Universe being tugged at by structures outside the universe

[Delta4907]

"Dark flow" is no fluke, suggests a new study that strengthens the case for unknown, unseen "structures" lurking on the outskirts of creation.

In 2008 scientists reported the discovery of hundreds of galaxy clusters streaming in the same direction at more than 2.2 million miles (3.6 million kilometers) an hour.

This mysterious motion can't be explained by current models for distribution of mass in the universe. So the researchers made the controversial suggestion that the clusters are being tugged on by the gravity of matter outside the known universe.

Now the same team has found that the dark flow extends even deeper into the universe than previously reported: out to at least 2.5 billion light-years from Earth.

After using two additional years' worth of data and tracking twice the number of galaxy clusters, "we clearly see the flow, we clearly see it pointing in the same direction," said study leader Alexander Kashlinsky, an astrophysicist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland.

"It looks like a very coherent flow."

The find adds to the case that chunks of matter got pushed outside the known universe shortly after the big bang—which in turn hints that our universe is part of something larger: a multiverse.

Dark Flow's Extended Reach

Kashlinsky and colleagues first noticed the dark flow when studying the way gas in galaxy clusters interacts with the cosmic microwave background radiation. This burst of light is thought to have been released just 380,000 years after the big bang and now permeates the universe.

(Related: "Universe 20 Million Years Older Than Thought.")

Data from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) can show the minute temperature changes created as the cosmic microwave background radiation moves through gases in galaxy clusters.

These gases scatter light from the cosmic microwave background radiation as it passes through the clusters, similar to the way Earth's atmosphere can scatter starlight, making some stars twinkle.

But the clusters are also moving relative to the background radiation, so the scattered light gets distorted further by the Doppler effect. This distortion appears in the form of temperature shifts in WMAP data, which can reveal the clusters' direction and speed.

"It is very difficult to isolate [the temperature change] for each individual cluster," Kashlinsky said, so the original study had examined 700 clusters.

The new study is based on the collective motion of about 1,400 galaxy clusters, and seeing dark flow with the greater number of clusters gives the researchers more confidence in their result.

In addition, the team tested their analysis method by comparing the x-ray brightness of certain clusters with the strength of temperature changes seen in the WMAP data. Brighter clusters—those with more hot gases—would be expected to have greater affects on the cosmic microwave background, and that's what the new study confirmed.

Kashlinsky speculates that the dark flow extends "all the way across the visible universe," or about 47 billion light-years, which would fit with the notion that the clusters are being pulled by matter that lies beyond known horizons.

Dark flow, he said, "would be much more difficult to explain theoretically if it extended [2.5 billion light-years] and then just stopped."

Source: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/03/100322-dark-flow-matter-outside-universe-multiverse/

I think this is really cool. I've always liked these kind of findings.

[Dwood]

Interesting. Too bad we haven't been able to get into (deep) space and actually test our theories.

[Good_Apollo]

I'd find this more interesting but it's too much theoretical bullshit to really care about, like string-theory. In the end it could be so off base future scientists are going to wonder what we were smoking.

[Bodzilla]

if no one ever raise's the question, it will never be answered Good Apollo.

Let them do they're research and models, More information is always a good thing and if the new data doesnt fit with the current moulds of science, They will change the moulds to fit the data.
Thats why science owns.

[Kornman00]

If this dark flow is actually matter...wouldn't it need to be more massive than the universe itself to have such an affect on existing matter (these galaxies)? And if that was the case, if it's external to the universe, wouldn't it also be pulling on the universe and not just these galaxies? Kind of like how the Sun affects the Earth which affects us.

If the universe as we know it existed in a greater-universe (to give scale, meaning our universe is more like a galaxy to an outsider) then maybe this dark flow could be some greater-universe's black-hole. A universe in this greater-universe which has already pushed itself to it's expansion limits then collapsed into itself. However, it was so massive that it instead collapsed into a black hole itself, unable to explode back into a big bang.


It's been five years since I last took physics so excuse my holed memory. Ye 'ol nuerons haven't kept their connections strong in this subject.

[n00b1n8R]

By known universe, I imagine they mean visible universe.

