Scientists start mapping the hidden web that scaffolds the universe

Scientists start mapping the hidden web that scaffolds the universe
A massive galaxy cluster from the simulation, with filaments. Credit: Joshua Borrow using C-EAGLE

After counting all the normal, luminous matter in the obvious places of the universe—galaxies, clusters of galaxies and the intergalactic medium—about half of it is still missing. So not only is 85% of the matter in the universe made up of an unknown, invisible substance dubbed "dark matter," we can't even find all the small amount of normal matter that should be there.

This is known as the "missing baryons" problem. Baryons are particles that emit or absorb light, like protons, neutrons or electrons, which make up the matter we see around us. The baryons unaccounted for are thought to be hidden in filamentary structures permeating the entire , also known as "the cosmic web."

But this structure is elusive and so far we have only seen glimpses of it. Now a new study, published in Science, offers a better view that will enable us to help map what it looks like.

The cosmic web provides the scaffolding of the large scale structure in the universe, predicted by the "standard cosmological model." Cosmologists believe there is a dark cosmic web, made of , and a luminous cosmic web, made of mostly . In fact, it is believed that 60% of the hydrogen created during the Big Bang resides in these filaments.

The web of gas filaments is also known as the "warm-hot intergalactic medium" (WHIM), because it is roughly as hot as the sun's interior. Galaxies are likely to form at the intersection of two or more such filaments, where the matter is densest, with the filaments connecting all galaxy clusters in the universe.

So far, we haven't been able to detect dark matter. This is because it does not emit or absorb light so it cannot be observed with usual telescopes. The cosmic web filaments are also very hard to find as they are very diffuse and they do not emit sufficient light to be detected.

Since the original prediction, there has been an intense search for the cosmic web, using a variety of methods.

One of these relies on bright objects that happen to lie in the background along the same line of sight as a gas . The hydrogen atoms in the filaments can absorb light at a specific wavelength in the ultraviolet. This can be detected as absorption lines in the light from the background object, when broken down into a spectrum by wavelength.

This method has been applied using quasars, which are very bright massive objects at large distances, and even with background galaxies.

Galaxies lighting up the web

The new study has managed to detect the gas in an entirely new way which allows two dimensional imaging of the cosmic web, rather than relying on the random location of a bright source behind the gas cloud used in absorption studies.

The object they studied, catchily named SSA22, is a protocluster, meaning it is a cluster of galaxies in its infancy. It is much farther away than previous measured bits of the cosmic web—its light traveled about 12 billion years to reach us. This means we are looking back in time to the early stages of the universe, allowing scientists to probe how the filaments first assembled.

A few years ago, a number of extremely bright, star-forming galaxies called "sub-millimeter galaxies" were detected near its center. This new study has found 16 such galaxies and eight powerful X-ray sources, a rare over-density of such objects at this early epoch. The objects provide copious amount of ionizing radiation to all of the hydrogen gas of the filaments, which makes it emit light that we can detect—a technique that holds much more promise than absorption.

Another mystery that this study helps to solve is the formation of sub-millimeter galaxies. The most widely agreed on explanation is that they form as a result of two normal galaxies merging, hence forming a massive galaxy with double the amount of light.

However, computer simulations show that these galaxies can grow from the cold gas pouring in from the neighboring cosmic web. This scenario is confirmed by this new study.

Scientists start mapping the hidden web that scaffolds the universe
Map showing the gas filaments (blue) running from the top to the bottom of the image. The white dots are very active star forming galaxies which are being fed by the filaments. Credit: Hideki Umehata

Detailed map

The new study paves the way for a more systematic, two-dimensional mapping of gas filaments that can tell us about their motions in space.

Future studies help further map the hidden cosmic web. In addition to looking at full of bright objects, we can also trace the web's emission in radio or X-ray wavelengths. However, the X-ray traces much hotter gas than the bulk of the WHIM. The proposed Athena X-ray observatory will provide a full picture of the hot filaments around the clusters of in the nearby universe.

Another proposed mission for beyond 2050 is to use the cosmic microwave background—the left over from the Big Bang—as a "background light" and look for fine imprints left in it by the cosmic web.

All these tools will reveal the entire structure of the and provide us with a definitive census of the matter in the universe.

What's more, we know that baryons settle in the dark matter filaments of the universe to make their own filaments, like foam over an existing wave. This means that detailed maps of the gas filaments can help us trace the more hidden dark matter structure and, ultimately, help us understand its mysterious nature.


Explore further

Massive filaments fuel the growth of galaxies and supermassive black holes

Provided by The Conversation

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.The Conversation

Citation: Scientists start mapping the hidden web that scaffolds the universe (2019, October 4) retrieved 20 October 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-10-scientists-hidden-web-scaffolds-universe.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.
165 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Oct 04, 2019
"What's more, we know that baryons settle in the dark matter filaments of the universe to make their own filaments, like foam over an existing wave. This means that detailed maps of the gas filaments can help us trace the more hidden dark matter structure and, ultimately, help us understand its mysterious nature."

"we know that baryons settle in the dark matter filaments".........you do "know" this? How do YOU know this Andreea Font, The Conversation?

Here exists all manner of intergalactic baryons all over the Universe, but you imply this web of intergalactic medium IGM wouldn't exist if the baryons needed a DM presence as a conveyor of sorts for something to ride on the back of, something YOU can't identify & have no evidence for?

It is mostly hydrogen that comprises the IGM & we never see it anywhere within our solar system riding on the back of something unidentifiable, so why suddenly way, way, out there does it need a support medium to flow between galaxies?

