The cosmic web, that twisted thread along which the galaxies are located, was discovered for the first time at a great distance from Earth - 6.7 billion light years
Are there skeletons to the universe? Structures that form the framework within which the galaxies are distributed? Astronomers have managed to locate a previously unknown concentration of galaxies 7 billion light-years away, which seem to indicate a prominent structure of galaxies in the distant universe. This discovery provides further insight into the cosmic web and how it was formed.
"The matter is not uniformly distributed in the universe" says Masayuki Tanaka from ESO, who led the research. "In our cosmic neighborhood, stars are formed in galaxies and galaxies are concentrated in galaxy clusters. The accepted cosmological theories predict that the matter will crystallize into a larger structure known as the "cosmic web", where the galaxies, together with thin threads stretching between empty spaces, form a thin but enormous structure.
The thin thread connecting the galaxies is about 6.7 billion light years away from us and covers at least 60 million light years. The newly discovered structure likely extends further beyond the field examined by the team of scientists, and therefore additional observations are planned to more accurately measure its size.
This thread is millions of light years long and is the skeleton that holds the universe, galaxies gather around these threads. And there are also junctions between these threads that look like an ambush of threads of a tyrannical spider waiting to digest more and more material.
The scientists are unable to determine how these structures were formed, although long filamentous structures are often observed at short distances from us, the solid proof of their existence in the deep universe has not been in our hands until now.
A team led by Tanka identified the large structure around a galaxy cluster in an image taken earlier. Now they used two large ground-based telescopes to study the structure in greater detail, measuring the distances from Earth to more than 150 galaxies, creating a three-dimensional model of the structure. The spectroscopic observations were made with the VIMOS instrument on ESO's Very Large Telescope, and FOCAS on the Subaru Telescope operated by the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan.
Using these and other observations, the astronomers were able to perform a true demographic study of the structure, identifying several groups of galaxies surrounding the main galaxy cluster. Dozens of such clumps can be discerned, each of them 10 times as massive as our Milky Way and some even thousands of times larger than it - while they estimate the mass of the cluster to be about 10,000 times the mass of the Milky Way. Some of these clumps that feel the pull of the cluster will eventually fall into it.
"This is the first time we have observed a rich and prominent structure in the distant universe," says Tanaka. "We can now move from demography to sociology and study how the properties of galaxies depend on their environment, at a time when the universe was only half its current age."
More on the subject on the science website
43 תגובות
generation,
Suppose you are a triangle (ie a two-dimensional shape) placed on the shell of a sphere.
You have nothing but two dimensions in your world (since you are two-dimensional). But your world still curves into a (XNUMXD) sphere. This is the 'geometry' of your world, as a two-dimensional triangle superimposed on a three-dimensional sphere.
Beyond this geometry there is nothing - it is 'everything' from a physical point of view, but it is full (on its 'curve', i.e. on the 'envelope' of the sphere) with triangles, squares, circles, trapezoids, pentagons, etc. and even just segments and points, arranged in a certain, - and what constitutes its 'skeleton'.
Now convert the two-dimension into three-dimension and the three-dimension into four-dimension, and you will get the 'structure' (that is - the 'geometry') of the universe, and its 'skeleton', and you will also understand that there is nothing physical beyond this 'structure'. This structure is the physical 'everything' on a large scale.
As for the question of why (if at all) that particular structure, and why that particular skeleton - science does not have all the answers, as of today, but it is possible to review the literature and try to understand the observed findings and the related hypotheses.
The article seems to me wrong from its root...
If there is any structure to the universe, what is outside of the structure? And if it is made of a structure, why specifically of that particular structure?
Listen, if someone can explain something to me, I think I finally understood what the scientists think about the time dimension (regardless of the article), they think that we are now advancing in it without being able to control it and if, for example, I go back in time to yesterday, then there will be nothing there, because That we and the earth and everything are no longer there (yesterday), are they here (today, now)?
If someone can answer this for me then great.
Thanks
To Ami Bakr Shalom
I will try to understand the secrets of the curved universe as best I can, and convey my thoughts to you.
Well, it is known that there are 180 degrees in a triangle. but
Suppose we live on a spherical shell. A triangle drawn on this sphere has more than 180 degrees.