Visibility on universal scale is reduced by that annoying "speed of light" thing so there's no reason the majority of matter would be out of our range of sight. vOv

[Kornman00]

Ah, observable universe. With that then I guess a multiverse is easily explainable as they would basically be exisiting in a greater-universe as a galaxy.

Would be awesome if these other universes were actually goverened by different constants and all of this is actually just on big calculation in progress.

[sdavis117]

This just supports that we are a tiny universe inside the atom of an even larger universe.

[kid908]

Going on your title for this thread, the force tugging on our universe might not follow any of the laws here, as in our universe, at all and could be govern by a hole different set of laws.
But if it's the known universe, we could basically be part of something greater.

@apollo: All science started off theoretical until proven false or true.

For the "wtf are they smoking back then," look at the model of the atom we had suggested and the one that's in acceptance now; it's tremendously different. As we get more data, we change our models to fit it. Same thing with the earth being flat, and earth is the center of the universe beliefs.

String theory is backed by the math based on other testable equations. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it is wrong or it is right. If the properties displayed by the current model follow the known laws of the universe, it's acceptable to believe that the model is correct until proven wrong. I'm not saying it's not wrong, I'm saying current data and knowledge supports the theory, it might be proven wrong in the future. Science have been wrong quite often during discovery of new subjects.

[sdavis117]

Scientific theories are not the beginning of a scientific idea. It is the END of an idea that is proven to be the most accurate explanation for a phenomenon.

Scientific Process:

Question --> Observations --> Hypothesis --> Testing --> Theory --> Cake

[Con]

Since gravity is also limited by c, shouldn't that also make these structures visible to the the galaxies being pulled? But if that's the case, then wouldn't the light from the structure have already reached us if we can see its effects on those galaxies? Or maybe there's something else at play here... I'm confused.

[kid908]

Scientific theories are not the beginning of a scientific idea. It is the END of an idea that is proven to be the most accurate explanation for a phenomenon.

Scientific Process:

Question --> Observations --> Hypothesis --> Testing --> Theory --> Cake

My bad, but theory isn't the end, it's still need to be physically proven.
You should have some proof for it to be a theory, but to me it's a theory if it hasn't been physically proven in a way we can see how it effects something.

Like black holes, we theorize there are black holes, the math makes sense but we have PROVEN it existed (unless I missed something that have physical proof it existed); we only theorize that it exists.

[sdavis117]

My bad, but theory isn't the end, it's still need to be physically proven.
You should have some proof for it to be a theory, but to me it's a theory if it hasn't been physically proven in a way we can see how it effects something.

Like black holes, we theorize there are black holes, the math makes sense but we have PROVEN it existed; we only theorize that it exists.
You know what else is a theory? Gravity. It is a theory.

It is almost IMPOSSIBLE for something to become a scientific fact.

A theory is something that has been proven to be true, and is the best answer to a specific question.

[kid908]

You know what else is a theory? Gravity. It is a theory.

It is almost IMPOSSIBLE for something to become a scientific fact.

But we see it having an effect on us and other object! That's a fact. We can feel the presence of magnetic force, we know it's there. We might not see it, but we can see its effects.

[Dwood]

The theory has to be proven completely flawless. Gravity is not a theory, it's a law btw.

[Good_Apollo]

The theory has to be proven completely flawless. Gravity is not a theory, it's a law btw.
It's a theory, btw.

[Dwood]

Learn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation) for (http://www.jimloy.com/physics/gravity.htm) you (http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newtongrav.html)'re (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=is+gravity+a+law+or+theory)saelf (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=is+gravity+a+law)

[Good_Apollo]

The existence of gravity is a law, it's explanation is theory.

Sup.

[Yoko]

Uh of course it's explained by the theory, but it's been proven through experimentation and factual evidence

Scientific Method, Apollo

[Good_Apollo]

Uh of course it's explained by the theory, but it's been proven through experimentation and factual evidence

Scientific Method, ApolloSo you're saying exactly what I'm saying? Pro.

[Yoko]

Theory is third step of Scientific Method, it's been proven so it's a set law.

It's a theory, btw.
nope

[Good_Apollo]

It's proven that Gravity exists and it does things, how it does what it does is a theory. L2Read.

[teh lag]

internet forum science and physics semantics

[Good_Apollo]

internet forum science and physics semanticsBut wait, I too can source random internet pages (http://thehappyscientist.com/science-experiment/gravity-theory-or-law) to affirm my opinion without even reading them! (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p67.htm)

[teh lag]

that meant drop it

[n00b1n8R]

Since gravity is also limited by c, shouldn't that also make these structures visible to the the galaxies being pulled? But if that's the case, then wouldn't the light from the structure have already reached us if we can see its effects on those galaxies? Or maybe there's something else at play here... I'm confused.
Just because there's mass doesn't mean there's any light coming from it.

Mass is all you need for gravity to work after all.

[Bodzilla]

i just wanna know about how this is going to effect the appearance of water in new video games.

[ejburke]

I'd explain why the Universe experiences a dark flow once a month, but then I'd have to explain where babies come from and I don't think you people are ready to deal with that lesson.

[Higuy]

I thought the universe went on forever.

How can it be bigger then the universe o_0

[Bloodraver]

I Think that the reason this is happening has somthing to do with Dark Matter

-Im not sure though-

Wiki-In astronomy and cosmology, dark matter is a conjectured form of matter that is undetectable by its emitted electromagnetic radiation, but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter and background radiation.[1] Its existence has been hypothesized to account for recently discovered discrepancies between measurements of the mass of the universe by gravitational methods, and measurements based on visible objects (galaxies, gas, dust). According to observations of structures larger than galaxies, as well as Big Bang cosmology, dark matter accounts for 23% of the total mass-energy of the observable universe, while the ordinary matter accounts for only 4.6% (the remainder is attributed to dark energy)- Wikipedia

[kid908]

I Think that the reason this is happening has somthing to do with Dark Matter

-Im not sure though-


Dark matter tend to not interact with any EM frequency, leaving it "invisible" to both visible light and every other light wave.
I see your reasoning. Dark matter affect the velocity and movement of galaxies already so maybe. I think it's unlikely, but it is a possibility.

[DarkHalo003]

Science is good with details, but I like religious scripture about these kinds of things for broader purpose. That aside, this sounds pretty crazy. Basically, they are saying that there is ANOTHER force that shifts the cosmos and keeps things in balance, no? Sounds interesting, but saying something is OUTSIDE of the UNIVERSE is a bit farfetch'd, don't you think?

[Bodzilla]

only if you think of the universe as an all encompassing thing that stretches to infinity.

which is not.
It's just really fucking big.

[Bloodraver]

meh it is possible that this explosion that suposedly created the universe could have ejected a few things out of it (If you catch my drift here)

[=sw=warlord]

only if you think of the universe as an all encompassing thing that stretches to infinity.

which is not.
It's just really fucking big.
That's what screwed with einsteins head, it went against his beliefs the universe was infinite, as the saying goe's:
"Everything that has a beginning, has a end."

[kid908]

That's what screwed with einsteins head, it went against his beliefs the universe was infinite, as the saying goe's:
"Everything that has a beginning, has a end."

Ahh the static Universe, back when everyday life was simple.

Oh, did the prove whether the universe is flat or curved (spherical or hyperbolic) yet?

@blood: search string/m-theory. It'll explain why they believe this thing can be outside of our universe.

[Warsaw]

I like to believe that there are an infinite number of universes with an infinite number of combinations of laws of physics. That begs the question, though, if those universes are tugging at this one and some of them are also expanding, wouldn't they eventually collide?

I approve of this thread.

[=sw=warlord]

I like to believe that there are an infinite number of universes with an infinite number of combinations of laws of physics. That begs the question, though, if those universes are tugging at this one and some of them are also expanding, wouldn't they eventually collide?


Depends if you look at the distance between universes by our perception of distances.
Remember outside of these universes there is no space or time, the literal definition of a void.
Even more daunting is these universes could be in different dimensions.

[Con]

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/pdf/276176main_ApJLetters_20Oct2008.pdf

They think it might be motion left over from from things that were tugging on it during the big bang, but are no longer within the current horizon due to the inflation during the big bang. Sounds like a good proposal to me.