graph paper re 1 OR 2 both cases refraction fails, worse 1 AND 2 together, try it please ?
Mike_Massen
2.4 / 5 (20) Apr 14, 2016
Although the paper by Gupta does seem reasonable for the time it was written (circa ~2003 but date missing) it totally misses the important issue of satellite observations of lensing re local velocity Eg The last sentence of page 1 which goes on to page 2.

If you also take a "good look" it appears this is only a draft (no date) and its not reviewed as far as I can see can you ?

Have you heard of the peer review process ?

Do you imagine a you tube video site frequented by those not conversant with simple geometry and arithmetic is somehow a reasonable illustration of the peer review process ?

Here is the link to the paper, free https://arxiv.org...9124.pdf

cantdrive85, why didnt you read the paper before posting the youtube link clearly it just follows idle propaganda that is based on a poorly understood paper at least 12 years out of date ?

cantdrive85 any follow up paper from Gupta or any other at all anywhere please ?
Benni
2.9 / 5 (19) Apr 14, 2016
Einstein used his knowledge gravity to derive this famous equation:

Deflection of light by the sun = 4GM/c²R

where M is the mass of the sun, G is the gravitational constant, c is the speed of light and R is the distance from the surface of the sun, in solar radii. For light just grazing the sun this equation provides a deflection of 1.75 arcseconds. The calculation is found in the Photon Deflection Section of General Relativity.

"Gravitational lensing" is an acronym for Photon Deflection in GR.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (14) Apr 14, 2016
It was proposed in the past that gravity leaks into other dimensions, which is why it is so weak. If so, the effect of Dark Matter is the gravity from that extradimensional matter.
Mike_Massen
1.6 / 5 (13) Apr 15, 2016
Benni says
"Gravitational lensing" is an acronym for Photon Deflection in GR
Well perhaps, not too subtle a use of acronym as a euphemism but, then your claimed skill in "Differential Equations" (DE) & claimed degrees in Electrical & *then* Nuclear Engineer (wow), you can reply:-

To craft simple DE to determine light intensity change of lensed star (as equivalent point source, ie > 1 LY distant) across gas density variation re our sun's corona when viewed (by Satellite) radially distant from Sol Eg 10^8 Km traveling across that plane at 10^5 Km/hr

ie To obviously compare/contrast "deflection" due to Einsteins equation vs refraction due to Gupta's paper.

Of course Benni, easy on graph paper piece-wise fashion (~ 30 calcs) or write Excel formula & show disparity as to which of the two; Einstein or Gupta matches the satellite observational data by far the best ?

Benni do let us know your selection of refractive index vs arc length as beam traverses ?
Tuxford
2.5 / 5 (11) Apr 15, 2016
Even around our own Milky Way, astronomers can identify only 40 or so of the thousands of satellite objects that are predicted to be present.


So the committed merger maniac reaches again for the Unseen Magic Matter (UMM) explanation to patch their favorite fantasy, the Huge Bang Fantasy. They can never let it go, or their intellectual ego will suffer a devastating blow. Amusing.
Benni
2.6 / 5 (15) Apr 15, 2016
To craft simple DE to determine light intensity change of lensed star (as equivalent point source, ie > 1 LY distant) across gas density variation re our sun's corona when viewed (by Satellite) radially distant from Sol Eg 10^8 Km traveling across that plane at 10^5 Km/hr

ie To obviously compare/contrast "deflection" due to Einsteins equation vs refraction due to Gupta's paper.


Before you challenge the educational level of others, you need to first get well grounded in the subject of the material being discussed & you can't even put up a cogent post about that, you can't even cogently display exponents < 10^8 Km,10^5 > much less get into the subject material of Einstein's GR.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (10) Apr 15, 2016
"This is an amazing demonstration of the power of ALMA," ...
Thoroughly.

For folks interested why/how the array came to be –

Into Deepest Space: The Story of ALMA
"Released in 2012, this 52-minute public television documentary reveals the motivations, struggles and ultimate triumphs of the people designing and building the most elaborate ground-based astronomical observatory ever, the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA)."
Mike_Massen
1.8 / 5 (15) Apr 15, 2016
Benni's fails to comprehend
.. you can't even cogently display exponents < 10^8 Km,10^5 > much less get into the subject material of Einstein's GR
Beg pardon, stuck up on mere display ?
You mean you didn't know up arrow '^' is short hand denoting exponent, seriously, couldn't even infer it & the calc ?

