Largest structures in the universe show clear light-shifted signal of rotation

Jan 27, 2020
230
83
680
by Leibniz-Institut für Astrophysik Potsdam (AIP)

discovery-of-the-large.jpg
Artist’s impression of cosmic filaments: huge bridges of galaxies and dark matter connect clusters of galaxies to each other. Galaxies are funnelled on corkscrew like orbits towards and into large clusters that sit at their ends. Their light appears blue-shifted when they move towards us, and red-shifted when they move away. Credit: AIP/ A. Khalatyan/ J. Fohlmeister

By mapping the motion of galaxies in huge filaments that connect the cosmic web, astronomers at the Leibniz Institute for Astrophysics Potsdam (AIP), in collaboration with scientists in China and Estonia, have found that these long tendrils of galaxies spin on the scale of hundreds of millions of light years. A rotation on such enormous scales has never been seen before. The results published in Nature Astronomy signify that angular momentum can be generated on unprecedented scales.

Cosmic filaments are the huge bridges of galaxies and dark matter that connect clusters of galaxies to each other. They funnel galaxies toward and into large clusters that sit at their ends. "By mapping the motion of galaxies in these huge cosmic superhighways using the Sloan Digital Sky survey—a survey of hundreds of thousands of galaxies—we found a remarkable property of these filaments: they spin," says Peng Wang, first author of the now published study and astronomer at the AIP.

Noam Libeskind, initiator of the project at the AIP, says, "Despite being thin cylinders—similar in dimension to pencils—hundreds of millions of light years long, but just a few million light years in diameter, these fantastic tendrils of matter rotate. On these scales, the galaxies within them are themselves just specks of dust. They move on helixes, or corkscrew-like orbits, circling around the middle of the filament while traveling along it. Such a spin has never been seen before on such enormous scales, and the implication is that there must be an as-yet unknown physical mechanism responsible for torquing these objects."

How the angular momentum responsible for the rotation is generated in a cosmological context is one of the key unsolved problems of cosmology. In the standard model of structure formation, small overdensities present in the early universegrow via gravitational instability as matter flows from under to overdense regions. Such a potential flow is irrotational or curl-free; there is no primordial rotation in the early universe. As such, any rotation must be generated as structures form. The cosmic web in general, and filaments in particular, are intimately connected with galaxy formation and evolution. They also have a strong effect on galaxy spin, often regulating the direction of how galaxies and their dark matter halos rotate. However, it is not known whether the current understanding of structure formation predicts that filaments themselves, being uncollapsed quasi-linear objects, should spin.

"Motivated by the suggestion from the theorist Dr. Mark Neyrinck that filaments may spin, we examined the observed galaxy distribution, looking for filament rotation," says Noam Libeskind. "It's fantastic to see this confirmation that intergalactic filaments rotate in the real universe, as well as in computer simulation."
By using a sophisticated mapping method, the observed galaxy distribution was segmented into filaments. Each filament was approximated by a cylinder. Galaxies within it were divided into two regions on either side of the filament spine (in projection) and the mean redshift difference between the two regions was carefully measured. The mean redshift difference is a proxy for the velocity difference (the Doppler shift) between galaxies on the receding and approaching side of the filament tube. It can thus measure the filament's rotation. The study implies that depending on the viewing angle and end point mass, filaments in the universe show a clear signal consistent with rotation.

Peng Wang et al, Possible observational evidence for cosmic filament spin, Nature Astronomy (2021). DOI: 10.1038/s41550-021-01380-6

See: https://phys.org/news/2021-06-largest-universe-light-shifted-rotation.html

Wow! Cosmological discoveries at such vast scales seem to arrive quite often these days. Its hard to imagine that entire galactic filaments, which compose the galactic web, are rotating as they spiral toward galactic clusters, but the astrophysicists at the Leibniz Institute for Astrophysics Potsdam (AIP), in collaboration with scientists in China and Estonia, certainly seem to have found the required red and blue shifts in the galaxies they studied. And, as Dr Noam Libeskind, the AIP project initiator asks, what "unknown physical mechanism (is) responsible for torquing these objects?" Indeed! What physical mechanism can operate at such vast scales on such enormous objects?
Hartmann352
 
Mar 4, 2020
358
46
730
I have trying to convey this property of gravity for years now. Gravity interaction has a twist, a torque to it. I realized this when seeing an image of Io. Our planetary orbits are single turn, closed, helixes. They are not elliptical.

The orbit is under two, perpendicular, angular, accelerations.......forming a helix.

We know nothing of gravity.
 