Oct 04, 2019
And the current theory is that dark matter doesn't interact with normal matter.
How does this stuff attract normal matter?

Oct 04, 2019
It doesn't interact by the EM, strong, or weak forces, as confirmed by observation. It does, however, interact by gravity.

Oct 04, 2019
It doesn't interact by the EM, strong, or weak forces, as confirmed by observation. It does, however, interact by gravity.
......you can't know this until that which is in question has been isolated to discover it's properties.

The evidence is that there are vast quantities of intergalactic medium IGM flowing between galaxies, there is no evidence this IGM needs a supporting medium to make it flow.

Look at pictures of the filaments of hydrogen that close orbiting binary stars rip off from one another, would you be consistent & claim those mostly hydrogen filaments couldn't flow between the two stars were there no DM spanning the distance between the two bodies of mass?

It's the gravity between the bodies of galactic mass which create the same filaments as often exists between binary stars. What is it YOU think is so magically different about galactic mass that filaments of hydrogen cannot gravitationally set up between galactic mass just as with binary stars?


Oct 04, 2019
"Astronomers observe how two suns collect matter in a binary system
OCTOBER 4, 2019
by Max Planck Society

https://phys.org/...ary.html

Here being a contemporary dated article at this website as the perfect example of binary stars creating filaments via ONLY the gravitational attraction between the two bodies, there is no suggestion by the author that these filaments form because there exists a DM medium between the two stars creating a separate intervening gravity to facilitate the destinations of those filaments.

Intergalctic movement of the IGM is no different than the movement of filaments between binary stars, this IGM does not need a highway to ride on, that's just more Pop-Cosmology psycho-babble.


Oct 04, 2019
you can't know this until that which is in question has been isolated to discover it's properties.
Sure you can. It's not EM; we'd be able to see the effects on other structures. It's not strong or weak; those don't act over astrophysical distances. All that leaves is gravity.

You're lying again, @Benni.

Oct 04, 2019
you can't know this until that which is in question has been isolated to discover it's properties.


Sure you can. It's not EM; we'd be able to see the effects on other structures. It's not strong or weak; those don't act over astrophysical distances. All that leaves is gravity.
......you bet, the gravity as I discussed in the two posts previous to yours, you just don't like IDENTIFICATION of the SOURCE.

Pop-Cosmology theory would have us believe that the IGM making up all those visible filaments as if the hydrogen atoms are being pulled down by gravity onto a highway surface like a car traveling on a road surface..........prove it!


Oct 05, 2019


It is mostly hydrogen that comprises the IGM & we never see it anywhere within our solar system riding on the back of something unidentifiable, so why suddenly way, way, out there does it need a support medium to flow between galaxies?


As if we care what a scientifically illiterate janitor thinks! Lol.


Oct 05, 2019
LOL

@Benni, how do you think they measured it? Gravity, of course. Using spectroscopy of the galaxies in the galaxy clusters and the filaments. It even says so in the article.

They're measuring it right now. Making a map of the web of filaments. It says that in the article too.

Duhhhh ummmm.

Oct 05, 2019
@Benni quote:

"Pop-Cosmology theory would have us believe that the IGM making up all those visible filaments as if the hydrogen atoms are being pulled down by gravity onto a highway surface like a car traveling on a road surface..........prove it!"

What you talkin' 'bout Willis?



Oct 05, 2019
I'm still trying to make any sense out of your analogy Benni.

So hydrogen atoms falling in a gravitational field then impacting on a surface (the highway) is like a car being driven on the surface of a road???

Wow! That's impressive "psycho-babble"

What makes it more impressive is a highway is a road.

Oct 05, 2019
@Benni, how do you think they measured it? Gravity, of course. Using spectroscopy of the galaxies in the galaxy clusters and the filaments. It even says so in the article.

They're measuring it right now. Making a map of the web of filaments. It says that in the article too.
......and what is being "measured right now" is NOT your precious Cosmic Fairy Dust, it is the intergalactic medium comprising mostly hydrogen, "and a luminous cosmic web, made of mostly hydrogen gas."

"The hydrogen atoms in the filaments can absorb light at a specific wavelength in the ultraviolet. This can be detected as absorption lines in the light from the background object, when broken down into a spectrum by wavelength."...........21st Century Spectroscopy at work here.

.......and what must the density of atoms of hydrogen in this IGM be? It certainly isn't 1 atom/m³ as was speculated before 21st Spectroscopy technology came along & peeled away that piece of Pop-Cosmology fantasy.

Oct 05, 2019
Sure it is, @Benni. Have you not yet figured out that the matter densities are different between a solar system (namely ours), a galaxy, the IGM, and the ICM?

Cranks can't count.

Duhhhh ummmm.

Oct 05, 2019
Benni what's your point?

They clearly say they are measuring the luminous cosmic web in the article.

Stay on topic.

"This means that detailed maps of the gas filaments can help us trace the more hidden dark matter structure and, ultimately, help us understand its mysterious nature."

Oct 05, 2019
Sure it is, @Benni. Have you not yet figured out that the matter densities are different between a solar system (namely ours), a galaxy, the IGM, and the ICM?
......and 21st Century IGM MEASUREMENT data via Spectroscopy has drastically changed since Pop-Cosmology estimates of 1 atom/m³ in the 20th Century.

You simply don't like the spectre of new 21st Century data that is diluting the 20th Century fictional ratio of 5:1 DM to Ordinary Matter, it drives you into the major head spin ranting you so amply are demonstrating.