10^8 Km=100,000,000 million Km & radially, I think you know what that means ?

10^5 Km/Hr=100,000 Km/Hr, across that plane, know what that means, of course you can either do it as tangent or (orbital) arc, either is fine as finesse trivial. Now you know 'up' arrows :-) can you work out the comparison

Benni claims graduation as Electrical/Nuclear engineer, my post directed at Benni & that education level, so now he knows exponents yippee, with all his claimed skills instead of barking complaint can Benni discern Einstein's "deflection" vs Gupta's refraction ?

As you love to spout astronomy at the least an educated guess which is right please ?
Mike_Massen
1.7 / 5 (15) Apr 16, 2016
pongobongo said
.. 10^8 km = 100 million km.
You were off by a factor of 10^6 or a factor of a million
Apologies, you are quite correct, being on 20+ forums an occasional slip can happen I added one extra word by habit, sorry :/

pongobongo says
And the formatting and syntax of your posts borders on illiteracy
How so ?

Lets start on formatting, does it matter, ie 'up' arrow is that it (?) or other, that can't be inferred, or doesn't interest reader to maturely request clarification ?

How about syntax, can you be precise please, random ambit claims don't cut it, be specific ie an aspect of Science, rather than vague assertions without example appears you are prejudiced and facile, if you are interested in the issue as stated re "deflection" vs Gupta's refraction then you would be motivated to address details, as you haven't you are just wasting time venting...

Q directed at Benni, predicated on education re interpreting DE's :-)

Can You do it too ?
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (10) Apr 16, 2016

1. Star/galaxy's gas doesn't have uniform density across distance from mass

Its not gas, it's plasma, and that is why there is refraction.
2. Observations re lensing from fast moving objects ie satellites aren't consistent with refraction.

Being that astrophysicists are completely ignorant of real plasma physics and as you stated the plasma is not uniform any interpretation based upon the ignorant view is wrong.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (17) Apr 16, 2016
Being that astrophysicists are completely ignorant of real plasma physics
@cd
repeating a lie to make yourself believe it doesn't make it any more true the more you say it

your ignorance about astrophysics is refuted by reading the curriculum of *any* college that gives a degree in astrophysics, or by following these links:
http://ocw.mit.ed...ophysics

http://www.pppl.gov/

therefore, as you've been repeating this lie for years even though you have been debunked time and again, that makes you posting a blatant false claim and pseudoscience
and
in your own words... "any interpretation based upon [this] ignorant view is wrong"
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (18) Apr 16, 2016
I am prejudiced, in favor of careful communications in science
@pongobongo
whereas this is a laudable goal for communication and science in general, you also have to consider the location and source of the discussion, don't you think?

take the multi-lingual poster who has poor grammar and syntax (zephir, viko). They can make a point, even when wrong, that is understandable even when not grammatically correct.

I am not saying you don't have a point, mind you. I am saying that there must be concessions for situational problems like language barriers. After all, even the English users have problems and can fight about what is proper (Queens English vs US)

also note: there are some people who intentionally alter their syntax and grammar for various reasons. I would include myself in this group. Sometimes the reasons are obvious (hyperbole, sarcasm) ... sometimes they're not.
Mike_Massen
1.3 / 5 (15) Apr 16, 2016
pongobongo (Pee) claims
about syntax? That should be not less than four sentences
Keh (?) according to who (?) intent is clear at beginning re DE & graph b4 exponents argued by You ?

Pee says
It contains 3 questions & 3 statements
Good, then be "smart", educated & clarify as Scientists do, what is Q's, you need addressed please ?

Pee claims
.. makes you a very poor communicator of science
Np, flushes out those that infer intent vs those that seek idle argument, isnt it smarter & more convergent to focus on intent achieving outcome ?

Pee claims
yet can not put together a simple sentence to express a simple idea
Yes. Such simple idea, path of light comparatively assessed via deflection/refraction, I *still* see no focus from you/Benni to address it - why ?