Jan 27, 2020
230
83
680
I have trying to convey this property of gravity for years now. Gravity interaction has a twist, a torque to it. I realized this when seeing an image of Io. Our planetary orbits are single turn, closed, helixes. They are not elliptical.

The orbit is under two, perpendicular, angular, accelerations.......forming a helix.

We know nothing of gravity.
Hayseed, I think you are on to something.

As our solar system orbits the Milky Way, it appears that our planets, as they orbit the sun in their elliptical orbits, carve helical paths through the interstellar medium. Kindly examine the YouTube animation below for an idea of how this occurs:

See:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWxcgJUCDxg


I have also included an interesting Ted Talk on our place in the Universe. The video is very well done and is continually updated with the latest cosmological information.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXfOzhZGtNw


I have often thought about this process.

see: https://mathinsight.org/applet/parametrized_elliptical_helix

Hartmann352
 
Mar 4, 2020
358
46
730
Most think my observations are crack-pottery. Some think that the displacement of the solar system has something to do with the dynamic that I am trying to explain. It does not. Let me try again.

It is true that if you consider the solar system motion,(separate from the motion inside the system) on the planets, the planets have a helical displacement thru space......caused by the orbital rotation around the sun....while the sun is in motion. An open rotation thru space, but a closed rotation around the sun. How's come, no one points this out....when doing 6 month parallax measurements? And being that no one knows the velocity of the solar system.....how do we know the the base distance for the measurement? We have been in space for 60 years and still do not know. Probes are mass and have relative velocity. We shoot one ahead, and shoot one behind, and measure the displacement with radio. Why hasn't this fundamental measurement been done? I think the sun and the system spirals also.

Nature uses a spiral or helix to change the direction of mass, without losing velocity and momentum. It's a conservation dynamic......or motion. One can spread the term energy as thick or as thin as you want.....but energy is simply....motion.

For planetary orbital explanations, ignore whole system motion thru space. This dynamic works for all solar system velocities. Subtract the minimum distance from the maximum distance from the sun, for any planet. This length is called D1. Take the average distance to the sun for that planet and call that length....R2. Now, put your pretend cap on and imagine a cylinder with a base of D1 and a length of 6.28 R2. Now paint a thin red stripe that makes one turn around the cylinder. Now form a round tube or torus with the cylinder. Set the torus around the sun, on it's equatorial plane.
The earth, rides on that thin red stripe. A one turn, closed helix has the appearance and the measurement of an elliptic. BUT, it does not have the motional dynamic. That was first seen with Io trails thru a debris field. And only viewed, years after it was taken.

A one turn stripe on a torus is a planetary orbit. Planetary ringlets have multiple turn helical orbits. Stars have multiple turn helical orbits also. Therefore.....the velocities calculated are not taking this into account. We have invented dark matter. A helical orbit conserves velocity. Even far away orbits, like comparatively ringlets.

Like I said, we know nothing of gravity. How does velocity/momentum.....relate to distance and number of turns in the orbits????? Can we very the natural orbit distances, with number of turns?

We need some new gravity equations. There might be natural resonances. Or steps. They would have to be integrals of 1 turn. A discreetness due to physical geometry. A quantum "effect"???

And if you look closely, you will find a dust or debris torus for every planet orbit.
 
Jul 29, 2021
98
5
55
The awesome implications are done for the certain study, which is given above by Hartmann352.
The visualization of how it looks to be.
Every such result should be taken into account for something that we already have in common.

Still, having atomic clock we have no full understanding of the Earth spinning itself. Moreover, it's fluctuations hinder daily life, like GPS alignment and mobile device performance.
Extrapolating one time or a certain period of time of Milky Way speed might rather give wrong conclusions.

Common terms and accepted theories should not be twisted, unless there is any obvious evidence and proof.

The first thing to understand is what the theory of gravity is. The way Newton did: as a fixed, unchanging set of coordinates that you could place your masses down onto. When Newton first conceived of the Universe, he pictured space as a grid. It was an absolute, fixed entity filled with masses that gravitationally attracted one another.

Einstein recognized that this imaginary grid wasn't fixed, wasn't absolute. Instead, it was like a fabric, and the fabric itself was curved, distorted and forced to evolve over time by the presence of matter and energy.

Alexander Friedmann showed that if you didn't add this extra cosmological constant, and you had a Universe that was filled with anything energetic (e.g. matter, radiation, dust, fluid, etc.) there were two classes of solutions: one for a contracting Universe and one for an expanding Universe.

