new gravitational lensing science opens up the universe

i would like to start with saying einstein himself was a fan of gravitational lensing, he famously predicted that stars hidden behind the sun would become visable to the observer in an eclipse. he later was validated by observations.

his discovery was called strong gravitational lensing (SGL) and worked because "mass" was said to warp the fabric of spacetime and the warped space time would provide a "curvature" for the light from distent sources, to be "bent" around closer objects of mass and be visable to our telescopes.

the method for finding these "gravitational lenses" or SGL events was to look for clusters of great mass whos combined gravatational warping of space time could create a lense capable of imaging objects far off in the distence. einstein himself said the lenses would be very rare and hard to detect and he was right.



the image shows cluster lensing of a quasar into multipule images using (SGL)
source

einstein also said that a "ring" could form around a lens if the alignment was just right between a
gravitational lens and a backround object




this is an image that looks to have an einsteins ring in a gravity lense

this is a 3d picture of galaxies forming a cluster lense (SGL)
it is asumed that dark matter accounts for the lensing potential combined with the mass lensing,
so what surrounds the mass and allows it to act like an effective lens?

the next picture is a sample of cluster lensing in the observable wave lengths with some other wavelengths "super imposed" to allow the lensing to be seen clearly



source

then next finding was that galaxies were capable of lensing as well and some images produced the einsteins rings that he had pridicted.

but then a new form of gravitational lensing was found, this type of gravity lenses did not "bend" light "around" the outside of the lense it acually optically and gravitationally lenses objects "through" the lense like a magnifying glass that was enhanced by gravity. this type of lensing showed a very large amount of the galaxies we see, upto 20% of distent galaxies were being "magnified" both in size but also in brightness.
in fact if the lenses had not "magnifyed" the images and increased brightness these galaxies would not be visable at all even to our largest telescopes. i call this type of lensing "density lensing" or (DL) because it used the optical density and refraction of the medium inside the lense combined with the effects of light from gravity to acomplish the "magnifycation"




source




so smaller galaxies were shown to also be valuable sources of light information through lensing and as the light was amplified and the image size was increased the ability to study very faint and very distent galaxies was increased we began to find very early galaxies that were suprising us with their composition of different stars at different ages and some galaies that looked very mature at very early stages in the 11-12 billion years ago range.

the reason was we were looking back in time by looking at objects so far away that light would have to travel for billions of years to reach us so the light was emitted in the distent past for the light to have traveled to us and for us to observer here and now.
kinda like looking at the past history of the universe.

then there is microlensing
on a much smaller scale and from the correct distence stars can themselves become "micro lenses"



this relies on the gravity of the forgroud object to "bend" light in a (SGL) type lense

even planets can be lenses at the right mass and distence from the observer and the object being lensed,



which brings up the question if these lenses can be effected by internal medium density and refractivity, could the material or density around these lenses have an effect on how "powerful" the lenses are?
if the lenses themselves were inside a denser medium, would that increase the ability of the lense to magnify (DL) or bend(SGL) light?




so if these clusters are mass heavey do they attract a higher density of material around them and does this effect the optical properties of the density lenses (DL) and (SGL)?
could the "more dense" material around the mass help to increase the effects of (DL) and (SGL)?






why is there xray emitions around this cluster?




and why do the sources that have high xray sources seem to be the best lenses?
and is it electron density that is creating the xrays in these images?




could the electron density around the lenses be variable because the mass is attracting the electron density and concentrating it at the points of great mass?

could the electron density effect light as it transitions the medium outside the lense thereby increasing the optical effect of the lensing potential?




could the electron density from the filiment study account for "cluster" lensing potential?
what about galaxies are they sourrounded by electron density as most galaxies are thought to be part of a filimentary structure?




it almost looks like most objects if the correct angles and distences are used can be lenses.

could the dark matter sourounding these galaxies allowing for a higher lensing potential simply be electron density, as light can be effected by magnetic feilds created by current flow?

our sun could be considered a lense as well if you were looking out side our heliosphere and the density was a lot more refractive and electric than we beleive, could the shape of our helio bubble combined with gravity and different density mediums combine to form a lense that distorts our veiw of the galaxy?




so if our helio sphere and our galaxy both form lenses we have to look through two lenses before looking into intergalactic space.
does that mean that our distence calculations to an object are incorrect if they are outside our helio-bubble?
does that mean that our distence calculations to an object are incorrect even more if ouside our galaxy?
what about the cluster our galaxy is part of? if there is electron density between galaxies does this elcetron density effect light as it is lensed?

so how do we find these cosmic lenses?
for (SGL) or einstiens strong gravatational lensing we look for the effect of the forground lesing from large mass objects




source

for micro lensing from stars and planets we use the same technique

for density lenses we use the fact that light is effected by not only the distence it has to travel through space but also the effect the lense has on the light wavelength and amplitude.

by looking for sub mm and infra red light directly outside the lense we can quickly locate potential sources of gravity lensing.



source


first the sky is scanned with the hearshal infra red space telescope and any source of sub mm and infra red is noted and checked by optical wavelenght telescopes.
this works because the process of lensing (DL) has an effect of the light wavelenght and amplitude of the light emitted by the lens. the area around the lense lights up in the infra red spectrum signaling a lensing light interaction.




this image is not acociated with wavelength/amplitude change from lensing
but how many galaxies are counted at high redshifts (cosmological redshift) and are acually lensed images?

here is a surprisingly mature cluster found with lensing




here is a galaxy at very high redshift that could be very old



does gravitational lensing "alter" the information incoded into light?
does gravitational lensing potential from two sources "factor" together and what happens if the two lenses are "in focus" with one another and a bright object is being lensed and focused on our "local" lenses the galaxy and heliosphere (DL) are on a common angle of incidence with the bright object through the lenses and would this bright lensed (DL) source also be increased in size and luminosity while being shifted from the transition of a gravity density lense?

there has been alot of new findings with gravity lenses including some of the most distent galaxies ever observed

and in a different scale microscopes are using nano lenses to increase the magnification of ojects in the macro scale




this works because of the density and refractivity of the spherical nano glass sphere.

the same effects can be seen in density lensing (DL) except the added gravity can "help" with increased magnification.

types of lensing (AGNL) lensing not confirmed by observation



there is also an un observed "gravitational microscoping" effect that has yet to be observed



the lensing surface of the gravitational lense or helio lense is creating a magnifacational artifact (DL) with the help of gravity. the object in the center is "lensed" onto the outter surface of the lense and size and brightness of the object at the center would be increased to cover most of the observable surface of the lense. i call this gravitational microscoping (GM)




so if these image magnification artifacts can happen with gravitational microscoping (GM) which is an effect of (DL) and gravity,
can the magnifyed image artifact explain why some galaxies are rotating to fast for gravity to ever hold them together?
if the galaxies were smaller would the rotational speeds be proportionally slower as scale size decreased?

so the dark matter required to hold galaxies together may not be needed to explain why these galaxies are able to rotate so fast, if we take into account the ability to return the image to its "acual" size no dark energy is required to hold things together



so what happens if the heliospheres we are looking at, have magnifyed images on there outter most surfaces?
would this make it much easyer to find planets?

so why would gravitational lensing be so important?
well if we are looking through lenses (our helio bubble and galaxy density) (DL) at an object that looks far away and its size and luminosity is "an image artifact" we can no longer use a size/luminosity diagram to interpreate stars and their properties.

so with so many different lenses around how can we be sure of what we are looking at?




with the new way to find these lenses and the ability to study objects with lensing the whole universe may come into focus for us and for our greater understanding of the universe.

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER


I've been reading space articles for around 10 years. So many theories have been proven wrong and wrong again. We still have a lot to learn about the Universe i'm certain. There are constantly new things being discovered and found out that change our perception on things.

Like just a year or two ago we found out our galaxy is actually 100,000 ly across instead of 50,000
We also found out that there is much more Bayronic mass in the Universe then we thought.

We could also find out many unknown anomalies about the Universe still; then the theories will change again and again. I like the idea of Perceiving things at a different distance because of the lensing of all the objects in the sky etc; possibly the lensing from our own Heliosphere which is a good idea Xploder.

I have a hard time believing in Dark matter and Dark energy even though it is an interesting Theory.
I still will give credence to all theories though no matter how abstract and fringe; because theories are what makes science science. So many people can postulate such theories and dwell on the idea of this possibly being true.

Imagination is more important than knowledge.

S& F

Time will tell.

So what i am gathering from your thread is the idea that things may be farther or closer than they appear because of the Gravitational Lensing effect from all foreground objects? So maybe then we don't have to add dark matter and/or dark energy to the equation and the anomalies we are detecting with the "Missing Matter"
May just be observational anomalies from the lensing effect from the objects between us and the observed objects in the Universe?!

here is a vid about one of the very remote objects


the most distent galaxy found to date

gravity lens animation


xploder

Originally posted by TheUniverse
reply to post by XPLodER

 

So what i am gathering from your thread is the idea that things may be farther or closer than they appear because of the Gravitational Lensing effect from all foreground objects? So maybe then we don't have to add dark matter and/or dark energy to the equation and the anomalies we are detecting with the "Missing Matter"
May just be observational anomalies from the lensing effect from the objects between us and the observed objects in the Universe

i imagine one anology would be looking backwards through binocluars, at a telescope,
everything looks really far away but the image you can see in the telescope looks "bigger and brighter" then it should.
lol
it could also make it easyer to find exo-planets
very recently the "rouge planets" were found using a form of lensing of backround sources
the most distant objects we can see are only able to be seen in gravity lenses

the filiments in my last article were found or measured with the help of gravitational lenses

it really looks like our size distence luminosity calculations may need a very ssmall tweek but at the distences implyed by these variables, the compounded distence calculation may vary greatly

so we could be using the wrong prescrption when looking at the universe
lol
xploder

edit on 29-5-2011 by XPLodER because: fix brackets

Originally posted by XPLodER

gravity lens animation

Oh my!
How sexy is that.

I'm having this video over for a candlelight dinner
and some deep conversation afterwards.
If I get lucky maybe we can take turns
reading Newton's Optics in bed.



On a serious note,
I find that many people forget that Einstein solved Newtons' "Frangibility", a term he used to study light whether it traveled instantly or at some super fast speed, by showing that Light does in fact have a speed. And science has been able to run off and find more specific high precision solutions and "Frangibility" has fallen into disuse. But the entire framework of Newton's Optics remains intact.

In the 20th century it seems that a great number of theoretical astrophysicists got carried away with their mathematical models and found themselves inventing things like Dark this or Dark that. And stopped checking the geometry of what their telescopes were actually collecting.

Seeing new information like in the Opening post gives me hope for the future of human kind.


David Grouchy

wow

here is my favourite nasa vid at the moment



newton would be proud
and in fact newton would be right at home with gravitational lensing and its implications to our observable universe. after all everything involving light has an optical component.
alot of information can be encoded into light

xploder

reply to post by davidgrouchy

On a serious note,
I find that many people forget that Einstein solved Newtons' "Frangibility", a term he used to study light whether it traveled instantly or at some super fast speed, by showing that Light does in fact have a speed. And science has been able to run off and find more specific high precision solutions and "Frangibility" has fallen into disuse. But the entire framework of Newton's Optics remains intact.

In the 20th century it seems that a great number of theoretical astrophysicists got carried away with their mathematical models and found themselves inventing things like Dark this or Dark that. And stopped checking the geometry of what their telescopes were actually collecting.

Seeing new information like in the Opening post gives me hope for the future of human kind.


David Grouchy

it gets interesting when you start to look at super luminosity of jets from super massive black holes,
i bet newton could explain the observations with optical theory
but not without einstiens contrabutions with gravity curving space time.

in fact if the two and alven had spent time together we might have a different veiw of the universe

it is only through calaberation between the sciences will the picture fit the science correctly

xploder

Originally posted by Smell The Roses
wow

here is a picture of well i dont know but it looks like a "mirror finish" lense reflecting its exterior environment



looks cool huh
or its completely see through and the backround is inverted




xploder

good thread,
star and flag purely for the research, time and effort you have put into it, more threads like this are needed on ats..

reply to post by davidgrouchy


this is a picture of a caustic

Gravitational microlensing may be used to probe the surfaces of stars. In events where the lens is a binary star, a ‘caustic’ is formed (Schneider & Weiss, A&A, Vol. 164, p. 237). This is a closed curve of very high magnification. If the source star moves through a caustic, the star is profiled twice, as it enters and exits the caustic.

The technique, which has been used extensively by the PLANET group, is illustrated by event MOA 2002-BLG-33 below. For this event the source star was a solar-like star, and the lens was a close binary. The measured profiles of the source star in two passbands were found to be consistent with current stellar atmosphere theory to within an accuracy of 4%, confirming the efficacy of the technique.


Caustic and source star for event MOA 2002-BLG-33. The image of the source star was constructed from measured profiles in visual and infrared passbands. The magnification caused by the binary lens is represented by blue shading, with regions of higher magnification represented by lighter shading. The caustic is the closed white curve. The source star moved horizontally, left to right, through the caustic in 15.6 hours. Further details are at astro-ph/0310410.

MOA 2002-BLG-33 was unusual because the size of the caustic was similar to the size of the source star. This enabled the shape of the source star to be measured.

source

interesting lensing artifact called a caustic from a binary star system

this is a caustic from a man made lense used to simulate lensing



source

xploder

all seeing eye?

all the talk about lenses and seeing the universe better, just makes me wonder bout the all seeing eye for some reason...

In the established institutions of astronomy, no one hears, no one sees. If galaxies and quasars are connected, z cannot be a measure of distance and the Big Bang is falsified. Textbooks will be rewritten. Grants will be lost. Careers will be undermined. Professors will be fired. The work of a century will die in vain.