Point, method is secondary to intent re intelligent fate' accompli, you don't, so be smarter & focus on "deflection" vs refraction math/graph, can U re outcome ?
Uncle Ira
4.7 / 5 (14) Apr 16, 2016
@ Captain-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am good today.

The thing you asked me about with making the postums? Non, I do not have any problems with that I have noticed. Sometimes I go a few days without making any postums because I don't really have the time to write anything just make the karma votes. Like when I am at work lately getting used to the new engines.

Oh yeah, I almost forget. I agree about the English not first or second language. And some peoples are just weird. Some of the ones who think they are the smartest are the weirdest. But it is the weird that makes it all great big fun, especially when they have the weird wrapped up in a whole lot of taking them selfs too serious, eh?
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 16, 2016
So... (non-ionized) gas doesn't refract? The atmosphere doesn't refract (try telling that to an astronomer)?

I was correcting that fact there is no gas present (except Earth's atmosphere), only plasma. The reason that refraction is possible is due to that fact it is not homogeneous. The question of whether or not gas is refractive (it obviously is) is a moot point in this discussion due to the fact there is no gas present whatsoever.

IMP-9
4.3 / 5 (16) Apr 16, 2016
Refraction just doesn't fit. Yes it does occur in astronomy but it's quite different to gravitational lensing because refraction is chromatic, the deflection depends on the frequency. In the atmosphere this is seen quite clearly, if you take a picture of a star though a telescope with good resolution it will have a red side and a blue side. On the other hand lensed quasars have the same position independent of colour and the deflection by the Sun has been observed in radio and optical with the same amplitude. There isn't even any known mechanism which can refract from optical to radio never mind do it independently of frequency.
Mike_Massen
1.3 / 5 (13) Apr 17, 2016
pongobongo
Are you serious?
Mostly, instead of one liners please state that which needs clarification, otherwise you're wasting your time ?

Can you infer consequence satellite motion across orbital plane ?

What do you expect to observe as the distant star (ie point-source at > 1 LY) will appear to move & displacement correlated with satellite's velocity as line nears Sol ?

Examine geometry on graph paper, &/or do a piece-wise calc in Excel, yes I'm serious its easy to work out refraction alone isn't sufficient & you don't need to be a prof ?

&

cantdrive85 claims
.. fact there is no gas present (except Earth's atmosphere)
Wrong or prove it please ?

In space doesn't mean it *has* to be ionised all the time, plasma (excited) radiates light as orbitals reform & energy in to excite, Eg fluoro tube etc

Correct plasma "there" isn't homogeneous but, No static density gradient ie EM deflection therefore index of refraction Never constant (Benni, a clue)
compose
Apr 17, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
compose
Apr 17, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
DQM
5 / 5 (7) Apr 17, 2016
Wow! Zephir, you are on a roll today.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Apr 17, 2016
@pongo, I have given you all 1s because you're not talking about dwarf galaxies, gravitational lensing, ALMA, or anything else that is topical on this thread. If you don't like how Mike Massen explains himself, don't read it or put him on ignore. I have no trouble understanding him generally, and if I do I ask. You said you're prejudiced, and I agree.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (15) Apr 17, 2016
Of course Benni, easy on graph paper piece-wise fashion (~ 30 calcs) or write Excel formula & show disparity as to which of the two; Einstein or Gupta matches the satellite observational data by far the best ?

Benni do let us know your selection of refractive index vs arc length as beam traverses ?


MM.......just go study GR, I gave you all 1's for the obvious lack of educational skills, I generally have trouble understanding anything you say just for that reason.
Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (15) Apr 17, 2016
Da Schneib offers
@pongo, I have given you all 1s because you're not talking about dwarf galaxies, gravitational lensing, ALMA, or anything else that is topical on this thread...You said you're prejudiced, and I agree
pongobongo (PB) & few likewise one liner jabbers don't understand I'm addressing Benni re his claims of degrees/Calculus

I crafted question directed at him with minima understandable to those that had the degrees claimed. At that time not re science comms (as such) whilst also illustrating these sorts of problems easier than appear leading to point which IMP-9 correctly observed, which most learn in high school Eg Prism

Just because someone is very used to uni language for decades doesnt mean they are setting themselves up as "critical" thinkers, it goes with the territory. Prejudice re bickering by PB/Benni etc points to chips on their shoulders ie just plain sad

PB focus please, restate my question to show me how it should be done ?
Mike_Massen
2.4 / 5 (17) Apr 17, 2016
Benni says
.. I generally have trouble understanding anything you say just for that reason
Are you now saying you can't understand or infer issue with:-

point-source, piece-wise, arc, tangent ?