And if we have a triangle on the surface of this sphere as well as its shape and the sum of its angles we can arrive at the diameter of the sphere with the help of Raleigh High School Elementary Mathematics.
So far did you understand Mr. Baruch?
Likewise, in our poor universe, the sum of the angles in a triangle according to the theory of relativity is not 180 degrees, so if we have the data for any triangle in our crooked universe, we can arrive at the diameter of our beloved universe.
This is how I understand it, and if I brought it up to you in my lice response, you filled my heart with happiness!
Shabbat Shalom to the pilgrims
Sabdarmish Yehuda
It is still difficult to understand the dimension of time but as I understand it then our future is actually the past of our future and the future of our future is actually our past then in both situations our past exists therefore future = past and because the past did exist then there is a future. Maybe it's a little hard to understand, I'll try to explain myself in more detail, but first I'd love to get responses to the idea I brought up (this is also what I understand from Boehm's theory).
I would love to hear a response to an idea that came to my mind:
The dark matter and dark energy that they are looking for are actually the "atoms" of space and time that carry and respond to the strings - or vice versa, the strings respond to their presence. It is difficult to assume that space-time can exist on its own without baryonic matter - or energy, so there is apparently a more basic level of connectivity here that we have no tools to measure the "mass" of space - time.
Ami, you still don't fully understand. In your response 34 you wrote "We are on a 4-dimensional sphere and see only 3 dimensions, moving on its curved two-dimensional shell which is actually one-dimensional (a line) that has curved and rounded" - we do not move on the two-dimensional shell (but in all three dimensions of space) and it is not actually sharp Curved dimension (circle). We live and understand 32D, we just have a hard time visualizing the curvature to ourselves (just as the hypothetical creatures in the lower dimensions have a hard time. And in response XNUMX "If we are at least XNUMXD then we would at least have to see the XNUMXD of the universe (the shell of the sphere)." - We are XNUMXD and We see and understand another dimension in which our space is curved (and not that we had to see two dimensions - a balloon).
And sorry that I keep bothering the science nerds - but a Google search of "psychophysics" shows that the name is already occupied by another discipline.
From Wikipedia: Psychophysics is one of the branches of psychology, which deals with the relationship between the physical stimuli to which a person is exposed, and the psychological feelings that arise in him as a result of exposure to these stimuli. The researchers in the field deal with the relationship between the objective stimulus and the subjective feelings it evokes in people, through the sensing and perception systems.
Sphere - XNUMXD
Its shell is two-dimensional which is actually one-dimensional (a line) that curved on itself to create something round two-dimensional. And if this ball has time in which it moves then we also have a fourth dimension and so on.
Until the other day I didn't understand any of this and today I got a glimpse into very complicated and theoretical physics that has been studied for decades. It's beautiful, because it's the power of the Internet combined with the basic instinct of humans to share information.
I think there is room to open a joint department between psychology and physics (psychophysics) that will explore the field of understanding physics.
The truth is that Michael's last response is actually very enlightening even though everything has already been said above in more detail. I can actually understand this a little more.
ZA to extrapolate to additional dimensions with the idea of, let's say: we are on a 4-dimensional sphere and see only 3 dimensions, moving on its curved XNUMX-dimensional shell which is actually a one-dimensional (line) that has been curved and rounded - therefore we can actually understand how from the four dimensions that are clear to us of Time space, can be reduced to one dimension. And if that's the case, perhaps induction to higher dimensions can also be done. The simplest example is good. At the same time, I understand that I am unable to grasp beyond the dimensions of space (and maybe sometimes also time) and in order to ascend to higher dimensions or to all In addition, there is a need for a non-intuitive theory such as mathematics.
Many thanks
Ami:
I tried to show the examples from lower dimensions only as an example.
I didn't say we were on the XNUMXD shell of a XNUMXD sphere.
The intention was that it was possible to take it one step further and talk about a three-dimensional envelope of a four-dimensional sphere.
I emphasize that this is only an illustration and not that there is an additional dimension of space beyond the three you are familiar with.