The mathematics tells about the possible solutions, but you need to look to the physical Universe to find which one of these describes us. Hubble was the first to discover that individual stars could be measured in other galaxies, determining their distance.

Nearly concurrent with this was the work of Vesto Slipher. Atoms work the same everywhere in the Universe: they absorb and emit light at certain, specific frequencies which depend on how their electrons are excited or de-excited. When he viewed these distant objects, other galaxies, their atomic signatures were shifted to longer wavelengths than could be explained.

The two ways to make sense of this:

1.Either all of relativity was wrong, we were at the center of the Universe, and everything was moving symmetrically away from us.

2. Or relativity was right, Friedmann was right, and the farther away a galaxy was from us, on average, the faster it appeared to recede from our perspective.

It's as though the fabric of space itself is getting stretched over time, and all the objects within that space are being dragged apart from one another.

The farther away an object is from another, the more "stretching" occurs. If all you had was a Universe filled uniformly and evenly with matter, that matter would simply get less dense.

But the Universe isn't perfectly even and uniform. It has underdense regions, like great cosmic voids where there are virtually no massive objects present at all.

On small scales, like the scales of living creatures and below, the electromagnetic and nuclear forces dominate. On larger scales, like those of planets, solar systems and galaxies, gravitational forces dominate.

On the largest scales of all, the expansion wins. The most distant galaxies are expanding away so quickly that no signals we send out, even at the speed of light, will ever reach them.

The superclusters of the Universe, stretching for over a billion light years, are being stretched and pulled apart by the Universe's expansion. In the relatively short term, over the next few billion years, they will go extinct. Still, the Milky Way's nearest large galaxy cluster, the Virgo cluster, at just 50 million light years away, will never pull us into it. Despite a gravitational pull that's more than a thousand times as powerful as our own, the expansion of the Universe will drive all of this apart.

Nearby, the Virgo cluster itself will remain gravitationally bound. The Milky Way and all the local group galaxies will stay bound together, eventually merging together under their own gravity.
 
Mar 4, 2020
358
46
730
An EM emission from 13 billion years ago, and detected now, is a much larger structure. I have manufactured such structures and mine are about 80 light years in diameter at present. My structures has encountered many stars.

Gravity can be a puzzle, until you do something that makes it.......and then undo something and it goes away. Gravity is not fundamental. All fundamental properties come from isolated charge. And there is no gravity present. Only when a dipole is formed......does one get gravity.

Gravity is a dipole property. Most draw two little circles, and a line connecting them, one with a plus, one with a minus...........imagining the circles moving in and out to each other. A vibrating dipole.

But, that is not how a electron-proton dipole works. And maybe this is why modern scientist believe that when an atom clock changes frequency.....time itself changes.

One of the misconceptions of charge is......the huge difference in physical size of the entities. And the fact that energy sets the size.....more energy......smaller size.......less energy.....larger size.

Every charge has a e value of electric field. The density of that constant amount is varied.....with size and area. The density difference, between two fields.....sets the distance of the dipole. I am sure you have not been taught this. But if you adjust the particle sizes to be the same........the particles will completely unwrap each other.......the process you call anti-matter disintegration. IF there was no size difference in particles......all particles would have disappeared long ago.

I could go on and on. But if you study the particle structure....all the fundamental properties follow all the ratios of such.......with the motion and size of this structure. Mechanical manufacture of properties.

The densities, momentums and the spacial regions of these two "dipole" fields......are extremely asymmetric.

There are several components of this asymmetry. Density. Momentum. Handedness.(the orientation of momentum)

My money is on handedness. I believe an unbalance of handedness will attract another unbalance in handedness. Weakly.

Just like 2 dipoles attract. To make the lightest atom, in which you call a hydrogen molecule. The H1 structure that you call a H1 atom.......is a dipole......the fundamental component of all atoms. Two dipoles give you this first nucleus, and therefore the first atom.

The connecting line between the two particles(up to ten protons and ten electrons with a full nucleus)....is a magnetic dipole. Magnetic lines are angular. The dipole is angled. Look at my icon to see two dipoles together. The magnetic flux holding that structure together.....is completely enclosed. That's the definition of a M dipole.....where the flux is enclosed. Like the flux in a toroid core. The two particles spin in opposite directions. GIVING a common direction M field. That's handedness. Another fundamental property.

The amount of area, the length of time, of the same dynamics over and over, convinces me that nature has to be on the simple side. Intermittent light, 2 particle mass, can explain all measurements, except gravity.

What does nature really abhor......an unbalance of rotational momentum......or an unbalance of field density?