Don't you recall this subject came up months ago and I directed you to a Stanford sponsored lecture by L. Susskind which showed how to work out the deflection in its simplest form as pythagorean but, you claimed you don't read my links.

Now I see you offer a formula, does that mean you Now accept Einstein's equations are valid because the implication you've often made by barking criticism is his field equations are wrong ?

So what is your position on this, Einstein's deflection or Gupta's refraction, which is correct ?

Do you have a specific substantive position on anything in Physics/Astronomy as the vast majority of your posts are either criticism without offering alternative logic/math/rationalization or complaint against style oddly similar to pongobongo ?
Vietvet
5 / 5 (12) Apr 17, 2016
Sorry Mike. I meant to give you a "5", not a "1".
Enthusiastic Fool
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 17, 2016
It seems like pongo's remarks about MM's grammar made it worse. MM started sliding off into short hand and fragment hell.

@Ira
The thing you asked me about

I believe I see you with remarks like this frequently. Is there some other messaging board where the cool kids hang out and I miss these conversations?

Re:The Article
I was having a lot of trouble understanding what this was about before I watched the video. The caption was useful too.
Re:Lensing
Is it possible to get a "side" view of a galaxy through lensing? To clarify my question let's say we are looking at a spiral galaxy, edge-on, named Alpha. Elsewhere in the sky is a 2nd object named Beta positioned to see the spiral shape of Alpha. Is it possible to see the spiral view Beta gets of Alpha from Earth through lensing from Beta? I recognize the longer travel time through Beta would make the views "non-synchronous".

Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Apr 17, 2016
Is it possible to get a "side" view of a galaxy through lensing?
You'd need some really strong gravity; it's theoretically possible but sufficiently unlikely that I doubt we will ever find anything like this.

However, IIRC there is at least one instance in which both an object and its lensed image are both visible from here, so the sightline can at least be bent enough for that.
Mike_Massen
1.8 / 5 (13) Apr 18, 2016
@Vietvet
Thanks for sentiment though its apparent many distort process by venting dumb prejudice as they were caught out in; false claims, lies & logic fails, as consequence votes seem no longer relevant & lost utility

Enthusiastic Fool (EF) says
.. pongo's remarks about MM's grammar made it worse
How so, top examples please ?

EF adds
..and fragment hell
Pardon, something you didnt understand or other ?

Is comment on short hand more important than content especially technical ?

Have you noticed a post size constraint suggesting those aware might just find it sensible where possible to be efficient especially to appropriate audience ?

EF asks
Is it possible to get a "side" view of a galaxy...
Agree with Da Schneib & add can introduce problematic timing when view occurs especially if source of lensing were triangularly equidistant. Given square law & only likely source strong enough then black hole(s) as an array but that adds accretion distortion
Timbo57
2 / 5 (4) Apr 20, 2016
An alternative explanation for dark matter:- http/http://www.antigravitymatter.co.uk
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (9) Apr 20, 2016
Timbo57 says
An alternative explanation for dark matter
Thanks, correct link:- http://www.antigr...er.co.uk Rough look first :/

So far idea re observations is very easy to achieve with many types of mathematical modelling approaches after the event but, lacks any tangible connection with Standard Model (SM) & thus very hard to start & design any Experimental Methodology to flush out particle properties directly !

Not that fussed it isnt in SM, interesting observe other views but, as its well accepted anti-matter is also subject to gravitational attraction (with Math) there's a major hurdle.

Biggest problem is term "antigravity matter", not defined in any QM math basis & other info not having Math either

To just to start & explore we need to establish a convergence dialectic to focus on the core detail saving time, what is QM based definition or any likewise specific Math base definition please (eg interactions), word description not enough ?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Apr 20, 2016
Is it possible to get a "side" view of a galaxy through lensing?

