Is NASA's New Evidence the Most Direct Detection of Dark Matter?

[ZapperZ]

NASA just had a press release today of new evidence that supports the presence of Dark Matter. I think this would be the most direct detection so far if verified.

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2007/may/HQ_07114_Hubble_Dark_Matter_Rings.html

We still have to wait for the publication of the paper. I don't particular like how they do science via press conferences like this.

Zz.

 

[matt.o]

We still have to wait for the publication of the paper. I don't particular like how they do science via press conferences like this.

Zz.

Well, it wasn't far behind and it has been accepted by ApJ.

Discovery of a Ringlike Dark Matter Structure in the Core of the Galaxy Cluster Cl 0024+17
Authors: M.J. Jee, H.C. Ford, G.D. Illingworth, R.L. White, T.J. Broadhurst, D.A. Coe, G.R. Meurer, A. Van Der Wel, N. Benitez, J.P. Blakeslee, R.J. Bouwens, L.D. Bradley, R. Demarco, N.L. Homeier, A.R. Martel, S. Mei
(Submitted on 15 May 2007)

Abstract: We present a comprehensive mass reconstruction of the rich galaxy cluster Cl 0024+17 at z~0.4 from ACS data, unifying both strong- and weak-lensing constraints. The weak-lensing signal from a dense distribution of background galaxies (~120 per square arcmin) across the cluster enables the derivation of a high-resolution parameter-free mass map. The strongly-lensed objects tightly constrain the mass structure of the cluster inner region on an absolute scale, breaking the mass-sheet degeneracy. The mass reconstruction of Cl 0024+17 obtained in such a way is remarkable. It reveals a ringlike dark matter substructure at r~75" surrounding a soft, dense core at r~50". We interpret this peculiar sub-structure as the result of a high-speed line-of-sight collision of two massive clusters 1-2 Gyr ago. Such an event is also indicated by the cluster velocity distribution. Our numerical simulation with purely collisionless particles demonstrates that such density ripples can arise by radially expanding, decelerating particles that originally comprised the pre-collision cores. Cl 0024+17 can be likened to the bullet cluster 1E0657-56, but viewed $along$ the collision axis at a much later epoch. In addition, we show that the long-standing mass discrepancy for Cl 0024+17 between X-ray and lensing can be resolved by treating the cluster X-ray emission as coming from a superposition of two X-ray systems. The cluster's unusual X-ray surface brightness profile that requires a two isothermal sphere description supports this hypothesis.

Comments:
To appear in the June 1 issue of The Astrophysical Journal. Color version of Figure 8 is availalble at this http URL
Subjects:
Astrophysics (astro-ph)
Cite as:
arXiv:0705.2171v1 [astro-ph]

 

[EnumaElish]

Does anyone have the link to the simulation (per the NASA news piece)?

 

[Kea]

OK, I've skimmed through the paper, and am confused about one thing (well, that's assuming I buy LCDM, which I don't). Why a Ring? Is the filament structure of the supercluster scale somehow responsible for containing the ripple to the orthogonal plane?

 

[RJ Emery]

Dark Matter Ring

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070516.html" shows a simulated dark matter ring around Galaxy Cluster CL0024+17. The work is the product of Jee and Ford, et al, of Johns Hopkins University.

In a separate http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/16/science/space/16hubble.html" , it was reported "Richard Massey, an astronomer at the California Institute of Technology, said the findings were facing skepticism within the astronomical community."

Why is the work by Gee and Ford considered controversial?

 

[George Jones]

Does anyone have the link to the simulation (per the NASA news piece)?

Why a Ring?

From the NASA release:

"Computer simulations of galaxy cluster collisions, created by the team, show that when two clusters smash together, the dark matter falls to the center of the combined cluster and sloshes back out. As the dark matter moves outward, it begins to slow down under the pull of gravity and pile up, like cars bunched up on a freeway."

