Slashdot Mirror


Dark Matter Measurements

ksp0704 writes: "According to this article at space.com, scientists have finally measured the approximately 90% of the universe we can't see (the dark matter)." I'm sure it will continue to be a topic of debate for years, but two independent measurements agreeing is a good sign.

246 comments

  1. How come? by medicthree · · Score: -1

    I get so many eff-peez?

  2. Happy troll Tuesday by Anonymous+Pancake · · Score: -1
    Slashdot is in dire need for a new slogan, here are a few good suggestions by myself and others

    by anonymous pancake

    Slashdot: "Crackheaded moderation since 1997"

    Slashdot: "The ultimate troll (on the world)"

    Slashdot: "Best viewed with internet explorer 6"

    Slashdot: "PLEASE CLICK OUR BANNERS, VA LINUX STOCK WENT DOWN AGAIN"

    Slashdot: "50% of goatse.cx referrals come from here!"

    Slashdot: "We still haven't fired Jon Katz yet!"

    Slashdot: "Proud home of the BSD IS DYING troll"

    by All sporks are fags

    Slashdot: "You may think you're anonymous, but we're selling your personal information to the government!" "

    by CmdrTaco

    Slashdot: "We're this close to banning IP's for life!"

    Slashdot: "Champions of the freedom of speech (i.e. you're free to agree with us or you'll be moderated accordingly) "

    Slashdot: "We suck so YOU can feel good about yourself!"

    1. Re:Happy troll Tuesday by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

      I guess everybody knows about troll turdsday.
      I had prepared plenty of matterial for the occasion, but!,
      I was unable to submit it. Guess why?

      I was BANNED.
      It must have been some troll using my ISP's proxy
      and I could not post for 72 hours.

      That's it taco. I've had enough.

      I declare Jihad (holy war) against cmdrTaco.
      My response will be long, sustained and thoroful.

      Muslim Troll

      -- Trolling for Mohumad.

  3. Abra cadabra by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    And presto-change-o!

    I've measured the amount of crap posted as comments on Slashdot to 90% of total content. I'll be releasing my complete findings soon.

  4. proud thrust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    3rd p0st

    1. Re:proud thrust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      4th actually ;-)

    2. Re:proud thrust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

      You were fourth you goat fucking raghead.

  5. Let me get this striaight... (Halloween Special) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    As if recent events (attacks on the World Trade Centres, Anthrax Attacks) raising our collective conciousness into a state of terror wasn't bad enough, Halloween is now upon us. Soon, a *new* terror, a spooky terror, will unfold as the souls of thousands of innocent civilians who died raise from the dead on All Hallow's Eve to terrorise yawl's neighborhood. And you people have the gall to be discussing dark matter measurements???? My *god*, people, GET SOME PRIORITIES!

    The angry souls of the recent dead could give a good god damn about dark matter measurements, instead preferring to wander the areas where they met their untimely ends, seeking out unwitting victims for retribution. By all means, on the evening of Hallowe'en, try to avoid the area around Ground Zero of the WTC, the area near the Pentagon, and the crash site in Pennsylvania unless you don't mind becoming a victim of terror (a very spooky terror indeed), yourself.

    You have been warned!

  6. post urine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    at adequacy.org

    Important Stuff:
    Please try to keep posts on topic.
    Try to reply to other people comments instead of starting new threads.
    Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.
    Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about.
    Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)

  7. I'm so sorry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    I'm only posting this make sure Jamie knows that his Censorware is ineffective. I'm sooo tired of doing this... last story for Tuesday? Please?

    The Slashdot Privacy Watch.

    An Open Letter to VA Concerning Privacy on Slashdot
    To whom it may concern,
    It has come to our attention that Slashdot is building a detailed database of every visitor and user of Slashdot. This database includes, among other personal details, an address history which permanently records every IP address assosciated with every Slashdot user and comment for all time. We are concerned that this database is a signifigant Intellectual Property asset that may be abused in the event of a sale of Slashdot by VA to a third party.

    In addition, we feel that keeping a permanent and indelible record of every IP address used to post every Anonymous comment on Slashdot erases whatever hopes of anonymity that endangered or threatened users may have had. To name two examples, Chinese dissidents and corporate insiders can have no expectation of anonymously revealing civil rights violations and corporate abuse.

    It is our hope that given these concerns, VA Linux or Slashdot may choose to provide an opt-out option to users, whereby users could choose not to be tracked and profiled if they so request. Some discussion has been made of a Slashdot subscription service; perhaps one revenue stream for Slashdot would be to sell Privacy Rights. For a low yearly fee, a user could purchase the right not to be tracked, profiled, and logged by IP address.

    Whatever steps are taken, it is our hope that Slashdot will address the current privacy concerns in public to allay our fears and to promote open discussion.

    Thanks again for creating one of the most popular sites on the Internet, and all the best.

    -The Slashdot Privacy Watch Team.

    1. Re:I'm so sorry by b-side.org · · Score: 1

      It's blazingly easy to keep from getting tracked - don't post. (Or read..)

      --
      Indie rock lives! b-side!
  8. Uhhhh by ekrout · · Score: 1
    "According to this article at space.com, scientists have finally measured the approximately 90% of the universe we can't see (the dark matter)."

    Pardon me, but we can apparently only see certain bits & pieces of the universe, right? So, how the f*ck is it that we know exactly how much ELSE there is out there? Isn't this like saying "I have 3 Weezer albums, and I just figured out the names of the songs on their 4th, 5th, and 6th albums (even though I have NO IDEA how many more albums they'll make) and I now know the name of every Weezer song.

    --

    If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
    1. Re:Uhhhh by Scutter · · Score: 2

      As I understand it, they can estimate how much matter there *should* be, based on what we know of the universe and of physics, and also based on the matter was can see now. They aren't just pulling the numbers out of thin air.

      Always remember: Weezer ain't rocket science! :)

      --

      "Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
    2. Re:Uhhhh by ryepup · · Score: 1

      I believe this is more along the lines of measuring the circumference of the earth without a direct measurement, deriving it's value from other measured quantities.

      The basis of dark matter is that, assuming the law of gravity is true, the universe is too light to explain certain phenomena. What we can see isn't enough mass, so there must be some dark matter out there we can't see to account for measured effects.

    3. Re:Uhhhh by crashnbur · · Score: 3, Interesting
      "They aren't just pulling the numbers out of thin air."

      Heh. What's the difference, if it's all just theoretical anyway? I mean, really, how is the amount of matter in the universe ever going to mean anything more to us than simply a numerical value?

      Of course, one can assume that, by knowing the ammounts of normal matter compared to dark matter as they change, scientist could predict approximately when the universe would collapse on itself. You know, if the big bang theory has any truth to it. Of course, that prediction wouldn't mean much to us either, as our sun will likely die out long before the universe itself will.

    4. Re:Uhhhh by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 0

      No one's ever "seen" an electron either, but that doesn't mean we can't figure out how they work, approximately how many there are in a given area, and their predicted behaviour. If Weezer had released 500 trillion albums, and a pattern was found, then you'd be able to predict, with fair reliability, the songs in albums 500trillion + 1, 2, and 3.

      Anyway, I'm assuming that the way they figure out how much dark matter there is is by calculating how much gravity is associated with it.

    5. Re:Uhhhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      That's one of the things about research science. You can never tell what will lead to useful discoveries later on, and what is just pure ego-scratching. Two hundred years ago, who would have thought that the black, smelly stuff that bubbled to the surface would be useful for making cups, plates, and even machinery parts? (ie: plastic.)

      In the same way, we can't tell if this is just some guy doing stuff for the hell of it, or if it will lead to something useful. Pure wild speculation: maybe dark matter could fuel starship engines? I don't know; it probably can't. But nonetheless...

    6. Re:Uhhhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congratulations. You have just figured out why science doesnt work. Dont let that coffee mug drop to the ceiling on your way out.

    7. Re:Uhhhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you talking about?

    8. Re:Uhhhh by CtrlPhreak · · Score: 3, Interesting

      When the whole universe collapses because of the reversal of the big bang energy by gravity, then you may care.

      One of the biggest debates IMHO, is whether the gravitational pull of the universe can overcome the expanding motion of the universe. This expansion caused by the big bang was theorized to be decreasing and gravity would eventually overcome it, thus pulling the entire universe back together in the same manner of pre-big bang time. It could also be said that this would cause the universe to be a periodic function of explode, expand, contract, explode... The problem with this is that there is not anywhere near enough matter in the universe to create a gravitational pull strong enough to overcome the big bang energy. There is also not enough visible matter to explain many gravitational effects scientists perceive. Thus, dark matter was theorized to explain these phenomenons. However, it could never be measured. This could go a long way to supporting various theories about the universe and it's workings.

      --
      WikiAfterDark.com It's a sex wiki, go now!
    9. Re:Uhhhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

      You dumb shit, you've never heard of gravity?

      My god, slashdotters are such drooling morons.

    10. Re:Uhhhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think they are saying what percent is dark matter and not how much it is.
      Anyways, how much is measured by gravity and the movement of stars. And, I think how much IS measued by what we see but this is what what percent.

    11. Re:Uhhhh by msulis · · Score: 0, Redundant

      rtfm

    12. Re:Uhhhh by heptapod · · Score: 1

      First the term you're looking for is "fuck" not "f*ck". Secondly there's evidence that the universe is open and not curved which implies a heat death instead of a "big crunch". Then again heat death isn't as dramatic or Hollywood as everything starting with an explosion and everything being crushed into something beyond infinitesimal.

      I think it's awfully funny that one of the great debunkings of modern science was the disproving of the existence of ether but now there's "dark matter" which is just a non luminiferous version of ether. Think of all the trouble astronomers could've saved themselves by simply changing the ether model instead of trying to revive a dead concept with a nifty new name.

      That's the fun thing about science, one can prove anything with numbers if there are enough people who will stand behind you rather than your data.

    13. Re:Uhhhh by batboy78 · · Score: 1

      I agree there are many studies in progress to determine the composition of the universe, if the big bang is true the universe began at a singularity of infinite density and mass, then BANG!, the universe as we know it. But where did all the rest of the matter go. I read somewhere that visible matter only made up something like 1-3% of the universe. Dark Matter may be an answer for all things unanswered.

      For those of you who haven't read anything by Sagan or Hawking, pick it up, that will blow your hair back.....

    14. Re:Uhhhh by Mahonrimoriancumer · · Score: 1

      There is a saying about your comment: Scientist dream up ideas, Engineers make the ideas work.

      --
      So climate's changing. So what? It has always changed. The big news would be if it wasn't changing. - Dr. Philip Stone
    15. Re:Uhhhh by DGolden · · Score: 2

      All the aether physicists came up with a new, marketable name for the aether - the quantum vacuum. All those virtual particles popping in and out of existence are pretty much the same as an aether concept, when you get right down to it. They just don't dare say it.

      --
      Choice of masters is not freedom.
    16. Re:Uhhhh by naasking · · Score: 1

      Except in modern physics, you don't need ether for light to propagate and to explain gravity (and a bunch of other stuff I'm too lazy to look up now). Seems much more acceptable to me.

    17. Re:Uhhhh by zeno_2 · · Score: 1

      "If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research." - Einstein

  9. measure the amount of dark matter in my pants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    its brown and smelly (hint its not a nigger)

  10. .... by Myuu · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Figuring that Excite got /.'ed here: "Astronomers Celebrate Reliable Measure of Dark Matter By Heather Sparks Staff Writer posted: 12:48 pm ET 29 October 2001 Scientists are closer than ever to balancing the checkbook of cosmic matter. This is because two recent independent measurements of normal matter in the universe are in agreement. The results further strengthen the case for the Big Bang theory and for the nature of the universe as astronomers understand it today. The universe contains normal atomic matter, what makes you, your dog, the stars, and everything in between. Normal matter is what Carl Sagan was talking about when he said we are all star-stuff. But in addition to star-stuff, there is invisible dark matter that is known only because the universe is denser than normal matter alone, as evidenced by how structures, like clusters of galaxies, are bound together by gravity. Even individual galaxies don't have enough normal matter in them -- that which can be directly detected -- to keep them from simply flying apart. Now, through different measurements of conditions existing at the very start of time, astronomers are beginning to see the light. "There is more than one way of measuring the total amount of matter in the universe," said astronomer Brian Fields from the Center for Theoretical Astrophysics at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. "And if you have an idea of how much normal stuff there is to all the universe, then you know how much other stuff there is, too." Creation of normal matter All the "normal stuff" is thought to have been made in two steps, one occurring when the universe was roughly three minutes old, and the other some 300,000 years later. According to the leading theory, an enormous nuclear explosion called the Big Bang happened 13 billion to 15 billion years ago. From it, the universe appeared in an instant, but as a billion-degree mess of neutrons, protons and electrons. The explosion was so energetic that nothing could come together close enough, for long enough, to form atoms. But the universe expanded and cooled so rapidly that within three minutes protons and neutrons bonded in twos and fours, and formed all the atomic nuclei in the universe. This Big Bang Nucleosynthesis determined how much normal matter would ever exist. Just how much matter that was can be estimated from observing the most recently formed stars and galaxies, because they are fueled by the hydrogen atoms formed from those original nuclei of twos. Fields explained that young stars, like our Sun, are just now fusing that original hydrogen into helium whereas older stars fuse helium into oxygen and iron. Because the hydrogen fuel has not been converted, scientists are able to measure the proportion of original normal matter to dark matter. "Stars change the amount of hydrogen and helium in the universe," he said, "and we want to know what the Big Bang did. So we have to find places where pollution from stars is minimal" to estimate the original amounts of normal and dark matter. But before any stars could form, hydrogen atoms had to exist. This took 300,000 years after the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis the universe had to cool down enough so that electrons could bind with the nuclei. Once this happened, there was a curious side effect: the creation of light in the Universe. Unbound electrons scattered the UV radiation from the Big Bang, but once the electrons were bound, the radiation was allowed uniform movement, thus, light was finally released in the young cosmos. This light has existed since then, travelling along the edge of the universe, stretching and weakening into a still measurable microwave radiation, called the Cosmic Microwave Background, or CMB as astronomers call it. Weak attraction At the time of the original release of light, dark matter had congregated in clumps, which created small fields of gravity that eventually pulled in normal matter as well. Images of the CMB are therefore mostly smooth, but have spots, or wiggles, of slight variation, a result of the dark and normal matter pooling together. "The nature of these 'wiggles' is basically saying how the normal matter was responding to that crazy dark matter," explained Fields, "by amplifying the places where the extra density was." The CMB, most recently measured by highly sensitive probes in Antarctica, therefore gives a detailed measure of the proportion of normal to dark matter. Phenomenally, both the measurements of young galaxies and of the cosmic microwave background showed that normal matter makes up just one-tenth of the universe. The rest must be dark matter, researchers say. Fields, who wrote about this astronomical agreement in the Oct. 19 issue of the journal Science, explained why this is causing astronomers to "bring out the bubbly." "It didn't have to be true," Fields explained, "because they're completely independent things. It's just gorgeous that they agree with each other." Earlier studies had showed that dark matter made up anywhere from 85 to 95 percent of the universe. Only now do the two different measures of dark matter agree. Now, 90 percent of everything is known to be virtually nothing."

    --

    forget it.
  11. re: Best viewed with ie 6 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that's fucking funny!

  12. almost fp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    h0h0

  13. Why its important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    What makes the size of dark matter so important is that it will decide whether the universe continues to expand outward from the big bang, or eventually begins to shrink back to a singularity. Considering the universe started as a singularity, having it end that way may be indicative of another universe after this one. If everything continues to spread out, entropy will come out the clear winner.

    1. Re:Why its important by msulis · · Score: 0

      and then things will get very cold and boring for all eternity. since none of you will be around to say "told you so" I choose to vote for the recollapse-into-singularity model. makes me feel like there's some continuity.

  14. Oh yeah bznatches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll
    FP!!! finally.

    Oh how I've longed for this day. FP is mine.

    Don't worry, one day you'll get yours.

    FFFFFFFFFF
    FFFF
    FFFF
    FFFFFFF
    FFFF
    FFFF
    FFFF

    PPPPP
    PPP&nbsp&nbspPPP
    &gtsegmentation fault. core dumped.

    1. Re:Oh yeah bznatches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      april's fool?

  15. News Flash: IP ban ineffective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    An open letter to Jamie McCarthy

    Dear Jamie,
    There's a reason people look at you like you're some kind of goddamn freak. We're pretty sure there's other reasons you won't show your face anymore; we've been reading slashdot long enough to remember the pictures the Holland Sentinel published of you with your slicked back greasejob haircut and hawkish little face. I remember thinking "God, I know Internet filters are bad, but the last fucking thing that is going to convince anyone of anything is this guy". You need to wash. You need to exercise. You need to get a haircut, and get a real job. Soon, VA is going to fire you, and you're going to be out in the real world. And that is going to be the shock of a fucking lifetime. You need to prepare.

    As much as you delight in finding people despicable enough that you feel tormenting them is your righteous duty, I think it's pretty clear at this point that Michael Sims is not a Nazi. In fact, he knew the truth about you long before anyone else did. You and your friends may run THE CENSORWARE PROJECT, but anyone with a lick of sense now knows that you're personally responsible for writing the Censorware code that's now built into Slashdot. Let's be extremely clear about this: you define Censorware to be "software which is designed to prevent another person from sending or receiving information (usually on the web)". And you've checked mountains of code into CVS to prevent people with dissenting opinions from sending information on the web. It meets your definition, letter for letter. And guess what? Your Censorware is just as effective as every Censorware project you have ever railed against. How effective is that?