Consider that the lensing would have to be so strong as to 'bend' light by 90 degrees. That kind of lensing would only be possible by
1) Multiple successive small bends (read: requiring an exceedingly unlikely configuration of massive galaxies)
or
2) by bending *very* close to a black hole which
2a) resides at the center of a galaxy itself - (which would block the view.)
2b) is free floating (which would give you an image, however this is extremely sensitive to relative motion/position of the black hole and the object. You can see the effect looking at some simulations (e.g. on youtube)

What you can get is multiple views of slightly different angles. Check out the phenomenon of Einstein crosses:
https://en.wikipe...in_Cross
By which one could conceivably do some photogrammetric shennanigans to get a better 3D idea of the object.

Mike_Massen
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 20, 2016
antialias_physorg with excellent link
.. Check out the phenomenon of Einstein crosses:
https://en.wikipe...in_Cross
Forgot about this ~20yrs back, very nice pictures too like to find more recent in IR & UV to address chromatics ?

antialias_physorg adds
.. conceivably do some photogrammetric shennanigans to get a better 3D idea ..
Seen it done with crystals re metallurgy & in relation to managing scattering aspects too, quite workable & not that dissimilar in application of numerical principles to medical tomgraphy too, graphic top right here simplifies graphically
https://en.wikipe...mography

@antialias_physorg, hope you didn't just give up, is there anything re my post with itemised links 1 & 2 which shed light re tunneling on equilibria, I'm interested in your opinion & as this site isnt moderated I don't see resistance re bandwidth clarifying - it at least to craft a wider focus & a collating script experiment ;-) ?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Apr 20, 2016
hope you didn't just give up,

Yeah, I did.

My abb 2 eng tr mod & syn rectf isn't working.

I'll just put you on ignore.
Note that you don't wind up there because I think your posts are stupid (unlike all the others on that illustrious list)...But it's just pomnzless trying to make sense out of your posts.
They end up just cluttering monitor space - and I rather just skip to something worthwhile AND readable.
Mike_Massen
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 20, 2016
antialias_physorg with lovely sarcasm, glad you don't give up
My abb 2 eng tr mod & syn rectf isn't working
Unlike mine which I expounded, please clarify, why use it you're not near 1000 ch limit, looking forward to clarification in context please ?

Was it "My ability to engineer trace mode and synthesize rectification.." if not pray tell ?

antialias_physorg said
But it's just pomnzless trying to make sense..
Sad, I appreciate your opinion & thought you were into nucleonics as me hence short hand to fit, my mistake not personal.

Just terminology after all, unlike others I'm pleased to clarify all my terms of reference, isnt that sensible & ahead of the idiot crowd ?

antialias_physorg said
They end up just cluttering monitor..
Ah, the scroll wheel

antialias_physorg added
- and I rather just skip to something worthwhile AND readable
Why imagine a static without flexible adaptation ?

Help, how was my clarifying (still) unreadable please ?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Apr 20, 2016
abb 2 eng tr mod & syn rectf = "abbreviation-to-english-module-and-syntax-rectifier" (see how hard it is to read/guess something like this?)

Unlike mine which I expounded, please clarify, why use it you're not near 1000 ch limit, looking forward to clarification in context please ?

Please reread what you wrote there. Then reread it again. Slowly. Then ask yourself: Is this correct english? Is this a sentence anyone is supposed to understand?
I don't understand what you're trying to say. So you wasted your time typing it (and mine trying to read it).

My advice would be: Write so that your audience understands what you mean - not so that just you understand what you mean.
This means above all:
- Concise statements (no run-on sentences).
- Clarity (one idea per sentence)
- Correct terminology (no fuzzy scientese)
- Quantitative statements (no adjectives or qualitative statements)

It'll be much easier for you to engage people in conversation that way.
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (9) Apr 20, 2016
antialias_physorg :-) offers
.. syntax-rectifier (see how hard it is to read/guess something like this?)
Ah got close despite nil context, yeah its hard ie yours hasn't context of *any* previous post - you flung example without connecting any technical matter on topic !