The g attraction is an apparent weak attempt, to even a balance that can't be satisfied.......and adds to the unbalance.

Of course, there is the possibility that the building of this g unbalance(accumulating mass).....is in response to a potential ....undetected. A handedness potential.....perhaps. Maybe even the spin of the cosmos. Spin laws.

Wouldn't that be something......the spin of the cosmos causes matter to accumulate.

What would we do without a puzzle?
 
Jul 29, 2021
98
5
55
An EM emission from 13 billion years ago, and detected now, is a much larger structure. I have manufactured such structures and mine are about 80 light years in diameter at present. My structures has encountered many stars.

Gravity can be a puzzle, until you do something that makes it.......and then undo something and it goes away. Gravity is not fundamental. All fundamental properties come from isolated charge. And there is no gravity present. Only when a dipole is formed......does one get gravity.

Gravity is a dipole property. Most draw two little circles, and a line connecting them, one with a plus, one with a minus...........imagining the circles moving in and out to each other. A vibrating dipole.

But, that is not how a electron-proton dipole works. And maybe this is why modern scientist believe that when an atom clock changes frequency.....time itself changes.

One of the misconceptions of charge is......the huge difference in physical size of the entities. And the fact that energy sets the size.....more energy......smaller size.......less energy.....larger size.

Every charge has a e value of electric field. The density of that constant amount is varied.....with size and area. The density difference, between two fields.....sets the distance of the dipole. I am sure you have not been taught this. But if you adjust the particle sizes to be the same........the particles will completely unwrap each other.......the process you call anti-matter disintegration. IF there was no size difference in particles......all particles would have disappeared long ago.

I could go on and on. But if you study the particle structure....all the fundamental properties follow all the ratios of such.......with the motion and size of this structure. Mechanical manufacture of properties.

The densities, momentums and the spacial regions of these two "dipole" fields......are extremely asymmetric.

There are several components of this asymmetry. Density. Momentum. Handedness.(the orientation of momentum)

My money is on handedness. I believe an unbalance of handedness will attract another unbalance in handedness. Weakly.

Just like 2 dipoles attract. To make the lightest atom, in which you call a hydrogen molecule. The H1 structure that you call a H1 atom.......is a dipole......the fundamental component of all atoms. Two dipoles give you this first nucleus, and therefore the first atom.

The connecting line between the two particles(up to ten protons and ten electrons with a full nucleus)....is a magnetic dipole. Magnetic lines are angular. The dipole is angled. Look at my icon to see two dipoles together. The magnetic flux holding that structure together.....is completely enclosed. That's the definition of a M dipole.....where the flux is enclosed. Like the flux in a toroid core. The two particles spin in opposite directions. GIVING a common direction M field. That's handedness. Another fundamental property.

The amount of area, the length of time, of the same dynamics over and over, convinces me that nature has to be on the simple side. Intermittent light, 2 particle mass, can explain all measurements, except gravity.

What does nature really abhor......an unbalance of rotational momentum......or an unbalance of field density?

The g attraction is an apparent weak attempt, to even a balance that can't be satisfied.......and adds to the unbalance.

Of course, there is the possibility that the building of this g unbalance(accumulating mass).....is in response to a potential ....undetected. A handedness potential.....perhaps. Maybe even the spin of the cosmos. Spin laws.

Wouldn't that be something......the spin of the cosmos causes matter to accumulate.

What would we do without a puzzle?
Hopefully, this would bring us to common understanding.

'Every charge has a e value of electric field. The density of that constant amount is varied.....with size and area. The density difference, between two fields.....sets the distance of the dipole.' - for sure.

The eccentricity of the scale of hydrogen atom, solar system, galaxy, local group galaxies should have similar effect, though with difference on the time scale. When we talk about the solar system, it remain 'stable' for a certain billion years.
In the same time, formation of particles, stars, galaxies after 'An EM emission from 13 billion years ago'
would be the result of particles interaction due to eccentricity due to momentum orientation.

'Although both dark matter and ordinary matter are matter, they do not behave in the same way. In particular, in the early universe, ordinary matter was ionized and interacted strongly with radiation via Thomson scattering. Dark matter does not interact directly with radiation, but it does affect the CMB by its gravitational potential (mainly on large scales), and by its effects on the density and velocity of ordinary matter. Ordinary and dark matter perturbations, therefore, evolve differently with time and leave different imprints on the cosmic microwave background (CMB). ' - Wikipedia
 
Aug 10, 2021
1
0
10
Looks like part of a living entity
Universe expanding may just be "growth spurt" dark energy may just be life.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY