The Observations of the Dark Flow

[Edward Solomo]

I came across this article from 2008,

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/8...ugging-galaxies-beyond-the-universes-horizon/

I have three questions:

1) Has it been shown as of 2011 that the original observations were wrong and that the Dark Flow as a whole is a false observation (as it would explain the incredible lack of information on the topic)?

2) If not, has this question been resolved as of 2011?

3) Is there at least an untested theory that seems to adequately explain these observations?

If the answers to all three questions are no, then I'm declaring physics as my second major (I am a math major in my junior year) and devoting the rest of my life to solving, even if I only accomplish laying a framework for a greater mind to work from.

 

[Edward Solomo]

Am I posting in the wrong forum?

 

[phinds]

It's an interesting question. I find dark flow to be interesting but haven't seen too much info on it. As far as I am aware, it has not been proven to be a false observation or misinterpretation, but there is also no viable theory for what's happening.

I would not be surprised if it IS a false observation or misinterpretation. We've got two "dark"s too many already, as far as I'm concerned. Maybe if we completely understood THEM, then whatever it is that is causing the effects labeled dark flow would be understood. Or, maybe not.

 

[Edward Solomo]

It's an interesting question. I find dark flow to be interesting but haven't seen too much info on it. As far as I am aware, it has not been proven to be a false observation or misinterpretation, but there is also no viable theory for what's happening.

I would not be surprised if it IS a false observation or misinterpretation. We've got two "dark"s too many already, as far as I'm concerned. Maybe if we completely understood THEM, then whatever it is that is causing the effects labeled dark flow would be understood. Or, maybe not.

I just found a thread on the topic, and we appreciate if future (substantive) comments would be redirected here

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=513878

 

[Chronos]

'Dark' just seems to be a convenient label that has no real or intended connection to any other 'darks'. If the higgs particle were postulated today, it might well be known as the dark particle. If dark matter were known as 'zwicky matter', and dark energy as 'einstein energy', perhaps there would be a lot less confusion [just a little dark humor].