The IGM in those intergalactic filaments is far, far beyond 1 atom/m³ estimated by 20th Century Pop-Cosmologists, it is even far beyond 1 atom/cm³ or the spectroscopy data referenced in this article could not be conducted so precisely.

You don't like the portent this carries in diluting the old 20th Century guess of a 5:1 ratio of DM to the newly discovered Hydrogen, this because it detracts from the way Pop-Cosmologists frame the DM gravity narrative.


Oct 05, 2019
Still trying to tell that lie, @Benni?

Pitiful.

https://en.wikipe...ic_space

Oct 05, 2019
Okay, I only asked the question to start the chain reaction.
Simply the answer is gravity can not exist without matter, and matter contains energy.
Now, did you catch it?

Oct 05, 2019
matter contains energy
Nope. Matter is fermions; energy is bosons. At least in our universe.

Oct 05, 2019
matter contains energy
Nope. Matter is fermions; energy is bosons. At least in our universe.
LOL

Oct 05, 2019
jimmybobber
24 minutes ago
Benni what's your point?
.......hey jimbo, the "point" is about the CONTRIBUTION of which of the two types of mass has the greater contribution of gravity. The more of one versus that of the other is what determines which is the greater MASS of the two.

Pop-Cosmologists very well know their made-up 5:1 ratio of DM to OM is sacrosanct to their DM Gravity Narrative.

Pop-Cosmologists backed themselves right into a corner when in the last century when they declared there exists 0.3 Particles of DM within every cm³ of the IGM compared to 1 atom of OM within every m³ of the IGM, they now know this isn't true. DM Acolytes like you, simply can't come to terms with 21st Century spectroscopy technology that is shredding old 20th Century speculation into oblivion & thus the DM Inferred Gravity narrative.

The IGM in those filaments contain far more than 1 atom/cm³ or the described spectroscopy measurements would not have been possible.

Oct 05, 2019
I tell you one of the most important characteristics of our universe and your only reply is

LOL
?

Really?

Really?

Oct 05, 2019
Gravity Narrative
Still waiting for you to step out of the ten story window so you can show us all how gravity is imaginary.

Oct 05, 2019
I mean seriously, you've been on this site long enough to see plasmons and phonons and polaritons referred to. All you gotta do is look them up.

Oct 05, 2019
I tell you one of the most important characteristics of our universe and your only reply is

LOL
?

Really?
Really?
LOL, REALLY!

Oct 05, 2019
Gravity Narrative Still waiting for you to step out of the ten story window so you can show us all how gravity is imaginary.
Schneibo......what is imaginary is the 5:1 ratio of DM to OM, real science measurements don't support it & all YOU have left are your name calling rants.

Oct 05, 2019
I have no illusion that telling you you don't "believe in" gravity and then pointing out that you won't step out of a tenth story window is "name calling." It's merely pointing out that you are inconsistent. And that inconsistency indicates lying. That seems to make you really upset.

Oct 05, 2019
LOL, REALLY!
So you have nothing else to say butt obvious trolling?

Really?

Really?

Were you truly born that stupid? Or did you have to practice?

Oct 05, 2019
@Benni you wrote:

"The IGM in those filaments contain far more than 1 atom/cm³ or the described spectroscopy measurements would not have been possible. "

Do you not understand what average density is?

"The actual density of hydrogen as it exist in interstellar space is on the average of about 1 atom per cubic centimeter. In the extremes, as low as 0.1 atom per cubic centimeter has been found in the space between the spiral arms and as high as 1000 atoms per cubic centimeter are known to exist near the galactic core."
https://hypertext...ai.shtml

And I still have no idea what point you are trying to make.

Nobody in this forum said there is exactly one atom of hydrogen in every cm³ of space except for you. You are literally stating something nobody said and then saying it's false.

That's crazy.


Oct 05, 2019
Unlike you, I have more important things to do than make fun of other people.
Enough said.

Oct 05, 2019
@gculpex

I am missing where he made fun of you.

".. matter contains energy"

"Nope. Matter is fermions; energy is bosons. At least in our universe. "

And you responded with

"LOL"

Sure looks like you are a troll. Care to explain why his response makes you laugh out loud?

Oct 05, 2019
I have no illusion that telling you you don't "believe in" gravity and then pointing out that you won't step out of a tenth story window is "name calling." It's merely pointing out that you are inconsistent. And that inconsistency indicates lying. That seems to make you really upset.
.....it's the Pop-Cosmology Inferred gravity narrative that's inconsistent with new spectroscopy data.

Your refusal to adapt is what drives you into all your name calling rants, this because there is no science on the Pop-Cosmology side to refute 21st Century data over 20th Century guesswork.

Your problem is simply a refusal to believe Interstellar & Intergalactic hydrogen doesn't need a DM highway to travel on to propagate between bodies of mass. You can't explain why such filaments can't exist without the presence of DM Cosmic Fairy Dust so you fall back to the only responses you're so well practiced at, name calling & suicide rants, try something new schneibo, like real science.

Oct 05, 2019
Unlike you I have evidence to review, but making fun of people who don't and mess up science conversations on the science site is always amusing. Maybe they'll go away, or start posting science instead of trolling. It happens sometimes, though not often.

Oct 05, 2019
Adapt to jumping out of a tenth-story window.

Oct 05, 2019
Nobody in this forum said there is exactly one atom of hydrogen in every cm³ of space except for you. You are literally stating something nobody said and then saying it's false.
.....because no one in this chatroom even remotely knew what the estimate was until Benni started the discourse about it.

You like schneibo, don't like new 21st Century spectroscopy data, you don't like it because it severely erodes the 5:1 ratio of DM to OM, thus also eroding the DM Inferred Gravity hypothesis on which Cosmic Fairy Dust theory is so heavily dependent.........ok, your next name calling rant?


Oct 05, 2019
If you claim there is 1 atom per cc in the IGM or ICM prove it.

Because Wikipedia has a well-referenced article that says you're wrong. https://en.wikipe...ic_space

Oct 05, 2019
@Benni

Google "density of hydrogen in space"

".....because no one in this chatroom even remotely knew what the estimate was until Benni started the discourse about it."

Oh please.

Who are you? Where did Benni go?


Oct 05, 2019
@gculpex

I am missing where he made fun of you.

".. matter contains energy"

"Nope. Matter is fermions; energy is bosons. At least in our universe. "

And you responded with

"LOL"

Sure looks like you are a troll. Care to explain why his response makes you laugh out loud?
No, still laughing...

Oct 05, 2019
Are you Benni's mom or dad?
Is Benni a home schooled child?
It's obvious two or more people are posting on Benni's account. At least one adult and one child.
Mostly the child posts but occasionally the adult steps in and starts defending Benni (the child) and refers to him in the third person.

Tangent:

I imagine in an Electric Universe a couple of magnets on his shoes might help with that ten story jump out a window.

If EU is correct then it's perfectly safe with the right magnets.

I'd love to watch.

Oct 05, 2019
No, still laughing...
and still trolling.

Oct 05, 2019
matter contains energy
Nope. Matter is fermions; energy is bosons. At least in our universe.

How many bosons does it take to make a fermion? (sarc)
And Benni,
1 atom per cubic meter is an AVERAGE. Averages don't identify local variances (Filamental clumping)...

Oct 05, 2019
I figured it out.

Benni's mom, or nurse, came in and defended him online before making him take his nap.


Oct 05, 2019
.....because no one in this chatroom even remotely knew what the estimate was until Benni started the discourse about it.

You like schneibo, don't like new 21st Century spectroscopy data, you don't like it because it severely erodes the 5:1 ratio of DM to OM, thus also eroding the DM Inferred Gravity hypothesis on which Cosmic Fairy Dust theory is so heavily dependent.........ok, your next name calling rant?



The janitor has already been shown to be wrong in his claims of the IGM density, in my latter comments, here;

https://phys.org/...ies.html

The poor dear was getting confused with the ISM! Not very bright is Benni!

Oct 05, 2019
DM - "I'm always in the dark".
LM - "Not nearly as much as the ones looking for you".

Oct 05, 2019
Rather than using the pseudo-sci-fi faerie tales about faerie dust to describe the skeletal structure of the Universe these guys use real physics;
Self-similarity of plasma networking in a broad range of length scales: From laboratory to cosmic plasmas
http://plasmauniv...vCos.pdf

Oct 05, 2019
Rather than using the pseudo-sci-fi faerie tales about faerie dust to describe the skeletal structure of the Universe these guys use real physics;
Self-similarity of plasma networking in a broad range of length scales: From laboratory to cosmic plasmas
http://plasmauniv...vCos.pdf


Sounds like bollocks to me. Which is likely why it is in Review of Scientific Instruments'! Would never have got published in a relevant journal.

Oct 05, 2019
Rather than using the pseudo-sci-fi faerie tales about faerie dust to describe the skeletal structure of the Universe these guys use real physics;
Self-similarity of plasma networking in a broad range of length scales: From laboratory to cosmic plasmas
http://plasmauniv...vCos.pdf


Sounds like bollocks to me. Which is likely why it is in Review of Scientific Instruments'! Would never have got published in a relevant journal.

It's a observational study of plasma physics, as such it is relevant where ever it may be applied. That the plasma ignoramuses who gatekeep the "relevant" journals make no difference to the physics of plasma.

Oct 05, 2019
Rather than using the pseudo-sci-fi faerie tales about faerie dust to describe the skeletal structure of the Universe these guys use real physics;
Self-similarity of plasma networking in a broad range of length scales: From laboratory to cosmic plasmas
http://plasmauniv...vCos.pdf


Sounds like bollocks to me. Which is likely why it is in Review of Scientific Instruments'! Would never have got published in a relevant journal.

It's a observational study of plasma physics, as such it is relevant where ever it may be applied. That the plasma ignoramuses who gatekeep the "relevant" journals make no difference to the physics of plasma.


Nope. It is pure bollocks with nothing to recommend it.

Oct 05, 2019
Da Schneib
6 hours ago
If you claim there is 1 atom per cc in the IGM or ICM prove it.

Because Wikipedia has a well-referenced article that says you're wrong. https://en.wikipe...ic_space
0
Quote Report Block
jimmybobber
6 hours ago
@Benni

Google "density of hydrogen in space"


This article is about the CURRENT level of understanding about the IGM that Castrov gets confused with ISM. These filaments are INTERGALACTIC & plainly visible in the wavelength of ultra-violet with unusual density of hydrogen that far exceeds ANY previously measured by spectroscopy.

And you know what else, it's: "The web of gas filaments is also known as the "warm-hot intergalactic medium" (WHIM), because it is roughly as hot as the sun's interior." So how well does this meet with the Standard Model of the Universe & it's prognostications for where cold DM is found? Amusing isn't it, the thought of cold DM being warmed into oblivion by WHIM?


Oct 05, 2019
Very nice review from Conversation, both overview and details are excellent. This is the kind of article I like to see.

What I don't like to see after such brain candy is a thread of mostly blocked trolls. Icky!

I only asked the question to start the chain reaction. Simply the answer is gravity can not exist without matter, and matter contains energy. Now, did you catch it?


What chain reaction; catch what?

Meanwhile, cold dark matter shows up as heavy particles that mostly interact through gravity. (There is a peculiar interaction when the cosmic background radiation forms which shows up as the difference between the pure baryonic and the mixed dark matter-baryonic peaks. But I don't grok that one, it could be gravity mediated. Maybe someone here can explain it.)

- tbctd -

Oct 05, 2019
This article is about the CURRENT level of understanding about the IGM that Castrov gets confused with ISM. These filaments are INTERGALACTIC & plainly visible in the wavelength of ultra-violet with unusual density of hydrogen that far exceeds ANY previously measured by spectroscopy.

And you know what else, it's: "The web of gas filaments is also known as the "warm-hot intergalactic medium" (WHIM), because it is roughly as hot as the sun's interior." So how well does this meet with the Standard Model of the Universe & it's prognostications for where cold DM is found? Amusing isn't it, the thought of cold DM being warmed into oblivion by WHIM?



Wrong. In another thread you linked to a site discussing the ISM. We know the density of that. And we know the density of the IGM. And the hydrogen in those filaments has already been factored into DM calculations. It is what was known as missing baryonic matter.

Oct 05, 2019
Meanwhile, cold dark matter shows up as heavy particles that mostly interact through gravity. (There is a peculiar interaction when the cosmic background radiation forms which shows up as the difference between the pure baryonic and the mixed dark matter-baryonic peaks. But I don't grok that one, it could be gravity mediated. Maybe someone here can explain it.)
.........Dinosaur.

Hey tb, get a new life about yourself, we're now living in the 21st Century, not the 20th.

The filamentary CDM super-highway that was once presumed to be a stand alone feature of the Universe now has a new GRAVITY COMPETITOR, hot, hot, & very hot dense hydrogen for which we've barely begun ascertaining it's density.

Oct 05, 2019
- ctd -

It is possible with today's constraints that it also interacts weakly with matter, being Weakly Interacting Massive Particles, but the variants where it was more natural (more likely) are excluded so this is no more likely than pure gravitational interacting particles.

Your own answer - to a question that has not been asked as far as I can see - is wrong though.

We have known for a century now that it is energy that curve space-time - described by general relativity - and that matter is a specific form of energy -described by special relativity as well. In Einstein's field equations the spacetime curvature Einstein tensor on the left hand side is put in a relation with the stress-energy tensor on the right hand side [ https://en.wikipe...quations ].

As Wheeler famously put it in Misner, Thorne, Wheeler: "Space tells matter how to move. Matter tells space how to curve." [ https://en.wikiqu..._Wheeler ]

Oct 05, 2019
@Benni

"Cold refers to the fact that the dark matter moves slowly compared to the speed of light, while dark indicates that it interacts very weakly with ordinary matter and electromagnetic radiation."
https://en.m.wiki...k_matter

You said:

"Amusing isn't it, the thought of cold DM being warmed into oblivion by WHIM?"

It is certainly an amusing statement. Thanks for the laugh and proving once again you know nothing.

Oct 05, 2019
@castro

I remember you correcting Benni regarding the ISM and IGM.
Seems now he is just lying and saying he corrected you.
Fortunately I followed the other thread.

@Benni

For shame. For shame.

Oct 05, 2019
@Benni

"Cold refers to the fact that the dark matter moves slowly compared to the speed of light,

You said:

"Amusing isn't it, the thought of cold DM being warmed into oblivion by WHIM?"


"10,000°C.
According to their calculations, dark matter is "tepid" – about 10,000°C. By comparison, the surface of the Sun is about 6000°C, while its core is about 15.5 million °C. "This temperature tells us something very fundamental about the properties of dark matter," says Gilmore.Feb 6, 2006
'Tepid' temperature of dark matter revealed | New Scientist"

https://www.newscientist.com ' article ' dn8685-tepid-temperature-of-dark-..

DM 10,000°C compared to interior of the Sun at 15.5 million °C is all but stone cold, but then there's another problem here, no one has ever taken the temperature of DM because none has ever been found to measure it.

Oct 05, 2019
And Benni?

You said "the thought of cold DM being warmed into oblivion by WHIM?"
How does that work?

Oct 05, 2019
And Benni?

You said "the thought of cold DM being warmed into oblivion by WHIM?"
How does that work?
......my first ever mistake here, to compare the measured temperature of something real to that for which no temperature has ever been made because none can be found for which to take the temperature thereof. Your criticism is about right on, it's even worse than a bad comparison, it was an impossible one.

Oct 05, 2019
my first ever mistake here,.......


Lol.

Oct 05, 2019
I remember you correcting Benni regarding the ISM and IGM.
Seems now he is just lying and saying he corrected you.
Fortunately I followed the other thread.
@Benni always does that. It's done that to me several times. Kind of its signature behavior.

Oct 05, 2019
And now we return to the original subject. This isn't theory; they're mapping the filaments now. Data will be forthcoming and no one knows what it will say. But it's not going to overturn dark matter; it might show fuzzy dark matter, or it might show warm dark matter, or it might show cold dark matter. But it's going to show dark matter.

Oct 05, 2019
The interesting thing, and one no one but the trolls missed, is that fuzzy dark matter explains why we haven't been able to detect the particles yet. We haven't detected gravitons, and they're much larger. This also gives a boost to the axion conjectures. Perhaps @torbjorn will have something to say about that.

Oct 06, 2019
And now we return to the original subject. This isn't theory; they're mapping the filaments now. Data will be forthcoming and no one knows what it will say. But it's not going to overturn dark matter; it might show fuzzy dark matter, or it might show warm dark matter, or it might show cold dark matter. But it's going to show dark matter.
........how do you know? Inferred gravity?

So far the only known gravity source in the filaments is that of the tremendous quantity of hydrogen, but I'll bet you think gravitons come in flavors & spins just like quarks, right?

So what schneibo may want from Pop-Cosmology fantasy experts are statements suggesting gravity from DM can be filtered from gravity of hydrogen via the different spins & flavors of gravitons?


Oct 06, 2019
Observed gravity. Giant things like galaxies don't just move around by themselves.

Oct 06, 2019
Observed gravity. Giant things like galaxies don't just move around by themselves.
......now you claim to have pics of gravity?

What is the color if you have "observed" such pics?

This gravity you claim to have "observed", is it a wave? Does it have a spectroscopy whereby we can see a wavelength difference between the gravity emanated by hydrogen & that emanated by DM?

Explain to us living in the Universe of REAL SCIENCE, how this inferred "observed", gravity works in sustaining the filaments? Does the gravity of DM overpower the gravity of the hydrogen of the WHIM? I'll just bet schneibo, you never knew hydrogen atoms have gravity too, you forgot, right?

So according to you the gravity of the WHIM is overpowered by that of DM, so what then must be the density of DM that is acting as the intergalactic highway for all this massive quantity of hydrogen? Remember, you need a 5:1 ratio & within this WHIM the old 0.3 Particles/cm³ of DM in the IGM isn't gonna cut it.

Oct 06, 2019
@Benni I am not entertaining EUdiotic fairy tales about how the galaxies just move around by themselves.

What's your deal, are you claiming the Sparkly Unicorns™® are moving teh galuksies?

Oct 06, 2019
@Benni I am not entertaining EUdiotic fairy tales about how the galaxies just move around by themselves.
........you're actually right about something for a change, so why don't you delve into how the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics functions, it's called ENTROPY, a term which I know is very strange to Pop-Cosmologists like you who spend so much fantasy time trying to replace it with Dark Energy.

Oct 06, 2019
We already discussed entropy and you demonstrated you have no idea how it works. You think you can define it without numbers. This looks like another EUdiot Sparkly Unicorns™® fantasy.


Oct 06, 2019
Explain to us living in the Universe of REAL SCIENCE, how this inferred "observed", gravity works in sustaining the filaments? Does the gravity of DM overpower the gravity of the hydrogen of the WHIM? I'll just bet schneibo, you never knew hydrogen atoms have gravity too, you forgot, right?


More bobbins from the resident janitor. Put it like this; without DM we cannot explain the observed filamentary structure ;

The Network Behind the Cosmic Web
Coutinho, B. C. et al.
https://arxiv.org...3236.pdf


Oct 06, 2019
Explain to us living in the Universe of REAL SCIENCE, how this inferred "observed", gravity works in sustaining the filaments? Does the gravity of DM overpower the gravity of the hydrogen of the WHIM? I'll just bet schneibo, you never knew hydrogen atoms have gravity too, you forgot, right?


More bobbins from the resident janitor. Put it like this; without DM we cannot explain the observed filamentary structure ;

The Network Behind the Cosmic Web
Coutinho, B. C. et al.
https://arxiv.org...3236.pdf


More lies from jonesdumb, Alfvén predicted the filametary and cellular morphology of the Universe way back in the 1940's due to the nature of plasma, no faerie dust needed.

Oct 06, 2019
I will reply with the same challenge I made to @Benni: step out of a tenth story window, then tell us how it went for you. Good luck. You EUdiots with your claims gravity doesn't exist are ridiculous.

Oct 06, 2019
I will reply with the same challenge I made to @Benni: step out of a tenth story window, then tell us how it went for you. Good luck. You EUdiots with your claims gravity doesn't exist are ridiculous.

Another moronic statement, nobody claimed gravity doesn't exist. I am just pointing out that faerie dust doesn't exist nor is it necessary.

Oct 06, 2019
Show us your research cantdrive85.
Show us your math.


Oct 06, 2019
There is lots of research and papers;
http://plasmauniv...ers.html

And the maths are included, however remember maths is not physics but an ancillary tool.

Oct 06, 2019
There is lots of research and papers;
http://plasmauniv...ers.html

And the maths are included, however remember maths is not physics but an ancillary tool.


So all you've got is Peratt's failed galaxy 'model'? Unless you count the erroneous crap by Scott in a predatory, pay-to-publish 'journal'?

Oct 06, 2019
Are you suggesting you can do physics without math?
I'm guessing you can't do math so you latch onto theories that don't require it.
Am I correct?

Oct 06, 2019

More lies from jonesdumb, Alfvén predicted the filametary and cellular morphology of the Universe way back in the 1940's due to the nature of plasma, no faerie dust needed.


Nope. Show us the calculations and models that show the correct morphology of the cosmic web from Alfven. Hint; it hadn't been seen back then. So, if there are any Alfven fans out there, how about running a sim using plasma woo to show what Coutinho et al did without resorting to plasma woo. Unless and until that is done, you have zilch.

Oct 06, 2019
Unfortunately, @cantthink69, all the stuff you're calling "fairey dust" or whatever is just gravity. So it seems you're the purveyor of "fairey dust" or whatever you claim is making massive galaxies with billions or trillions of stars in them along with supermassive black holes go careening around the universe.

Ridiculous.

Oct 06, 2019

More lies from jonesdumb, Alfvén predicted the filametary and cellular morphology of the Universe way back in the 1940's due to the nature of plasma, no faerie dust needed.


Nope. Show us the calculations and models that show the correct morphology of the cosmic web from Alfven. Hint; it hadn't been seen back then. So, if there are any Alfven fans out there, how about running a sim using plasma woo to show what Coutinho et al did without resorting to plasma woo. Unless and until that is done, you have zilch.

http://adsabs.har...27...97P

Oct 06, 2019
From 1995? Weren't you whining about "pre-21st century physics" not long ago?

Oct 06, 2019

More lies from jonesdumb, Alfvén predicted the filametary and cellular morphology of the Universe way back in the 1940's due to the nature of plasma, no faerie dust needed.


Nope. Show us the calculations and models that show the correct morphology of the cosmic web from Alfven. Hint; it hadn't been seen back then. So, if there are any Alfven fans out there, how about running a sim using plasma woo to show what Coutinho et al did without resorting to plasma woo. Unless and until that is done, you have zilch.

http://adsabs.har...27...97P

You will read that the filametary and cellular morphology of the Universe was disregarded by the Darkists until it was confirmed. Only then did they produced the ad hoc a priori proposition of the filametary structure.

Oct 06, 2019

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1995Ap%26SS.227...97P


Not gone well, has it? Looks like more of his failed galaxy woo to me. And the 'evidence' for Birkeland currents turned out to be jets from black holes heading outward! This is what I mean when I say it is 'failed'. COBE, WMAP & Planck put paid to his daft model and, as far as I can see, he hasn't touched it for 2 decades. Nor has anybody else.

Oct 06, 2019
From 1995? Weren't you whining about "pre-21st century physics" not long ago?

Those who work in confidential research for governments tend to be decades ahead of the curve.

And Alfvén was decades ahead of the plasma ignoramuses anyhoo;
http://plasmauniv...asma.pdf

Oct 06, 2019
From 1995? Weren't you whining about "pre-21st century physics" not long ago?

Those who work in confidential research for governments tend to be decades ahead of the curve.

And Alfvén was decades ahead of the plasma ignoramuses anyhoo;
http://plasmauniv...asma.pdf


Well, he's more than two decades behind now, due to being dead. So all a bit irrelevant, eh?

Oct 06, 2019

http://adsabs.har...27...97P


Not gone well, has it? Looks like more of his failed galaxy woo to me. And the 'evidence' for Birkeland currents turned out to be jets from black holes heading outward! This is what I mean when I say it is 'failed'. COBE, WMAP & Planck put paid to his daft model and, as far as I can see, he hasn't touched it for 2 decades. Nor has anybody else.

All you have is lies? That's what I thought. The evidence for Birkeland currents his is describing here;
https://phys.org/...ies.html
The jets are a result of the plasmoid instability that arise in these currents. They are but a part of the overall galactic circuit.

Robitaille describes your CMB is pure bollocks;
https://www.youtu...KQMEYYLw

And Peratt republished his book 'The Physics of the Plasma Universe' a few years ago, another regurgitated lie by jonesdumb.

Oct 06, 2019
^^^Wrong. There is zero evidence for galactic scale Birkeland current woo. And Robitaille is a clown. An unpublished clown, when it comes to astrophysics. Which he knows nothing about. And Peratt merely issued a second edition of the book, and the only new stuff was his plasma rock art woo. He hasn't addressed his failed galaxy 'model' in over two decades.

Oct 06, 2019
From 1995? Weren't you whining about "pre-21st century physics" not long ago?

Those who work in confidential research for governments tend to be decades ahead of the curve.

And Alfvén was decades ahead of the plasma ignoramuses anyhoo;
http://plasmauniv...asma.pdf


Well, he's more than two decades behind now, due to being dead. So all a bit irrelevant, eh?

Einstein, dead and irrelevant.
Hawking, dead cripple and entirely irrelevant...
jonesdumb, soon to be dead, already irrelevant.

Oct 06, 2019
From 1995? Weren't you whining about "pre-21st century physics" not long ago?

Those who work in confidential research for governments tend to be decades ahead of the curve.

And Alfvén was decades ahead of the plasma ignoramuses anyhoo;
http://plasmauniv...asma.pdf


Well, he's more than two decades behind now, due to being dead. So all a bit irrelevant, eh?

Einstein, dead and irrelevant.
Hawking, dead cripple and entirely irrelevant...
jonesdumb, soon to be dead, already irrelevant.


Go pick up your toys. You seem to have thrown them out of your pram!

Oct 06, 2019
There is zero evidence for galactic scale Birkeland current woo.

Keep your blinders on moron, your beliefs will justify it.
And Robitaille is a clown. An unpublished clown, when it comes to astrophysics.

Physics are physics, he uses applied physics whereas astrophysicists rely almost entirely on hypothetical conjecture.
And Peratt merely issued a second edition of the book, and the only new stuff was his plasma rock art woo. He hasn't addressed his failed galaxy 'model' in over two decades.

And he found no need to edit the galactic formation section.

Oct 06, 2019
There is zero evidence for galactic scale Birkeland current woo.

Keep your blinders on moron, your beliefs will justify it.
And Robitaille is a clown. An unpublished clown, when it comes to astrophysics.

Physics are physics, he uses applied physics whereas astrophysicists rely almost entirely on hypothetical conjecture.
And Peratt merely issued a second edition of the book, and the only new stuff was his plasma rock art woo. He hasn't addressed his failed galaxy 'model' in over two decades.

And he found no need to edit the galactic formation section.


Still zero evidence. Where is it? Where are Peratt's humongous filaments? Why has he ignored the model for > 20 years? The fact that he didn't alter the book just shows ignorance. We now know what radio galaxies are, and they are not interacting currents! Even he must know that.
And Robitaille hasn't got a clue. Show me any scientific work he has published on astrophysics. Not vixra!

Oct 06, 2019
jonesdumb, soon to be dead, already irrelevant.

@CD, facts are in their detail.
That cretin was BORN irrelevant. Thus, any observation of that fact rises to irrelevance.

//Just wasted time and resources on what could have otherwise been relevant.

Oct 06, 2019
jonesdumb, soon to be dead, already irrelevant.

@CD, facts are in their detail.
That cretin was BORN irrelevant. Thus, any observation of that fact rises to irrelevance.

//Just wasted time and resources on what could have otherwise been relevant.


Lol. Dumbo is back!

Oct 06, 2019
Where are Peratt's humongous filaments?

Damn you are dumb, you obviously missed the article 'Massive filaments fuel the growth of galaxies...'

Oct 06, 2019
@cantdrive

This article?

"...detailed observations of the filaments of gas connecting galaxies in a large, distant proto-cluster in the early universe"

"...Based on direct observations, they found that, in accordance with the predictions of the cold dark matter model of galaxy formation"

https://phys.org/...ies.html


Oct 06, 2019
As mentioned above dongbobber, this was an ad hoc post-diction. It was only proposed after it was discovered the Universe had a filametary structure.
OTOH, Alfvén predicted the filametary structure 30+ years prior to observational evidence.

Oct 06, 2019
I'll bite. What did Alfvén actually predict?

Oct 06, 2019
As mentioned above dongbobber, this was an ad hoc post-diction. It was only proposed after it was discovered the Universe had a filametary structure.
OTOH, Alfvén predicted the filametary structure 30+ years prior to observational evidence.


Nope. Simulations show dark matter to be necessary. Show me the sims of Alfven that predict the correct morphology. You can't, because they don't exist. Show me any scientist who is claiming that the cosmic web is Birkeland current woo. And I'm not talking about Peratt, pre-COBE, WMAP and Planck. Or the idiot Scott. There is nothing. There is no science. No evidence. Nothing, other than the claims of Velikovskian loons.

Oct 06, 2019
Where are Peratt's humongous filaments?

Damn you are dumb, you obviously missed the article 'Massive filaments fuel the growth of galaxies...'


Nope, read it. I have read plenty of papers on the cosmic web. Nothing about Birkeland current woo. I can do one of Benni's famous word searches of all the papers I have, if you like. Birkeland won't get a mention.

Oct 06, 2019
I'll bite. What did Alfvén actually predict?


I already posted this in the thread, here it is again;

http://adsabs.har...27...97P

Oct 06, 2019
In your own words
or at least some quotes from the link supporting your claim.

Oct 06, 2019
In your own words
or at least some quotes from the link supporting your claim.

It's in Engrish and a safe link, help yourself.

Oct 06, 2019
No you help me.

It should be easy for you to supply a couple of quotes from your link to back up your assertions.

Is it not?

I don't have the time to read through a paper trying to figure out how the hell you came up with your idiotic conclusions.

My guess is you don't even understand the paper you linked.


Oct 06, 2019
More bobbins from the resident janitor. Put it like this; without DM we cannot explain the observed filamentary structure ;

The Network Behind the Cosmic Web
Coutinho, B. C. et al.
https://arxiv.org...3236.pdf



Actually, there is a website by one of the co-authors of this paper, that is worth a look;

http://cosmicweb....cht.com/

Some interactive stuff there as well.

Oct 06, 2019
No you help me.

It should be easy for you to supply a couple of quotes from your link to back up your assertions.

Is it not?

I don't have the time to read through a paper trying to figure out how the hell you came up with your idiotic conclusions.

My guess is you don't even understand the paper you linked.


It's not about what you think I think it should mean, it's about what it says. What it says is pretty clear, you should stop diverting. It's 4-5 pages, took me 5-minutes.

Oct 06, 2019
No, still laughing...
and still trolling.

Well, look who is trolling me.

Oct 06, 2019
Yep. I troll trolls. Get over it. Don't troll.

It's not going to help anyway with anyone who knows any science. There's no point; all you're doing is irritating people. That will never convince them.

Oct 09, 2019
Yep. I troll trolls. Get over it. Don't troll.

It's not going to help anyway with anyone who knows any science. There's no point; all you're doing is irritating people. That will never convince them.

Boredom must be your top priority.

Oct 09, 2019
@cantdrive
I've read the paper. Over the last two decades Peratt's conclusions haven't held up. I added the "^" to 10^18. It copied as 1018.

"Peratt proposed that galaxies formed due to plasma filaments joining in a z-pinch, the filaments starting 300,000 light years apart and carrying Birkeland currents of 10^18 amperes."

"However, theoretical analysis shows that "many scenarios for the generation of seed magnetic fields, which rely on the survival and sustainability of currents at early times [of the universe are disfavored]",[19] i.e. Birkeland currents of the magnitude needed (10^18 amps over scales of megaparsecs) for galaxy formation do not exist.[33] Additionally, many of the issues that were mysterious in the 1980s and 1990s, including discrepancies relating to the cosmic microwave background and the nature of quasars, have been solved with more evidence that, in detail, provides a distance and time scale for the universe. "
https://en.wikipe...osmology

Oct 09, 2019
@cantdrive

It's an interesting read. Observations don't support it's conclusions however.

I'm still perplexed as to why you refused to supply any quotes from the paper backing up your assertions.


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