In this illustration, just as the envelope (circle) of a one-dimensional sphere (circle) appears to its occupants as a one-dimensional space without edges and just as the envelope of a three-dimensional sphere appears to its occupants as a two-dimensional space without edges - so also the envelope of a four-dimensional sphere will appear to its occupants as a three-dimensional space without edges.
If so, thank you all. A circle, not a circle. A ball shell and not the ball. In any case, it is not intuitive for a biologist like me. I have a hard time grasping how it is possible to look to the four corners of the universe, see that the distance is equal from where I look to the horizon in every direction and yet speak of only one or two dimensions as an analogy. I do understand what Aryeh Seter said regarding the one and two dimensional beings and us as three (and half) dimensional beings who cannot see the other dimensions. But I don't understand going back. A two-dimensional creature also sees one dimension but not three. If we are at least three-dimensional then we should at least see the two-dimensionality of the universe (the shell of the sphere). But we see three dimensions in all their depth. I think that today we also manage to grasp a time dimension, after a century in which we are being talked about a fourth dimension.
In any case, if I want to get to the bottom of a matter I will probably have to read a little more organized material and invest my time. I'm afraid it won't happen soon for reasons related to the dimension of life that is getting shorter every moment and the dimension of power that is getting behind every moment.
Regards and thanks,
Ami Bachar
Michael, often, your comments make me wiser than the article. Thanks
Ami:
This is not about undermining the isotropic view of the universe.
The isotropic concept speaks of a very large scale - it is clear that if I look into a star I will encounter a higher material density than if I look into empty space.
The idea is that on a very large scale - there is isotropy.
On a very large scale, the image obtained from the background radiation is also similar in every direction, and one can even conclude from it a similarity in the image of the background radiation observed from other places in the universe in the past and see that it is also isotropic (for example - you can see that the background image observed from a star a billion light years away from us was isotropic until at least a billion years ago year. Then parts of the universe that we don't see yet were revealed to him, so we can't conclude that his picture of the world is isotropic even today).
When I talk about a "circle" I'm talking about the edge of the circle - the line that surrounds it.
The circle is two-dimensional (therefore two coordinates are needed to specify a point on its surface). The circle is one-dimensional (only one coordinate is needed to specify a point on its surface).
When I talked about a ball, I also meant its rim - that is, its shell.
While the ball is three-dimensional - its rim is two-dimensional.
As Eddie already said, you can get a comprehensive picture if you read the book Poincaré Conjecture.
The standard model of cosmology based on the mathematics that we have mentioned here on the tip of the fork is indeed compatible with all the observations that have been made so far, so it can be said that not only the paper suffers from it but also the findings.
For my people - a circle and a ball. A - not a circle but a circle and B not a sphere but the shell of a sphere. And after correcting the terminology, here is the simple explanation. A circle is basically a line that has been curved into a circle shape; A ball shell is actually a surface that has been bent nicely until it forms a balloon. This is also how our three-dimensional space is bent in the direction of the fourth dimension... just as one-dimensional beings living on a line will have difficulty understanding that their line is actually rounded (and closed), and just as two-dimensional beings living on the shell of the sphere do not know that everything is actually curved - so we three-dimensional beings have difficulty grasping the curvature of the space.
Ami Becher peace,
As I wrote in my previous comment, my knowledge on this subject is that of a 'layman', that is, I am not a professional.
In my opinion, the topic deserves a special article, and is not so amenable to an orderly extraction in the responses, both because it is necessary to draw sketches for the purpose of demonstration and illustration and also because the terminology requires a certain amount of detail and length. Perhaps Michael Rothschild, who is a mathematician and also an expert in physics, or someone else professional, could write such an article.
As for myself, I would be happy to send you by email the material I have on the subject (including drawings). You will be able to receive my email from the system. After that - and on this basis - it will be possible to continue a dialogue or a conversation.
Many thanks to Michael and Eddie for taking the time to help me understand the terminology a little. If I understood your responses correctly, there is quite a lot of similarity between them in certain parts. At the same time, I must admit again, with some shame, that I did not quite understand.