But even as astronomers stop their ears and blinker their eyes, they continue to gather the evidence that testifies against their pet theory

Further considerations raise doubts. Doubts raise further questions. Curious minds want to know: What else could it be? Item: If the mass distribution matches the luminosity distribution in the galaxy (it’s more or less spherical and symmetric), the lens should produce a smeared-out ring, not four sharp images. Item: When the z of the quasar is set to the reference frame of the galaxy (1.73 – 0.31 = 1.42), it falls on a “preferred value” of z. (In the Big Bang, “preferred values” of z can only mean that galaxies and quasars are distributed in shells centered on the Earth, something even more unlikely than the coincidental alignment of four quasars and a galaxy.)

www.thunderbolts.info...

Thanks xploder brilliant thread! was reading about this a couple of months back, I love this new theory proves that man once again knows nothing. Einstein would be turning in his grave with this one

reply to post by TheUniverse


when you consider all of the forground mass has other mass in its direct "line of sight" in the backround,






and when the statistical analisys show that so much mass is found along the "line of sight" of these prefered foreground galaxies, the question becomes can we only see the backround objects because of foreground lensing?

xploder

Pics or it didn't happ....
Never Mind.

S & F, OP!

With the rate of advancement we are currently experiencing, we'll screw something big up really soon!

Ironic to me that we have the knowledge of all of humanity instantly accessible to us, and still people use it to look up fart jokes.

A strange breed, humans.

Your research is immaculate, my friend. I love things that change our collective perspective!

This is why I like actual probe data. I love looking though my telescope and the pictures I take of space but what is really out there unknown. When a probe flys by and sends data it is hard to discredit. Problem is probes are limited in distance. If we could just figure out how to work the spacetime thing and/or launch probes at the speed of light..... I don't think we will ever have real answers until we can actually go to the places we see in the telescopes or get data from something that has been there. Until then it is fun to imagine the possibilites. Also what we see in the telescope happened many years ago depending on how far out it is. Billions of years in some cases. Those areas could be completetly different today. For all we really know our universe could simply be the inside of a huge atom that makes up matter in a bigger universe.... In the end we really know nothing and may never know.

Originally posted by Misterlondon
good thread,
star and flag purely for the research, time and effort you have put into it, more threads like this are needed on ats..

i have been investigating gravitational lensing for quite some time,
and even described the newly found form of lensing prior to the NASA release of the density/gravity lenses in a thread here on ats
www.abovetopsecret.com...

the idea being that if small galaxies like the milky way had the optical properties of a lense with a heliosphereical lense embeded in it, when gravitys effects were factored in the lens should "magnify" and the image would be larger and brighter to our telescopes.

so if looking through the milky way from outside it, anything in the backround would be magnifyed onto the outter most surface for us to view in a larger and brighter scale than would other wise be possable.

so this new lensing was explained and after looking for statistical confirmation (the number of galaxies in line of sight of foreground galaxies) the telescopes went to work looking at these distent magnifyed images,
and it turns out without this type of lensing none of the very distent galaxies would be seen at all.

this allows a really valuable tool to "look back in time" further than we have seen before to some of the oldest objects ever detected.

as you can imagine the ability to study objects at the far reaches of space has greaqt advantages.

but how to reliably "find" these lenses?

i had previously been asked here on ats
"how do we find the lenses"
my reply was to look for lower wave length and lower amplitude light just outside the lens surface

again the numbers of lenses that were "bright" in these wave lengths that were known to lenses were statistically looked into and a corrilation started to emerge,

turns out it is alot easyer to look for sub mm and infra red "signatures" than to scan the visual wavelengths for images that are lensed.

again the telescopes went to work,
this time the infra red telescopes went to work looking for these "signatures" of infra red and sub mm red light and then space and ground telescopes followed up with observations in "visable light wave lengths" to confirm
the infra red sources were acually lenses.

we can now use this method with a very high chance that "signatured" sources are most likley have lensing potential.

these two observations were not carried out by me
i didnt observe the finding of the density lense but had "predicted" it from optical and gravatational theory
i didnt observe the finding of the "signature" of lensing but had been asked "how to find them" and "predicted" the lower wave lenght and lower amplitude light directly outside the lense surface.
i had incorectly stated the shift would be in the orange direction
turns out it was a shift down to the infra red
not up to the orange range, (i do tend to accidently invert things on occasion)

but the fact that shifted (optical wave length light) was found to be an easy signal for lensing and our infra red telescopes were now gravity lens finding machines.

lol@self
xploder

Originally posted by pryingopen3rdeye
all seeing eye?

all the talk about lenses and seeing the universe better, just makes me wonder bout the all seeing eye for some reason...

ahhh the eye you would enjoy my density lensing diagram
it looks like an eye
lol
xploder

So, due to all this gravity, we could theoritically end up looking down a telescope and see our own a sses?