    How effective is that? That's a great question. It's effective in exactly the same way NetNanny is effective. It stops technically non-proficient people in their tracks. They become victims of a robotic system that no one understands. Get a new account on this cool site, post a comment about how you had a hard time installing Linux, and BAMMO, you and your whole subnet are banned from posting. Congratulations. But it doesn't stop the clever, does it Jamie? How many times have you written articles about how the folks at Peacefire can walk rings around an Internet filter in 10 seconds flat? Well guess what?

    I just spent the whole fucking day running circles around your pathetic little Internet filter. How does it feel to be a commercial software developer paid to block people from accessing something and failing?

    Your points about Censorware were something you should have listened to. You and your pathetic system are a bleeding failure. Like your opponents, you have frustrated the weak and enraged the strong. Soon, you'll lose your job, and you're going to be sitting on the other side of an oak desk with someone trying to interview you looking at you, and your resume, like this.

    And that, as they say, is poetic justice.

    --Everybody on Geekizoid

  16. Creation of normal matter by crashnbur · · Score: 2

    Okay, I just read the article, and I'm down with it. There is nothing illogical about it, assuming their methods actually work, and I have no evidence that they don't. But, after re-reading the section on the "Creation of normal matter", I have one complex question that I hope can spark a bit of discussion:
    What caused the big bang? How was it initiated? What were the bounds of the "universe" as it were before the big bang?
    And how on earth (pun intended) did we get here from all of that? :-)
    1. Re:Creation of normal matter by Scutter · · Score: 1

      What caused the big bang? How was it initiated? What were the bounds of the "universe" as it were before the big bang?

      Stephen Hawking touched on this a bit in one of his books. The questions are largely irrelevant because the laws of physics would have been completely different "before" the Big Bang. Much like they theoretically break down completely in a singularity.

      I honestly can't explain it better than that. I suggest you pick up a copy of "A Brief History of Time", which is a pretty good lay-person's book on astrophysics and quantum mechanics.

      --

      "Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
    2. Re:Creation of normal matter by SIGFPE · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why does the big bang have to have a cause? The idea of a chain of events, each causing the next in the sequence, is a bit passé these days. If you ask for a cause for the first event you quickly lead to an infinite regress. What's the problem with there being a first event without cause? I hope you don't think that because most events have causes they all do. That's a bit like thinking that all integers are non-zero because most of them are.

      --
      -- SIGFPE
    3. Re:Creation of normal matter by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      That's actually a fantastically good question. Unfortuantely, it's also one that we have no equipment to answer right now. Since we have no measurements of time before our universe (time didn't exist, at least not our time), we can't really apply the scientific method to that question. Maybe someday, we'll figure out a way of constraining theories about the "meta-universe" in which our universe is embedded. But for now, it's complete speculation and essentially not science.

    4. Re:Creation of normal matter by crashnbur · · Score: 2
      "I hope you don't think that because most events have causes they all do. That's a bit like thinking that all integers are non-zero because most of them are."

      I was going to argue against that, but then it hit me: that's a pretty deep statement. I'm not touching it. Well said, my friend.

      However, I do believe that things must have a cause. If it has no cause, then what is its reason for having no cause? Everything has a reason, even if it is a loophole. God either does or does not exist, but there is a reason for it. The big bang theory either is or is not true, but there is a reason for it.

      I mean, com'on, things are event-driven or object-oriented, and without objects, one must only assume that an event triggered what was to follow - the big bang. Something was there to explode, and something had to cause it. Did one of the tiny dark matter particles spark up the wrong way and set it off?

      I guess we can apply the same reasoning to the inception of the big bang as to the reasoning for what we think will happen after the great universal black hole sucks it back in: We don't know, we can't know, we won't know, so why worry about it?

      Because it's damn fun!

    5. Re:Creation of normal matter by iso · · Score: 2

      What caused the big bang? How was it initiated? What were the bounds of the "universe" as it were before the big bang?

      There was nothing before the Big Bang as it was the beginning of existance. It's sometimes a difficult answer to accept, as you've been accustomed the existance of time all your life, but you have to realize that this wasn't always the case. If you're still having trouble there are some chemicals you can use to help make it clearer.

      - j

    6. Re:Creation of normal matter by iso · · Score: 2

      existAnce? Hrmm.. er .. existEnce. DMT taught me a lot but it never taught me to spell.

      - j

    7. Re:Creation of normal matter by efuseekay · · Score: 5, Informative

      Excellent questions. Only problem is that it has no relevance to the "Creation of Normal Matter" the article is talking about.

      The "normal matter" they were talking about are baryons (electrons, protons, neutrons etc and their composites). And the "creation" they talk about is "Big Bang Nucleonsynthesis", which is when protons and neutrons and electrons and stuff fuse together to make H, He and Li. The ratio of the production rates of these stuff implies certain "wiggles" in the CMB spectrum, so gives us a gauge (with lots and lots of caveats the scientists don't tell you) to the so-called "baryonic density". (Dark matter, by definition, do not interact with baryons, so it's hard to measure them since all the tools we have are made out of baryons.)

      Big Bang Nucleonsynthesis (despite its name) can occur without a Big Bang : we just need the Universe to be Very Hot and Dense at some point.

      Your questions about the origins of Big Bang is a much deeper and harder question. While it seems a philosophical argument, it is recently being attacked by some theorists. Most of the time, they just ask the question : do we need a Big Bang that starts from a singularity? The answer, with our current observations, is a BIG NO. But then they have to figure out a better alternative that can give us a very hot and dense Early Universe (so we can have Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, which is a very very very very well observed and constrained theory : i.e. it's fucking correct.)

      --
      Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
    8. Re:Creation of normal matter by crashnbur · · Score: 2

      That something is difficult to accept does not mean that I won't, but that it is accepted by others does not mean that it must be accepted. There is no proof for any of this - it's all largely theoretical. We take in the evidence and believe what makes sense to us. That's the beauty of it, I think. When enough reasoning comes through to discard old theories, the new ones will take over, but there will always be others to share the limelight. Still, you make a good point...

    9. Re:Creation of normal matter by joe90 · · Score: 1

      42. What was the question again?

      --

      Fast, cheap & reliable. Pick two.
    10. Re:Creation of normal matter by crashnbur · · Score: 2
      "i.e. it's fucking correct"

      I would rather suggest that it's the best we've got right now, and it will have to hold until we develop it further and either prove it correct or prove it incorrect (or wrongly accept or discard it).

    11. Re:Creation of normal matter by Gnight · · Score: 2, Informative
      What caused the big bang? How was it initiated? What were the bounds of the "universe" as it were before the big bang?

      In short, we don't really know. Some speculate that this universe was created from another universe. By this I mean that our universe may have been created in such a way that a bubble gets blown from a wad of chewing gum. But where did that universe come from? Others speculate that our universe started when a quantum particle "came out of nowhere" and then inflated (the big bang) into our universe. Many of the people that beleive this think that our universe will eventually deflate (the big crunch) into nothing once more. At that time, humans maybe able to escape to another more younger universe by traveling through higher dimensional space.

      Some good books dealing with these subjects that I've read/currently reading are:

      - Hyperspace by Michio Kaku

      - In Search of Schrondinger's Cat by John Gribben

      - The Elegant Universe by Brian Green

      All are very good. Hope that helps.
    12. Re:Creation of normal matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's nice they agree on how big it is, the challenge now is measuring the rest of them ;) I can't see any reason to believe there's only one universe. It's more reasonable to assume that our "big bang" was a "little bang" - in an eternity of pulsating bangs. Plentyful as tiny sparkling chrystals on a cold winter day. And beyond! From our micro-cosmos point of view we've hardly seen "the light" - in either direction.

    13. Re:Creation of normal matter by efuseekay · · Score: 2

      BBN is a robust theory. It's so robust that if you tried to even modify it a bit, you'll get nonsense. Basically, it uses a very very simple idea (the Boltzmann equation, which statistically evolve a set of particles in phase-space with any arbitrary interaction terms), put it into a large computer, and churn out the results.

      (Some) People question the validity of Einstein's General Relativity, but the confidence in BBN is unshakable. The simplicity of it (you can teach it to a bunch of people in an hour), and the fact that it actually predicts to extreme accuracy what we see in the Universe (eg. it predicts 75% Hydrogen, which we see), makes it an extremely hard theory to break.

      --
      Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
    14. Re:Creation of normal matter by crashnbur · · Score: 2

      Any theory can be worked and reworked to provide answers that we already have. How do we know we can use it to extrapolate the answers that we don't have?

    15. Re:Creation of normal matter by efuseekay · · Score: 2

      Because, in the BBN case, we did. BBN predicts the cosmic abundances, which was then measured.

      --
      Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
    16. Re:Creation of normal matter by CaseyB · · Score: 2
      ...one must only assume that an event triggered what was to follow - the big bang. Something was there to explode, and something had to cause it.

      Once you manage to unlearn that, you'll be on your way towards understanding relativity.

      You're still assuming that spacetime has linearly measured dimensions with regularly spaced tickmarks everywhere. It doesn't.

    17. Re:Creation of normal matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well since everyone seems to be avoiding the obvious answer -- perhaps God created the universe? No, having a Being outside of time and space create time and space just doesn't make any logical sense.. oh wait.

      At least include it in your list of links.. you're open minded, aren't you?

    18. Re:Creation of normal matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

      The idea of a chain of events, each causing the next in the sequence, is a bit passé these days.

      Cause and effect doesn't have to work in a chain. And what kind of fucking idiot decides whether or not ideas are worthy based on what some French fag thinks is fashionable?

      If you ask for a cause for the first event you quickly lead to an infinite regress. What's the problem with there being a first event without cause?

      If you weren't such an idiot, you might find that you can build up partial chains of events without absolutely knowing how everything goes all the way back to infinity. In your company are the creationists who determine that because there are a few missing links in the fossil record that the entire theory of evolution is bunk. I hope you retards are happy together.

      I hope you don't think that because most events have causes they all do. That's a bit like thinking that all integers are non-zero because most of them are.

      God, what sophomoric crap! We invented integers and have things called inductive proofs. Of course that shit's not going to work with real events!

      That's not what anyone is asking for when they look for a "cause" for the big bang. What they're looking for is something better than the anthropic principle. It's not like they think that there was another universe where some asshole farted our universe into existence, and another asshole farted his universe into existence, and if I were a real Slashdot asshole I'd say it went on "ad nauseam" because I wouldn't be able to write without showing off my knowledge of fake Latin.
      Man, what a prick.

    19. Re:Creation of normal matter by dragons_flight · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Everything has a reason, even if it is a loophole. God either does or does not exist, but there is a reason for it. The big bang theory either is or is not true, but there is a reason for it.

      Here's the loophole in your argument.

      According to Godel's incompleteness theorem, in every nontrivial logical system there exist statements which are either simultaneously true and false (such systems are generally frowned on) or are impossible to prove either true or false.

      Mathematics is one of the later. Thus there are statements in mathematics which can be written down but never proved true or false (no easily explained examples exist). It's possible that such a property can be correct, in that it does hold in all possible cases without being able to prove that it does, and of course we can't actually test all cases to know that way.

      By extention it doesn't follow that there is neccesarily a reason for the big bang being true or not true. There doesn't strictly have to be any explanation for why it is the way it is.

      Of course this is a somewhat silly argument because there probably is a good deal that can be explained about the big bang, and much of science rests on inference and not proof (in the mathematical sense), but it is interesting that even in mathematics there are things for which there can be no reason (ie. proof).

    20. Re:Creation of normal matter by kyras · · Score: 1

      Just to play devil's advocate a little; I really didn't think that Green's book was as fantastic as it was made out to be (by some, anyway).

      He bases a lot of his statements and arguments on the assumption that our (everyday, in a physicist's day anyway) math is the "right" math for modeling the universe. By this I mean that it doesn't seem as if he's considered the possibility that some of the mathematical objects he assumes model the universe in fact do so, just because they seem to work okay for everything we've used them for before.

      I don't pretend to fully understand what the character of an "other" math would be, nor am I an expert on string theory. I'm just trying to make a statement about Green's book. Some of his arguments didn't quite come off. That isn't to say that I don't think you should read it, just that you shouldn't take it as gospel, despite his credentials.

      --
      Tastes like burning! - Ralph Wiggum
    21. Re:Creation of normal matter by Afrosheen · · Score: 1

      Somehow I doubt the ingestion of DMT will answer that question for you. It may come in one of those acid-fueled delusions where for about 5 seconds, it's all clear to you, the answer to every question you've never had an answer for unwinds to you, and you feel godlike. Then it slips away. Too bad science isn't based on hallucinatory thought.

    22. Re:Creation of normal matter by jorbettis · · Score: 2

      Define God.

      The best definition of God that I've ever heard is "That which created this Universe." It's a great definiton, because it means that everyone can believe in God, even me, and I'm agnostic.

      I can prove that such a god exists:

      First, I must postulate that this Universe exists. Second, I postulate that this Universe can not survive forever. I will prove that postulate with the second law of thermodynamics: This Universe will eventually undergo heat death. Because it hasn't yet, its age is finite. Consequently, there must have been some point in time in the distant past that the Universe came into existance. Therefore, the Universe must have been created by some phenomenon. Per our definition, that pehnomenon is God, so God exists.

      Just in case someone points out that time might not have always been what it is today, I shall define "Universe." See, the whole multiple Universe theory is pretty useless if you define Universe as "everything", and it isn't a very useful definition anyhow. Therefore, I presume to define this Universe as "everthing that obeys the same laws of physics which we obey". There is no evidence that we can be directly affected by anything other than this Universe (and if we could, the Second Law might not be true anyhow). So time always had to work this way or it wouldn't be this Universe any more.

      --

      Jordan Bettis

      ``Wherever you go, there's another stupid sigfile quote.''
    23. Re:Creation of normal matter by kyras · · Score: 0, Redundant

      I mean, com'on, things are event-driven or object-oriented, and without objects, one must only assume that an event triggered what was to follow - the big bang. Something was there to explode, and something had to cause it. Did one of the tiny dark matter particles spark up the wrong way and set it off?

      Interesting statement. Things are either (A) event-driven or (B) object oriented. But objects have not always existed (that is, the big bang caused the objects to exist). Hence the objects are event-driven (i.e., they are the results of the big bang). Thus everything is event-driven. Thus object are really events. But everything in Java inherits from Object. Thus, Java sucks. quod erat demonstrandum. :)

      --
      Tastes like burning! - Ralph Wiggum
    24. Re:Creation of normal matter by dragons_flight · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What caused the big bang? How was it initiated? What were the bounds of the "universe" as it were before the big bang?

      Sometimes bored physicists do try to give serious thought to this. Being a physicist, I've sometimes gotten to listen to what others consider to be serious thoughts on the matter.

      Basically there are too camps, people that want the universe to be timeless and exist forever and people that want the Big Bang to be the ultimate start of things. People in the first group will given you various stories about the cyclical nature of the universe (usually expand, collapse, repeat), or some notion of universes spawning other universes, ad infinitum.

      People who believe that the Big Bang was THE START of things tend to either believe it to be uncaused, caused by God, or unknowable and irrelevant. There are a few however in this camp that try to posit explanations of what did cause the universe out of nothing. Some bring in exotic theories (such as string theory) to try and construct physical laws that can hold before, during, and after a big bang event. Of course these people also have to change the nature of a big bang away from that strictly based on general relativity (which implicitly prevents any meaningful reference to a "before" the big bang).

      One of the most interesting stories I've heard is that the fabric of space has the property of being unstable in a total absence of energy, and at any moment and any location, there is infinitesimal but non zero probablity that it will transition to a different state which has energy, which then billows out into the rest of the universe. So basically the vaccuum has certain properties that exist forever and are timeless, and the big bang has a chance of spontaneously erupting simply because it has never happened. Hence the universe, as we expereince it, has a single well defined start within a larger timeless existence.

      As absurd as this might sound, this is quite serious, and as reasonable as many other things people say about "before" the big bang.

      Ultimately though, it only transfers the problem of first cause to the "fabric of the universe" and the basic physical laws governing everything. While science may be able to tell you that something is NOT the first cause, it can never say with certainty that something IS the first cause. As far as I'm concerned, whether you choose to believe that the chain of causation goes infinitely backward or has some definably beggining, is a matter of faith.

    25. Re:Creation of normal matter by achurch · · Score: 2

      Your questions about the origins of Big Bang is a much deeper and harder question. While it seems a philosophical argument, it is recently being attacked by some theorists. Most of the time, they just ask the question : do we need a Big Bang that starts from a singularity? The answer, with our current observations, is a BIG NO. But then they have to figure out a better alternative that can give us a very hot and dense Early Universe (so we can have Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, which is a very very very very well observed and constrained theory : i.e. it's fucking correct.)

      It may just be that I've forgotten all my college physics out of disuse, but is there any reason the Big Bang couldn't have been preceded by a Big Crunch? That would allow for a very hot and dense universe, and would also very neatly (too neatly?) answer the question of what was there before the Big Bang.

      So what's wrong with that picture? Not arguing, just seeking enlightenment...