Michael,
Does this article damage the assumption that there really is isotropy in the universe? To the best of my recollection, an article was once published even by a scientist that shows a map or part of a map of the background radiation and also in which you can see that there are areas like this and there are other areas with varying levels of radiation.
On another matter, if possible, I would just like to give another word or a simple sentence that could give me a clue as to what you meant by a circle being one-dimensional and a sphere being two-dimensional. I'm used to thinking of them as two-dimensional and three-dimensional, respectively. It is very possible that this is precisely my problem in understanding and as soon as I understand why a sphere is two-dimensional and a circle is one-dimensional, things will become clear. You also say that these spaces are found within other and additional dimensions and their use is an abstraction for the convenience of their visualization - if so, is this just a way to explain to laymen like me how to think about the universe and not to have any real grip on reality? Or are these models of real physical value that describe the shape of the universe? (I was able to understand the matter of there being no edges and therefore no center). Finally, I will ask if the mathematical manipulations also have a grip on reality? I understand that it is possible to develop mathematics that would support multi-dimensions and be closed logically as a mathematical theory - but is it, except on paper (which, as readers of science know, can tolerate anything), compatible with observations that go beyond the 4 dimensions of space-time that we are familiar with?
Eddie,
You also used terminology unfamiliar to me when you said "flat three-dimensional space". If it is possible to clarify this point of how 2D + the time dimension can be 2D - it will surely enlighten my eyes. Superimposing the three-dimensional universe on the spatial superuniverse doesn't help me understand the mechanism - these are words for me and I can't see the meaning there. As for what you said in section XNUMX, b, I don't even ask. This is probably very far from my understanding and ability. Terminology of "margin of infinite distance" is unclear to me; I also don't know what you mean when you say pseudo sphere and if it is a sphere then why when you flatten it or part of it you get a saddle? Why does the space curve there only in XNUMX directions and not for all? The last part maybe to put aside for now and let me remain in my ignorance until I understand the simpler things of two-dimensional which is one-dimensional and three-dimensional which is two-dimensional.
Many thanks,
Ami Bachar
The "big bang" as a theory for the expansion of time and space also reveals within it the initial development of matter and basically everything that is visible to the human eye, it could be that what the scientists saw for the first time was the limit that at about the same time the matter we know in the universe began to form (similarly and I emphasize similar to the wave of the page .not in its visual form).
From a naughty tailor who sews him a universe with "skeleton thread" with twists and a complicated cut according to the "body-wearing" it with pockets = black holes materials and anti-materials dark materials and materials appear super novae and samples of spiral galaxies and others on the face of this special and strange garment. "And this garment" is in motion, of course, and therefore wears and takes shape, and it is impossible to definitively decide what its shape actually is.
Ami Bachar,
There are books that may be a good general popular introduction to the subject of space.
One such book is the book by the mathematician Rudy Reker "The Fourth Dimension" (1990 in Hebrew - XNUMX).
Another good book: Donal O'Shea's 'Poincare Conjecture' (YEL in Hebrew 2008).
Important concepts discussed can be expanded using Wikipedia (preferably in English, of course).
Ami Becher peace,
In my understanding (the 'layman's' understanding), there are several possibilities to understand the shape of space, i.e. its 'geometry':
1. The space is a flat three-dimensional space (known as 'homeloid space'). That means it has three dimensions + time. Space is curved, albeit not uniformly, but most scientists assume that it is uniform on a large scale at least.
2. The curved space has a four-dimensional space (apart from time, which is a kind of dimension, but apparently not a normal dimension in the same sense as the other dimensions). It is finite, but it has no 'language', i.e. a limit. The curvature is not a constant curvature, but most scientists want to assume that, at least on the large scale, space has a constant curvature. If there is a sufficient amount of matter in the universe, the accumulated curvature will be enough to curve the space around itself. The projected three-dimensional universe is a universe floating on the mantle of hyperspace. The number of galaxies is limited, but no galaxy is at the edge - each galaxy occupies an equally central place (they are currently moving away from each other in all directions). Here there are two sub-options:
A. Space is spherical. The universe looks the same from everywhere. A spaceship that flies in any fixed direction, for a sufficient time, must eventually return to the starting point from which it left. On the other hand, the hyperspherical space, after it reaches its maximum possible size, if it continues to 'expand' - will begin to shrink to a point size.
B. The space is a 'hyperbolic space', one obtained by flattening parts of a pseudo sphere, except that it has space. In flattening, various limited surfaces with constant curvature are obtained. If you flatten the central disk of the pasido ball - you will get a geometry of a saddle (unlike a ball holder, where the curvature is in the same direction at every point - the face of the saddle curves in two different directions at each point. If we take a section that extends to the edge of the 'infinite distance' of the pasido ball and flatten the same, we will get the geometry of a 'funnel'/'trumpet' whose mouth is of infinite length. In a universe with hyperbolic space there will be regions where the space will appear 'spherical' (for example - in the more curved rounded part of the saddle), and there will be those where the space will appear pseudo-spherical (in the valley in the center the saddle, or in the curved area of the trumpet) and there will be such that it looks like a flat planar space (in the more aligned part of the saddle, or in the part that aspires to the mouth area of the 'trumpet').
In connection with the above, it should be noted that -
1. The dimensions in question are those predicted or existing on a large scale. According to modern quantum mechanics, a piece of matter is a 'bump' of space, in Hilbert space with infinite dimensions, as a rule. String theory talks about 10+1 dimensions actually).
2. The assumption that many desire, as if the curvature is in a fixed space, on the large scale - is not self-evident. There are findings that may contradict this concept, but nothing is final, in the current state of knowledge.
I hope I contributed something to the understanding of the subject.
And maybe after the big bang assuming it was like that - in which everything that we believe was created was created, more big bangs continued to be created just like the first one and with each big bang more and more universes are created and that is why we are confused in the calculations regarding the age of the universe, its size, shape, distribution of its mass because the big bangs are like other processes They simply don't end, they are continuous processes, and hence the shape of the wire skeleton and the various contradictions regarding the shape of the universe revealed the types of constituent materials and the interesting theories regarding the existence of an infinite number of universes at the same time and the thought that accompanies us even now because of the particle accelerator in Sarn Switzerland, lest there be an imitation of another big bang, as a result of which a universe would be created Another one that will destroy our known universe or maybe a black hole that will swallow us - oh life is easier if you think about pretzels on toast with Emmental cheese and butter...
It's as if a virus was implanted into a brain with an IQ of 130 and the virus is stuck in one of the bowels of a huge production and it's trying to decipher who is what? why is he And where is he? And so on
Ami:
Regarding question number 1:
Don't "know" anything.
This is a theory that explains the observations well, but definitely not something that has a conclusive proof.
One of the assumptions that plays an important role in this conclusion is the large-scale isotropy of the universe.
One of the important confirmations for this assumption is the distribution of the background radiation.
About Question 2:
Think about a circle.
It is a one-dimensional space without edges.
Think about a ball.
It is a two-dimensional space without edges.
In each of the cases - these spaces are housed within a space with additional dimensions, but it is only a matter of convenience and visualization and it is possible to mathematically describe such spaces that are not housed within a space of a higher dimension.
The visual examples of one and two dimensions can be extended (mathematically) to higher dimensions as well and to obtain boundless spaces of any dimension.
Of course, if there are no edges - there is no center either.
The center of the circle (the one-dimensional space located in the two-dimensional space) is not in the one-dimensional space and is only a result of our visualization.
The same goes for balls of any size.
It's definitely fun to start the day like this. Takes the thought to very far places, but these are developments that are very difficult to adhere to and impossible to prove. I assume that such studies finance and employ hundreds of thousands of people around the globe and to that I say, have fun. For me, I am just a person who is intrigued by space and the universe and I took this story as a hobby. In the meantime, I found a corner for my whims at the Tel Aviv branch of the Magid Institute, where I signed up for a workshop on "Space Travel", which is being taught by Professor Zvi Piren and Professor Ram Sri from the Department of Astrophysics and Sciences, at the California Institute of Technology.
Mr. Sabdarmish Yehuda, thank you very much for your answer.