The simulation videos are http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2007/17/video/a/". Two views are shown:

1) motion perpendicular to line of sight;

2) motion along line of sight.

Apparently, 2) is right for Earth.

 

[George Jones]

In a separate http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/16/science/space/16hubble.html" , it was reported "Richard Massey, an astronomer at the California Institute of Technology, said the findings were facing skepticism within the astronomical community."

Why is the work by Gee and Ford considered controversial?

A friend just pointed me towards a http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/05/15/science-dark-matter.html", and it reports

"Richard Massey, a postdoctoral scholar at California Institute of Technology, who was not part of the research, said the discovery is exciting if it's correct. 'But in order to be convinced, astronomers would need to see it at a different angle or with another camera,' he said during a NASA teleconference of the announcement."

This seems reasonable.

It seems that, in paraphrasing, the NY Times distorted what Massey said in the teleconference.

 

[hellfire]

"Richard Massey, a postdoctoral scholar at California Institute of Technology, who was not part of the research, said the discovery is exciting if it's correct. 'But in order to be convinced, astronomers would need to see it at a different angle or with another camera,' he said during a NASA teleconference of the announcement."

I guess that it might be necessary to remove some uncertainties, such as possible undetected baryonic mass (gravitational lensing gives only a 2D "image"), but even from this perspective I don't understand this claim. The postulated ring is not in a photograph, but seams to be inferred from gravitational lensing of more than thousand background galaxies as well as from N-body simulations. May be he is trying to make some public pressure for an optical substitute for the HST?

 

[Kea]

Note from the (non LCDM) Quantum Gravity point of view: Matti Pitkanen has correctly calculated the radius of the ring using his TGD model. See

http://matpitka.blogspot.com/

 

[matt.o]

Which cosmology did the "non-LCDM" scientist use to convert the angular radius of the ring to a physical one? One would think the choice of cosmology would affect this conversion and thus the calculation using a TGD model.

 

[Kea]

One would think the choice of cosmology would affect this conversion and thus the calculation using a TGD model.

Yes, sure, so let's call it the TGD cosmology. You'll have to read a fair bit, or ask Matti, to clarify this point. The real point is that TGD says a lot more about Dark Matter than just "it is stuff".

 

[matt.o]

Yes, sure, so let's call it the TGD cosmology. You'll have to read a fair bit, or ask Matti, to clarify this point. The real point is that TGD says a lot more about Dark Matter than just "it is stuff".

Ok, so the TGD cosmology must then predict the same physical radius as LCDM (0.4Mpc). If the TGD cosmology does not measure the same radius, then his calculation is a bit misleading.

 

[Kea]

You are right that a more careful analysis should consider possible sources of error on the estimate for core radius. This will come in time, but I think the LCDM radius is a reasonable estimate since (eg.) the redshift is not too high.

 

[RJ Emery]

Acronyms

In this thread, there are two acronyms used that are not known to me. I would greatly appreciate having them expanded and explained:

1) LCDM
2) TGD model

as well as any other related acronyms. Thank you.

 

[Garth]

In this thread, there are two acronyms used that are not known to me. I would greatly appreciate having them expanded and explained:

1) LCDM
2) TGD model

as well as any other related acronyms. Thank you.

LCDM = Lambda Cold Dark Matter, the standard cosmological model - it requires Dark non-baryonic non-relativistic matter, the CDM, and Dark Energy, which is possibly a non-zero cosmological constant, the Lambda.

You will also see it written as \LambdaCDM.

TGD = Topological GeometroDynamical model. In general these are theories that account for sources as well as fields in terms of topological-geometrical structure. This non-standard model referred to by Kea is proposed by Matti Pitkanen. I cannot find a published reference for Pitkanen's theory, perhaps Kea can oblige?

Garth

 

[Kea]

I cannot find a published reference for Pitkanen's theory, perhaps Kea can oblige?