    26. Re:Creation of normal matter by spiro_killglance · · Score: 2, Funny
      Great so lets all go to the church of leptogenesis and worship the almighty CP violation.

      Our creator, CP violation
      that art in the Kobayashi Maskawa Matrix
      Hallowed be its complex phase factor.
      Thy matter over antimatter come.
      Thy asymmetry come on earth
      as it is in heaven.
      Give us today our baryon stablity.
      Forgive us our entropy as
      we forgive the entropy of others.
      Leds us not into symmetry but
      deliver us from annilahation.
      For thine is the matter and the power and energy for ever.

      Amen.

    27. Re:Creation of normal matter by spiro_killglance · · Score: 1


      They Idea, that the Big Bang was precided by
      a Big Crunch in another universe, as been
      around for a while, it was known as the
      oscillating universe and the comsic bounce
      hypothesis. When it was learned that
      each time it occurs the new universe has a
      slightly higher entropy and thus a slight
      higher ratio of radiaton to matter, the
      idea went out of vogue, as it showed that be
      an oscillating universe could not be enternal.

    28. Re:Creation of normal matter by iso · · Score: 1

      You mis-understand me. I never said that it would answer any questions for you, but rather that it would help you understand how it could be possible that time did not exist. DMT doesn't answer anything, but when solution requires looking at the problem without your normal conceptions of "reality," it certainly does help in understanding.

      Get it?

      - j

    29. Re:Creation of normal matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was nothing before the Big Bang as it was the beginning of existence

      Is that to say that nothing just decided to explode, creating everything?

      You can't really be that naive, can you?

    30. Re:Creation of normal matter by batboy78 · · Score: 1

      Or perhaps the universe was reduced to nothing by a black hole, then that very last particle to get pulled in released all the matter back out.... Here we go again.....

    31. Re:Creation of normal matter by Telek · · Score: 2

      I have a very perplexing question!

      I believe that there is no such thing as "random". You can have pseudo-random, but what we commonly call "random" is really "not having sufficient information to predict an outcome". Everything is a series of causes and reactions. Similarly, nothing can happen without a cause. The cup cannot fall off the table on it's own, and if the cup was on the table and is now shattered on the ground, then something happened to cause it to do that. (Before you ask, I don't particularily think that it will ever jump back up onto the table and reassemble itself, ... ever!)

      So, having established that, it means that everything that I do, everything that I will ever do has been laid out already by a complicated series of causes. If nothing happens without a cause, then everything that I do (which are all actions) will have had a cause, and thus I have no free will. I have no choice in anything that I do, it has all been decided ahead of time, just as everyone else's actions. We are all automatons.

      Obviously I can't accept that. Thus I have a paradox.

      Anyone care to contribute? I don't claim to be up to date with the latest in anything, but I came up with this problem a few months ago while talking to a friend about some of my other theories and it has been bugging me since.

      --

      If God gave us curiosity
    32. Re:Creation of normal matter by Telek · · Score: 2

      look at my other post

      here

      Did one of the tiny dark matter particles spark up the wrong way and set it off?

      You're neglecting to think of other dimensions. This universe could have simply been created by a "black hole" in another dimension, thus requiring nothing "in this universe" to have set it off.

      --

      If God gave us curiosity
    33. Re:Creation of normal matter by TheMMaster · · Score: 2

      I think that the only thing you can prove with our math is that it doesn't apply here.

      in the beginning there was nothing, for an infinite amount of time, so after infinity you would have 0(zero) * X (infinity) = 0 (zero)
      For me this proves that our math is at least flawed in these cases.
      my 2cts

      --
      Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity
    34. Re:Creation of normal matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's one of the major points of quantum theory - it injects an intrinsic randomness into the equations of physics, since it's a statistical, probabilistic theory that also gives the most accurate predictions of reality that humanity has ever made. This is quite irritating to most physicists, who almost all hate quantum theory compared to the elegant beauty of relativity on an aesthetic level. There's always been a feeling that the basic equations of reality should be beautiful. Relativity is beautiful. Quantum, well, isn't. Unfortunately, the predictions of qunatum theory are even more accurately trested than those of relativity. :-(

    35. Re:Creation of normal matter by mghiggins · · Score: 1

      > By extention it doesn't follow that there is neccesarily a reason for the big bang being true or not true. There doesn't strictly have to be any explanation for why it is the way it is.

      That's not what Godel's incompleteness theorem says at all. It just says that in any sufficiently complex system there are statements which you can't *prove* are true or false.

      They're still either true or false; it'd just take an infinite amount of time with a computer to calculate the truth value, so we can't do the calculation.

      --
      All opinions expressed herein are not my own; I haven't had free will since last year when aliens ate my brain.
    36. Re:Creation of normal matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, actually theorems may be proven true or false, but not -within- that theory, i.e. you
      need other axioms which are outside of that theory to prove those theorems.

    37. Re:Creation of normal matter by underpaidISPtech · · Score: 1

      You were a probability function. You already happened.

      You know those snapshots of atom smashing, the ones showing the trajectories of particles and their offspring? That's the universe. A big snapshot of the collision between two mutually exclusive entities annihilating one another. Good/Evil, Light/Dark, whatever. Everything that ever existed or will exist(multiverses, multidimensions, galaxy clusters, you, etc), was/is just a probability function that traversed a path layed out by a singular, predetermined path.

      Sleep well ;)

    38. Re:Creation of normal matter by underpaidISPtech · · Score: 1

      That's the trouble with postulates.
      Everything we "know" is based on a priori input and is therefore tainted, as one cannot truly observe a system, when one is part of same system.
      And so it goes that the preceding is false, and I vanis...

    39. Re:Creation of normal matter by naasking · · Score: 1

      "A thousand experiments may prove me right, but it only takes one to prove me wrong."

      ~ Albert Einstein ~

    40. Re:Creation of normal matter by Nos. · · Score: 1
      Obviously I can't accept that. Thus I have a paradox.

      No, I don't believe you have a paradox. Just because you can't accept something to be true, does not mean it isn't.

      Of course, I don't like the idea that our lives are laid out for us either. But I think there's a flaw in your logic above. I can agree with what you said, about randomness to a point. As your model (be it of the Universe or of a raindrop falling) grows more complex, it becomes in effect, random. Since there are possibly millions of variables involved, there is no way (at least with current limitations) to accurately predict a model with that many variables (for example, weather).

      However, aside from that (which is still arguably unrandom), there is also free will, or choice. While many factors will affect what your choices in life are, there is no way to predict what any given person will do in a given situation.

      Just some thoughts on a VERY interesting topic which will probably be on my mind for the next while.

    41. Re:Creation of normal matter by lumpenprole · · Score: 1

      Was there time before the event that produced the universe? This is a singularly uninformed question, but I've always wondered if the idea of 'something before the big bang' was a result of our rather narrow view of time.

      --
      Disclaimer: MINAA (Mummy! I'm Not An Animal!)
    42. Re:Creation of normal matter by naasking · · Score: 1

      Your second postulate cannot be proven with a theory. The laws of thermodynamics are pretty solid, but that does not mean they are absolutely correct. They are simply accepted as "laws" but that does not make them so. Furthermore, even if the Universe does undergo heat death, it does not suddenly vanish or cease to exist. All the matter is still there so the Universe still exists and thus, it's age is not finite.

      However, the fact that the Universe came into existence is not a consequence of the fact that it's age is finite, but of the fact that it exists at all. If you really want to base your argument on Thermodynamics, then the fact the Universe exists means it must have been created at some time in the past, otherwise it would have already suffered heat death (because if the Universe were not created, it would have always existed, and therefore it's timespan is infinite and it would have undergone heat death an infinite time ago).

      In conclusion, nice try. Unfortunately, you won't solve the great God mystery that easily. ;-)

    43. Re:Creation of normal matter by matte · · Score: 1

      Sorry but you are also wrong. What Godel's incompleteness theorem says is that in any sufficiently complex system there are *true* statements that you can't prove.

      One popular example is the statement "This statement is unprovable". If you can prove it the system is broken because you can prove false statements, so the statement is true but not provable.

    44. Re:Creation of normal matter by Luyseyal · · Score: 2

      They're still either true or false; it'd just take an infinite amount of time with a computer to calculate the truth value, so we can't do the calculation.

      sigh. And you're confusing Godel with decidability. They're too different issues. You can have a complete logic without every sentence being decidable. This is how first order logic works. What Godel proves is that there are truths about mathematics, stateable in the language, that cannot be proven. What's weird is there's a decidable algorithm for generating Godel sentences. So, you can make your computer spit out true sentences of mathematics, in the language of math, that there are no proofs for. Weird eh?

      Actually, Godel is just the beginning of problems with attempting to model math in logic. Another weird one is: between any two integers there are an infinite number of integers between them. Really? between 1 and 2 there are an infinite number of integers? So, you see that models of things are often inaccurate or defy intuition. so, we work on our models.

      What bugs me about the dragons_flight's post is this: simply because a proof is not stateable in a language does not imply that there is no reason for that truth being there.

      As far as the universe is concerned, I think you'll find that something at the bottom is self-existent. We haven't found it yet, nor will we know much about it until then, but it seems very counterintuitive to think otherwise. And so, the reason for itself is itself. That's very different from saying "there's no reason at all."

      Cheers
      -l

      --
      Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
    45. Re:Creation of normal matter by Telek · · Score: 3, Interesting

      there is no way (at least with current limitations) to accurately predict a model with that many variables (for example, weather).

      That's not true. Just because there are trillions of factors happening every nanosecond does NOT means that it is not predictable, it just means that we may not have the means to predict it. This however does NOT make it random. Is there any way for you, as a human without tools, to look inside a CPU and predict exactly what electron will be where and a what point in time? No, of course not, however the processor is working in a very predictable nature.

      there is also free will, or choice

      That is my paradox. According to the fundamental rule that I have laid out (there is no spoon, er shit I mean there is no randomness) that also means that there is no free will. Sorry, one cannot coexist with the other. Free will explicitly denies predictability, and thus implies randomness.

      I will not, no, I cannot accept this. Thus there must be randomness in the universe. The only plausable explination that I can find is that there are forces acting outside of the universe / this dimension that have effects on the inside of this universe. With this there is still no randomness and there is still free will, however now I've implied that there is something supernatural about our existance (like perhaps our "souls" exist in a different dimension?), and that is a whole new ball of wax to get into.

      So I'm still in a quandary :-(

      --

      If God gave us curiosity
    46. Re:Creation of normal matter by Luyseyal · · Score: 2

      So basically the vaccuum has certain properties that exist forever and are timeless

      Ah! That's exactly what I was talking about in my other post!---not necessarily a vaccuum, of course, because I was non-specific---just that there is a self-existent reason, versus, "no reason at all" which seems just false to me. The infinite chain theory would fall under this category, too, I guess...

      Anyhow, cheers,
      -l

      --
      Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
    47. Re:Creation of normal matter by efuseekay · · Score: 1

      True. That's always implicit in any scientific discourse that it will be extremely cumbersome to add the words "until proven wrong experimentally" at the end of every sentence.

      --
      Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
    48. Re:Creation of normal matter by efuseekay · · Score: 2

      I will add here some notes in addition to the other response to the your post (the oscillating universe has been around for a while, but observations have ruled out the so-called "idling" universe : if you believe in General Relativity which most people do.)

      There are recent revival of the idea of the "big crunch before big bang universe". People have thought about these some time ago, but it ran into a problem called the "weak-energy condition". Basically, the equations of general relativity which describes the "motion" of the universe, says that once the universe goes into the "big crunch mode", it will hit a singularity which is an infinity. But this means that we do not know how to "connect" the big bang to the big crunch "continuously" (discontinuous things are non-causal and unphysical). Recent attempts by some prominent theorists try to by-pass the WEC by finding some loop-hole so that the big crunch never hits infinity. The results are kinda mixed (I don't know the exact details.)

      Of course, people are working within the confines of current known physics. There may be some unknown undiscovered processes that allows us a way out. The verdictis still open.

      --
      Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
    49. Re:Creation of normal matter by kerrbear · · Score: 2
      According to Godel's incompleteness theorem, in every nontrivial logical system there exist statements which are either simultaneously true and false

      Does that include Godel's theorem?

    50. Re:Creation of normal matter by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Does that include Godel's theorem?

      Godel's incompleteness theorem is provably true in the nontrivial logical system known as mathmatics. So no, Godel's statement is not itself one of the undecidable statments to which it refers.

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    51. Re:Creation of normal matter by Scumbumbo · · Score: 1
      Similarly, nothing can happen without a cause. The cup cannot fall off the table on it's own, and if the cup was on the table and is now shattered on the ground, then something happened to cause it to do that.

      Yes, you've successfully proven that the cup has no free will - this is a well known fact that has little to do with quantum level events. Once you enter the macro level above the quantum level everything follows physical law due to the smoothing effect of there being an uncountable number of quantum events. This was Schrodinger's entire point with his cat experiment. At the macro-level (physical reality), even before you observe the event, the cat is obviously either alive or dead and not in some silly indeterminate state between the two.

      Likewise, at the macro-level, you can observe and react to events without having to worry about such things as randomness. You can make a decision that is best for you and then go and do the exact opposite. You are not a quantum-level particle.

    52. Re:Creation of normal matter by dragons_flight · · Score: 2

      Congratulations, you've stumbled on the ages old conflict between determinism and free will.

      Maybe you have no free will? There is a whole school of philosophy that argues free will is an illusion and we are all really automatons.

      However, determinism went out of vogue with the maturity of quantum mechanics. There is a body of evidence (called the No Hidden Variable Argument) that makes a well accepted case that quantum mechanics truly is random from the point of view of everyone inside the universe. In particular the argument goes that waves are not merely a mathematical tool for judging where a point particle might be, but in fact the wave IS the particle and it IS spread out everywhere that the wave allows, simultaneously. Thus there are no true point-particles only wave-particles.

      Randomness comes in through what is refered to as "measurement", waves are allowed to exist in multiple states spread across a significant region, but under certain conditions they collapse to a single state often having a point-like size. According to the best known quantum mechanics this process is neccesarily random to everything inside the universe, because there are NO factors that one could know that would tell you which state it will end up in among all the states allowed. How the quantum state actually decides is beside the question because nothing in the universe can ever have access to information that will tell you about the process.

      Whether God rolls dice, or there is so guiding over will, or even a deterministic mathematical function, doesn't matter because we will experience it as random. Also, it is important to note, that whatever principle governs the evolution of quantum states, it maintains the strict probablity distributions. There is no evidence that God (or whatever) ever decides to evolve all the particles in a way that would appear unrandom and not follow the probablity functions.

      This whole discussion allows free will a loop hole. If your soul or some other guiding influence exists outside the realm measurable to us and directs the evolution of certain QM states, then it can have an impact on this world. Note that the fact that there appears to be true randomness in the universe does not imply there has to be free will, after all God could just roll dice and not give you any more real control over your life. Of course QM might get replaced someday by a theory that doesn't involve unknowable processes...

      One last comment, true free will has to come from outside the chain of causation. If you want to include free will then you have to insert it somewhere where there plausibly is no connection between the cause and a specific effect, thus giving the will something to choose (which effect, ie which quantum state). There is also a whole discussion about false free will, or "good enough" free will which deals with the appearance of choice resulting from chaotic and complicated circumstances that could never be fully understood. It's chaotic, so I could never understand it well enough to accurately predict it's behavior so I might as well treat it as if it has free choice. Not exactly what you want, but it maybe ultimately all we have.

    53. Re:Creation of normal matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. Cosmologists should study more Star Trek. Things are often much simpler than cosmologists make them sound.

    54. Re:Creation of normal matter by SIGFPE · · Score: 1

      God you are one fucking ignorant shit. Since Hume people have been questioning causality and since Hume many have considered causality as 'invented' as integers. It's got nothing to do with your so-called 'french fags'. One the one hand you criticise chains and then use them in your talk of partial chains. You aren't even fucking self-consistent you fat dick. And you're fucking impolite too - probably because you learnt your manners in the same gutter as your philosophy while you were taking up the ass for money.

      --
      -- SIGFPE
    55. Re:Creation of normal matter by crashnbur · · Score: 2
      Okay, I agree with the concept of empiricism which you explain very well. My answer to the paradox is simple, yet difficult to comprehend:

      There are two "levels" for the concerns of this argument. The first is human thought. The second is that which exceeds human thought, that which drives the universe - this empirical nature of it all, as you explained.

      On our level, we make the choices, because we know not of our causality. On a higher level, it is all decided for us by the natural, biological, and highly complex conditions which have created all that we are and will be and will do.

      I wrote something very similar to what you wrote on my weblog a couple days ago.

    56. Re:Creation of normal matter by crashnbur · · Score: 1
      Either "camp" is posed with a paradox. What created that which expands and collapses repeatedly? Or what caused God to create things / what caused the very start?

      I can not comprehend any fact contraray to this: everything has a cause. So I must wonder ... what is the ultimate cause of everything? (and then, in a fit of insanity, I ask 'what was its cause?' and thus I distract myself to avoid further frustration)

  17. Taco's Tiny Penis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    In gym class we laughed at him. Taco showered in his underwear. Then one day we pulled off his briefs. There in the gym room shower was CmdrTaco displaying the cutest teeny tinyest little errection you ever saw! That little pipsqueak got a bitty hard-on in gym class shower. What a queer. We all suspected he was a fag, but his little gym class "splinter" confirmed it.