I know the concept of the curvature of space that comes from Massa's inventions. What I can't seem to grasp is
1) How do you know that this space is closed into a perfect circle so that it does not have a center
2) To close a circle you need some kind of surface, apparently. How does a visible universe, which is at least three-dimensional, create a surface? If we place a telescope in space and look left, right, up and down - won't we get similar distances in each direction? Doesn't this mean that we don't see a surface but a space?
I'm not asking to be clever or difficult, I really don't understand these ideas.
Thanks again for the first tip in my mind about a flat, centerless universe
Actually, I found the paper.
Here is the link to a .pdf format of it:
http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/aa/pdf/2009/38/aa12929-09.pdf
AA
Hello,
Does anyone have the link to the original article?
Thank you,
AA
To Ami Bachar
As far as I understand, the mass in the universe causes its space to be curved and when you walk in a straight line you don't actually walk in a straight line so you never reach the edge of the universe so it has no edge and any point can be its center.
Did you understand that, Bach?
I'm not so much.
Waiting for smarter people than me to answer you.
Good day to the righteous
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Maybe someone can do me a big favor and explain to me in simple terms that would explain to a layman like me how it is that the universe has no center? What is the story with a flat universe? How do you even know that?
Hope someone in the know will help me clarify these points.
Greetings friends,
Ami Bachar
The excitement in the comments here is not entirely clear to me.
This is not a new theory, but an additional confirmation of the prevailing theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large-scale_structure_of_the_cosmos
to Ehud's response
He raises a difficult problem in his words "...and the question arises how can these shapes be obtained from a model of a uniform distribution driven by gravitation?". End quote.
It does not seem to me that such behavior can be explained by gravitation.
Again and again we encounter severe problems with the idea that gravitation is the dominant force in the universe for the great intergalactic distances.
What will be the solution that the cosmological academy will take now?, will they invent a special wire space for this purpose?, or will they give the dark energy wire properties??, or maybe a wire type dark mass??…
Something stinks in the realm of gravity!
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
The Big Bang was not an actual explosion with a shockwave of matter but an expansion of space-time itself. That is
Not the movement of matter (the page wave) in space-time, but the movement of space-time.
Imagine the wires as a wave function, for example when there is an explosion then there is a wave of the page or a wave of the market or whatever you call it, so what I think they found is that they came close to being able to see those waves that were created after the "big bang"
The scientific question asked is what is the distribution of the visible mass in the universe? Although in the near term it seems to us that the universe is not homogeneous and isotropic (having a uniform material density in every direction and distance), the basic cosmological assumption assumes this. There is no reason to assume that there is a preference for a certain point in the universe over others (the universe has no center) or for a certain angle. The assumption is that the visible matter is distributed uniformly in the large rocks.
A homogeneous and isotropic cosmological model must explain the formation of galaxies by means of gravitation, and this is how it is done to this day. The observational claim that matter is not uniformly arranged in uniformly distributed galaxies and galaxy clusters is far-reaching and the question arises, how can these shapes be obtained from a model of a uniform distribution driven by gravitation?
Threads of inspiration.
I have a feeling that there is a connection below the surface between those threads, the cosmic strings that have never been observed.
What are these threads?
Everything is in the eye of the beholder...
This is exactly the essence of quantum theory.
I agree with Ami Bachar and add - I completely disagree with a story about demography and sociology in the study of universes
Beyond the interesting facts, the article is populist
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
I'm also not sure about the thread network of galaxies, but this is definitely proof that contradicts the assumption of homogeneity in the universe on a cosmic scale...
I don't understand a thing and a half about cosmology, models, telescopes or really anything else in general. But the story above seems to me like complete nonsense that stems from the strong psychological need of humans to find familiar patterns in the things they feel. A skeleton for the universe? spider webs? At the level of curiosity, it is actually good - it attracts the non-professional person to amusing images and ideas that he can connect with and through which he can try and explore a little more of an unfamiliar field. From here to science - I'm not sure. But maybe after all this I should repeat what I said at the beginning - I really don't understand a thing and a half about cosmology.
With the exception of the pseudo-criticism I also wonder if it is really possible to look at a creature 7 billion light years away and notice structures the size of 60 million light years. And all this from the earth.
Greetings friends,
Ami Bachar
It's really nice that in the picture the universe started from the beginning...