IOW. Abbreviations accepted when audience shares key technical context, you're dismissing I thought you knew (technical) base re nucleonics (sorry again), thus I offered pertinent links in my last post to you/Protoplasmix ~12 hrs ago
http://phys.org/n...nal.html

ie. sticky bead/rogue wave general not based in QM aspects, expecting you'd browse em & if unclear expecting you/anyone to question & ask clarification

Sorry thought you knew calculus, context re Σ & knowing biology/chem thought you knew overall paradigm re equilibria.

Hindsight, I wrote assuming your background but, you didn't outline 1st term causing angst letting it ride

cont
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (9) Apr 20, 2016
@antialias_physorg
Here is paste from link, I did re-read :-)
"Factor in tunneling is Σ energy influencing equilibria"
What I mean is (from earlier post re fusion rate) that a factor affecting tunneling is related to the sum (integral) of all energy perturbation/sources and this must influence the equilibrium position of the reaction rate, this is in context with my earlier post on this topic re Sol's core fusion reaction.

Then I add
"To explore it & upon an evidentiary base to craft a hypothesis, useful to obtain as much neutrino data at highest resolutions correlated with time (& shortly thereafter) of LIGO detection." Hopefully speaks for itself, yes/no ?

I think problem might be I didn't explicitly state conjunction of issue of tunneling being influenced by all the (summed/integrated) sea of energy locally which can make that reaction rate change ie either higher or lower.

Is that a good place to stop so far if it gels with what you feel I must expand on ?
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (9) Apr 20, 2016
@antialias_physorg
Upon reflection I get the impression we don't share the same base view of 'tunneling' as I imagined, I thought we did as (I understood) we both had good electronics background eg knowledge/experience of "Tunnel Diodes" but, maybe when it comes to Sol's core you don't see that the diode effect as comparable to that which allows fusion at such a very low rate is relevant to my then including this with gravity waves etc yes/no ?

I do see it connected and rather intimately as that in Sol but at higher level, some articulated generally here, I'm just extrapolating:-
https://en.wikipe...nnelling

Probably best I leave it there for now, I hope you can state or rather, if you have any remaining patience and havent given up maybe restate my first point re tunneling in my last post as it seemed fairly concise and pretty short to the point to me, given my expectations you were 'going along' without angst bottled till later ?
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (10) Apr 20, 2016
Even around our own Milky Way, astronomers can identify only 40 or so of the thousands of satellite objects that are predicted to be present.
They recently discovered a new one only ~ 120 kpc away, and it currently ranks as the 4th largest dwarf galaxy in the Milky Way, the Crater 2 dwarf galaxy. Even when they're relatively close they're a challenge to discern.
Timbo57
3 / 5 (6) Apr 21, 2016
Mike_Massen
I don't now what the QM status of antigravity matter is hence its not included in the theory. My action is only to point out that there's loads of evidence that the universe is full of antigravity matter. The most mathematical analysis is on the Investigation page.
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (9) Apr 21, 2016
Timbo57 says
I don't now what the QM status of antigravity matter is hence its not included in the theory
Not how Science works ie idea to hypothesis (substantively) to theory & has specific meaning
N1 https://en.wikipe...c_method

Leaving QM out you can't cover properties/interactions at all scales. QM (currently) lowest level to start with is very reliable offering predictions which fall out of key Math relevant to types
N2 https://en.wikipe...particle

Wheres your particle/field/item fit, even a little tiny bit close ?

If not at all, then need QM math basis to advance practically in Experimental Methodology as offers instrument design on key N1 engineering principles so particles can be investigated/confirmed empirically

You've "antigravity" & "matter" & mixed em up, completely unclear why, see N2

Ignore QM & theory is an un-testable idea & (static) observations fall into variants of (emotional) confirmational bias
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Apr 21, 2016
My action is only to point out that there's loads of evidence that the universe is full of antigravity matter.

Evidence? Really? That's the first time I've heard that claim made. Care to back that up? (No, the site you linked to earlier does not present any evidence. Unless you have a different definition of what the word 'evidence' means than the rest of us, that is.)
Timbo57
3 / 5 (2) Apr 21, 2016
I believe it does
antialias_physorg
. For example the site describes how the antigravity matter theory predicts that the radius of spherical Bok Globules will be proportional to their density(power -0.5). We then take observations from a peer reviewed publication and see that 11 approximately spherical Bok Globules provide a good fit to that prediction. To view the logic that leads to this see the Investigation page.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 21, 2016
antigravity matter theory
this doesn't exist from what i've been able to find

not one google scholar paper espousing it's details at all
https://scholar.g...as_sdtp=

https://scholar.g...heory%22

so where is the science in it?

if you claim
We then take observations from a peer reviewed publication and see that 11 approximately spherical Bok Globules provide a good fit to that prediction
where is the peer reviewed journal study that demonstrates this?

source material is important in science - it keeps pseudoscience out
this is why dot-com or blogs aren't considered reliable sources of information (unless there are references and links to source material... and even then, i suggest using the argument and source material, not the blog)

Timbo57
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 21, 2016
Captain Stumpy
the theory is set out in http/http://www.antigravitymatter.co.uk
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (11) Apr 22, 2016
Captain Stumpy
the theory is set out in http/http://www.antigravitymatter.co.uk
@Timbo
that is not a theory, that is a web-page

perhaps i didn't make myself clear: where is the peer reviewed journal study that moved your "hypothesis" into the realm of "theory"??

let me reiterate, yet again
source material is important in science - it keeps pseudoscience out

this is why dot-com or blogs aren't considered reliable sources of information (unless there are references and links to source material... and even then, i suggest using the argument and source material, not the blog)

IOW -what you've provided above is opinion, not science
it is no different than if i linked 4chan/b as a source

try again?
Timbo57
3 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2016
Captain Stumpy
Two attempts at peer reviewed publications are linked at the bottom of the home page. Both have been rejected. Your advice on how best to proceed would be appreciated. All source material is referenced on the website.
Mike_Massen
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 22, 2016
Timbo57 says
Two attempts at peer reviewed publications are linked at the bottom of the home page. Both have been rejected. Your advice on how best to proceed would be appreciated. All source material is referenced on the website
Can you be efficient - anything in my reply you didn't recognise ?

I have been through peer review process at uni Electronics/Physics level since early 1980s & have clear understanding of the benefits & pitfalls Eg claim upon claim, determinism, scant detail...

I urge start on defining terms, you've crafted a web page, hope you didnt spend much, better to spend $ at core, far more beneficial to address:-

1. Definition: The phrase "antigravity matter" is very unclear, seems arose from idea of interaction (for which you have found observations) but, as it's a composite of anti-gravity & matter, need to be precise in defining it explicitly ie why its combined ?

2. Also properties, start on
i spin
ii emission/absorption spectra
Timbo57
3 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2016
Have a look at the papers.
Mike_Massen
1.7 / 5 (11) Apr 22, 2016
Timbo57 says[q .. look at the papers You skipped my specific query, are you saying you DO recognise issues in my earlier post & especially the most recent ?

I'm currently downloading your whole site & passing it through a linguistic analysis script, first point is immense use of qualitative terms > 90% which really need to be made far more quantitative, if at least by way of Math references, more info later as I have other 'work' on...

In meantime think of way to connect with Quantum Mechanics (QM) that's the only way I can see you ever progressing, has anyone suggested any direction in that regard ?

If you don't think QM is useful then tell me Why in your very best terms please ?

Eg re spin, anything specific to + - interactions integer or fractional ?

I'm on many forums, some of which I'm paid, unfortunately as its your idea & casual, onus is on You to arrive at connection with Standard Model (to start) or an exception condition as to why it can't ?
Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (13) Apr 22, 2016
Two attempts at peer reviewed publications are linked at the bottom of the home page. Both have been rejected
@Timbo
and this isn't a huge indication of something to you?

given your promotion of said conjectures, are you close enough to state the reasons for rejection?

that would also be a big clue as to why it isn't published
Your advice on how best to proceed would be appreciated
start here: https://en.wikipe...c_method

of course, evidence must also be defined: https://en.wikipe...evidence

now, to get something published in a peer reviewed journal, you must contain the above

you can post your reasons for rejection of peer reviewed literature, and others may be able to help you re-publish if you can't understand why the rejection reasons apply... it's dependent upon the reasoning

Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (13) Apr 22, 2016
@timbo cont'd
All source material is referenced on the website
nice

but that doesn't make it a "theory" any more than my love of science makes me the next Feynman

so, we can demonstrate your lack of peer review as well as an unfamiliarity with the scientific method (considering your use of terminology)

this means, by definition, that your promotion of a web-site as a "theory" is also, by definition, pseudoscience... read it here:
Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to the scientific method
https://en.wikipe...oscience

in conclusion: before you can consider your beliefs to be a "theory" you have to start with the science
here is a great place to start: http://ocw.mit.ed...=science

it's free
Timbo57
3 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2016
Captain Stumpy


The first paper was rejected twice without comment. The second paper was rejected with:-

"Reviewers' comments:

This article considers dark matter as an exotic form of particle experiencing anti-gravity. It is not suitable for publication, largely because it does not contain any quantum mechanical formulation of the ant-gravity (even at the level of an effective field theory) and thus cannot be embedded in the standard paradigm of particle physics. It further appears to be incapable of describing some of the most important evidence for dark matter such as structure formation and the acoustic peaks of the cosmic microwave background."
Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (12) Apr 22, 2016
The first paper was rejected twice without comment
@Timbo
likely this is because they thought the reasoning obvious
largely because it does not contain any quantum mechanical formulation of the ant-gravity (even at the level of an effective field theory)
this is a good indicator that there is a great deal missing that is relevant, and is pretty much similar to what Mike is saying above
It further appears to be incapable of describing some of the most important evidence for dark matter such as structure formation and the acoustic peaks of the cosmic microwave background
this can mean two things: either you completely didn't do any homework
or
you're not versed in physics or astrophysics

you choose that one for yourself
but understand, it's not about you, so put any Dunning-Kruger visions of superiority away and consider your papers
- it's about the evidence, not your dreams of grandeur

2b cont'd
Timbo57
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 22, 2016
Mike_Massen

I believe all terms used are defined including the term antigravity matter.

I don't venture into QM because to present my argument I only have to treat the antigravity matter particles as point masses acting under a variety of forces.
Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (12) Apr 22, 2016
@Timbo cont'd
Science works for a reason

it revolves around evidence and repeatable experimentation as well as predictability... if your paper provides none of that, it will fail

start with some basics with the MIT link i left above
then go here: http://ocw.mit.ed...ophysics

you can also find graduate level courses on QM on that site for future study and reference

until you learn the basics, you can proceed into the future "theory" status, and what your paper seems to lack are the fundamentals (as noted by the comments)

making something sound good is philosophy, not science
making a logical argument is more about convincing people (argument)... not science

science is proving a point with the criteria listed above in the links

Timbo57
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 22, 2016
Captain Stumpy

I am not versed in quantum mechanics. I am versed in physics. I have something to say:- "Using classical physics there appears to be a lot of evidence that deep space contains an atmosphere of particles which have positive mass but are which are repelled from each other and repelled from normal matter objects. Said repulsion appears to follow the inverse square law." I don't have anything to say about QM.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (11) Apr 22, 2016
I have something to say
@Timbo
then you should be arguing this point to the journals... not to a pop-sci news aggregate site or on a web-page, don't-cha think?
I am versed in physics
being "versed" in something is not an indication that you understand it well enough to present new scientific findings to the professionals in the field who regularly work with it for fundamental research, which is exactly what you're implying with your paper... and if the QM is relevant, then you should be studying it for exactly the purposes stated by the journals and peers you want to convince

more to the point: it may well bring you to a point of stating "aha... i [insert "get it" or "know why it can't be"] now"

get the point?

learn from: Mike
Thermodynamics
shavera
IMP-9
Protoplasmix
thefurlong
Da Schneib
Antialias_physorg
axemaster
Q-Star

those last 4 i happen to know are degree'd pro's: engineer, PhD, Physicist, astrophysicist, respectively (Thermo is busy)
Timbo57
5 / 5 (1) Apr 22, 2016
Captain
Yes but once you're rejected the debate is over isn't it? Or should I have continued arguing with the journals after rejection? That sounds a bit crackpot to me.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (11) Apr 22, 2016
Yes but once you're rejected the debate is over isn't it?
@Timbo
not if you have evidence
evidence is the key
Or should I have continued arguing with the journals after rejection?
argue with evidence

crackpot is presenting without evidence and expecting everyone to consider said presentation as legitimate or realistic

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.