Finding a cosmic fog within shattered intergalactic pancakes

Finding a cosmic fog within shattered intergalactic pancakes
The gas temperature in the intergalactic medium (IGM), looking through the sheet in-between the two main halos. Red colors are hot gas, while blue colors are cold gas. Credit: Yale University

To understand the most ordinary matter in the universe—and the extraordinary things that happen to it—a Yale-led team of astronomers took a deep dive into the cosmic fog.

They learned intriguing new details about the dynamics of baryons, the collection of subatomic particles (including protons and neutrons) that accounts for much of the visible matter in the universe. Most baryons reside in the intergalactic medium (IGM), which is the space in-between galaxies where matter is neither bound to nor tugged upon by surrounding systems.

In a new study, Yale postdoctoral associate Nir Mandelker and professor Frank C. van den Bosch report on the most detailed ever of a large patch of the IGM. For the first time, they were able to see how cold, dense gas clouds in the IGM organize themselves and react within much larger "sheets" or "pancakes" of matter in the vastness of space.

The findings appear in the Astrophysical Journal Letters.

Researchers have tried for years to piece together the structures and properties of the IGM—in part to test the standard model of Big Bang cosmology, which predicts that 80%-90% of baryons are in the IGM, but also to investigate the IGM's crucial role as the universe's fuel source.

"The reason galaxies are able to form stars continuously is because fresh gas flows into galaxies from the IGM," said Mandelker, lead author of the study. "It is clear that galaxies would run out of gas in very short order if they didn't accrete fresh gas from the IGM."

This animation shows gas temperature in the IGM, looking through the sheet in-between the two main halos. Red colors are hot gas, while blue colors are cold gas. A shock wave is visible moving onto the forming sheet, causing the sheet to shatter, producing a multiphase mixture of hot and cold gas with granular morphology. Credit: Yale University

Yet detecting the IGM's gas has been supremely difficult. Unlike galaxies, which shine brightly in starlight, gas in the IGM is almost never luminous enough to detect directly. Instead, it has to be studied indirectly, through the absorption of background light. Such absorption studies allow researchers to learn about the density and chemical composition of gas clouds; in particular, they're able to find out if star formation in nearby galaxies has polluted the gas with metals (elements heavier than helium).

With its new simulation, the Yale team learned quite a lot—including new properties of those aforementioned sheets of baryons.

"These are flattened distributions of matter, known as 'pancakes,' that extend across many millions of light years across," said van den Bosch. "We found that rather than being smoothly distributed, the gas in these pancakes shatters into what resembles a 'cosmic fog' made up of tiny, discrete clouds of relatively cold and dense gas."

Such dense clouds of gas had been thought to form only in areas of space close to galaxies, where the gas is naturally denser. But the new simulation shows that they also can condense out of the low-density IGM. The researchers said the phenomenon occurs naturally, as the result of an instability triggered by the efficient cooling of the gas.

Another aspect of this cosmic fog, based on the Yale simulation, is that it is pristine; it is too far away from any galaxy to be polluted with metals. According to Mandelker, this is significant because it explains recent, puzzling observations of dense, metal-free clouds at large distances from galaxies. Astronomers could not explain this phenomenon, but the new simulation suggests their presence may simply be the outcome of a natural process.

"Our work highlights the importance of properly resolving the properties of gas in the IGM, which is often neglected in favor of better resolving the central ," Mandelker said. "It has been very difficult to understand how the gas in the IGM could possibly become so dense and optically thick, especially when previous generations of cosmological simulations did not reveal any such dense gas in the IGM."


Explore further

Looking for warm dark matter

More information: Nir Mandelker et al, Shattering of Cosmic Sheets due to Thermal Instabilities: A Formation Channel for Metal-free Lyman Limit Systems, The Astrophysical Journal (2019). DOI: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab30cb
Provided by Yale University
Citation: Finding a cosmic fog within shattered intergalactic pancakes (2019, August 13) retrieved 19 October 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-08-cosmic-fog-shattered-intergalactic-pancakes.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
203 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Aug 13, 2019
"Our work highlights the importance of properly resolving the properties of gas in the IGM, which is often neglected..."

And when they decide to model this "gas" as it really is, plasma, the understanding will get even better. The detected sheets and filaments will be that much less surprising.

Aug 13, 2019
Article reads:

"For the first time, they were able to see how cold, dense gas clouds in the IGM organize themselves and react within much larger "sheets" or "pancakes" of matter in the vastness of space."

What is meant by "dense"? Particles per cm³?

This is new, so old density estimates don't count:

"It has been very difficult to understand how the gas in the IGM could possibly become so dense and optically thick, especially when previous generations of cosmological simulations did not reveal any such dense gas in the IGM."

Aug 13, 2019
......wait'll UnrealRC sees this article, and for even more fun how about RNP?

Aug 13, 2019
hahahaha, now we all see what the electric plasma universe does without gravity -- gets cold and makes pancakes haahahahaha

Aug 13, 2019
The investigation of the large scale structure of the World revealed its high inhomogeneity. During the last couple of decades a rich picture of groups, clusters and superclusters of the galaxies separated by a number of huge empty voids was released. The foam-like structure becomes more and more clear. The building blocks of the large scale structure are superclusters and voids which are forming the supercluster-void network. This network has pronounced filamentary structure. In this paper we discuss the mechanism of creation and stabilization of the Macrostructure of the World in the frame of elastonic model.
https://www.acade...he_World

Aug 13, 2019
"Our work highlights the importance of properly resolving the properties of gas in the IGM, which is often neglected..."

And when they decide to model this "gas" as it really is, plasma, the understanding will get even better. The detected sheets and filaments will be that much less surprising.


More uneducated tripe from the scientifically illiterate.

Aug 13, 2019
Yale postdoctoral associate Nir Mandelker and professor Frank C. van den Bosch report:

"It has been very difficult to understand how the gas in the IGM could possibly become so dense and optically thick, especially when previous generations of cosmological simulations did not reveal any such dense gas in the IGM."

Move over dark matter, the Universe is suddenly becoming very crowded at the hypothesis of 0.3 particles/cm³. To date the estimate of 1 atom/cm³ ISM has been widely accepted & some say the same or similar for the IGM, but now a new hot competition for that same cm³ EVERYWHERE in space? Major headspin coming on for Pop-Cosmology acolytes living here.

Aug 14, 2019
The authors say that the IGM is neither bound to nor tugged by surrounding galaxies yet they also say that galaxies would run out of gas if they did not accrete fresh gas from the IGM. In fact isn't every bit of matter tugged by every other bit of matter.

Aug 14, 2019
hahahaha, now we all see what the electric plasma universe does without gravity -- gets cold and makes pancakes haahahahaha

Yep, filaments and sheets of plasma, just as Alfvén predicted about 80-years-ago. Yet these "scientists" are surprised by this "unexpected" observation. It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.

Aug 14, 2019
hahahaha, now we all see what the electric plasma universe does without gravity -- gets cold and makes pancakes haahahahaha

Yep, filaments and sheets of plasma, just as Alfvén predicted about 80-years-ago. Yet these "scientists" are surprised by this "unexpected" observation. It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.
No, it's pretty funny all those exploding double layers in the IGM...

Aug 14, 2019
hahahaha, now we all see what the electric plasma universe does without gravity -- gets cold and makes pancakes haahahahaha

Yep, filaments and sheets of plasma, just as Alfvén predicted about 80-years-ago. Yet these "scientists" are surprised by this "unexpected" observation. It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.


Nope, you would be funny if you weren't so pathetic! You know next to nothing about the relevant science, and merely have hero worship of a bloke whose claims are either misunderstood by you, or are decades out of date.

Aug 15, 2019
@Castrogiovannbi
@RNP.

I trust you two have by now up-dated yourselves on the humongous quantities of 'previously dark' Ordinary matter being found everywhere we look/re-assess with new scopes/reviews; and now finally realise that all this newfound (and more to come) ordinary stuff increasingly FALSIFIES the HYPOTHESIS and interpretations/conclusions based on claimed 'non-EM-interacting' nature of this 'previously dark' matter. Moreover, you still avoid answering the point I made for some time now.

To wit:
IF DM was non-EM-interacting, THEN it would ALL have gone straight into 'early' BHs' IF the BB timeline was correct, and 'early BB' density would allow UN-IMPEDED 'direct accretion' into hypermassive stars/blackholes.


Everyone sees you waste time feuding with @Benni and @cantdrive85 so as to avoid addressing that point. I suggest you two address it asap, if you don't want to appear cowardly/dishonest in front of the readers (and your 'mortal enemies') here. :)

Aug 15, 2019
I trust you two have by now up-dated yourselves on the humongous quantities of 'previously dark' Ordinary matter


Have you yet managed to understand those observations? Nope. The missing matter is baryonic matter that we knew was missing, and was predicted to be there. Its discovery has zero effect on the predicted amount of DM. Learn to read.

https://www.natur...-05432-2

Aug 15, 2019
I trust you two have by now up-dated yourselves on the humongous quantities of 'previously dark' Ordinary matter


Have you yet managed to understand those observations? Nope. The missing matter is baryonic matter that we knew was missing, and was predicted to be there. Its discovery has zero effect on the predicted amount of DM. Learn to read.

https://www.natur...-05432-2
Pretty amazing how many people don't get that.

Good thing the astronomers and cosmologists know what they're doing, a lot of people don't appreciate just how mysterious dark matter is, much less believe there's actually something with that much mass in the universe relative to baryonic matter ...

Aug 15, 2019
@Castrogiovanni
@Protoplasmix.

You avoided addressing this point:
IF DM was non-EM-interacting, THEN it would ALL have gone straight into 'early' BHs' IF the BB timeline was correct, and 'early BB' density would allow UN-IMPEDED 'direct accretion' into hypermassive stars/blackholes.
Do you want to address that before asserting things which have already been falsified by logical/scientific counterarguments based on observations instead of old/simplistic 'mysterious' BB etc fantasies?

Or are you just going to ignore that point which makes your claims re 'non-EM-interacting' dm illogical.

Oh, and the ordinary stuff being found of late is only the tip of the iceberg, much more than the 'missing baryon' estimates made way back when when space was still thought to be 'empty'. Come on, guys, stop your insults ad assertion based on your old/simplistic assumptions/impressions, and start addressing the logical point and recent discoveries way beyond 'missing baryons' scales. :)

Aug 15, 2019
Do you want to address that before asserting things which have already been falsified by logical/scientific counterarguments based on observations instead of old/simplistic 'mysterious' BB etc fantasies?
No, thanks.

Or are you just going to ignore that point which makes all your claims re 'non-EM-interacting' dm illogical/obsolete.
Is that a question? Yes, probably.

Anyhow, the ordinary stuff being found of late is only the tip of the iceberg, much more than the 'missing baryon' estimates made way back when when space was still thought to be 'empty'. Come on, guys, stop your insults ad assertion based on your old/simplistic assumptions/impressions, and start addressing the logical point I made above. :)
You made a logical point? Above? For this article? In this forum? Ever? Where?

Aug 15, 2019
@Castrogiovanni
@Protoplasmix.

You avoided addressing this point:...........yada, yada, yada


Stop cluttering up the place with nonsense. Just link to the real scientists who are claiming this, and we'll happily read their peer-reviewed papers in the usual respected journals. Simples. If it is just stuff that you have made up, then I, for one, am not interested.

Aug 15, 2019
@Protoplasmix.
Do you want to address that before asserting things which have already been falsified by logical/scientific counterarguments based on observations instead of old/simplistic 'mysterious' BB etc fantasies?
No, thanks.
Then you tacitly concede the point I made. Thanks. :)
Anyhow, the ordinary stuff being found of late is only the tip of the iceberg, much more than the 'missing baryon' estimates made way back when when space was still thought to be 'empty'. Come on, guys, stop your insults ad assertion based on your old/simplistic assumptions/impressions, and start addressing the logical point I made above.
You made a logical point? Above? For this article? In this forum? Ever? Where?
For over a decade I have pointed out (and astronomers/astrophysicists have been confirming by observations) that, for BILLIONS of years, AGN Jets/Winds have been sending humongous quantities of material into deep space previously thought 'empty'. Do the maths. :)

Aug 15, 2019
For over a decade I have pointed out (and astronomers/astrophysicists have been confirming by observations)


No they haven't.

Aug 15, 2019
@Castrogiovanni.
For over a decade I have pointed out (and astronomers/astrophysicists have been confirming by observations)


No they haven't.
Mate, are you SERIOUSLY admitting to not having read all the PO reports about all those active galactic nuclei over the full universal extent sending humongous amounts of matter to deep space over billions of years?

And are you seriously also admitting that you weren't aware of the mainstream hypotheses about 'early Big Bang' epoch densities that would allow hyper massive stars/blackholes to 'directly accrete' from the then-dense universal energy-matter content?...which would mean that alleged 'non-EM-interacting' DM would have not been retarded at all like ordinary EM-interacting matter would!

What exactly have you been doing all this time, @Castro? How can you carry on a scientific up-to-date conversation if you missed all that? :)

Aug 15, 2019
^^^^^ WTF are you prattling on about? The ****ing matter ejected by AGN jets was matter that already existed, and is a tiny fraction of the galaxy's mass. I have no idea what you are on about. I suspect you don't, either.

Aug 15, 2019
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? Down here every thing is just fine and dandy, thanks for asking.

For over a decade I have pointed out,,,,,,


,,,, you were going to be sending out your book about about toes and everything, and also he would be soon this year. So pointing out something for over a decade don't really give us much confidence in the thing you are pointing to, especially if if has any thing to do with toes and physics.

Oh yeah, I almost forget. Laissez les bons temps rouler couyon. (That's coonass for: "When we are going to get the darned book Skippy?")

Aug 15, 2019
@Castrogiovanni.
The ****ing matter ejected by AGN jets was matter that already existed, and is a tiny fraction of the galaxy's mass. I have no idea what you are on about. I suspect you don't, either.
Temper! You're thinking about present 'settled' galaxies, not the earlier/evolving quasar-like stages which sent humongous amounts of energy/matter into deep space while evolving down to present 'settled' galaxy shapes/dynamics. And even now, we observe nearby active galaxies sending much more matter to deep space than previously estimated, and doing so for billions of years while getting to present settled states. You need to broaden/extend your spatio-temporal perspective; and start connecting ALL the dots and not just those your narrow perspective limited you to so far.

AND, you STILL AVOID addressing THIS: ALL 'non-EM-interacting' matter would've been directly-accreted into BHs early on in extreme DENSITY BB stage, since NO EM-dynamics 'retardation' would have prevented it.

Aug 15, 2019
.......[snipped rest of complete bollocks....] AND, you STILL AVOID addressing THIS: ALL 'non-EM-interacting' matter would've been directly-accreted into BHs early on in extreme DENSITY BB stage, since NO EM-dynamics 'retardation' would have prevented it.


Really? Like I said, just link me to the scientist who is claiming this. Paper. Peer-reviewed. Respectable journal. If it doesn't exist, I am not wasting time on such bollocks.

Aug 15, 2019
@Uncle Ira.
For over a decade I have pointed out,,,,,,
,,,, you were going to be sending out your book about about toes and everything, and also he would be soon this year. So pointing out something for over a decade don't really give us much confidence in the thing you are pointing to, especially if if has any thing to do with toes and physics.
I see you and your mates here, and also mainstream, giving Andre Linde plenty of leeway as to time taken (a decade now) to finalise his ONE idea; yet you and your mates apply double standards and complain that I have taken my time to properly completely integrate my FULL SUITE of ideas that go to making a WHOLE complete ToE! Be patient, mate; I only have to finalise the maths construct capable of modeling the COMPLETE Reality-based ToE (as opposed to the current maths which has obviously proven incapable...else we would have had the complete ToE from mainstream already). Wont be long now. :)

Aug 15, 2019
@Castrogiovanni.
.......[snipped rest of complete bollocks....] AND, you STILL AVOID addressing THIS: ALL 'non-EM-interacting' matter would've been directly-accreted into BHs early on in extreme DENSITY BB stage, since NO EM-dynamics 'retardation' would have prevented it.


Really? Like I said, just link me to the scientist who is claiming this. Paper. Peer-reviewed. Respectable journal. If it doesn't exist, I am not wasting time on such bollocks.
One step at a time, mate.

First: Are you or are you not aware of the 'direct-accretion' hypotheses which mainstream cosmologists have offered in order to explainable the massive stars/quasars/galaxies observed to exist in the distant (ie, very early) universe of the BB-timeline? Yes or No?

Second: Are you or are you not aware that the only reason BHs cannot swallow all matter in their immediate vicinity is because that matter first gets trapped/cycled/ejected via the EM-related dynamics? Yes or No?

continued...

Aug 15, 2019
…continued @Castro.

Third: Are you or are you not aware that alleged 'non-EM-interacting' matter would NOT be so 'retarded', and hence NOT been prevented from proceeding DIRECTLY into BHs (because it would not be caught up/recycled/ejected via EM-dynamics already mentioned)? Yes or No?

Fourth: Are you or are you not aware that mainstream observations have confirmed that extensive/extreme winds/polar jets from active galactic nuclei have been blasting matter to deep space for billions of years? Yes or No?

Please answer those and then we can proceed accordingly once we have established what you are and are not aware of to date. Thanks. :)

Aug 15, 2019
Then you tacitly concede the point I made. Thanks. :)
I do no such thing. You're welcome.

For over a decade I have pointed out (and astronomers/astrophysicists have been confirming by observations) that, for BILLIONS of years, AGN Jets/Winds have been sending humongous quantities of material into deep space previously thought 'empty'. Do the maths. :)
Who ever said space was empty?

Aug 15, 2019


Please answer those and then we can proceed accordingly once we have established what you are and are not aware of to date. Thanks. :)


Nope. Just link to the papers. I have no interest whatsoever in what a crank thinks. Show me some backing for your bollocks in the scientific literature. Now. Or sod off.

Aug 15, 2019
@Protoplasmix.
Then you tacitly concede the point I made. Thanks. :)
I do no such thing. You're welcome.
You want it both ways, mate! Either you address and refute that point re 'direct-accretion' of any alleged 'non-EM-interacting' matter when BB timeline density was extreme and no EM-dynamics would retard/prevent such alleged 'non-EM-interacting' matter fro all being swallowed by BHs early on in BB-timeline....Or you can't address/refute that point and so effectively concede that my point stands. You cant have it both ways. :)
For over a decade I have pointed out (and astronomers/astrophysicists have been confirming by observations) that, for BILLIONS of years, AGN Jets/Winds have been sending humongous quantities of material into deep space previously thought 'empty'. Do the maths. :)
Who ever said space was empty?
That was old/simplistic view/assumption re DEEP space early on. Only lately are we finding out JUST how MUCH ordinary matter is in DEEP space. :)

Aug 15, 2019
That was old/simplistic view/assumption re DEEP space early on. Only lately are we finding out JUST how MUCH ordinary matter is in DEEP space. :)


And nobody is saying the ordinary matter we are finding reduces the needed percentage of DM. Not a single scientist. So, there is nothing to discuss. Bye.

Aug 15, 2019
You want it both ways, mate!
I want it all and I want it now, same as everyone else.

Either you address and refute that point re 'direct-accretion' of any alleged 'non-EM-interacting' matter when BB timeline density was extreme and no EM-dynamics would retard/prevent such alleged 'non-EM-interacting' matter fro all being swallowed by BHs early on in BB-timeline....Or you can't address/refute that point and so effectively concede that my point stands. You cant have it both ways. :)
Space isn't empty. Dark matter is ubiquitous. Happy?

Aug 15, 2019
@Castrogiovanni.
Please answer those and then we can proceed accordingly once we have established what you are and are not aware of to date. Thanks. :)
Nope. Just link to the papers. I have no interest whatsoever in what a crank thinks. Show me some backing for your bollocks in the scientific literature. Now. Or sod off.
That response indicates to the reader that you are NOT aware of those things I pointed out. So your tacit answer to all those would be "No". :)

We can proceed from there. I have to log out now (I have a life off-line too). Tomorrow I may have more time to give you links to PO articles covering such things by mainstream. In the meantime, I suggest you take seriously the things I pointed out for your benefit; and do easy searches in PO re the things I mentioned. Good luck. Try to relax; and watch your blood pressure/language, mate. See you tomorrow I hope. :)

Aug 15, 2019

In the meantime, I suggest you take seriously the things I pointed out for your benefit; and do easy searches in PO re the things I mentioned. Good luck. Try to relax; and watch your blood pressure/language, mate. See you tomorrow I hope. :)


I need to take nothing seriously that you post. You are a crank, with zero understanding of the relevant science. Post the links, or sod off.

Aug 15, 2019
@Protoplasmix.

Just caught this before logging out:
You want it both ways, mate!
I want it all and I want it now, same as everyone else.
But I don't want it both ways; so your "everyone else" is a patently unjustified, erroneous assertion based on your personal belief. Not very objective/scientific. :)
Either you address and refute that point re 'direct-accretion' of any alleged 'non-EM-interacting' matter when BB timeline density was extreme and no EM-dynamics would retard/prevent such alleged 'non-EM-interacting' matter fro all being swallowed by BHs early on in BB-timeline....Or you can't address/refute that point and so effectively concede that my point stands. You cant have it both ways. :)
Space isn't empty. Dark matter is ubiquitous. Happy?
My "happiness" has nothing to do with it, mate; and your semantical tactics just make you look evasive and unable to refute the actual point(s). Not good.

Bye until tomorrow, @Proto, everyone. :)

Aug 15, 2019
My "happiness" has nothing to do with it, mate; and your semantical tactics just make you look evasive and unable to refute the actual point(s). Not good.


There are no 'points'. Certainly nothing of any scientific validity. Otherwise we could have a link to the scientist that is claiming such things. Nobody is. End of story. No discussion is necessary. If it were, it would be taking place in the scientific literature. It isn't.

Aug 15, 2019
@Castro.

Just finished post to @Proto and about to log out when I noticed this:
In the meantime, I suggest you take seriously the things I pointed out for your benefit; and do easy searches in PO re the things I mentioned. Good luck. Try to relax; and watch your blood pressure/language, mate. See you tomorrow I hope. :)
I need to take nothing seriously that you post. You are a crank, with zero understanding of the relevant science. Post the links, or sod off.
Sure, but that attitude doesn't bode well for your own evolving/updated enlightenment, does it? What if I were to die before I posted those links? Then you would not even bother searching PO re those things pointed out for your benefit...and so remain wilfully ignorant of same just to personally spite me? Not a good attitude for any supposed scientist, mate. Anyhow, I am 'sodding off' now; will be back tomorrow with the links (unless I see you already searched and found them for yourself in the meantime). Bye. :)

Aug 15, 2019
^^^^There is nothing to support your idiotic views. If there was we'd have seen it by now. Now bugger off, you poser.

Aug 15, 2019
@Castro.
^^^^There is nothing to support your idiotic views. If there was we'd have seen it by now. Now bugger off, you poser.
*Sigh* Mate, the whole point seems to be that you have NOT "seen it". That is what this exchange is all about. Please try to relax and restrain your kneejerking/insulting tendencies until tomorrow; and if possible search PO re the matters I pointed out already to you. Until tomorrow! :)

Aug 15, 2019
@Castro.
^^^^There is nothing to support your idiotic views. If there was we'd have seen it by now. Now bugger off, you poser.
*Sigh* Mate, the whole point seems to be that you have NOT "seen it". That is what this exchange is all about. Please try to relax and restrain your kneejerking/insulting tendencies until tomorrow; and if possible search PO re the matters I pointed out already to you. Until tomorrow! :)


There is no literature supporting your scientifically illiterate musings. Zilch.

Aug 16, 2019
@Castrogiovanni.
There is no literature supporting your scientifically illiterate musings. Zilch.
Just because you have not seen it (or have been ignoring it or have not realised its significance for the claimed 'non-EM-interacting' dark matter) does not mean it isn't there, mate. :)

Just a couple of links for you to catch up with for today...

https://www.eurek...1417.php

https://www.unive...niverse/

...both are about 'direct-accretion/collapse' method for black holes within a few hundred million years after (alleged) Big Bang. :)

Then realise that, during this epoch, energy-matter density was high; so any 'non-EM-interacting' matter would've gone quickly/directly into such BHs because there would be NO EM-dynamics to delay it (as happens for normal EM-interacting matter).

Connect the dots. See you again tomorrow if I can. :)

Aug 16, 2019
....both about 'direct-accretion/collapse' method for black holes within a few hundred million years after (alleged) Big Bang; during which epoch the energy-matter density was high and any 'non-EM-interacting' matter would have been swallowed quickly and directly by such BHs because there would be no EM-dynamics to delay it like happens with normal EM-interacting matter matter.


Just quote the relevant text from the papers that says that. Methinks you made it up.

Aug 16, 2019
@Castro.

You posted too quickly while I was editing. Please see the edited post. Then realise the significance of that for 'non-EN-interacting' matter as I have already well explained would not be delayed by EM-dynamics and so would all have been swallowed up into BHs during that high-density epoch only a few hundred million years after (alleged) Big Bang. Please do your own due diligence and thinking until I can get back to you tomorrow (when I will have more time I hope).

ps: I really have to log out until tomorrow. Bye for now. :)

Aug 16, 2019
Just quote the relevant text from the papers that says that. Methinks you made it up. I'm not interested in your interpretation of it - just show where these scientists are claiming it.

Aug 16, 2019
The simple fact of the matter is that with spectroscopy, we can tell where the IGM is, what it is, how fast it's moving, and how thick it is, that is, how much of it there is. None of these wild speculations by @RC hold water when the scientific evidence says they're wrong.

@RC of course will never admit it, just as he wouldn't admit there's no "universal frame." I see no point in interacting with this troll and have not read a thing it said except that which was quoted by others, nor, having had this same thing happen multiple times, do I see any point in interacting with it ever again. There is no point in trying to deal with a troll that will spout any lie in order to "win." It's a complete waste of time.

Aug 17, 2019
@Protoplasmix.
Then you tacitly
I do no such thing.
You want it both ways, mate! Either you address and refute that point re 'direct-accretion' of any alleged 'non-EM-interacting' matter when BB timeline density was extreme and no EM-dynamics would retard/prevent such alleged 'non-EM-interacting' matter fro all being swallowed by BHs early on in BB-timeline....Or you can't
For over a decade I have pointed out (and astronomers/astrophysicists have been confirming by observations) that, for BILLIONS of years, AGN Jets/Winds have been sending humongous quantities of material into deep space previously thought 'empty'. Do the maths. :)
Who ever said space was empty?
That was old/simplistic view/assumption re DEEP space early on. Only lately are we finding out JUST how MUCH ordinary matter is in DEEP space. :)
says RC

I tend to believe that there were 2 expansions of Space; not just one after the initial Big Bang.
-contd-

Aug 17, 2019
-contd-
@RrealityCheck
The first expansion of Space caused by the Big Bang was not strong enough to throw all the necessary material outward, but it filled the existing Space membrane enough to begin the Star formation processes. Then the SECOND expansion of Space began after the then existing Stars exploded, sending out tremendous winds that pushed the Stars out much further so that they were not as close together as before. They gained enough velocity to reach the furthest regions of the Universe and kept going, where they settled in the regions at the end of the Universe where there may be a boundary.
Just one Big Bang isn't likely to inflate Space enough that would accommodate so many old and new Stars. They were too close together as galaxies formed to close them in even tighter. The energy needed to expand Space, as well as move Stars further out would likely require either a second BB or a line of Stars essentially exploding all at once, forcing others out and away.

Aug 17, 2019
@Da Schneib.
The simple fact of the matter is that with spectroscopy, we can tell where the IGM is, what it is, how fast it's moving, and how thick it is, that is, how much of it there is. None of these wild speculations by @RC hold water when the scientific evidence says they're wrong.
You are basing your assertions on old/naive assumptions/interpretations/instruments, mate. The reason for new generation spectroscopic instruments/techniques and newer radio-wavelength surveys is that those old/naive assumptions/interpretations were SPECTACULARLY WRONG in may respects. For one thing the light being 'spectroscoped' is tainted by many factors/inputs of light from all the many processes and gravitational perturbations which make the light reaching the scopes 'here' unreliable both for spectroscopy and interpretation of source/intervening matter. Read up and catch up on all the possible reasons why newer techniques/scopes etc are being planned/commissioned to figure out the reality. :)

Aug 17, 2019
@Castro.
Just quote the relevant text from the papers that says that. Methinks you made it up. I'm not interested in your interpretation of it - just show where these scientists are claiming it.
I only have to point to the direct-accretion/collapse scenarios in these articles; then point out that massive BHs and galaxies have been observed in the early universe only a few hundred million years after (alleged) Big Bang; and that IF there were 'exotic' DM (ie, non-EM-interacting; as opposed to the 'ordinary' EM-interacting matter we are increasingly finding all over the place now) THEN LOGICALLY and PHYSICALLY ALL of that 'exotic' DM should have gone straight into those BHs which formed when density was high and no EM-backreaction etc dynamics would be available to delay/eject that 'exotic' DM away from those BHs.

ps: I now also point out that galactic nuclei jets/winds ALSO ENTRAIN MORE material in the wider galaxy/neighbourhood on the way out into deepest space. :)

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