  18. Warning: IP Ban totally fucking useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    An open letter to Jamie McCarthy

    Dear Jamie,
    There's a reason people look at you like you're some kind of goddamn freak. We're pretty sure there's other reasons you won't show your face anymore; we've been reading slashdot long enough to remember the pictures the Holland Sentinel published of you with your slicked back greasejob haircut and hawkish little face. I remember thinking "God, I know Internet filters are bad, but the last fucking thing that is going to convince anyone of anything is this guy". You need to wash. You need to exercise. You need to get a haircut, and get a real job. Soon, VA is going to fire you, and you're going to be out in the real world. And that is going to be the shock of a fucking lifetime. You need to prepare.

    As much as you delight in finding people despicable enough that you feel tormenting them is your righteous duty, I think it's pretty clear at this point that Michael Sims is not a Nazi. In fact, he knew the truth about you long before anyone else did. You and your friends may run THE CENSORWARE PROJECT, but anyone with a lick of sense now knows that you're personally responsible for writing the Censorware code that's now built into Slashdot. Let's be extremely clear about this: you define Censorware to be "software which is designed to prevent another person from sending or receiving information (usually on the web)". And you've checked mountains of code into CVS to prevent people with dissenting opinions from sending information on the web. It meets your definition, letter for letter. And guess what? Your Censorware is just as effective as every Censorware project you have ever railed against. How effective is that?

    How effective is that? That's a great question. It's effective in exactly the same way NetNanny is effective. It stops technically non-proficient people in their tracks. They become victims of a robotic system that no one understands. Get a new account on this cool site, post a comment about how you had a hard time installing Linux, and BAMMO, you and your whole subnet are banned from posting. Congratulations. But it doesn't stop the clever, does it Jamie? How many times have you written articles about how the folks at Peacefire can walk rings around an Internet filter in 10 seconds flat? Well guess what?

    I just spent the whole fucking day running circles around your pathetic little Internet filter. How does it feel to be a commercial software developer paid to block people from accessing something and failing?

    Your points about Censorware were something you should have listened to. You and your pathetic system are a bleeding failure. Like your opponents, you have frustrated the weak and enraged the strong. Soon, you'll lose your job, and you're going to be sitting on the other side of an oak desk with someone trying to interview you looking at you, and your resume, like this.

    And that, as they say, is poetic justice.

    --Everybody on Plastic.com

  19. .1 releases are better. by Soko · · Score: 5, Funny

    All the "normal stuff" is thought to have been made in two steps, one occurring when the universe was roughly three minutes old, and the other some 300,000 years later.

    See? Even "God" needs to get it in production, then issue a revision some time later before it's really running right. :0)

    (P.S.- My first thought was of "Dork Matter", but then I saw the StarWars DVD ad on the page. *sigh* Too easy...)

    Soko

    --
    "Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
    1. Re:.1 releases are better. by ukryule · · Score: 4, Funny

      And I bet he's a bit pissed that his users are only bothering to use 10% of the features he implemented ...

    2. Re:.1 releases are better. by mrdlinux · · Score: 1

      If you only use 10% of the features, you can only complain about 10% of the bugs...

      --
      Those who do not know the past are doomed to reimplement it, poorly.
  20. so.......this means what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We can now measure stuff we cannot see, nor use, and has no real purpose other then keeping our planets apart and giving us something to theorize?

    1. Re:so.......this means what? by Trollificus · · Score: -1

      You pretty much summed up all of science in one simple sentence.

      --

      "People should be allowed to keep midgets as pets."
      - Gov. Jesse Ventura

  21. You mean you don't know?! by crashnbur · · Score: 1, Redundant
    Let me guess, you didn't read the article, and therefore have no clue how such measurements are made, and rushed your reply in so that you could nab a first post? Here, let me help you out:
    According to the leading theory, an enormous nuclear explosion called the Big Bang happened 13 billion to 15 billion years ago. From it, the universe appeared in an instant, but as a billion-degree mess of neutrons, protons and electrons. The explosion was so energetic that nothing could come together close enough, for long enough, to form atoms. But the universe expanded and cooled so rapidly that within three minutes protons and neutrons bonded in twos and fours, and formed all the atomic nuclei in the universe. This Big Bang Nucleosynthesis determined how much normal matter would ever exist.

    Just how much matter that was can be estimated from observing the most recently formed stars and galaxies, because they are fueled by the hydrogen atoms formed from those original nuclei of twos.

    Fields explained that young stars, like our Sun, are just now fusing that original hydrogen into helium whereas older stars fuse helium into oxygen and iron. Because the hydrogen fuel has not been converted, scientists are able to measure the proportion of original normal matter to dark matter.

    1. Re:You mean you don't know?! by evil_spork · · Score: -1

      Our measurements of this are based on gravity, how much effect we would expect to get from what we can see, and what is observed. From this, we get a proportion. Unfortunately, your reply is just karma whoring and doesn't answer his question.

      --
      guk is gay
    2. Re:You mean you don't know?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      Thank you. You're right, Mr. Evil Spork ;-)

  22. And in a readable format... :-) by Anonymous+DWord · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Astronomers Celebrate Reliable Measure of Dark Matter

    By Heather Sparks

    Scientists are closer than ever to balancing the checkbook of cosmic matter. This is because two recent independent measurements of normal matter in the universe are in agreement. The results further strengthen the case for the Big Bang theory and for the nature of the universe as astronomers understand it today.

    The universe contains normal atomic matter, what makes you, your dog, the stars, and everything in between. Normal matter is what Carl Sagan was talking about when he said we are all star-stuff.

    But in addition to star-stuff, there is invisible dark matter that is known only because the universe is denser than normal matter alone, as evidenced by how structures, like clusters of galaxies, are bound together by gravity. Even individual galaxies don't have enough normal matter in them -- that which can be directly detected -- to keep them from simply flying apart.

    Now, through different measurements of conditions existing at the very start of time, astronomers are beginning to see the light.

    "There is more than one way of measuring the total amount of matter in the universe," said astronomer Brian Fields from the Center for Theoretical Astrophysics at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. "And if you have an idea of how much normal stuff there is to all the universe, then you know how much other stuff there is, too."

    Creation of normal matter

    All the "normal stuff" is thought to have been made in two steps, one occurring when the universe was roughly three minutes old, and the other some 300,000 years later.

    According to the leading theory, an enormous nuclear explosion called the Big Bang happened 13 billion to 15 billion years ago. From it, the universe appeared in an instant, but as a billion-degree mess of neutrons, protons and electrons. The explosion was so energetic that nothing could come together close enough, for long enough, to form atoms. But the universe expanded and cooled so rapidly that within three minutes protons and neutrons bonded in twos and fours, and formed all the atomic nuclei in the universe. This Big Bang Nucleosynthesis determined how much normal matter would ever exist.

    Just how much matter that was can be estimated from observing the most recently formed stars and galaxies, because they are fueled by the hydrogen atoms formed from those original nuclei of twos.

    Fields explained that young stars, like our Sun, are just now fusing that original hydrogen into helium whereas older stars fuse helium into oxygen and iron. Because the hydrogen fuel has not been converted, scientists are able to measure the proportion of original normal matter to dark matter.

    "Stars change the amount of hydrogen and helium in the universe," he said, "and we want to know what the Big Bang did. So we have to find places where pollution from stars is minimal" to estimate the original amounts of normal and dark matter.

    But before any stars could form, hydrogen atoms had to exist. This took 300,000 years after the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis the universe had to cool down enough so that electrons could bind with the nuclei.

    Once this happened, there was a curious side effect: the creation of light in the Universe. Unbound electrons scattered the UV radiation from the Big Bang, but once the electrons were bound, the radiation was allowed uniform movement, thus, light was finally released in the young cosmos.

    This light has existed since then, travelling along the edge of the universe, stretching and weakening into a still measurable microwave radiation, called the Cosmic Microwave Background, or CMB as astronomers call it.

    Weak attraction

    At the time of the original release of light, dark matter had congregated in clumps, which created small fields of gravity that eventually pulled in normal matter as well. Images of the CMB are therefore mostly smooth, but have spots, or wiggles, of slight variation, a result of the dark and normal matter pooling together.

    "The nature of these 'wiggles' is basically saying how the normal matter was responding to that crazy dark matter," explained Fields, "by amplifying the places where the extra density was."

    The CMB, most recently measured by highly sensitive probes in Antarctica, therefore gives a detailed measure of the proportion of normal to dark matter.

    Phenomenally, both the measurements of young galaxies and of the cosmic microwave background showed that normal matter makes up just one-tenth of the universe. The rest must be dark matter, researchers say. Fields, who wrote about this astronomical agreement in the Oct. 19 issue of the journal Science, explained why this is causing astronomers to "bring out the bubbly."

    "It didn't have to be true," Fields explained, "because they're completely independent things. It's just gorgeous that they agree with each other."

    Earlier studies had showed that dark matter made up anywhere from 85 to 95 percent of the universe. Only now do the two different measures of dark matter agree. Now, 90 percent of everything is known to be virtually nothing.

    --
    "If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
  23. Dark Matter? by Apreche · · Score: 1, Interesting

    So apparently they think that the part of the universe we can't see is dark matter or something? And they seem to be able to guess how much of it there is. I believe that the universe has always existed, and will continue to exist forever. It is also infinitely large in every direction. The only reason we can't see the rest is because the light hasn't gotten here.
    When you shine a flashlight at a wall you can see that light spreads out as you move farther away. The stars are so far away that the light does not reach the little tiny tiny earth.

    Even better. Maybe the universe wasn't always here, and it had a "creation" date. We think the universe is "expanding". Maybe it's because that light from that far away takes a certain amount of time to get here. So light from farther away places is arriving here for the first time ever. if we can figure out how many light years the farthest away thing we can see is, then we can figure out how old the universe is.

    I still think it's amazing that when you look at the stars in the sky that you are looking billions of years into the past. Those stars you see where there before dinosaurs were here, and they might not even be up there anymore.

    --
    The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
    1. Re:Dark Matter? by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      I think you're misunderstanding the evidence for the Big Bang. We can see that galaxies are moving away from us, in accordance with Hubble's Law. We know that they are moving away from the Doppler effect: they are reddened (or they are abiding by totally different laws of physics). This means that whatever theory you adopt, it has to account for this apparent motion. This is pretty tricky, when you think about it. It has been attempted. Hoyle and others tried to create a steady state universe, with no beginning and no end. But when the measurements started coming in, the Big Bang started winning out (in addition to the fact that the steady state model was never really liked on purely aesthetic grounds). For example, the Big Bang correctly predicted the Cosmic Microwave background. (If the universe had always existed, where would it have come from?) The Big Bang also correctly predicts the relative fraction of elements in the universe. So any theory you come up with will be going toe-to-toe with a pretty beefy theory, depsite many claims to the contrary.

      A better to way to date the universe than using the method of your second paragraph would be to simple figure out the Hubble Constant, this allowing us to figure out the current rate of expansion. Playing the problem backwards gives an age for the universe. The trouble with your method is that there is no clear way to date how old the stars you see are. Light doesn't age as it moves through the cosmos, remember.
      Now, dark matter... It's called dark matter because we cannot see it with light gathering telescopes. But we can detect it. If it were not present, galaxies would be flying apart according to understood laws of physics. Similarly, galactic clusters would disperse. So it isn't like we can't detect the dark matter. It's like extra-solar planets. We've detected most of them indirectly by watching their stars. Still, most people think they are there.

    2. Re:Dark Matter? by foobar104 · · Score: 2

      I believe that the universe has always existed, and will continue to exist forever. It is also infinitely large in every direction. The only reason we can't see the rest is because the light hasn't gotten here.

      Hmm.

      The universe is infinitely large, and infinitely old.

      Since the universe is infinitely old, light from luminous objects in all parts of the universe has been radiating for infinite time.

      But you think light from distant objects "hasn't gotten here yet?"

      I wish I'd had you on my side during my last tax audit!

    3. Re:Dark Matter? by Relic+of+the+Future · · Score: 3, Informative
      I'll go in reverse order:


      The stars you see are all within our own galaxy, which is "only" about 100,000 light years across, so all the star light is from well after the dinosaurs bit it. There is a lot of light from other galaxies that are over 65 million light years away, but it's relatively faint, so you've probably not really noticed it.


      Yes, by seeing farther away objects we can raise the lower bound for the age of the universe. Astronomers are working on that. Yes, we think the universe is expanding, and we have a lot of proof for it too, mostly the red-shift that Hubble (the man, not the telescope) noticed. And yes, maybe the universe had a creation date (you've heard of the big bang theory, right?). (How did this get modded up?)


      Okay, top paragraph: distance doesn't stop light, only matter, and there's relatively very little of it in space. Light from far away objects /will/ eventually reach us, it will just take a long time, and be very faint (as you mentioned, light from a flashlight gets dimmer, in proportion to the square of the distance to the wall). In addition, due to the expansion of the universe, that light will be red-shifted. For very distant objects, the light is shifted completely out of the visible spectrum.


      Your belief that the universe has always been here is unsupported. (Again, big bang theory.) You're belief that it is infinite in all directions is also unsupported.


      Yes, they can guess how much dark matter there is. By definition, the part of the universe we can't see is dark matter...it's called that because we can't see it. It's not any different from normal matter (as far as we know), it's just not emiting any light, so we can't see it. And by the calculations for the estimated mass of the universe, and the calculations of the total mass of all the matter we can see, yes, there must be some (up to 90% of the total mass, by the measurements in this article).


      (I ask again... why did this get modded up?)

      --
      Those who fail to understand communication protocols, are doomed to repeat them over port 80.
    4. Re:Dark Matter? by MrFrank · · Score: 1

      Since the universe is infinitely old, light from luminous objects in all parts of the universe has been radiating for infinite time.

      The statement was that the Universe is infinitely old. Not the stars in the Universe. The matter that makes up the stars whose light is just reaching us now or may just begin to reach us in a million years could have existed forever but just "recently" foromed to make the star we see today.

    5. Re:Dark Matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We can see that galaxies are moving away from us

      Galaxies collide, so they cannot be all moving away from each other. Assuming that nothing can change the speed of light is naive, C is not constant like our current physics would like you to belive. It is our flawed physics that has flawed our thinking.

      the Big Bang correctly predicted
      Humans predict, not extraterrestrial events. Doesn't make it anymore of a fact than interpreting ghosts as the result of death.

      pretty beefy theory
      To those that you can convince that humans are smart enough to make the correct prediction based on a miniscule amount of conjecture. You should be able to find multiple examples on a daily basis in your local newspaper.

      Our perspective is too small and short to make any kind of educated guess about something as vast and timeless as the universe. We talk about black holes, quasars, big bang, etc... like we know for a fact what they are, but in reality we know as much about them as we do about the consciousness of rocks.

      Nothing
      Humans are still too dumb.

    6. Re:Dark Matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only thing astronomers are working on is flawed math.

    7. Re:Dark Matter? by underpaidISPtech · · Score: 1

      I do believe in the validity of the big bang, but occasionally I wonder if the background radiation isn't possibly a local phenomenon?

      Our local solar system and beyond (Oort Cloud?) is the product of some other massive star(s) going supernova. Is it possible that our observations are blinded by a lot of radiation moving away from us in all directions that are the remnants of that supernovae?

    8. Re:Dark Matter? by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      We wouldn't see radiation moving away from us. The SN that triggered the formation of our Solar System (if there was one) is well past dispersed by now, 4.55 billion years later. And it wouldn't be uniform in all directions at the predicted temperature of 3 K. Also, you need to explain why it's so uniform in different directions (once you account for Earth's known motions). A local source would tend to create a non-isotropic pattern.

    9. Re:Dark Matter? by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Good post with one glitch...

      Light from far away objects /will/ eventually reach us

      According to inflationary theory the early universe expansion exceeded the speed of light. (This was an expansion of space itself, and does not violate speed of light limit) For two points far enough apart the current expansion of the universe can exceed the speed of light. The light will never reach us.

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    10. Re:Dark Matter? by underpaidISPtech · · Score: 1

      Thanks! That one has been a mental itch for awhile :) I totally forgot about our motion within the spiral arms! Now I can always come back here if I need to scratch it.

  24. The matter of the dark by nukebuddy · · Score: 1

    There is no dark matter of the universe.

    It's all dark.

    -nb

    1. Re:The matter of the dark by Vuarnet · · Score: 2

      Did no one else get it? Am I the only Pink floyd fan reading here? Or maybe no one had the moderator points to use. Anyway, to paraphrase a little bit closer to the original:

      "There is no dark side of the universe, really.
      Matter of fact, it is all dark."


      (Kudos to nukebuddy for thinking about it first!)

      --
      Tongue-tied and twisted, just an earth-bound misfit, I
      Learning to fly, Pink Floyd.
  25. Does this include Dark Energy? by SumDeusExMachina · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I read an article in Scientific American the other day that talked about a so-called "Dark Energy" that is said to make up a large part of the "mass" of the universe that we can't see. Dark energy was defined as being evenly distributed forces throughout the universe that posessed anti-gravity. That is, they repelled each other instead of attracting.

    I'm only in high school physics, maybe someone more familiar with the field could provide an explanation and how it relates to the facts presented in this article?

    --

    Is your company running tools written by ma
    1. Re:Does this include Dark Energy? by V_M_Smith · · Score: 1

      Dark matter is different from dark energy. Basically, dark matter is just that -- normally gravitating matter which does not emit sufficient EM radiation to be detected by us, and is therefore, dark. That would include such things as brown dwarfs, and massive neutrinos. Pockets of gas that are in thermal equilibrium with the microwave background would also appear "dark" to us, as they would emit radiation with the same distribution as the CMB. Dark matter need not be anything particularly "exotic" (in the colloquial sense of the word).

      Dark energy, on the other hand, is a "cosmological constant"-like force that causes the repulsive force that leads to an acceleration of the universe. The acceleration has (tentatively) been observed in surveys of high-redshift supernovae. It was initially surmised that this force could be caused by quantum mechanical vacuum fluctuations (much like the Casimir force). Unfortunately, the "cosmological constant" those fluctuations would produce is off by an astounding (IIRC) 50 orders of magnitude!

    2. Re:Does this include Dark Energy? by dragons_flight · · Score: 3, Informative

      You're right that "dark matter" does get used in the sense of things that aren't emmitting enough light for us to see. The article in question however is using it exclusively in the sense of (non-baryonic) matter which does not interact with electromagnetic radiation and thus can never emit light. Things in this category would be exotics such as nuetrinos, WIMPs, and a variety of other things.

      For the record the bright objects we see account for about 3-6% of the needed gravity. Dark normal objects are guessed to account for 4-20%. Nuetrinos probably make up around 10%. Anything left over either has to be accounted for either by exotic dark matter or by a serious reaccounting of the above categories.

  26. CmdrTaco's tiny dick is dying by WeatherTroll · · Score: -1

    CmdrTaco's tiny dick is collapsing in complete disarray.

    You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict CmdrTaco's tiny dick's future. The hand writing is on the wall: CmdrTaco's tiny dick faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for CmdrTaco's tiny dick because CmdrTaco's tiny dick is dying. Things are looking very bad for CmdrTaco's tiny dick. As many of us are already aware, CmdrTaco's tiny dick continues to lose market share. CmdrTaco's bloody semen from his tiny dick flows like a river of blood.

    Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

    Slashdot trolls have determined that there are 7000 users of JonKatz tiny dick. How many users of Hemos' tiny dick are there? Let's see. The number of JonKatz versus Hemos posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 Hemos dick users. CmdrTaco's tiny dick fantasy posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of Hemos' tiny dick posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of CmdrTaco's tiny dick. A recent article put non-slashdot homos at about 80 percent of the gay tiny dick market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 non-slasdot tiny dick users. This is consistent with the number of non-slashdot gay tiny dick Usenet posts.

    Due to the troubles of slashdot, shrinkage of CmdrTaco's already miniscule dick and so on, CmdrTaco's tiny dick declared bankruptcy and forced CmdrTaco to go into street prositiution. Now since that enterprise is also dead with CmdrTaco's tiny dick turned over to another charnel house.

    All major surveys show that CmdrTaco's tiny dick has steadily declined in market share. CmdrTaco's tiny dick is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If CmdrTaco's tiny dick is to survive at all it will be among gay hobbyist tiny dick users. CmdrTaco's tiny dick continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save his tiny dick at this point in time. For all practical purposes, CmdrTaco's tiny dick is dead.

    --
    Digital Divide? The only divide Linux can bridge is the crack of my ass, when I use it to wipe my ass clean.
  27. Nuclear? How do they figure? by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 4, Informative
    According to the leading theory, an enormous nuclear explosion called the Big Bang happened 13 billion to 15 billion years ago.

    Gack. How do they figure an explosion of spacetime is nuclear? There were no nuclei to fuse or split. My cynicism is telling me that the author just though "nuclear" sounded big and bang-y.

  28. Can this be explained to layman? by glrotate · · Score: 1

    This has bothered me since I took a basic cosmology class a few years ago. If modern astrophysics says that the universe should have 900% more matter than we can actually observe, shouldn't that cause us to majorly reevaluate the equations that give us our expected mass?

    1. Re:Can this be explained to layman? by ukryule · · Score: 1

      It seems from the article that we now have 3 independent methods to calculate the mass of the universe. 2 of them agree, and the other is 10 times as big.

      Instead of saying "there may be something wrong with the theory that gives the big answer", the scientist invent 'dark matter'. Seems a bit of a cop out to me ...

      I'm just off down to the personnel department to get them to factor in my 'dark salary' :-)

    2. Re:Can this be explained to layman? by Robert1 · · Score: 1

      Well pretty much all of science is a "cop out" by your definition. When they observed radiation they had to INVENT something that might cause it BEFORE they actually observed sub-atomic particles directly. When scientists "invent" something it almost always turns out to actually exist.

    3. Re:Can this be explained to layman? by Gyl · · Score: 1
      Others have tried, I will to


      The laws of physics you know that give your expected mass, have been around for a long time, have been tested a lot, and work very well. You, where you are have little to no effect on you from the dark matter. But when those same, well known, well tested laws are applied on a larger scale, they say we get x amount of stuff. But we can only see x/10 amount of stuff. the other x/9 amount of stuff we call dark matter.


      Two basic possibilities to make up this dark matter, are WIMPs (weakly interacting massive particles) and MACHOs (Massive blah, I can't remeber) anway, little bitty things, or big things, jupiter sized. or both. There are searches for both going on all the time. Neutrinos are one candidate, and astronomers have been able to observe the effects of some MACHOs.

  29. I agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "But in addition to star-stuff, there is invisible
    dark matter that is known only because the universe is denser than normal matter alone, as evidenced by how structures, like clusters of galaxies, are bound together by gravity. Even individual galaxies don't have enough normal matter in them -- that which can be directly detected -- to keep them from simply flying apart."

    that sounds pretty bible-like to me...

  30. in other news.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Jon Katz tried for the third night in a row to suck on his own penis, but was not successful. Experts questioned in the matter say the primary cause may be his small penis, estimated to be just under an inch.

    ohh.. imagine a beowulf cluster of Jon Katz' tiny cocks..

  31. Dark Matter equation suggestion by Spootnik · · Score: -1, Redundant

    Others, Finzi in 1963, and Sanders in 1984, proposed that the gravitational force becomes stronger at greater radii with the form;

    U = -GM(1-Be^(-r/ro))
    ----------------
    (1-B)r

    B and ro are beta and r subscript o respectively. Pg 636 Galactic Dynamics. The variables can be selected to eliminate a lot of the dark mass anomalies. But there is no model that gives a reason to justify this or other attempts.

    In essence, if the force of gravity becomes a little stronger with large distance, then it would explain the constant velocity profile in spiral galaxies and other organizations of matter without requiring that 90 percent of the mass of the universe be dark matter (Tremaine and Binney, Galactic Dynamics).

    Another way of getting a similar thing is if you superpose a thrust directed radially outward that *decreases* with increasing radius. One can assume such a thrust to arise from the mass depletion in stars nuclear reactions, if same emit aether, aka space. Such a mechanism would give rise to a force directed essentially radially outward that was proportional to the amount of energy being emitted inside of the radius being considered. In this case, one gets an equation of the form;

    U = -GM + k*sum(Li)
    ------------------
    R

    where k is a coupling constant, sum(Li) is the sum of the luminosity of stars from 1 to n that are inside of radius R being considered;

    This assumes that the luminosity emitted from inside of radius R is proportional to the total energy emitted, and therefore the mass converted into energy. It also assumes that space consists of a material aether that is emitted during the fusion reaction of mass to energy conversion. Also, the term k is selected to balance out the forces, and the second positive term is always less than G, otherwise individual stars would blow themselves apart like a super nova. Though solar flares and solar coronal heating could be the result of such an emission of aether if aether exists.

    Note that due to the form, we would not notice any variance in the orbits of planets about a single star. Only groups of stars will exhibit any peculiarities, ie galaxies. At the boundaries of large groups of stars, there will be a discontinuous reduction in the emissions of aether into space, and so the outward motions of bodies in that aether will be altered and give rise to what would be considered an acceleration inward, when it was actually a *reduction* in the acceleration outward.

    Is any one aware of any proposals to alter the form of the Newtonian gravitational potential into this kind of an equation?

    Also, does anyone know where Sanders, Finzi, Milgrom, and/or Bekenstein are working today, I would like to get in contact with them regarding their models. Locations and or email addresses would be great.

    I have been looking at globular clusters and their velocity dynamics. If correct, then there should be a variance in the gravitational force that is anomolous any time the field drops from being strong to being essentially flat. The reason is the drop off in the repulsive mechanism. A dropping repulsion will appear to be a rising gravitational attraction effectiveness if one bases the analysis on Newtonian gravitation correctly describing the interaction of stellar bodies.

    At the maximum radius of a group of stars, ie galaxies or GC's, there should be a marked fall off in the repulsion profile and this should show up as anomalous velocities of stars or gases in those regions. Such is found in GC's but is attributed to "evaporation" ie stars with escape velocity. If it could be shown from measurements of the **accelerations** of the stars or other objects in those regions that the values are too large, then it may be demonstrable implying dark matter in GC's where it is not otherwise believed to exist as I understand.

    In the solar vicinity the same thing may be possible by a study of the solar "bubble" and interaction with aether emissions from the Milky Way.

    There may also be an assymetry in the direction of the flow that is inclined up out of the disk which would provide an apparent force tending to compress the disk as the expansion falls slightly in that region.

    On earth, I don't know yet how to try to measure it. However, solar flare activity is also anticipated to be involved. If the emissions are taking place in the interior of the sun, then they must escape. But we have no manner currently to measure the velocity or actions of "space". It is not even a question deemed askable or intelligible. However the two effects that should occur in and around the sun is a rapid expansion of the aether coming out of the sun which would act like a fluidized bed. And, the increase in the temperature of the gas around the exterior of the sun, ie the solar corona, due to the expansion and formation of a nodal structure to interface with exterior space.

    Another curious observation is the polarization of the light coming out of some flares. It implies a commonality to the energy source.

    Finally, on earth, some researchers have noted synchronized variance in radioactivity rates at cites thousands of miles apart. And other researchers have noted variances in the gravimetric constant that matched the solar activity. I don't have good references on these last two so don't place a lot of weight on them.

    So, in answer, I don't know if we can get it yet but I am looking. I have been hoping to link with others better at the formalization of such a theory. I have the ground work pretty well laid out but need a little more to get some credibility. The formulation of gravitation in the manner of my concepts links it with the other forces.

    1. Re:Dark Matter equation suggestion by efuseekay · · Score: 2

      Sanders : Kapteyn Astronomical Institute
      Finzi : Dunno
      Bekenstein : Weizmann Institute, IL
      Milgrom : visiting Cambridge/Oxford/England

      --
      Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
    2. Re:Dark Matter equation suggestion by efuseekay · · Score: 2

      Oh yeah, Bekenstein is of the Hawking-Bekenstein Fame. He is the guy who suggested the Entropy/Area correspondance. So I think he's smarter than Hawking (who set out to prove it wrong but ended up proving it right).

      Modified Dynamics that you talked about have no covariant formulation (i.e. the theories are all coordinate-system dependent, which is bad since physics should not care about coordinates).

      (I spent a year looking around for a covariant formulation...with no success of course.)

      --
      Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
    3. Re:Dark Matter equation suggestion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Beautiful work sir. Keep it up!

    4. Re:Dark Matter equation suggestion by CaseyB · · Score: 5, Informative

      I sure hope you're Ross Tessien, who posted this article to Usenet!

    5. Re:Dark Matter equation suggestion by CaseyB · · Score: 5, Informative
      After further research, I'm sure you're not.

      This slashdot comment also looks like this Usenet post.

      This slashdot comment also looks like this Usenet post.

      /. admins: bitchslap this plagiarizing fucker.

    6. Re:Dark Matter equation suggestion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could this have something to do with the discrepancy in the position of the Pioneer spacecraft? There was a story on CNN in May about them.

      It's not very technical since it's "mass media" but the essence of the story is quite clear:

      "Something is slowing down the spacecraft. And we have not been successful
      in finding the source of that. There is more slowing than you would expect
      from Newtonian gravity," said John Anderson, a senior scientist at NASA's
      Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California.

      This idea about gravity being slightly stronger as distance increases might be a good thing to try to research in regard to this 'mystery' of the Pioneer spacecraft.

    7. Re:Dark Matter equation suggestion by warmcat · · Score: 2

      Well spotted, dude. And from 1996 too!

    8. Re:Dark Matter equation suggestion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Your second catch today, too. I see he did this on the trinary computing thread. There should be some sort of "plagarist" modifier that you can do to massively punish somebody...


      Nah, that would get out of hand...

    9. Re:Dark Matter equation suggestion by __aanekd3853 · · Score: 1

      Also, does anyone know where Sanders, Finzi, Milgrom, and/or Bekenstein are working today, I would like to get in contact with them regarding their models. Locations and or email addresses would be great.

      Milgrom - the Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovoth, Israel. Bekenstein - the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel. Professional publications such as The Astrophysical Journal should list their email addresses in the headers of their papers, and most if not all are online. Last time I checked ApJ had a 100+ years [sic!] worth of issues online, so you can update yourself on the post-Newtonian developments yourself.

    10. Re:Dark Matter equation suggestion by G-funk · · Score: 1

      ...Which would be obvious to even the most dimwitted individual- who holds an advanced degree in hyperbolic topology, mmm,glaven.

      </frink%gt;

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money!
    11. Re:Dark Matter equation suggestion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      "Plagiarist but Interesting"-option: mod the comment up and the users karma down.

    12. Re:Dark Matter equation suggestion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Howcome this comment gets modded down to -1 while in the same thread I read a "well done!"-comment that's at +2?! Also: In this thread, started by the parent of the parent of this comment, this comment cannot be considered offtopic. If you do consider this thread offtopic, you should mod down the first offtopic post in the thread, not replies to the offtopic post which are not offtopic in their context (the thread).

      I'm not saying this moderation is not fair; the comment IS offtopic (but has a good point, though), but when moderating comments offtopic, please consider their context first.

  32. Hmmmm. Think on this. by BierGuzzl · · Score: 2

    If 10 percent of all matter in the universe is made of "stardust" and the other 90 percent of the matter is made up of dark matter, we've got a pretty serious problem. There may yet be some other sort of matter out there that we don't know about yet, since the 10% of all regular matter occupies only a tiny fraction of the actual space available and dark matter is ,by the accounts in the article, clumped together into pockets. So what about all the rest of that space? Is is occupied by purple matter?

  33. My calculations suggest... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    That Jamie's Censorware code has failed to effectively IP ban the trolls, but effectively IP banned innocent users. Britney even wrote a song about it.


    Oh jamie, jamie
    How was I supposed to know
    That posting would get me banned here
    Oh jamie, jamie
    You just can't let it go
    And now you're losing sight, yeah
    Is the perl as ruthless as you want it to be
    Tell me jamie 'cause I need to know now, oh because

    Chorus:
    My proxy lists are pretty neat
    I must confess I steal IPs
    Someday soon I think you'll lose your mind
    Give me a sign
    Ban me jamie one more time

    Oh jamie, jamie
    The reason I seethe is you
    Boy you got me blinded
    Oh pretty jamie
    There's nothing that I wouldn't do
    To show your users how you lie ya
    Is your perl as vicious as you need it to be
    Tell me baby 'cause I need to know now, oh because

    Chorus:
    My proxy lists are pretty neat
    I must confess I steal IPs
    Someday soon I think you'll lose your mind
    Give me a sign
    Ban me jamie one more time

    Oh jamie, jamie how was I supposed to know
    That secret banning is in vogue now
    You must confess, I think it's time they know now
    Don't you know that they believe
    that you never ban IPs here?
    Give everyone a sign!
    Ban me jamie one more time!

    Chorus:
    My proxy lists are pretty neat
    I must confess I steal IPs
    Someday soon I think you'll lose your mind
    Give me a sign
    Ban me jamie one more time

  34. How CmdrTaco got his name by WeatherTroll · · Score: -1

    How did CmdrTaco get his name?

    The story goes something like this. Rob Malda always liked tacos. He would eat them every day. Like most Mexican food, it gave Rob lots of farts and shit coming out of his ass. The farts stank everything up so much so that Hemos (the name Hemos as we know came from the two words he and homos) and the rest complained constantly. The only relief was when RMS would come over to suck their dicks since RMS stank worse than Rob since he hasn't taken a bath or shower in over 20 years.

    The other problem was the piles of shit coming out of Rob's ass. The toilet was always clogged meaning that JonKatz would have to piss and shit outside. Needless to say the neighbors did not appricate this leading to JonKatz's arrest many times. (It's too bad that he wasn't kept in jail.) This problem was eventually solved by letting JonKatz shit out stories on slashdot. What??? You thought that JonKatz's stories came from a part of his body other than his ass????

    It was later discovered that Rob was a toilet slave. He enjoyed eating other people's shit. Instead the rest of them force fed him his own shit. Thus, he commanded the taco for its entire life cycle earning the name Commander Taco. This was later shortened to CmdrTaco.

    --
    Digital Divide? The only divide Linux can bridge is the crack of my ass, when I use it to wipe my ass clean.
  35. When I shine a flashlight at the wall... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    I see the writing on the wall. And it says that Jamie has only suceeded in censoring the users; but hasn't gotten anywhere with censoring trolls.

    I'm too sexy for the trolls
    Too sexy for the trolls
    Heidi's going to eat me

    I'm too sexy for Heidi
    Too sexy for my Heidi
    So horny it hurts

    And I'm too sexy for slash dot
    Too sexy for slash dot
    Troll ZD and free republic...

    And I'm too sexy for your post
    Too sexy for your post
    No way you're first posting

    I'm a slash troll - you know what I mean
    And I do my little goatsex on the catwalk
    Yeah, on the catwalk. On the catwalk, yeah
    I petrify my penis on the catwalk

    I'm too sexy for your cruiser
    Too sexy for a cruiser
    I'm much more a Natalie bruiser!

    And I'm too sexy for my cat
    Fuck a petrified cat
    What d'ya think about that?

    I'm a slash troll - you know what I mean
    And I stroke my penis bird up on the catwalk
    Yeah, on the catwalk. On the catwalk, yeah
    I hump RMS up on the catwalk

    (I'm too sexy for my)
    (too sexy for my)
    (too sexy for my)

    ('cause) I'm a slash troll - you know what I mean
    And I turn some tricks for karma on the catwalk
    Yeah, on the catwalk. Yeah, on the catwalk, yeah
    I fuck slash dot over on the catwalk

    I'm too sexy for the Taco
    Too sexy for a Taco
    I fuck up this free site made by Taco!

    I'm too sexy for slash dot
    Too sexy for slash dot
    Slashdot's going to hell

  36. If space is infinite, is matter also infinite? by crashnbur · · Score: 1
    My beliefs are along those lines, but there are always bits of the argument that make no sense, largely because human thought is unable to comprehend the truth behind it (which is why we don't know the answers).

    For instance, say that the universe does go on forever. The concept of infinite space is easy enough to grasp, I think, but wouldn't that mean that there is a point somewhere were matter just doesn't reach? I mean, is matter infinite too? How cuold that be possible? Unless, of course, space is directly proportional to matter in the same incomprehensible manner - space is infinite just as matter is infinite, and neither can be explained by our extremely limited scope.

    1. Re:If space is infinite, is matter also infinite? by efuseekay · · Score: 2

      Yes if you believe in a homogenous and isotropic Universe.

      You can construct all sorts of universe where there are "matter" only in some parts and not others. But they violates our observations (we see stuff everywhere). Of course you can say "oh we don't see the parts where there are no stuff". You are allowed to say that, but then "why bother if we never see them?". Basically, postulating that there are "empty" regions that we cannot see violates Kant's principle that theories need to be falsifiable.

      --
      Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
    2. Re:If space is infinite, is matter also infinite? by jonnythan · · Score: 2

      Picture the surface of a balloon. The galaxies are dots on the balloon.

      Now inflate the balloon. Any galaxy will see all the others moving away, speed proportional to distance.

      You'll notice that since the surface of the balloon has no boundaries, you can go forever in any direction (assume the balloon is expanding so that the circumference is growing at a rate faster than the speed of light, so you can never get back to where you started).

      There's our 2-d curved space. We live in a 3-d one. It may not be curved that way, and galaxies change the local curvature (think the dots sinking the surface of the balloon)..but you get the idea. We don't need infinite matter for a boundless universe.

    3. Re:If space is infinite, is matter also infinite? by gregm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sure.... why is it that no one ever talks about an infinite number of big bangs occuring constantly? Our big bang might just be a fairly small one compared to the one that happened last night a gazillion miles away. Our little "universe" could simply be a little puddle of matter in our little side street of the real infinite universe.

    4. Re:If space is infinite, is matter also infinite? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry to be an arse, but Popper said that theories need to be falsifiable.

      Kant said (like the Buddha did) that you shouldn't be asking questions like "is the universe infinite?" "has it existed for ever?" etc. He called them antinomies, and argued that although our mind naturally asked such questions, our faculty of reason simply couldn't supply the answers. As far as I can see he was basically right. Nice insight into the human condition.

    5. Re:If space is infinite, is matter also infinite? by crashnbur · · Score: 1

      Okay, but that does not address my question of infinite time, space, or matter, likely due to a misinterpretation on my part...

  37. Re:Let me get this straight... (Christmas Special) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Please post a preview of the abovementioned ok thx

  38. Astronomers are just guessing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The results further strengthen the case for the Big Bang theory and for the nature of the universe as astronomers understand it today.

    Astronomers *don't* understand the nature of the universe -- they're just guessing and in most cases are the first to admit it. That's why the Big Bang theory is just that -- a theory. It's not as if astronomers know with 100% certainty that the Big Bang occured and they're just ironing out the details, contrary to what you may have been told in high school. There are a *lot* of theories about the creation of the universe out there (including the "it's always been here, it'll always be here" theory) -- the Big Bang theory is just the most popular (despite the obvious glaring holes -- such as "why did it happen in the first place?")

    Slant-Six

    1. Re:Astronomers are just guessing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Understanding *why* things happen is not the job of scientists. That's what philosphy and string theory is for. Scientists just observe *what* happens.

      *get it?*

    2. Re:Astronomers are just guessing by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 1

      If dark matter is falling into the event horizon of a black hole,
      and no one is there to observe it,
      does it emit radiation?

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    3. Re:Astronomers are just guessing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a tree falls on Schrodinger's cat and noone hears it, is the cat dead or alive?

  39. Re:Hmmmm. Think on this. by crashnbur · · Score: 2
    "Dark matter" does not mean to me that it is all that different. It simply means that we do not have any supply of it, and therefore no means to study or to detect it, and so we only know that it is there, but not of what it consists, and so on. By that reasoning, therefore, I conclude that there is only one kind of "dark matter", and that it is essentially the same stuff from which "normal" matter is derived (according to the space.com article).

    Still, it's all very confusing. I don't think it's a "serious problem", because the assumption seems to me to be that much of the dark matter has not materialized into what we recognize as matter yet. This means that the universe is young yet... When we reach the point when normal matter and dark matter are split 50/50, then my guess is that the universe will begin to shrink back toward its state before the big bang, only to explode all over again. Of course our planet will be long gone by that time (but that doesn't mean we have to go with it)... "In the beginning, there was nothing. Then it exploded."

  40. Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    our president throws like a girl.

    I bet everybody's real scared now.

  41. Re:Nuclear? How do they figure? by crashnbur · · Score: 2
    It was not nuclear in origin, I would guess, but when the exploding particles began to fuse together into what are now called protons, neutrons, atoms, etc.... That is why it is referred to as a nuclear explosion.

    Of course, it had to fuse into all those other tiny particles that make up the protons and neutrons first, but why would they want to bore us by explaining all of that too? My question in relation to that: How small was this "stuff" before the explosion? Would it be fair to wonder if it had been rapidly exploding outward from a much smaller size than we could possibly imagine for much longer than we think?

  42. Stephen King, author, dead at 55 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll


    I just heard some sad news on talk radio - Horror/Sci Fi writer Stephen King was found dead in his Maine home this morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.

  43. Yeah right... by Kasreyn · · Score: 3, Funny

    Scientists can measure ALL the dark matter in the universe, but can't build a fortune-telling weight machine that can get my weight right.

    Pfft.

    -Kasreyn

    --
    Kasreyn: Cheerfully playing the part of Devil's Advocate to hairtrigger /. flamers since 1999.
  44. Hasn't the scientific method taught us anything? by crashnbur · · Score: 2, Insightful
    [two coincidentally matching results] != [answer of all space and time]

    Only further testing will be able to prove that this match is not simply coincidence. They're right, this doesn't "have to be the answer", so let's not jump to conclusions from two friendly tests. (But certainly get excited for the potential! Heh.)

  45. michael is lying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    IDC, the highly respected industry auditing company, confirmed this week that stories posted by michael account for more than 80 percent of all stories posted to Slashdot at weekends. This news serves to reinforce what we've known all along: Slashdot is collapsing in complete disarray, finishing dead last in signal:noise ratio tests. You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict Slashdot's future. The hand writing is on the wall: Slashdot faces a bleak future. In fact there is a possibility that there won't be any future at all for Slashdot, due to the actions of michael - a known censoring dictator, as well as an self-admitted torturer of cats. michael continues to lose the respect of all slashdot readers. censored posts die like leaves from a tree during fall, trampled beneath the feet of jack-booted thugs.
    Worryingly, the number of stories posted by michael during the week is also on the rise.

    Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers:
    Slashdot leader CmdrTaco states that there are 70000 users of Slashdot, down from previous estimates of several hundred thousand.
    [Side note: the decline of Slashdot has mirrored the decline of Linux bandwagon jumping failure VALinux]
    How many of those readers comment on stories by michael? Let's see. The number of posts to stories by michael averages roughly 110, each poster usually making multiple comments. About 40 different users typically respond to stories posted by michael. Therefore about ((40/70000)*100%) = 0.06% of all Slashdot users care about stories posted by michael. This is consistent with expected results when correlating the estimated audience of all the posts noting michael's hypocrisy and control-freak tendencies. Evidently the users of this weblog choose not to feed that particular troll. Many even choose to no longer visit.

    Due to the troubles of VALinux, abysmal sales and so on, Slashdot is in danger of being sold to the highest bidder - the bandwidth costs far outweigh the pitiful earnings from the banners and advertisments posing as stories. Soon Slashdot will be dead, its corpse raped by the censorship policies of the least favorite editor. Readers leave in droves, the herd instinct that brought them here now carries them away.

    All major surveys show that Slashdot has steadily declined in readership by the crucial virgin geek market. Slashdot is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Slashdot is to survive at all it will require the removal of Michael Simms from an editorial position. This seems unlikely to happen, and all the while Slashdot continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Slashdot is dead.

    UPDATE:
    It now seems that Linux bandwagon-jumping failure, VA-Software (formerly VALinux, formerly VA-Research) has finally accepted the inevitable. The pitiful and predictable demise of the still over-priced (at ~$1) startup creates more doubts as to the future of Slashdot. Larger adverts and new editors seem unlikely to save Taco's dream. Michael remains, though he has partially relinquished his censorship duties to his partner in deceit, the geek chick jamie. His debt to society is, as of typing, still unpaid.

  46. Re: Read a book, then try again. by jonnythan · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Hrm. Nice try, but we know the universe is expanding because of red shift. How far we see into the universe is limited to our ability to resolve the tiny amount of light from distant objects. Currently the farthest we can see relates about 6 billion years or some such. When we get a better telescope in orbit, we'll be able to see farther.

    You can have whatever creationist theories you like, but you can't contradict what we *know*.

    I still think it's amazing that when you look at the stars in the sky that you are looking billions of years into the past. Those stars you see where there before dinosaurs were here, and they might not even be up there anymore.
    That's a very humbling thought. Not enough of humanity gets put in their place by the sight of millions of stars anymore. Gives me hope.
  47. OPEN SOURCE PROGRAMMERS STINK by WeatherTroll · · Score: -1

    OPEN SOURCE PROGRAMMERS STINK

    Slashot admits the truth here:
    http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/25/2192 51 &mode=thread

    As we already know open source programmers stink, both at their jobs, and in general. Take RMS for instance. He can't get a job as a real programmer so he starts the FSF. He also hasn't taken a bath or shower in over 20 years making him stink in general. Living in a dark cave doesn't help either. I don't want to know what is crawling around in his hair.

    I'm sure there are people at your office who are just like RMS if they can hold their jobs. You know they are close because you can smell them. You are spending hours of overtime fixing their code.

    For anyone reading this post none of this is a suprise. However, slashdot is a bastion of open source programmers. That is why the code is so bad, and its the only website that you can smell over the internet because it reaks!!!!

    What was suprising to me (and to you I'm sure) was that slashdot admitted in the above linked article that open source programmers stink.

    I commend slashdot for admitting the brutal yet honest truth.

    --
    Digital Divide? The only divide Linux can bridge is the crack of my ass, when I use it to wipe my ass clean.
  48. I still think that Douglas Adams was right... by Bollie · · Score: 5, Funny

    Dark matter is the packing material the Universe came in...

    No theory of everything could ever be complete without allowing for this.

  49. Re:Nuclear? How do they figure? by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

    Creating protons isn't really nuclear as it's usually thought of. And the formation of atoms didn't occur for quite some time after the Big Bang. In any event, the term 'nuclear' completely fails to encompass the nature of the Big Bang, since 'nuclear' has nothing to do with the creation of spacetime.

  50. Re:Let me get this straight... (Christmas Special) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Thanks for the idea. I was wondering how I might keep this long running troll, uhhh, long running.

    I shall prepare a Christmas Special preview at once, sir!

  51. My $0.02 by PhReaKyDMoNKeY · · Score: 1

    ==braces for karma hit==

    My theory, after watching Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time, and based on an extremely limited understanding of all this crap, is that time is circular rather than linear as we commonly depict it. At a certain point in that circle or loop or whatever. is the Big Bang. After the Big Bang, the universe expands until it runs out of steam, then it slowly starts to contract again, bringing all the matter and anti-matter together where they annhilate each other and turn into energy, which is compressed further and further into an itty-bitty little space, then BOOM, it starts all over again. So basically, in nerdspeak, I think the universe/time is an endless loop.

    But, you know, I could be wrong. It has happened once or twice...

    1. Re:My $0.02 by s88 · · Score: 1

      We know the universe is still expanding and not shrinking again as other calculations would indicate should be the case if this were true.

      Scott

    2. Re:My $0.02 by PhReaKyDMoNKeY · · Score: 1

      That doesn't mean it can't shrink later on or that their calculations regarding the time it should take for it to start were wrong. *shrug* I was just tossing it out there.

    3. Re:My $0.02 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, deja vu. I seem to recall reading your comments 14 billion years ago.

    4. Re:My $0.02 by sydneyfong · · Score: 1

      unless the universe is exactly identical everytime it BOOMS, nobody is sure that this world will end up in the same way as the other one. So, there might be some cases where the BOOM is so strong where gravity cannot pull back the matter, or such...

      On the other hand, assume that the chance of this split second of time being identical with another random split second of time in the past has a chance of 1/infinity being identical (being identical in all ways, to the finest detail), then after infinity amount of time, it is possible that the universe now is the exactly identical to the one in the past. If they are identical, then they are in the same state, so what had happened after that moment will repeat again, over and over again...

      So by if the above proof has some truth in it, the universe might be an endless loop

      --
      Don't quote me on this.
    5. Re:My $0.02 by Bones3D_mac · · Score: 1

      Just a thought on this:

      If space-time exists on an infinite repeating cycle, and is identical every time it happens, you can't really explain it in terms of a past or future. It would be binary in nature. Either it exists or not...period.

      Well, until someone comes up with the theory of "fuzzy existence". ;-)

      --


      8==8 Bones 8==8
    6. Re:My $0.02 by underpaidISPtech · · Score: 1

      warning: I don't know crap.

      Assuming that the universe is the only one in existence, or at least not accessible from other universes within a multiverse...

      Scenario A) the universe is created in a Big Bang, expands, cools, and experiences a Big Crunch as it contracts under it's own gravity, and repeats ad infinitum.

      Scenario B) the universe is created in a Big Bang, expands, cools, matter disperses, and there is not enough gravity to reverse the process as entropy creates a thin, cold universe. Here is my addition: If the universe is an evenly distributed thin soup of cold dark mass, would it not then be in a state similiar to the one that precipitated the Big Bang? What I mean is, if the universe was an evenly distributed pinpoint-sized ball of hot mass (relative to it's "surroundings")that "exploded", then wouldn't the massivly-large ball of cold mass not be the same thing at a larger scale/perspective?

      Either way, the universe is cyclic in it's behaviour right? Although I think that quantunm fluctuations would allow enough randomness so that we don't repeat the same cycle over and over identically.

  52. This is oversimplified some of it plainly wrong by SevenTowers · · Score: 2, Insightful

    an enormous nuclear explosion called the Big Bang happened 13 billion to 15 billion years ago. From it, the universe appeared in an instant, but as a billion-degree mess of neutrons, protons and electrons.

    If ever Big Bang there was, it was not a giant nuclear explosion! Damn at those temperatures there are no nucleus (as they themselves state a few sentences afterwards). It is rather a very FAT release of energy, which later congregated into quarks and antiquarks, neutrinos, etc. definitly not nuclear. And what a hell is "dark matter". They state that "dark matter" congregated and formed gravity pools...

    At the time of the original release of light, dark matter had congregated in clumps, which created small fields of gravity that eventually pulled in normal matter as well.

    Dark matter does not emit radiation by definition. It thus has to have enough gravitational pull to keep all EM radiation in. That is a freakin big chunk of matter, not small gravity fields! And what do they mean normal and not normal matter... it's all the same stuff, energy. The energy is just "stored" differently.

    "The nature of these 'wiggles' is basically saying how the normal matter was responding to that crazy dark matter," explained Fields, "by amplifying the places where the extra density was."

    Errhhmmm... that is called matter falling in the black hole to make it larger and thus increase the gravity....

    --
    Imperium et libertas
    Autocracy and freedom
    1. Re:This is oversimplified some of it plainly wrong by gott · · Score: 1
      Dark matter does not emit radiation by definition. It thus has to have enough gravitational pull to keep all EM radiation in. That is a freakin big chunk of matter, not small gravity fields! And what do they mean normal and not normal matter... it's all the same stuff, energy. The energy is just "stored" differently.

      This is a non-sequitor. The ionization caused the universe to be opaque. The creation of non-ionized matter (a lot of hydrogen and a little helium) allowed radiation to travel and the universe became transparent. We see the remenants of this as the microwave background. This has nothing to do with dark matter and gravitation. The dark matter merrily broke the symmetry presented by a flat universe and allowed `normal' matter to prefer certain parts over other parts. Read the article next time.

    2. Re:This is oversimplified some of it plainly wrong by SevenTowers · · Score: 1

      No, you read the article and my comment:
      "At the time of the original release of light, dark matter had congregated in clumps, which created small fields of gravity that eventually pulled in normal matter as well. "

      I'm saying that gravity has everything to do with the fact that "normal matter" is attracted by dark matter. By the way, its not because it is ionized but rather because it has no electrons at all that the matter did not transmit the photons. Ionized particles can very easily transmit light since they can have electrons. So be clearer in your statements.

      --
      Imperium et libertas
      Autocracy and freedom
  53. Light... by death_denied · · Score: 1

    ..sabers in a scientific site? This is just another perversion from the dumbed down culture we're in. Well anyway back to the topic, I was wondering what kind of a gravitational effect light has on the universe. As we all know, there are ALOT more photons in the universe than any other (non virtual) particle. Perhaps if light, or rather the energy contained in the photons, had a gravitational effect then it may plug up the discrepancy that dark matter is supposed to explain. Just my 6.02*10^23 cents.

    1. Re:Light... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      When scientis finally decide what light is, waves or photons, they will realize that it is neither.

  54. You seem smart. Perhaps you can answer my question by Trollificus · · Score: -1

    Dear Dr. Tracy,

    Im a 34 yr old divorced woman with 2 teenagers. I tried several times putting ads on internet sites. I am a reasonably attractive woman. I wear a size 9 and I work out. I have been very disappointed in the responses I have gotten. As soon as I submit my picture I just either get no response back or I get a critical response. I must take a really horrible picture. I find that these men, and most of them could not be considered handsome, only average are looking for some model type woman. I just don't live up to their expectations.
    I never have a problem when I meet someone in person, many men have found me attractive in person. I'm not very photogenic. I've had comments made about my weight and my hair and it really hurts the self esteem. I don't have opportunites to meet men because I don't have any single women friends to go out with and i'm not into sports activities.

    I guess I can cancel the internet out too because of the picture thing. Why do very average looking men expect women to look like beauty queens?

    Not only that but if they don't like a person's picture why not just not reply why make rude comments?

    --

    "People should be allowed to keep midgets as pets."
    - Gov. Jesse Ventura

  55. What's the difference? by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 2

    How about I speculate; we discover that dark matter exists, and that it outnumbers regular matter 9:1

    Knowing it exists, we can start trying to find, create, and control it.

    N years later we have dark constructs.

    Without even having the theories about the universe showing there is dark matter, we don't find it or about it's properties, capabilities, and uses.

  56. Dark Matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    the approximately 90% of the universe we can't see (the dark matter).

    You mean they've finally measured all the matter that's inside CowboyNeal's belly?

  57. What is the sound of dark matter? by iankerickson · · Score: 1

    Now if they could just record its evil laugh...

    --
    Democracy. Whiskey. Sexy. Pick any two.
  58. What's so hard about Dark Matter? by Greyfox · · Score: 2

    I believe I've got some under my couch. A rather more important discovery will be, I suspect, that all that dark matter is all the socks of every culture ever to evolve clothes dryer technology. Clothes dryers create minature wormholes which teleport your socks to random points in the universe. This revelation will ultimately lead to a faster than light drive with a clothes dryer at its core. Its mission will not be to explore new planets yadda yadda. Its mission will be to retrieve all those socks.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:What's so hard about Dark Matter? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2

      Actually, whenever I wear new colored socks, I find that I end up with some dark matter between my toes.

      I haven't measured it yet, but it looks like I could account for a few grams of the Universe's missing mass from all of the socks I've broken in.

    2. Re:What's so hard about Dark Matter? by Katravax · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Didn't you know? Socks are the larval stage of coat hangers.

  59. The reason is that Galaxies are screwed up by Alien54 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    So, how the f*ck is it that we know exactly how much ELSE there is out there?

    They look at the galaxies, and estimate how many stars and stuff there is in the galaxy. Any rotating galaxy. And They figure out how fast the galaxy is rotating.

    They notice a problem. For any rotating galaxy there is not enough star stuff to hold the galaxy together. The spiral arms should never be there.

    The star stuff in the galaxies do not have have enough gravity to hold galaxies together. Galaxcies should not exist at all. Stars should be all flying about because that is how weak the gravity is.

    Just how much too weak? The Star stuff has one tenth the gravity needed to do the job. so something has to be doing the other 90%.

    That is what the dark matter is. It is a term to label what the other 90% is. The don't know what it is yet. but they are working on it.

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
    1. Re:The reason is that Galaxies are screwed up by batboy78 · · Score: 1

      There is speculation that galaxies may be powered by massive black holes. Now it is hard to say how massive a black hole is when the singularity is perhaps the size of an elementary particle. But these black holes may have enough gravitational pull to bind millions or billions of starts together to form what we know as galaxies.

    2. Re:The reason is that Galaxies are screwed up by Alien54 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      But these black holes may have enough gravitational pull to bind millions or billions of starts together to form what we know as galaxies.

      A further problem not mentioned in the above is that the angular motion of spiral arms is such that the speed of star motion is much more consistent from the center of the spriral to the outside of the spiral then they should be. It is almost as if they were a solidf or semi-solid disc. which is silly, but that is how they behave.

      This may be less consistent with a high energy point source of gravity, and more consistent with mass spread out for a large distance. but I haven't kept up and my math sucks [smile]

      --
      "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
    3. Re:The reason is that Galaxies are screwed up by nosferatu1001 · · Score: 1

      Stephen Baxter, a phd physicis, writes very good science fiction with some actual hard science in it, and some of this is taken from there, as well as new scientist etc. Dark matter is postulated to be the result of the symmetry of particles, so for each photon, there are photinos, and so on. These are thought to only interact with each other via the weakest [but also, conversely, the strongest!] force, gravity. Hence a disc of dark matter would consistently hold the galaxy as if it were embedded in a solid disc. This is unlike a single point source, which would have orbital motion, much like the earth and satellites - the tidal forces would rip the galaxy apart if there were a large enough mass to do what was being described.[1] Even a million star mass isn't enough!

      [1] the inner and outer edges [well, the whole body really, simplifying here] would be trying to move at different speeds around the central core, so a stress would be exerted along the body. too close and the stress would rip it apart. IE if the moon pass the ROche limit it owuld be torn apart by the earths gravitational field. we probabky wouldn't fair wonderfully well either...

    4. Re:The reason is that Galaxies are screwed up by let_freedom_ring · · Score: 1

      Wrong. Dark matter is has NOT been directly measured. Basically, they are measuring visible matter and then inventing enough 'dark' matter to their original work. Perhaps the original theory is wrong. Another possibility is that the galaxies might be much younger in age then the big bang theory allows. Always differentiate between real science and simply making theories work. I will be much more impressed if they find real evidence for dark matter, not a parlor trick.

    5. Re:The reason is that Galaxies are screwed up by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Dark matter is has NOT been directly measured.
      That part you have correct. They have measured it's gravity.

      Perhaps the original theory is wrong.
      The "original theory" is gravity.
      There are quite a few scientists callenging the theory of gravity in a variety of ways. So far they have all come out supporting current theory.

      Galaxies would immediatly fly apart without a broadly distributed source of gravity. The term dark matter refers to this unseen source of gravity without trying to describe what it is. It is clearly present. There are a variety of theories guessing at what dark matter is, but no strong ones yet.

      Another possibility is that the galaxies might be much younger in age then the big bang theory allows.
      The only way that is possible is if God created the universe in a ludicrous unstable state specificly designed to decieve humans into false beliefs.

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    6. Re:The reason is that Galaxies are screwed up by let_freedom_ring · · Score: 1

      The "original theory" is gravity.
      I don't have a problem w/gravity per se. It's the theory that gravity has held the galaxies together for 10-14billion yrs, aka the big bang theory.

      Galaxies would immediatly fly apart without a broadly distributed source of gravity.
      How do you define 'immediately'?. I remember reading that is was on the order of 200million yrs. Which would imply that as an upper limit on its age.

      Bottom Line:
      If dark matter is real then there should be a real way of measuring it. Currently, I see it as contrived to simply make the big bang theory work. If 90% of the universe is really comprised of dark matter then it should be causing most of the gravitational lensing of light.

      Endnote:
      The only way that is possible is if God created the universe in a ludicrous unstable state
      Well now we are into pure theology. Genesis basically states that we now have a corrupted form of creation after sin and death entered the world. Talk about stable state the original human bodies were designed to last forever, forget about galaxies falling apart after 200million yrs.

    7. Re:The reason is that Galaxies are screwed up by Alsee · · Score: 1

      see it[dark matter] as contrived to simply make the big bang theory work.
      The main reason for dark matter theory is that without it all galaxies would be rapidly expanding(apporimately 10 times their rotational velocity).

      We see the rotational redshift of galaxies. We do NOT see a 10 times larger expansional redshift. Therefore rapid expansion of galaxies is pretty implausible.

      I don't have a problem w/gravity per se. It's the theory that gravity has held the galaxies together for 10-14billion yrs, aka the big bang theory. [Alternative to "big bang" = galaxies would immediatly fly apart] on the order of 200million yrs. Which would imply that as an upper limit on its age.
      Your theory that galaxies are not held together by gravity not only implies they are expanding, but they each trace back to their own "mini bang". Let's ignore any evidence that the earth is 4 billion years old and accept a galactic bang 200 million years ago. All of the galaxies we see also appear to be 200 million years old. This leads to my God comment...(which you cut in half, apparently missing my intent completely)

      &GT The only way that is possible is if God created the universe in a ludicrous unstable state specificly designed to decieve humans into false beliefs.
      Not only is the expansion of our own galaxy somehow hidden from us, our galactic minibang occured 200 million years ago, all galaxies 100 million light years away had a minibang 300 million years ago, galaxies 1,000 million light years away had a minibang 1,200 years ago, etc. It would put humans in the middle of a 'parlor trick' universe.

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  60. Maybe from an earlier black hole by ynotds · · Score: 1

    What caused the big bang? How was it initiated? What were the bounds of the "universe" as it were before the big bang?

    While it hasn't quite graduated to being "accepted wisdom" yet, an increasing number of those who look at such questions are persuaded by the idea that a big bang can occur when a black hole collapses, with the rebound from the (almost) singularity creating a new space-time manifold shifted slightly away from the space-time manifold which produced that black hole.

    One site I found has more extensive discussion of this scenario.

    how on earth (pun intended) did we get here from all of that?

    It seems like you might actually need the physice of our cosmos to be tuned to the production of carbon, oxygen, etc. by nucleosythesis of the original hydrogen and helium for the black hole-big bang production cycle to work, so the earth and indeed us are just incidental byproducts of these cosmic requirements.

    "Why?" doesn't always have an answer.

    --
    -- Our systemic servants do not good masters make.
  61. Matterism! by Xunker · · Score: 2

    I call blatant matterism!

    It's not dark matter you unenlightened cretins!

    It's matter of color!

    Heathens.

    --
    Hilary Rosen's speech was about her love of money and her desire to roll around naked in a pile of money.
    1. Re:Matterism! by dangermouse · · Score: 2
      *ahem*

      I believe the current preference is "Matter-American".

  62. Re: Read a book, then try again. by MrFrank · · Score: 1

    You can have whatever creationist theories you like, but you can't contradict what we *know*.

    I am a creationist but I agree with everything that science has proven. It still hasn't disproven, God.

    One guess out of million is that God slapped his hands together and between the palms of his hands was all the matter of the universe. When he pulled his hands apart he alowed the big bang to happen. And thus our Universe was born.

    With that I can be a creationist and still believe everything that I have learned to be *true*.

    Yes and I also agree with you that not enough humanity is put in their place by the sight of millions of stars.

  63. Something odd by cr@ckwhore · · Score: 2

    Something very odd just happened...

    I clicked the link to space.com to read the article. When the page loaded, the big central advertisement was for "Star Wars: Phantom Menace" videos... Kinda threw me off for a moment. Perhaps I haven't recovered yet beause I'm posting this here. hmmm

    --
    Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com
    1. Re:Something odd by The+Anachronist · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Sorry to be off-topic - this is a bitch about www.space.com

      When I visited their site I got a pop-up advertising "Starry Night." Being a bit gullible, I took a look at the trial download page, completed their User Survey and selected the "Unix/Linux" platform. Having read their privacy statement + terms&conds, I submitted the form and received the next page.

      That page told me that there were only WinXX and Mac versions, so I sent email to contact@starrynight.com, asking them to remove all of the info I had given them from their database (yes, I did ask for info on upgrades, etc.).

      So imagine my surprise 2 mins later, when I received the following from MAILER-DAEMON@richardson.uni2.net:

      ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----

      (reason: 550 ... User unknown)

      ----- Transcript of session follows -----
      ... while talking to lists.space.com.:

      >>> RCPT To:

      ... User unknown
      550 5.1.1 ... User unknown

      What sort of reputation does space.com have? Has anybody else had similar experience?

  64. Re:Hmmmm. Think on this. by sinster · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If bright matter truly makes 10% of the universe, then by definition the remaining 90% of the universe must be dark matter.

    The reason is that neither the terms "bright matter" nor "dark matter" specify a single type of matter. Rather, they define two values of a single common characteristic of all matter. The characteristic in question is how the matter interacts with photons. If you shine a light on something and you can see it, then it's bright matter. If you heat something up and you can see it, then it's bright matter. If you energize something then let its energy level drop and you can see it, then it's bright matter. Otherwise it's dark matter.

    Therefore we can't measure dark matter directly merely because we can't see it. All astronomical observations depend on photons. Radio. Light. X-Ray. Gamma. Just different frequencies of photons. Since dark matter neither reflects nor emits photons, astrophysicists can't observe it. Or perhaps it does emit photons, but then immediately reabsorbs them (as in the case of black holes). Either mechanism comes down to the same thing. They can observe its effects indirectly by watching, for instance, the effect that its gravity has on surrounding bright matter, but no direct observation is even theoretically possible.

    But there really aren't any theories about the nature of dark matter, because it's fundamentally impossible to observe remotely. Maybe it's some truly strange substance. Maybe its just a whole bunch of black holes. No one knows. The only reason that we know about black holes is that some brilliant physicist who'd been downing a few too many beers one night did a thought experiment about the implications of gravity's inverse square strength. So we had a theoretical phenomenon that astrophysicists could later go and look for. But that's not true of other forms of dark matter.

    All that's important is that "dark" matter is every piece of matter that isn't "bright" matter. It's still matter, and will still behave exactly the same as bright matter behaves. But it may come to be discovered that some characteristic that we thought was endemic to all matter is, in fact, only endemic to bright matter. We have no comparison yet, so we can't make that determination.

    I don't think that anyone believes that all dark matter is in the form of black holes. Who knows, maybe so. I'm certainly not an astrophysicist (though I know a number of them who are on the bleeding edge), so someone can easily have come up with some theories about all this of which I'm unaware.

    But this is my current understanding, and with the rate that astrophysics moves, I'm probably at least 5 years out of date.

    Oh, explaining this caused me to remember a theory about dark matter that I heard from my undergraduate adviser back in my college days (Dr. Douglas Lin: he was and is a big shot in the astrophysics circles). The idea is that there actually isn't any special dark matter. It's all bright matter. But some matter might be in locations where so few photons fall on them that we just never get a chance to observe that matter. For instance, it's known that all the galaxies of the universe exist on the surfaces of voids in the universe (that observation is what gave rise to superstring theory). Think of soap suds. We've got complex surfaces, where all the soap is, each surrounding a small void with no soap. Small from our perspective, but from the point of view of a technological civilization living in one of the "galaxies" within the soap film, those voids are huge. The universe has the same structure. And these voids are just monstrously huge. In the center of one of these voids, there would be very little light, because all the light sources are very far away. So you could stick a whole lot of matter there and no one would ever see it. These voids are so huge that you could easily fit 90% of the universe's mass in them and still have a very low density of matter. It's normal "bright" matter, but insufficient light reaches it for us to observe it. The problem with the theory is that if you have 90% of the universe stuck in these voids, then the voids should collapse from gravity and make the galaxy distribution homogenous. And we don't see that. Perhaps this problem has been resolved by now. I don't know. And, of course, there are other locations where matter can be hidden, where we wouldn't be able to observe it. Those voids are just a single example.

    --
    -- Nolite audere delere orbiculum rigidum meum.
  65. Sturgeon was right! by Sux2BU · · Score: 1

    This just goes to prove Sturgeon's law:
    Ninety percent of everything is crap.

    1. Re:Sturgeon was right! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      It's a little too forgiving,
      99.9999% of everything else is crap.

  66. Re:Hmmmm. Think on this. by Thing+1 · · Score: 1
    Still, it's all very confusing. I don't think it's a "serious problem", because the assumption seems to me to be that much of the dark matter has not materialized into what we recognize as matter yet.

    We can't detect it. That's the key. An advanced civilization has perfected Dyson Spheres , and is enclosing the stars to capture the energy. They are able to capture every possible piece of energy, so that we detect nothing.

    I suppose that's a side effect of perfecting your energy capture -- it's undetectable. We're in a race. A race to enclose the universe; whoever get the most energy wins.

    Seriously, I think about these things. ;-)

    --
    I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  67. Aaarrrrghhh by TACD · · Score: 1
    This Big Bang Nucleosynthesis determined how much normal matter would ever exist.

    It is generally accepted that the Big Bang created almost exactly equal amounts of matter and antimatter... it is only the chance that slightly more matter than anti-matter was created that lets us all sit here and ponder about it. So in a way what they are saying is true, but it's a stupid way of saying it; it's a matter of meaning, not fact. It makes you go "ooh" but it tells you nothing.

    Imagine if they had said "The creation of the Universe did not determine how much matter would be in the Universe" (i.e. the opposite of what they said). It wouldn't make any sense!

    And as other people have mentioned, they rave on about a 'nuclear' explosion... and they say the first step in the Universe took three minutes? Have they never heard of Planck Time?

    Now, 90 percent of everything is known to be virtually nothing.

    Ha, what a wonderful way to end an essay. Gosh, I wonder if they were appealing to science or sensationalism there? I sure can't tell.

    Suddenly space.com is not a reliable resource for me.

    --
    Security through promiscuity is no better than security through obscurity.
  68. How to make the Big Bang reoccur: by Amon+CMB · · Score: 2

    1) Get Jon Katz to write a book full of book reviews and post a topic about it on Slashdot.

    2) The amount of trolls accumulating around that single topic on Slashdot will be so intense that it creates a giant gravity field that sucks everything in the universe together.

    3) The universe is saved from flickering out into nothingness due to endlesss expansion! No dark matter required, yay!

    --


    Men believe what they want. - Caesar
  69. Laden's part in the universe? by SilentChris · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    "laden-or-unladen"

    I'd say, given the diet the Al-Qaeda seems to be giving him, that would be 98 pounds added to the universe, give or take.

    1. Re:Laden's part in the universe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      I'm just looking for Usama's sister "Never Been-Laiden"

  70. Information Mechanics...? by Sara+Chan · · Score: 2
    For a very different approach to gravitation, poorly exposited but with fascinating fundamentals, see Information Mechanics by F. W. Kantor. There is also a web page: http://w3.execnet.com/kantor/index.htm.


    For many Slashdotters, Kantor's central idea of basing physics on information, rather than things like matter and energy, might seem inherently appealing.

  71. Argument From Incredulity is no argument at all by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We have three methods to calculate the mass of the universe. Two are based on electromagnetic interactions. Those two agree. The other is based on observations of gravitational interactions. It gives a result 10X as large for the total amount of matter. Therefore 90% of the universe is made of particles that interact gravitationally but not electromagnetically. The only way to observe them is to observe their gravitational effects. Like, duh. Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp? It's an empirical observation.

    Keep in mind that if something only couples gravitationally, it's going to be extremely hard to see. You're prejudiced by your own experience with the world, which is mostly based on electromagnetism- meaning interactions with photons (real and virtual). Get rid of electrodynamics, and most concepts and phenomena you're familiar with- atomic physics, chemistry, biology, optics, materials science, friction, pressure, radiation, viscosity, resistance, reflection, transparency, iridescence, impenetrability- all this stuff goes out the window! Your ass would sink through your chair, right through the ground, until you reached the center of the earth with everything else. Don't underestimate the importance of photon-mediated interactions. Everything else is gravitation, beta decay, and the strong nuclear force. Of those three, only gravitation operates over non-microscopic distances. And it is very weak. There could be up to several tons of dark matter in the room with you right now. You would never know it's there.

    Of course, the mass could be ordinary matter that we're just not seeing. Many people like the idea of lots of Jupiter-sized objects. Lots of black holes might also work (although a black hole can feed off either kind of matter).

    1. Re:Argument From Incredulity is no argument at all by Drunken_Jackass · · Score: 1

      My cat's breath smells like cat food.

      --
      There are 01 types of people in this world. Those that understand binary, and me.
  72. Re:Hmmmm. Think on this. by wayne606 · · Score: 1
    In the beginning, there was nothing. Then it exploded


    I like that ...


    In the latest Scientific American (which is unfortunately becoming a clone of Discover or Omni these days) there was an article about membranes floating around in higher dimensional space. Two of these membranes happened to collide, and that was the big bang. It impressed me as being total off-the-cuff speculation, though.

  73. I'm still waiting for proof God did not create the by dolphin558 · · Score: 1

    Universe.

    Alot of this big bang cosmological constant mumbo jumbo requires ALOT of faith. There is just too much complexity(even in our own bodies, gender differences as well, etc etc) for this to be random happenings leading to 'evolution'.

    I'm waiting for proof please.

    lilmacumd@yahoo.com

  74. If our instruments can't detect it, it doesn't... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    exist

  75. Re:Hmmmm. Think on this. by sinster · · Score: 1

    Thermodynamics.

    No machine (even a dyson sphere) can possibly capture all the energy.

    Remember the laws of thermodynamics: You can't win, you can't break even, you can't even quit the game.

    --
    -- Nolite audere delere orbiculum rigidum meum.
  76. Re: Read a book, then try again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am a creationist but I agree with everything that science has proven
    science has proven nothing.
    You don't need to disprove god, just open your eyes.

  77. Re:Hasn't the scientific method taught us anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Redundant

    Humans will never be smart enough to do the right tests.

  78. Re:Nuclear? How do they figure? by __aanekd3853 · · Score: 1

    How do they figure an explosion of spacetime is nuclear? There were no nuclei to fuse or split.

    Of course there were. For most of the famous "first three minutes" the matter consisted of electrons and protons (hydrogen nuclei), too hot to maintain compound nuclei or neutral matter. The hydrogen nuclei fused into heavier ones, such as deuterium, tritium, helium, some Li. Up until now most of the (ordinary) matter in the Universe is hydrogen, the rest of the elements are much less abundant.

    The heavier stuff (O,N,C, what astronomers call "metals" and what constitute the basis of our life) formed much later in stellar interiors, but that's another story.

    The first three minutes were not unlike a hydrogen bomb at all.

  79. Important! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    I just poured hot grits down my pants. oh baby, thats nice

  80. Re:I'm still waiting for proof God did not create by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    [sarcasm]You're quite right. Zeus created the universe.[/sarcasm]

    Seriously, just because the big bang theory is a bit lacking is no reason to go believing in some god. And there's REALLY no reason to think that tha christian/jewish/muslim god is the correct god to beleive in. My money's on Thong, God of Pants.

  81. Re: Read a book, then try again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Which god? Thon, God of Pants, has a much more liberal policy than Jehovah/Allah. My money's on him. The Universe is his g-string!

    For the humour impaired: any god is a stupid idea, designed to give you a psychological patterning for obeying authority. Free yourself from the tyranny of unreasoning faith!

  82. No by spiralx · · Score: 2

    If the universe is an evenly distributed thin soup of cold dark mass, would it not then be in a state similiar to the one that precipitated the Big Bang? What I mean is, if the universe was an evenly distributed pinpoint-sized ball of hot mass (relative to it's "surroundings")that "exploded", then wouldn't the massivly-large ball of cold mass not be the same thing at a larger scale/perspective?

    No, because space and time were also created at the instant of the Big Bang and in the event of an open Universe we already have these things, plus an energy density quite ridiculously low - one electron/positron pair for every trillion cubic light years is not enough to make any kind of explosion!

    Unless superstring theory comes up with some better explaination of what happened before the Big Bang (which I believe it explains as the decoupling of our 4-dimensional macrospace from the other 6 dimensions that are curled up real small), then something like Linde's chaotic inflation seems to be the best bet - an unstable "false" vacuum within which quantum fluctuations can cause a Big Bang-like event at any time...

    1. Re:No by underpaidISPtech · · Score: 1

      an unstable "false" vacuum within which quantum fluctuations can cause a Big Bang-like event at any time...

      Loosely speaking, I guess that is what I'm trying to say. When I said that the universe was inaccessible to other universes, I meant that the fabric of space/time was the boundary which defined it from it's surroundings ( which in my twisted ramblings constitutes "nothing" in the truest sense of the word.) In which case, I feel that that boundary is never recreated upon subsequent expansions, only extended dramatically.

      Only when the contents of the physical universe are homogenous will it be in a state or phase that preciptates it's expansion again.
      I'm imagining something like a balloon surrounded by nothing that expands exponentially at regular intervals. The energy density within is signifcantly higher than its surroundings, although from inside,it would appear low. Could not the contents within that primordial hot-ball have been considered a high-entropy universe? Again, the hot-ball is dense relative to its external environment, just as I would think our cool universe would be dense relative to it's external environment.

      Not so much an Open universe, but a rebirth?

      I don't mean to argue, BTW, I have a feeling you may be more educated in this than I. As evidenced by the fact that I know squat about super-string theory :)

    2. Re:No by underpaidISPtech · · Score: 1

      aha! I wrote:then wouldn't the massivly-large ball of cold mass not be the same thing at a larger scale/perspective?

      I meant *viewed* from a larger perspective!
      small=big, depending on your viewpoint, yadda yadda.

    3. Re:No by spiralx · · Score: 2

      Well it all depends on how stable the vacuum is in its different states. The theory assumes that in its pre-Big Bang state it is "metastable" (fancy technical term for almost but-not-quite stable) and due to a random quantum fluctuation part of it "tunnels" quantum mechnically down to our "true" vacuum, with the change in energy density accounting for the Big Bang, and leaving it in a stable state.

      Of course, there's no knowing whether or not our "true" vacuum is actually that at all - it may simply be a different "false" vacuum and also metastable. Which would mean another potential Big Bang event could occur at any point in spacetime as the vacuum tunnels down to an even lower state, which would then expand at the speed of light consuming our current Universe. Which is what I guess you were saying.

      Of course, this is all very speculative... :)

  83. Re:Nuclear? How do they figure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I must agree with that, it is the only logical thing.....

    Alternatively we should expect a new universe to be created in Afganistan next month?

  84. escape velocity from the universe by crashnbur · · Score: 2
    To achieve escape velocity from the universe itself is a mind-boggling concept. Okay, assume that it can be done (or has been done). Where does the matter go? Does it simply spread and cool? If so, what happens when black holes get hold of it? Recompression!

    What happens when black holes get hold of other black holes? Does the bigger suck in the smaller? Do they combine into a super black hole? Are they the force behind my theory that the universe will recompress itself for another bang?

    1. Re:escape velocity from the universe by Luyseyal · · Score: 2

      I wrote a little manifesto I'm just gonna call "The Manual for Preservers" for now. Anyway, the manifesto was about mankind and other species getting together and hording black holes together and maintaining a galaxy for us to live in together regardless of the expansion of the universe. I'm no physicist, but the only potential hole I've found in the idea is this:

      Does the minimal distance between fundamental particles expand?

      If it does, then nothing can stop expansion short of sucking in matter from another universe. Heh, real likely.

      If it does not, then the plan could still work. Other than the difficulty in carrying it out, I haven't seen any other reasons why the theory itself is invalid.

      Let me know whatcha think,
      -l

      --
      Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
  85. More BS. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You get stuff like this when someone spends most of their adult life studying a theory they believe to be true. Then they find out that it doesn't add up, so they set out to find facts that support their theory instead of using facts to guide them to the proper conclusion. In other words, they already know in their mind what the outcome of the experiment is going to be. If it doesn't come out that way they, they ignore it or attack its conclusions.

  86. only problem with this is,... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...wasn't it discovered that the expansion of the universe is actually accelerating?

    We don't know enough to even theorize what is going to happen. If the expansion is actually accelerating, there are other factors at work that we don't understand in the faintest.

  87. Re: Read a book, then try again. by mancuskc · · Score: 1

    My question about this theory would be:

    If this was before the universe was created, what was He/She sitting on?

    Ha!

    --
    When I were your age, all round here were fields...
  88. Nucleosynthesis by radtea · · Score: 1

    A troll is worth a thousand words :-)

    Big Bang nucleosynthesis determines the amount of baryonic ("normal") matter because it allows us to predict the primordial abundances of light elements as a function of that amount, most dramatically the He/H ratio, which is known from observation and inference to have been about 1:3.

    It works like this: early in the Big Bang, everything was so hot that quarks were essentially free, forming a big, hot slurry called a quark-gluon plasma. As the primordial fireball expanded and cooled, protons and neutrons condensed out of the quark-gluon plasma like drops of mist forming in wet, cooling air.

    The temperature of the universe at this time was still very high, which means the average energy of these protons and neutrons was much higher than the binding energy of light nuclei, so no sooner would a proton and neutron bind to form a deuterium nucleus than they would get knocked apart by another particle wacking into them.

    The universe cooled further, and eventually reached a temperature where the average particle energy was low enough that light nuclei could form and not get disrupted. Originally, roughly equal numbers of neutrons and protons were formed, but free neutrons decay with a lifetime of about 15 minutes, so by the time the universe cooled enough for neutrons to bind permanently, there were a lot fewer of them.

    The fraction of neutrons and the total density of neutrons and protons at the time the universe reached this temperature determines the amount of helium in the early universe, which we can measure by correcting for the subsequent production of helium in stars. Thus, we can determine the density of the universe when the light nuclei were being formed. We also know the radius of the universe at that time by various chains of inference. Knowing the radius and the density gives us the mass: that is, the total amount of normal matter.

    The details of Big Bang nucleosythesis are one of the great triumphs of 20th century physics, for which Fowler got the Nobel Prize back in the '60's. There have been anomalies detected (lithium is particularly difficult to deal with) but the theory has so far stood up to a lot of critical examination.

    Dark matter (or modified gravitational potentials, which I find kind of appealing) get invoked as explanations for anomalies in galactic dynamics precisely because Big Bang nucleosynthesis stands on such solid foundations.

    --Tom

    --
    Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    1. Re:Nucleosynthesis by TACD · · Score: 1

      Fair enough, but IMHO it would still be misleading to a layman. Say anything 'nuclear' to your average Joe and all he will be able to think about is Hiroshima, or maybe the Sun if you're lucky.

      --
      Security through promiscuity is no better than security through obscurity.
  89. Free Will & Randomness by Paradox+!-) · · Score: 2

    How about this. What if everything is preordained, but because of its complexity our minds cannot possibly, no matter the scope of our computing and math, understand it all. Therefore, because it is defined but unknowable (i.e., just like quantum mechanics, that electron certainly is somewhere, but we are not able to know where it is by a law of nature) we can ACT like we have free will.

    I think there is some kind of interaction between knowing the truth and the truth being true. So, okay, your entire fate is preordained, but you cannot get at that info, therefore, why live your life like you have no free will? The absence of the knowledge yields effects similar to true free will. Effects similar enough that you can get on with life.

    Maybe. IMHO.

    1. Re:Free Will & Randomness by Telek · · Score: 2

      So what you're really saying is:

      ignorance is bliss

      Since we don't know that we don't have free will, we can pretend that we do.

      :)

      No, I still don't like that answer, but food fo thought! =)

      --

      If God gave us curiosity
  90. Old news by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

    When scientis finally decide what light is, waves or photons, they will realize that it is neither.
    Everybody already knows that photons (and leptons, hadrons, etc.) are neither particles nor waves. They're entities that exhibit characteristics of both. Particles and waves are only the closest analogues we have from ordinary everyday experience.

  91. Re: Read a book, then try again. by Trejus · · Score: 1
    That's a very humbling thought. Not enough of humanity gets put in their place by the sight of millions of stars anymore. Gives me hope.

    When you live anywhere near the city, the most you can see is oh, about three stars. It's very difficult to be humbled by that. In fact, i pretty much forgot all about stars, space, and how small earth really is. Then, about a year ago, i took a trip to maui, and we went up mount haleakala (sp?), to see the sunrise. The sunrise is really hyped, but all i can remember about that morning are my freezing feet and looking up to see the ISS moving across the background of all those stars. It had been so long since i had seen anything like that. It's too bad that people cant see those sights on a regular basis. Our cities have enabled us to fulfill our self-serving philosophies.

    --
    "To save the planet, I had to go to the worst spot on Earth, and that was Philadelphia." -- Sun Ra
  92. Re:Hmmmm. Think on this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Layman as I am, something I sometimes wonder when reading about this stuff is, does "vacuum energy density", which is supposedly very high, equate to mass through matter-energy equivalence, and hence cause gravitational warping of spacetime? Haven't seen the idea proposed anywhere, which is probably because it's totally stupid, but can someone enlighten me why? :)

  93. wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't underestimate the importance of photon-mediated interactions.

    This is the sig I've been waiting for!

  94. charged bodies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did I miss something, or does everyone seem to assume that gravity is the only force by which heavenly bodies may interact?
    What happened to eletrical charges? Can't those hold things together or repulse them apart?

  95. Tons of dark matter in the room with me by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1
    There could be up to several tons of dark matter in the room with you right now. You would never know it's there.

    Well that's a really interesting idea. But I think it's pretty easily testable. Is all of the gravity that we experience here on Earth's surface accounted for by the known "bright" matter that comprises the earth?

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.
  96. Umm.. by crashnbur · · Score: 2

    So, what is outside the balloon? Anti-space?

    1. Re:Umm.. by jonnythan · · Score: 2

      There is no outside of the balloon. The universe we perceive is the *surface* of the balloon.