Published? You've got to be kidding! Anyway, there's plenty of material on his webpage:

http://www.helsinki.fi/~matpitka/

 

[Garth]

Published? You've got to be kidding! Anyway, there's plenty of material on his webpage:

http://www.helsinki.fi/~matpitka/

Yes I have read it, however there is just the small matter of the PF global guidelines...

It is against our Posting Guidelines to discuss, in most of the PF forums, new or non-mainstream theories or ideas that have not been published in professional peer-reviewed journals or are not part of current professional scientific discussion.

Garth

 

[Kea]

It is against our Posting Guidelines to discuss, in most of the PF forums, new or non-mainstream theories or ideas that have not been published in professional peer-reviewed journals or are not part of current professional scientific discussion.

Well, I apologise if this is against the Astro guidelines. In the Beyond SM forum, for example, we discuss such things frequently. On the other hand, I believe TGD qualifies as being part of 'current professional scientific discussion', given that many professionals (eg. Sir Roger Penrose) have been discussing it.

 

[Garth]

Well, I apologise if this is against the Astro guidelines. In the Beyond SM forum, for example, we discuss such things frequently. On the other hand, I believe TGD qualifies as being part of 'current professional scientific discussion', given that many professionals (eg. Sir Roger Penrose) have been discussing it.

Then where is it published? I am happy to discuss an endorsed eprint on the physics ArXiv, if the Moderators are, and if Pitkanen's ideas have substance then it is an easy matter to submit it there, so has he?

Garth

 

[Wallace]

No, I think not. He has also not submitted his ideas about the 'TGD Inspired Theory of Consciousness' Methinks there are many better non-LCDM models out there for those interested in alternatives to the standard model (which should be everyone right?)

 

[SpaceTiger]

I guess that it might be necessary to remove some uncertainties, such as possible undetected baryonic mass (gravitational lensing gives only a 2D "image"), but even from this perspective I don't understand this claim. The postulated ring is not in a photograph, but seams to be inferred from gravitational lensing of more than thousand background galaxies as well as from N-body simulations.

It appears all of these galaxies were imaged with the ACS, so I think his point is that the use of another camera would rule out the possibility of data artifacts that were somehow missed. I don't understand the bit about the "different angle", though. Earth-based astronomy seldom gives you more than one angle on objects beyond the solar system. Perhaps he's referring to the observation of the same phenomenon in a different system.

 

[Garth]

Welcome back ST! How is the thesis going?

I don't understand the bit about the "different angle", though. Earth-based astronomy seldom gives you more than one angle on objects beyond the solar system. Perhaps he's referring to the observation of the same phenomenon in a different system.

I believe he is referring to the Bubble Cluster, one system is seen end on, the other edge on.

Garth

 

[SpaceTiger]

Welcome back ST! How is the thesis going?

Just fine, thanks. :)

I believe he is referring to the Bubble Cluster, one system is seen end on, the other edge on.

You're saying this ring has been seen in another system? Do you have a reference? In the paper, he discusses the Bullet Cluster, which they hypothesize is a similar effect seen from a different angle. However, the evidence for that is rather sketchy.

 

[Garth]

You're saying this ring has been seen in another system? Do you have a reference? In the paper, he discusses the Bullet Cluster, which they hypothesize is a similar effect seen from a different angle. However, the evidence for that is rather sketchy.

Yes it was that I was referring to.

Our numerical simulation with purely collisionless particles demonstrates that such density ripples can arise by radially expanding, decelerating particles that originally comprised the pre-collision cores. Cl 0024+17 can be likened to the bullet cluster 1E0657-56, but viewed along the collision axis at a much later epoch

Garth

 

[turbo]

Well, I apologise if this is against the Astro guidelines. In the Beyond SM forum, for example, we discuss such things frequently. On the other hand, I believe TGD qualifies as being part of 'current professional scientific discussion', given that many professionals (eg. Sir Roger Penrose) have been discussing it.

Kea, please post a link to that forum.