Slashdot Mirror


Do Strangelets Pass Through Earth?

Weirdolet writes: "Ananova are reporting that ultra-dense, pollen sized strangelets (aka nuggets of strange quarks) travelling at 900,000 miles per hour hit the earth, violently pass through it and have done on at least two occasions already. It's also reported, allegedly, in the Sunday telegraph but I haven't found it there yet :P Coming to a particle accelerator near you soon ... ?" Another reader has found the story at the Telegraph.

543 comments

  1. When by WetCat · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Just curious when it gone thru and how it can affect health?

    1. Re:When by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      The people around you might need to take a bath afterwords.

  2. What about... by panthro · · Score: 1, Funny

    Uplets? Downlets? Toplets? Bottomlets? Charmedlets?

    --
    If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
    1. Re:What about... by Man+of+E · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Good point. IANAPP (particle physicist), but it seems odd that you would get such a big cluster of strange quarks, considering they each have something like -e/3 charge.

      If I may make an unqualified suggestion, any uplets or downlets would probably be too small to cause a significant impact, and bottomlets, toplets, charmedlets are likely too big to be stable. Please can any particle physicists out there explain what's going on?

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une sig
    2. Re:What about... by 56ker · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Question: Can you get the six names of quarks: up, down, top, bottom, strange and charmed into one sentence without it being nonsensical and without being clever like writing, "There are six types of quark: up, down, bottom, strange and charmed."?

    3. Re:What about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      It was strangely charming to see her bottom go up and down while I should've been more interested in watching her top, this being a jump-rope contest after all.

    4. Re:What about... by Skyfire · · Score: 5, Funny

      I went up the elevator to the top of the building, where everyone lives a charmed life, then I took it back down to the bottom where the sysadmins are strange.

      --
      Do not go gentle into that good night. Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
    5. Re:What about... by Bhang · · Score: 4, Funny

      As she was smiling down at the bottom row of people, I glanced up at the top row, to see the woman who charmed me with her strange eyes.

      --
      Sig
    6. Re:What about... by sirsnork · · Score: 1

      "There are six types of quark: up, down, bottom, strange and charmed."?

      What about top ;-)

      --

      Normal people worry me!
    7. Re:What about... by n3rd · · Score: 1

      At first she though I was strange, but after I rubbed her from to bottom, up and down she was charmed.

      Yes ladies, computer geeks are good with their hands.

    8. Re:What about... by soundsop · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Question: Can you get the six names of quarks: up, down, top, bottom, strange and charmed into one sentence without it being nonsensical and without being clever like writing, "There are six types of quark: up, down, bottom, strange and charmed."?

      I remember my physics teacher saying that the Europeans preferred the quark names truth and beauty to top and bottom. Unfortunately, top and bottom seem to have won out.

      So I think that top and bottom should be replaced with truth and beauty in the challenge!

    9. Re:What about... by 56ker · · Score: 2

      According to what I heard the original names were truth and beauty as opposed to top & bottom. As to the challenge if you want you can try it with the original six - it's probably a little harder to get less common words like truth and beauty in than top and bottom.

    10. Re:What about... by HohlerMann · · Score: 1

      Quark gazed at me with his strangely charming eyes and lovingly reach out and touched me, running his fingers first up, then down my shapely bottom; I was in an excited state.

    11. Re:What about... by AJWM · · Score: 2

      Aye, and in truth, she was a beauty.

      (Sigh, I miss the old names.)

      --
      -- Alastair
    12. Re:What about... by cybermage · · Score: 2

      Here goes:

      As strange as the truth may seem, whether you look up, down, left, or right, it is far easier to be charmed by beauty than by beast.

    13. Re:What about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about top?

    14. Re:What about... by fliptout · · Score: 1

      You win a prize, dude :)

      --
      A witty saying proves you are wittier than the next guy.
    15. Re:What about... by Brainchild · · Score: 1
      (Sigh, I miss the old names.)

      You mean "vanilla", "chocolate", and "strawberry"? Or the new old names?

      --

      :: "I am non-refutable." --Enik the Altrusian ::

    16. Re:What about... by Brainchild · · Score: 1
      ...the six names of quarks...

      The proper technical term is "flavor", i.e., "There are six flavors of quark: up, down, strange, charmed, bottom, and top".

      --

      :: "I am non-refutable." --Enik the Altrusian ::

    17. Re:What about... by Xilman · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Uplets and downlets" are what we call "protons" and "neutrons. :-)

      All quarks have charges which are \pm 1e/3 or \pm 2e/3. Doesn't stop normal matter being stable. I think the suggestion is that the strangelets contain enough up and down quarks and (presumably) electrons to make the aggregate close to zero charge.

      Paul

      --
      Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate
    18. Re:What about... by blitz77 · · Score: 1

      Ummm... "There are six types of quark: up, down, bottom, strange and charmed." is only five. You forgot the top quark.

    19. Re:What about... by quantaman · · Score: 2

      There are six types of quark: up, down, bottom, strange and charmed... wait... DAMM!!

      Sorry, I was so charmd by your post I just wrote down my "clever answer" and for some strange reason forgot to look back up top at your post to before writing. I'm just really messed up today, it must of been that strange drink that charming girl gave me last night after top server went down.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    20. Re:What about... by jswitte · · Score: 1

      Give this person 5 karma points for creativity!

    21. Re:What about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think he misses names like electron, proton, neutron, boson, muon, pion, sion etc

    22. Re:What about... by AlgUSF · · Score: 1

      She was charmed when I played with her top, it made me get up, then she went down and then I felt strange.

      --


      I want my rights back. I was actually using them when our government stole them after 9/11.
    23. Re:What about... by connorbd · · Score: 2

      I know -- isn't that the correct part of the ear to commence oo-mox?

      /brian

    24. Re:What about... by martyb · · Score: 2

      Once charmed by top-down programming, bottom-up programming seems strange.

    25. Re:What about... by Dastardly · · Score: 1

      I think the suggestion is that the strangelets contain enough up and down quarks and (presumably) electrons to make the aggregate close to zero charge.

      Would charge really matter that much? Considering the strong force (which would hold these together) is 3(more?) orders of magnitude stronger than the electromagnetic force. Protons are +e and don't fly apart.

      Dastardly

    26. Re:What about... by Xilman · · Score: 1

      True, protons don't fly apart but they don't have much charge either. I wrote "close to zero" on purpose. Free plutonium nuclei, on the hand, don't have close to zero charge and they do fly apart. However, you don't come across many free plutonium nuclei either because there are large numbers of loosely bound electrons lying around near other nuclei which the Pu nucleus can acquire, assuming it hasn't flown apart in the interim.

      If these strangelets are big, and the models suggest that they are, then electric charge becomes important. Free protons and helium nuclei are common enough in nature, largely because their charges are close to zero.

      Personally, I would expect highly charged strangelets to be exceedingly rare, not least because they could extract electrons from the vacuum and emit a positron at the same time. The mass-energy of the pair would come from the electromagnetic binding energy between the electron and strangelet.

      Paul

      --
      Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate
  3. Stragelets are strange but not dangerous by mochan_s · · Score: 4, Informative

    For those of you freaking out, here's a link Strangelets are strange but not dangerous

    1. Re:Stragelets are strange but not dangerous by jnana · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Okay, tell me that again when a 1-ton strangelet rips through the roof of your house and goes through you from head to toe. Which part of that doesn't sound dangerous, or plausible (albeit unlikely)?

    2. Re:Stragelets are strange but not dangerous by 56ker · · Score: 1, Redundant

      You wouldn't notice you'd be either exploding or the house would be collapsing on you from the resultant earthquake! :o) Most of science isn't plausible when you think about it anyway! Cutting-edge science even more so.

    3. Re:Stragelets are strange but not dangerous by Jon+Howard · · Score: 1

      Strangelets are strange but not dangerous

      Speak for yourself, but I'm becoming increasingly afraid of spontaneous human combustion.

    4. Re:Stragelets are strange but not dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Strangelets are strange when you're a stranger.

      But seriously though, the damn things can fly. I didn't know that. Man I don't trust something that flies and you can say whatever you want.

    5. Re:Stragelets are strange but not dangerous by Erris · · Score: 3, Funny
      Speak for yourself, but I'm becoming increasingly afraid of spontaneous human combustion.

      Try not to get too hot over it.

      --
      DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
    6. Re:Stragelets are strange but not dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's really not even worth considering, much like being hit by a meteor. OK, a bit of quick, incredibly inaccurate math:

      Let's assume, for a second, that you're Joe Average. You have a 32-inch waist, so your cross-sectional area (assuming you're perfectly circular) is pi*(32/(2*pi))^2, or 81.5, square inches (using 3.14 as pi).

      The Earth is about 24,000 miles around. Assuming it's a sphere, that makes its surface area 4*pi*(24,000*5,280*12)^2, or 2.90 x 10^19, square inches.

      Assuming an equal distribution of strangelet hits over the surface of the Earth, you will be hit by 2*(81.5 / 2.90 x 10^19) of the strangelets that hit the Earth's surface, which rounds off to approximately a 2 x 10^-17 chance of an impact per strangelet.

      Assuming 2 is the average number of strangelet events in a given year, your odds of being hit by a strangelet are 1 in 3 x 10^15 (3 quadrillion) or so in your lifetime (if you live for 80 years). Those odds are equivalent to winning the lottery back-to-back, then rolling a pair of dice once and getting snake eyes. To put it another way, it's equivalent to getting hit by two bolts of lightning at the same time and then rolling a 00 on two consecutive D100s.

      (Disclaimer: I am not a statistician, and I don't even have a calculator, so this was all back-of-the-envelope math and is probably grossly inaccurate.)

    7. Re:Stragelets are strange but not dangerous by Malicious · · Score: 1

      Strange, Dangerous... just tell me what kind of insurance i need!

      --
      01101001001000000110000101101101001000000110001001 10000101110100011011010110000101101110
    8. Re:Stragelets are strange but not dangerous by tsa · · Score: 1

      Well I don't know. I wouldn't want one through my private parts.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    9. Re:Stragelets are strange but not dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Let's assume, for a second, that you're Joe Average.

      OK! My penis just got bigger!

    10. Re:Stragelets are strange but not dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man, you are one incredibly stupid motherfucker. Where is 56Ker Fucker when you need him?

      SOMEBODY PUT THIS KARMA WHORE IN HIS PLACE! (Read his posting history BEFORE you mark *my* post down.)

    11. Re:Stragelets are strange but not dangerous by p3d0 · · Score: 1

      Here's one error: you shouldn't compare the surface area of the Earth with the cross-sectional area of the person. It should be cross-sectional in both cases. That makes your probability too small by a factor of four.

      I don't know about you, but I still feel pretty safe.

      --
      Patrick Doyle
      I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
    12. Re:Stragelets are strange but not dangerous by GoldenBear · · Score: 1

      well that does it...
      no more lottery tickets for me, just not worth the risk anymore.

    13. Re:Stragelets are strange but not dangerous by Aceticon · · Score: 3, Funny

      It is left as an exercise to the reader to do the same calculations using metric units.

    14. Re:Stragelets are strange but not dangerous by jelle · · Score: 2

      A strangelet probably doesn't need a bulls eye hit to kill a person. The surface area of the lethal region might be 1000 times larger than the surface area of a standing person (hmm, come to think of it, we spend a lot of time sitting or lying down, increasing our surface area). Well, that gives us a change of 1 in 10^12 to be killed by a strangelet. With a planet population of approx 6*10^9, that means that once every 166 generations (20 year/generation * 166 generations =3333 years), somebody will be killed by a strangelet.

      Maybe Elvis was killed by a strangelet. ;-)

      --
      --- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
    15. Re:Stragelets are strange but not dangerous by minkwe · · Score: 1

      Grossly false!
      Statistical likelihood does not determine wether an event will occur or not. It only says how often it may be expected to happen based on previous knowledge of the world around us. A stragelet may hit a human once in a gazillion years but should that individual be contented (pun intended) that it is a very unlikely event anyway?

      --
      "Fighting terrorists with millitary might is like killing a mosquitor on your Dad's forehead with a rifle."
    16. Re:Stragelets are strange but not dangerous by daeley · · Score: 2

      Mod parent down, it's Flamebait if I've heard it. ;)

      --
      I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
  4. The articles builds up their destructive mass... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    And then ends it with "humans are unlikely to be harmed." We can't make Hollywood blockbusters with those types of "facts." Killer Strangelets from Outer Space needs to have KILLER Stragelets!

  5. Second Impact! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "[S]eismometers recorded a violent event in Antarctica that packed a punch of several thousand tons of TNT. The disturbance then ripped through Earth exiting through the floor of the Indian Ocean 26 seconds later - implying a speed of 900,000mph"

    Second Impact?

    1. Re:Second Impact! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The odds of two independent once-in-a-year events arriving 26 seconds apart are pretty slim.

    2. Re:Second Impact! by noom · · Score: 1


      it wouldn't be so slim if they both arised from the same localized cause. its also relatively rare to get shot, but lots of gun shot victims end up with multiple bullets in them within a pretty short period of time....

    3. Re:Second Impact! by inertia187 · · Score: 1

      No, I get it. Entrance and exit, 26 seconds apert.

      --
      A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
    4. Re:Second Impact! by SEWilco · · Score: 1
      Entrance and exit impacts. I think the phrasing suggests that only the entry and exit points were detected because seismographs detect the sharp shock of solid rock being damaged.

      Seismographs can detect the shock of broken rock, and can detect the echoes of that shock bouncing off underground formations. But they aren't designed to hear the cone-shaped shock wave produced by something moving through molten rock at supersonic speeds. Much as a microphone above a stage can clearly hear an arrow hitting the stage floor, but has difficulty hearing the arrow flying through the air...unless it happens to be near the microphone.

      I anticipate that scientists who get interested in such events will design different instruments to detect the passage shock. I wonder if those will also hear any of the mantle convection currents.

    5. Re:Second Impact! by Gravityboy · · Score: 0

      Ah hah! Another Evangelion fan spotted!

    6. Re:Second Impact! by SEWilco · · Score: 1

      Oops. Now that the link to the entire paper has been found, I see that it was indeed the supersonic shock wave which was used for detection. My seismographic tech knowledge is out of date.

  6. Entrance/Exit Point by DataGrunt · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't a particle moving that fast with that much momentum leave some sort of exit point that could still be seen. Also,"The small size of strangelets means the blast is only big enough to have a very localised effect and humans are unlikely to be harmed." What happens when one of these goes through LA or New york, wouldn't there be quite a few people harmed?

    1. Re:Entrance/Exit Point by dtdns · · Score: 2, Informative

      Given the surface area of the planet that is not water, and then the area of land that is habitable, and the area of habitable land that people actually live on, you end up with a percentage so low (I'm too lazy to go number crunching, it's late) that the probability of one of these things coming down on LA, New York, London, etc, is so low that it's not even really worth spending time to think about it.

    2. Re:Entrance/Exit Point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's make the world safe for strangelets! Err, I mean humans. What I mean is KILL THE STRANGELETS!!!!

    3. Re:Entrance/Exit Point by ShadowDrgn · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Wouldn't a particle moving that fast with that much momentum leave some sort of exit point that could still be seen.

      Two points in Antartica; the other two are in the ocean. Good luck finding any of those.

    4. Re:Entrance/Exit Point by ninewands · · Score: 2

      "Several tons" (let's be conservative and say 10) moving at approximately a million mph yields a kinetic evergy of ... oh ... let's say several megatons.

      If strangelets (1) exist, and (2) are common enough that there were to Earth impacts in one year, then why aren't we all dead from "Nuclear Winter" effects??

      Enquiring minds want to know ...

    5. Re:Entrance/Exit Point by cyril3 · · Score: 0

      article says several thousand tons of tnt so as long as it not the bit of la or ny you're in don't worry.

    6. Re:Entrance/Exit Point by BCoates · · Score: 2

      That only works if all their kinetic energy is realeased at the point of impact. It appears that they punch through the planet and leave with most of their velocity, so they only release a a fraction of that, spread over the path they take through the planet.

      --
      Benjamin Coates

    7. Re:Entrance/Exit Point by Salsaman · · Score: 3, Funny
      You notice occasionally in the press, reports of odd explosions which are normally put down to gas leaks and such, and in most cases this is probably the truth.

      However, a small fraction of these *could* be due to strangelets hitting the Earth. It's not very scientific, but a search on Google for 'unexplained explosion' comes up with over 14,000 items...

    8. Re:Entrance/Exit Point by zhensel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, these things have a kinetic energy of .5*several_friggin_tons*9E10 Ton Miles^2/Hour^2, but that doesn't mean that all that energy is lost in the passage through the earth. A BB can rip through a sheet of paper and leave a small puncture rather than tear the thing apart - imagine what a BB traveling at a thousand miles per hour would leave... just a hole of its own size most likely. These things have such high mass and velocity that they're hardly going to scatter off of anything or slow down much after they vaporize anything in their path.

      Now what you should really worry about is a strangelet collision :)

    9. Re:Entrance/Exit Point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A few megatons a year is nothing special; the Russians tested a bomb that yielded 50 megatons in a single explosion.

    10. Re:Entrance/Exit Point by foobar104 · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's not very scientific, but a search on Google for 'unexplained explosion' comes up with over 14,000 items...

      Yes, but a search on Google for "unexplained fish" comes up with over 23,000 items. What's your point? ;-)

    11. Re:Entrance/Exit Point by shepd · · Score: 2, Funny

      >a search on Google for 'unexplained explosion' comes up with over 14,000 items...

      A google search for "sandwich explosion" gives me 24,800 hits.

      What I want to know is why, with this many exploding sandwiches, I've never come across one...

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    12. Re:Entrance/Exit Point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "unexplained explosion" 457
      "unexplained fish" 149

      include the quotes when searching.

    13. Re:Entrance/Exit Point by PhiRatE · · Score: 2

      I think its quit clear that there are a suspicously low number of unexplained explosions, leading me to conclude that explanations for many explosions are bogus and therefore that there are many strangelets hitting the earth every year and a concerted effort to cover this up to avoid insurance hikes.

      --
      You can't win a fight.
    14. Re:Entrance/Exit Point by kpansky · · Score: 1

      Well, if you thought these two previous posts were scary, try searching for Sex explosion" with its over 286,000 hits.

      Gives new meaning to "the earth moved" doesn't it?

      --

      --Kevin
    15. Re:Entrance/Exit Point by hagardtroll · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, there are roughly three unexplained explosions for every unexplained fish! Someone needs to stop these fish from causing these unexplained explosions. Call your congressman!

    16. Re:Entrance/Exit Point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Woah trolly...
      It was just a joke. ;-)

    17. Re:Entrance/Exit Point by IronChef · · Score: 2


      Thankfully, "unexplained clown" is only 2150 results.

    18. Re:Entrance/Exit Point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because most clowns are formed as a result of a 'mime explosion' or 'big shoe bang' which is a pretty well understood phenomenon in comicology.

    19. Re:Entrance/Exit Point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      unexplained morons searching google: 2 results

      ... of course referring to the 'unexplained explosions' post and the 'unexplained fish' post

      yet again, google rocks

    20. Re:Entrance/Exit Point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not very scientific, but a search on Google for 'unexplained explosion' comes up with over 14,000 items...

      Yes, but a search on Google for "unexplained fish" comes up with over 23,000 items. What's your point? ;-)

      "unexplained orgasm" comes up with 1 item. I guess most of them can be explained.

    21. Re:Entrance/Exit Point by SEWilco · · Score: 1
      Maybe a dozen people already have been killed, but they all seemed to be boiler or water heater explosions. ("Look at this! It exploded hard enough to crack the foundation!")

      The odds of hitting NY or LA are slim. Our largest cities use a miniscule fraction of the planet's surface area. Even less if you are referring to the few blocks of downtown which has tall buildings. Even less if you're considering the nonvertical passages, where there are very few buildings taller than 20 stories so there's a lot of empty air between the buildings -- and that bottom 200 feet that is full of concrete is really small when compared to the cross section of the Earth (although you should be comparing the surface area of the Earth to the surface area of a cylinder 200 feet tall and as large around as the downtown area).

      In downtown, a building falling down or getting a hole punched through it would attract attention -- unless a collapse was diagnosed as structural failure and nobody happened to be filming and saw a hole appeared near the top a second before the building fell.

      Out in the suburbs, it's just another hot water heater explosion, gas explosion, tree being hit by lightning under a clear sky, or sinkhole collapsing under the street.

      Particularly because it's likely that no more than one town has had an impact in all of recorded history so there hasn't been much chance to interpret the event properly.

    22. Re:Entrance/Exit Point by SEWilco · · Score: 1

      Don't call your congressman. Call your cryptozoologist and ask him to breed the unexplained fish in his zoo so as to decrease the ratio of explosive unexplained fish to nonexplosive types down from 3:1. (or as a percentage: 75% explosive)

    23. Re:Entrance/Exit Point by WryCoder · · Score: 1

      "Certainly occurrences of this nature are rare, and are not always reported, but nevertheless they are well known.

      The first mention of the phenomenon was made by Athanaseus in his De pluvia piscium nearly two thousand years ago, and E.W.Gudger, in his four collective articles, reports 78 cases of falling
      fish from the sky."

      Happens all the time. What's your point?

  7. statistical data by doubtless · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I would really like to see the statistical data of earth quakes, What are the possibilities of that happening just by chance, as compared to stranglets or any other 'unconfirmed' theories.

    Sometimes human has the tendencies to take coincidence and correlations as evidence, not that I am saying this is the case.

    --
    geek page at KY speaks
    1. Re:statistical data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correlations are just that until more evidence is gathered. Once you have a cause-effect relationship, you're golden.

      The referenced articles as they stand are sensationalist crap, evoke a "who cares?" and suggest people are just trying to hang onto their jobs. It's times like these that I am embarrassed to be a scientist.

    2. Re:statistical data by Man+of+E · · Score: 1
      What are the possibilities of that happening just by chance

      You make a good point. They're basing this assertion on just two small medium-small quakes each, spaced 19 and 26 seconds apart respectively. Little events like that probably happen quite often, and perhaps this observation should not be interpreted as anything at all. Of course, it's also possible that the research actually goes much deeper than the ananova article lets on, and they somehow know the predicted speed and density from their big bang model and these observations are just uncannily perfect. Who knows.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une sig
    3. Re:statistical data by ragnarok · · Score: 1

      Or maybe the locations of the supposed impacts are known not to have any seismic activity?

      --
      Search first, ask questions later.
    4. Re:statistical data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was my thought. I read their paper, and nowhere did I see a statistical comparison to the null hypothesis (the data sets arising purely by chance).

    5. Re:statistical data by H310iSe · · Score: 2

      ok, I see 500,000 detectable earthquakes a year (earthquake.usgs.gov) but they found earthquakes in 1993 so we presume their 1,000,000 earthquakes sampled happened over the course of maybe 10 years (knowing this would help)? So out of 5 million they studied 1m.

      Total area of earth = 500,000,000 km^2. 10 years is 3650 days (5,250,000 minutes) so the average number of earthquakes per minute is, conveniently, one and the distribution is 1 per 100 sq km.

      What's the chance of 2 earthquakes happening at opposite sides of the world? Howabout within 30 seconds of eachother? See, I never got statistics, I have no idea how to figure this out. Anyone?

      --
      closed minded is as closed minded does
    6. Re:statistical data by TheLink · · Score: 2

      The stuff doesn't have to enter and exit in diametrically opposite points.

      I'd prefer seeing better proof than this. e.g. entry/exit holes.

      I know it's hard to find such proof but hey so's that cold fusion thingy.

      Link.

      --
    7. Re:statistical data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the blast points would have to be diametrically opposed. An object weighing several tons, the size of a grain of pollen, with a velocity of 900,000mph would punch through the earth like a bullet through a cardboard box. The box simply doesn't have the mass and density to divert the bullet's trajectory (for instance, coming in at a right angle to the front, then exiting at a 30 degree angle to the left side).

      So I would think that the odds of finding two earthquake events that occur within 30 seconds of each other at two points on the earth falling along the axis of an object in linear motion would be fairly slim. Of course, their study may only take into consideration impacts occuring at a right angle to the earth. Two strangelet-related earthquakes could occur very close together (for instance one in India, one in China) almost on top of one another if the angle of impact was shallow enough. Think of what might be observed if a strangelet impacted with a "glancing blow" penetrating the earth at a shallow angle and passing through in 2 or 3 seconds at relatively near geographic points.

    8. Re:statistical data by MadAhab · · Score: 2
      Right... In fact, they are unlikely to have opposed entry and exit points; that assumes that every particle hits a bulls-eye. If you knew the speed of the particles, you could do a correlation of two earthquake events, but from the article it appears they calculated the speed from the timing of the quakes.

      So in order to make this hypothesis fly, you'd need evidence of some unexplained explosions, or else you'd need some statistical analysis that it's unlikely two given quakes are so closely timed. That would mean sifting through earthquake data and finding anomolous correlations between two quake events that are geologically unrelated, with these anomolies occurring at a rate much higher than chance. Given that they are identifying specific events, it's unlikely they did this kind of comparison, so the whole thing is likely just bad science: you could say that we have 10 times more of these events than we can account for by chance, but you could then only say that there's a 9 of 10 chance that a particular event is unexplained by coincidence.

      Einstein's most ignored lesson may be that armchair speculation is an important component of real science. Real scientists do it all the time. It should make sense on that level, and also be confirmed by rigorous experients and mathematics.

      --
      Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
    9. Re:statistical data by AndrewRUK · · Score: 1

      Using the notes from my stats lecture this morning (yeah, I'm a student, but I can plug numbers into formulae perfectly well :-) ) I reckon that, given a mean time between earthquakes of 1 minute, the probability of two detectable quakes in 30 seconds is 0.39 (i.e. 39%)
      As for them being on opposite sides of the planet, well, I'm not a staistician, I'm an engineering student who's forced to learn some stats :-)

    10. Re:statistical data by Cryptosporidium · · Score: 2
      They're basing this assertion on just two small medium-small quakes each, spaced 19 and 26 seconds apart respectively.


      Not quite. If you read the report by the researchers (Two Seismic Events with the Properties for the Passage of Strange Quark Matter Through the Earth), you will see that they are basing their findings on much more than "just two small medium-small quakes each," as you say.



      Take a look at the caption on page six, which gives a short summary of why they do not believe the seismic activities are due to earthquakes, but, instead, ton-size strange quark nuggets.

    11. Re:statistical data by Dastardly · · Score: 1

      So in order to make this hypothesis fly, you'd need evidence of some unexplained explosions, or else you'd need some statistical analysis that it's unlikely two given quakes are so closely timed.

      How about the fact that the strangelet events look nothing like earthquakes on the seismograph?

      I quote from the Daily Telegraph article:

      According to Prof Herrin, the two events agree with predictions for strangelet impacts, which are expected to occur about once a year. He added, however, that finding more would be difficult, as seismic databases now automatically remove all signals not linked to earthquakes. He said: "To find more events we need to get at the data before that happens."

    12. Re:statistical data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read the paper. Analysis of the data took over 8 years, including correlation studies as you rightly suggest. The newspaper account is wrong, they did not look for "two earthquake events." The whole project is much more sophisticated and detailed than the media's report suggests. Your conclusions of "bad science" are uninformed and lazy, the very soul of bad science.

    13. Re:statistical data by SEWilco · · Score: 1

      Their paper is online, a link is in another comment. They did not just time two earthquakes, they listened on at least six seismographs to the supersonic rumble of the object pushing through the magma. Once they found events whose time fit the expected pattern they studied the wave patterns and found they were what is expected for something moving in a long line, not an earthquake at a single point. They did find the data at one Australian station could also fit an earthquake at an unlikely spot, but with less confidence than for a linear event.

  8. Huh? by gangibson · · Score: 2, Interesting
    ...seismometers recorded a violent event in Antarctica that packed a punch of several thousand tons of TNT ... The small size of strangelets means the blast is only big enough to have a very localised effect and humans are unlikely to be harmed.
    Oh.... okayyyyy... Huh. It's a very small incredibly powerful explosion, I guess. Must be like how there is a very low chance of a person being hit by lightning, but getting hit by lightning would still suck!
    1. Re:Huh? by Spaceman+Spiff+II · · Score: 1

      And then it goes on to say that "The small size of strangelets means the blast is only big enough to have a very localised effect and humans are unlikely to be harmed." How can several thousand tons of TNT not harm someone if he or she is hit?

      --
      I understand that life's not fair, just why is it never unfair in my favor?
    2. Re:Huh? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2
      And then it goes on to say that "The small size of strangelets means the blast is only big enough to have a very localised effect and humans are unlikely to be harmed." How can several thousand tons of TNT not harm someone if he or she is hit?

      I would guess that most of the "thousands of tons of TNT" is released deep under ground as the particle travels through the earth spread over hundreds of miles. Thus, the total energy given off at any one point would be relatively small. Maybe the explosion at the actual surface of the earth would just be a smallish bang.

      Humans would unlikely to be harmed because they are unlikely to be hit directly. IIRC, there is no record of anyone ever being hit and killed by a meteor. All the people on earth just don't add up to a very big target.

    3. Re:Huh? by foobar104 · · Score: 2

      How can several thousand tons of TNT not harm someone if he or she is hit?

      I think geologists talk about energy in a different way than what you and I are accustomed to. I seem to remember reading somewhere-- it's too late to go searching now, sorry-- that the Hiroshima explosion released about the same amount of energy as a magnitude 6 earthquake. While a magnitude 6 quake is certainly not a small temblor, it's not a city-flattener, either.

      I think the difference is that much of the energy from a bomb blast is released as heat, resulting in fires and whatnot; also, a bomb results in a very large air shock wave, which does quite a bit of physical damage.

      An earthquake, on the other hand, releases its energy underground. Say you took the entire state of Wyoming and dropped it one centimeter: wham! The amount of energy involved would be astronomical, but the net result would be barely enough to rattle your good china.

    4. Re:Huh? by Antity-H · · Score: 1

      ever asked a dinosaur about noone being hit by an asteroid?
      i don't think it would agree with your stats :p

    5. Re:Huh? by peter+hoffman · · Score: 2
      IIRC, there is no record of anyone ever being hit and killed by a meteor.

      Information about the 123 deaths from meteorites in the past couple of centuries is here.

    6. Re:Huh? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2
      Information about the 123 deaths from meteorites in the past couple of centuries is here

      I'd have to take that listing with a big grain of salt. Notice how there are almost no deaths reported in the 20th century (and almost no incidents at all in the last 50 years) despite the fact that the population was at least 4 times greater than in the 19th century, where total carnage was reported. The great thing about the Internet is that you can find pages to back any argument. For example:

      From here:

      There are some old Chinese records of people being killed by falling meteorites, but there is no record of meteorite deaths in modern times. Elizabeth Hodges, of Sylacauga, Alabama, was given a terrible bruise on the side by a falling meteorite in 1954, and a young boy was struck in the head by a meteorite that had been slowed down by the leaves of a banana plant in Uganda in 1992. The Nakhla meteorite killed a dog when it fell in Egypt in 1911.

      And from here:

      Some researchers claim to have found reports in Chinese annals of people being killed by meteorites including tens of thousand of people in the 15th century. Many of the stories of meteorite fatalities are probably untrue. Some undoubtedly are due to hailstones rather than meteorites which, even today, can result in a large number of deaths, such as the 92 people killed in Bangladesh on 14 April 1986.
    7. Re:Huh? by TheSync · · Score: 2

      I was struck by lightning...not too bad ;)

      But really, I was a resistor in a small branch of a large parallel circuit. Plenty of people die or get very weird injuries from lighting, I'm just lucky.

      Maybe that's why I wanted to become an electrical engineer...

    8. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You ask first, and I'll verify your results by asking a second one.

  9. Back to the future! by PhantomHarlock · · Score: 1

    Now I know where to get 1.21 jigawatts if I'm stranded in 1993. I'll be saved from listening to REM's "everybody hurts" on the radio all over again!

    1. Re:Back to the future! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well i was amused. better luck next time (score: 1)

  10. Faster than light? by dadragon · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Apparently, these things move at 900000mph, or a few times the speed of light.

    Isn't that impossible? I thought it took an infinite amount of energy to reach the speed of light.

    --
    God save our Queen, and Heaven bless The Maple Leaf Forever!
    1. Re:Faster than light? by Man+of+E · · Score: 3, Informative

      The speed of light is about 185,000 miles per second, or 11,100,000 mph, so these things are moving at 0.1c. Still not inconsiderable, mind you, considering their mass...

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une sig
    2. Re:Faster than light? by Verteiron · · Score: 1

      Where do you get that? Last I knew the speed of light was very approximately 669,600,000mph.

      --
      End of lesson. You may press the button.
    3. Re:Faster than light? by Loligo · · Score: 1

      >Apparently, these things move at 900000mph, or a
      >few times the speed of light.

      900,000mph is nowhere NEAR the speed of light.

      Using the standard 138,000 miles per second approximation, we get about 496,800,000 mph.

      -l

    4. Re:Faster than light? by Loligo · · Score: 1

      >Using the standard 138,000 miles per second
      >approximation, we get about 496,800,000 mph.

      D'oh!

      186,000 miles per second, approximately 669,600,000 mph.

      My bad.

      -l

    5. Re:Faster than light? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      900,000 mph is NOT faster than the speed of light.

      The speed of light is 186,000 miles per SECOND, or

      667,000,000 miles per hour.

    6. Re:Faster than light? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Light travels at 186,000 miles per SECOND in a vaccuum.

      This is 900,000 miles per HOUR.

      Since there are 60 seconds in a minute and 60 minutes in an hour, 186,000 miles per SECOND is 669,600,000 miles per hour which is quite a bit faster than 900,000 miles per hour (744 times faster).

    7. Re:Faster than light? by Man+of+E · · Score: 1
      about 185,000 miles per second, or 11,100,000 mph

      Heh, I'm an idiot. 60 seconds to an hour, yeah right. Wow, time sure flies!

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une sig
    8. Re:Faster than light? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      So many replies... Let me be the first to give the *exact* speed of light in vacuum:

      670,616,629.3843951324266284896206... mph
      (= 936851431250/1397 mph)

      This is exact because the mile is defined in terms of meters, and the meter is defined as the distance travelled by light in vacuum during 1/299,792,458 of a second.

    9. Re:Faster than light? by dadragon · · Score: 2

      My bad, confusing mph with mps.

      --
      God save our Queen, and Heaven bless The Maple Leaf Forever!
    10. Re:Faster than light? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the meter is defined as the distance travelled by light in vacuum during 1/299,792,458 of a second.

      How arbitrary!

      Why not set the meter to be the diameter of a proton and one second to be the time it takes for a hydrogen atom to vibrate?

      Sure, we'd be using gigameters to measure stuff, and time would need to be completely resorted, but I'm sure it would work out well in the end...

    11. Re:Faster than light? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thats why you suck

    12. Re:Faster than light? by ninewands · · Score: 2

      errmmmmmm ....

      186000 miles/second (the classical Michaelson-Morley speed of light) * 60 * 60 =

      6.96e+08 mph ...

      if the strangelets are moving at an average velocity of 1,000,000 mph, they are nowhere CLOSE to 0.1c ... more like 0.0014934289c. Barely fast enough to be considered relativistic.

    13. Re:Faster than light? by Kris_J · · Score: 4, Funny

      Since when is a mile defined in terms of meters? You must work at NASA.

    14. Re:Faster than light? by canadian_right · · Score: 2
      Fail math?

      The speed of light through a vacuum is about 360,000 miles per SECOND.

      900,000 mph is 250 miles per second.

      Hmmmm, which is bigger 250 or 360,000?

      And light is stilll the winnnner!

      --
      Anarchists never rule
    15. Re:Faster than light? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      whoever modded this as insightful should be shot

    16. Re:Faster than light? by foobar104 · · Score: 2

      Sure, we'd be using gigameters to measure stuff, and time would need to be completely resorted, but I'm sure it would work out well in the end...

      One of my favorite authors likes to measure time in seconds. (He writes far-future science fiction.) His most recent book includes a cheat-sheet in the front mapping traditional units of time (hours, years, whatnot) to seconds. If I remember right, one kilosecond is about fifteen minutes, and one megasecond is just over 10 days. One year is a little more than 30 megaseconds.

      I'll stick with days, weeks, and months, if you please.

    17. Re:Faster than light? by ZigMonty · · Score: 2
      Since when is a mile defined in terms of meters? You must work at NASA.

      Sorry to burst your bubble but it is. You could of course just consider it pegged to the speed of light but not as cleanly as the metre.

    18. Re:Faster than light? by stevey · · Score: 3, Funny
      And light is stilll the winnnner!

      Huzzah - Go Light!

    19. Re:Faster than light? by Kris_J · · Score: 2

      Uh, a mile is 5,280 feet. 1 Mile == 1,609.2655 meters, hardly a "defined in terms of", much more a later conversion.

    20. Re:Faster than light? by Kris_J · · Score: 2

      Funnily enough, living in a country that's totally metric (Australia), I don't need keep up to date with recent kludges applied to an outdated measurement system. Anyway, you can convert any distance measurement to any other distance measurement but it still doesn't mean that one is defined in terms of the other.

    21. Re:Faster than light? by cameldrv · · Score: 1

      You might want to check your math yourself.

    22. Re:Faster than light? by guttentag · · Score: 2

      IIRC, c is the speed of light as it travels in a vacuum. It's slower when passing through the atmosphere or water. So can we assume that if strangelets pass through the crust, core and mantle of the earth at 900,000 mph, they probably travelled even faster before reaching Earth?

    23. Re:Faster than light? by TheLink · · Score: 2

      AFAIK it's closer to 186,000 miles/per sec.

      Unless the physical "constant" has changed recently :).

      --
    24. Re:Faster than light? by Alsee · · Score: 2

      slower when passing through the atmosphere or water.

      Light slows down when passing through matter.

      So can we assume...strangelets...travelled even faster before reaching Earth?

      No. Matter doen dot slow down when passing through matter. A particle can actually go faster through matter than light can. It is exceding the reduced speed of the light, which is not a violation of exceding the normal speed of light.

      When a particle does this it generates a light cone, like the sonic boom a supersonic jet makes. (Hmmm, a photonic boom?) This is called Cherenkov radiation.

      The strange matter in the article is going fast, but still far short of the speed of light, so I doubt the issue actually comes up.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    25. Re:Faster than light? by Alsee · · Score: 2

      arg, didn't notice my typo:

      Matter does not slow down when passing through matter.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    26. Re:Faster than light? by darien · · Score: 2

      A mile is therefore also 1760 yards, which is easy to remember because there are 1760 sectors on an Amiga OFS floppy.

    27. Re:Faster than light? by phoenix123 · · Score: 0

      oh you sick bastards, can't you use REAL metrics? (i mean "decimal") sure, it's european and the invention of the DEVIL, but all those "MPH"s and "square inches" make me puke.

      some of the slashdot crowd must be from subhuman species i think, since NO PERSON HERE can calculate that damn simple speed of light correctly.
      that is a task my little sister (13) could do with a pocket calculator and the most basic collection of only semi-scientific formulas.

      so, let me as a european person, who is normally very comforted in the decimal metric system, since conversion of units isn't killing my brain that way, i will tell you what speed of light is in miles per second, miles per hour and if i am REAL smart even how much inches, feet or other retarded unit you use. (sun microsystems would punch you all with a line through your math books and writing DEPRECATED in yellow and red letters all around your homeworks)

      ok, but we start with real metrics. according to my book of constants and formulas - the german "tafelwerk" of 2002 - the speed of light is this season at about
      2,99792458*10^8 meter/second in vacuum.
      that means it is 299'792'458 meter per second.
      meter per second multiplied by 3600 - old babylonian 60*60=360 anachronism carried up until today :( - leads to 1'079'252'848'800 meters per hour divided by muahuahua *1'000*: 1'079'252'848,8 kilometres per hour. according to my _Tafelwerk_, ultimate standard of metrics and the height of highschool science, one mile is exactly 1,6093 kilometers. by the powerful forces of mathematics, i can translate this magically to "1 kilometer equals exactly 0,62138818119679363698502454483316 feet". wow. that was cool. compared with the above results, we get: speed of light 186'287'490,21313614615050021748586 miles per second.
      and its getting even cooler... that value times 3600 gives

      670'634'964'767,29012614180078294911 miles per hour.
      phew. my windows calc.exe was using up almost 0.000001 percent of my rusty pentium 450...
      ok lets move on, i promised inch per century so i will calculate that now...
      we now start again with the meters... 299792458 meter per second = 946'073'047'258'080'000 meter per century (taken 365,25 days per year to approximately cope with that pesky evil tool of satan the gregorian calendar) meter per century multiplied with muahuha 1000 gives millimeters. 1 inch equals 25,4 millimeters. that means one millimeter equals 0,03937007874015748031496062992126 inches. given that, we can now clearly see, that the speed of light expressed in the most impractical of the ultimately dumbest set of metric units is c=37'246'970'364'491'338'582,677165354085 inches per century. einstein would rise from the dead and come strangling you and eating the remnants of your brain stem if he would hear you kids fumbling with the speed of light. if you go to hell, you will be tortured forever by michelson & morley (yes they are subcommanders in hell for using decimal metrics). they would cut away your eyelids and force you to stare in 1 million mercury lamps for the rest of eternity and make you count the photons.
      or they give you precision mechanic tasks, where you have to do ultimately exact measurements all handcrafted and you are forced to measure and compare all that golden small parts in 1/n inches hahahahahaha. NOO NO no no calculator allowed. no pencil and paper allowed. but your flesh and skin if you urgently need to write down your mathematics. how much bigger is a caliber of a 3/397 inch bolt compared to a caliber of a bolt that is 13337/209337 inches in diameter? HMMMMM? dunno? need to recompile kernel? hmmm. lets redirect console output to the laser printer of hell writing with 1Gigawatt laser on your retina. oh. gigawatt is defined as a decimal metric unit. oh im damned NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

    28. Re:Faster than light? by nalfeshnee · · Score: 1

      ... you tell us all this neat stuff and then don't mention his name?!

      for those not in the know: Vernor Vinge. Most famous for his essay on the Singularity.

      google: +vernor +vinge +singularity

      nalfy

      --

      -- Despair is an operating system that ANY human being can run, sort of a psychological JAVA --

    29. Re:Faster than light? by renehollan · · Score: 2
      The speed of light is 186,282 mps, or miles per second, not hour, give or take. For those who like nice, round numbers, that's 299,975 km/s, or close enough to 300,000 km/s, for most illustrative purposes.

      Of course, that's in a vacuum. It propagates slower in a medium (which is why you have refractive effects at surface bounderies, and optical lenses work).

      --
      You could've hired me.
    30. Re:Faster than light? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speed of light is more appropriately:

      1'802'617'499'785.2540422400 furlongs/fortnights

      as every competent turbonerd should know....

      Furlong/Firkin/Fortnight - *THE* measurement system for the true geek

      atto-bonuses to those who recall the source, peta-penalties to thos e who have forgotten

    31. Re:Faster than light? by foobar104 · · Score: 2

      You're absolutely right. Thanks. My only defense: it was far, far too late to be posting on Slashdot.

      File that one under "guess what I'm thinking."

    32. Re:Faster than light? by stevelinton · · Score: 2

      Nevertheless, current international standards define all the imperial units in terms of metric ones, so a mile is, by definition 1.609 2655 metres (or whatever it is). There is no standard mile, foot, inch or yard any more. The metre is defined by reference to the wavelength of a specific type of light amd the second by reference to the speed of light and the metre.

    33. Re:Faster than light? by sweet+reason · · Score: 2

      you can convert any distance measurement to any other distance measurement but it still doesn't mean that one is defined in terms of the other

      but in this case, the inch is, in fact, officially defined in terms of centimeters. i don't know when that happened, but it was years ago.

      --
      Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. -- A.E.
    34. Re:Faster than light? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Woah, a knowledgeable troller who links to good porn. You're my hero.

    35. Re:Faster than light? by AndrewRUK · · Score: 1

      And a foot is defined as 12 inches, and an inch is defined as 0.0254 metres.
      Incidentally, this gives a mile as being 1,609.344 metres, but I think we can put that 7.85cm down to rounding errors :-)

    36. Re:Faster than light? by monkeydo · · Score: 1

      There's no need for the "+" in your Google search. Google always returns results with all of the terms (except for "simple words")

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum
      The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
    37. Re:Faster than light? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Light has listened to you and as of now (~14 hours later) it's managed to travel about 9,374,400,000 miles. Which is approximately 1,000 Astronmical units. (1 AU ~= 9,300,000 miles) (1 AU is the average distance of the earth from the sun BTW)

      "186,000 miles per second: It's not just a good idea, it's the law!"

    38. Re:Faster than light? by BlaisePascal · · Score: 2

      I believe in the US, the mile is defined in terms of feet (1 mile = 5280 feet), feet defined in terms of inches (1 foot = 12 inches), inches in terms of centimeters (1 inch = 2.54 cm exactly), centimeters in terms of meters, and the meter is defined (since the early 80's, I believe) in terms of the second and the speed of light. The second is defined in terms of the frequency of hyperfine transitions of cesium-80, if I remember correctly.

  11. second impact? by AnimeFreak · · Score: 4, Funny
    The second event in November started in the Pacific Ocean travelling through Earth to appear in Antarctica 19 seconds later.
    For some reason Neon Genesis Evangleion comes to mind.
    1. Re:second impact? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your nick is 'AnimeFreak', but did you know that Anno generally hated anime fans?

    2. Re:second impact? by drunken+monkey · · Score: 1

      Secando Impacto!

      --
      -- "The evil stops here" -Petr
    3. Re:second impact? by grazzy · · Score: 1

      isnt that nadesico? :-)

    4. Re:second impact? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats such utter bullshit. Give me a source, jackass. Its nothing but an old Internet rumor.

      Anno himself _IS_ an anime fan. Yeesh!

    5. Re:second impact? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Time to start hunting for Adam beneath the ice....

      Is it just me or was the ending of that series just utterly terrifying?

  12. you start getting worried by 56ker · · Score: 2

    Then you reach the end of the article and they write "The small size of strangelets means the blast is only big enough to have a very localised effect and humans are unlikely to be harmed." to reassure people and stop them panicking!

    1. Re:you start getting worried by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No harm... Assuming you aren't the person who's lottery ticket is up today and happens to get hit with one... several tons at 900,000 mph vs a human being, that would be a messy cleanup...

  13. I was just reading about this :) by AGTiny · · Score: 1

    How eerie, I just finished reading the section in Stephen Baxter's Manifold: Time where young genius children built a device to capture a quark nugget!

    1. Re:I was just reading about this :) by lokii202 · · Score: 1

      Baxter's novels seems to be as rare to find as strangelets themselves...at least for me...

  14. I see.. by ilyag · · Score: 0, Troll

    So that's CTRL-ALT-DEL
    why CTRL-ALT-DEL
    Windows CTRL-ALT-DEL
    crashed CTRL-ALT-DEL
    again CTRL-ALT-DEL
    . CTRL-ALT-DEL

    1. Re:I see.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You made fun of Micro$haft!!!! LOLOLOL!

  15. surprise? by blugecko · · Score: 1

    Is this really surprising anyone? Makes me recall my favorite quote "the universe is not only queerer than you suppose, it's queere than you can suppose" and i used to know who that was from, but now i forget. things like this i always assumed, since matter is mostly made of "nothing" anyways (if you believe that nothing can exist), mostly empty space. though that's just me.

    --
    Lysergic Acid Diethylamide, not just chemistry, reality!
    1. Re:surprise? by inkswamp · · Score: 1

      That's funny because one of my favorite Shakespeare quotes/sayings came to mind while reading this (and yes, I have favorite Shakespeare quotes.) This one's rather well known since it's from Hamlet:

      There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

      --Rick

      --
      --Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
    2. Re:surprise? by jsapo · · Score: 1

      Nothing?

      I've thought about that before. I've got a similar theory involving math. There's no such thing as a random number right? Well given that, every thing we observe in life or nature had to be caused/effected by something prior. Evolution is just like an ever-evolving math formula. The farther we go backwards, the more simplified the formulas become. This is where we got our laws of physics and such. But what is at the heart of these formula? If you look at it like a math problem... it would be "i", the imaginary number, NULL. Therefore, the universe is based on the null, the unobtainable, unanswered question. That's my crazy ass opinion anyways.

    3. Re:surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pass that joint, man.

    4. Re:surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "i" the imaginary number is not NULL, it is the square root of -1

    5. Re:surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My own suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we *can* suppose."

      J.B.S. Haldane

  16. Stranglet vs Human by LordZardoz · · Score: 1

    "The small size of strangelets means the blast is only big enough to have a very localised effect and humans are unlikely to be harmed"

    I don't disupte that claim, but I do beleive that the writer is basing that presumption off of the likelyhood of a stranglet hitting a human.

    Anything that is dense enough to pass through our planet by virtue of its velocity and density is probably capable of killing a human if it hits one directly.

    And with that in mind, perhaps there was no thrid gunman on a grassy knoll. Maybe Kennedy was the victim of a stray bit of cosmic matter?

    END COMMUNICATION

    1. Re:Stranglet vs Human by dtdns · · Score: 1

      And with that in mind, perhaps there was no thrid gunman on a grassy knoll. Maybe Kennedy was the victim of a stray bit of cosmic matter?

      Nah.. with the angle that he was hit in the head, it would have had to go through a crowd of people as well, killing possibly dozens more. In addition, something going that fast would not just leave a hole, it would likely have caused the entire head to implode on itself completely, not to mention the resulting earthquake that would have needed to occur.

      Oh wait, that line was supposed to be a joke? Never mind me!

    2. Re:Stranglet vs Human by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would it have had to go through a line of people? The bullet didn't, so why should a strangelet?
      Of course the bullet may have slowed or changed trajectory after passing through his head, but it shouldve had enough momentum to at least have hit someone else had it been in line to. Did they ever recover the bullet? I'm guessing they probably did.

    3. Re:Stranglet vs Human by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nope, they 'lost' it

    4. Re:Stranglet vs Human by The+Step+Child · · Score: 1

      And with that in mind, perhaps there was no thrid gunman on a grassy knoll. Maybe Kennedy was the victim of a stray bit of cosmic matter?

      So that was what the "magic bullet" was... :)

    5. Re:Stranglet vs Human by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you mean, like a neutrino? they kill lots of people you know. (velocity: ~c, density: immense)

  17. Chances... by ImaLamer · · Score: 2
    I have often wondered what are the chances that these things could come to Earth.

    Considering we have seen (or measured) two instances I wonder when we will see more? Not just with these particles but other such strange or heavy particles.

    It's kind of cool - of all the space out there, literally, two (maybe the same one) has come through Earth. Very exciting indeed. I wonder what the implications of an encounter are. Are there anything that such a particle would change?

    I wonder though what would happen if it rips through your body, would you feel it? Imagine looking down on the scale in the morning and seeing it explode.

    One at a time please!


    [Karma Whores please reply with good information on Strangelets - Google isn't giving me great sites]
    1. Re:Chances... by TheOnlyCoolTim · · Score: 2

      Two came through in the year 1993. Unless 1993 was special I would expect that this has happened more than twice.

      Somewhat similar to this story is the idea that the Tunguska explosion might have been caused by a small amount of antimatter or even a small black hole hitting Siberia.

      Tim

      --
      Omnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.
    2. Re:Chances... by starman97 · · Score: 2

      Last I heard, the thinking on Tunguska was that
      it was either a chunk of CO2 ice or Methane Ice
      that made it down to about 1 mile above ground before breakingup and vaporising. The Methane hypothesis also mentions the possibility of a HUGE fuel-air detonation...

      --
      Starman97@Gmail.com (bring it on spammers)
    3. Re:Chances... by josh+crawley · · Score: 2

      Nope, I dont think that at all. I have another theory about the Tungsta explosion.

      It was man-made. Do you know when that happened (event wise, mind you?). It was when scientists went to the north pole for the first time. Another little fact: the Magnetic north pole and The Tungsta explosion center are on the same degree horizontal. Also, given the devastation of the area, and lack of debris, a comet could not have hit it. Next, having a black hole is preposterous. Instead, It looks like a nasty lightning storm hit it.

      Well, it could have been hit by electricity. Static electricity. Personally, I thing Tesla was behind that one. Why so? he was there then, and he needed proof that he could do nasty stuff. What better than to blast the north pole. He missed. We know he was messing around with directing electricty through air and ground (we have the patents that correspond).

      I'd be the first to think a rock or ice cube would clobber that area, BUT where is the debris? That black hole idea sounds like Hawking-ish crap.

    4. Re:Chances... by TheOnlyCoolTim · · Score: 2

      Black hole and antimatter are ideas but they are less likely ideas :P.

      They are at least sensible ideas to hold, unlike the various ideas about UFOs, time travelling guys with a nuclear bomb, and a forgotten invention of Tesla's (which already has two replies!).

      Tim

      --
      Omnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.
    5. Re:Chances... by SamBeckett · · Score: 1

      Wow that is a very good theory you have come up with. It's shame other people aren't as smart you ! ! !

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

      "That black hole idea sounds like Hawking-ish crap."

      And that theory of yours doesn't? Hah!

    7. Re:Chances... by ocbwilg · · Score: 1

      I'm really not sure that we should be taking the word of someone about "what really happened in Tunguska" whenever he/she can't even manage to spell it correctly, even though the post that he/she is responding to DOES have it already spelled out for them.

    8. Re:Chances... by Izmunuti · · Score: 1

      "It's kind of cool - of all the space out there, literally, two (maybe the same one) has come through Earth. "

      Interesting. Perhaps it is one strangelet which is orbiting the Earth where part of the orbit actually lies below the surface of the Earth. Were the orbit to decay, would the strangelet rumble around in the Earth's innards for a while, causing lots of quakes? Maybe there's a little blob of strange matter at the Earth's core where all these strange satellites have settled over the Earth's lifetime.

    9. Re:Chances... by Izmunuti · · Score: 1

      "Perhaps it is one strangelet which is orbiting the Earth..."

      Well, OK, maybe not with a velocity of 900,000 mph. That's hyperbolic for sure; it aint coming back.

  18. Mother-In-Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now I know what my Mother-in-Law is made of!

  19. Would these actually create an entry/exit wound? by dstone · · Score: 2

    From the article: "Just a single pollen-sized fragment is believed to weigh several tons... The small size of strangelets means the blast is only big enough to have a very localised effect and humans are unlikely to be harmed."

    "Unlikely" because the tiny blast is statistically unlikely to be near a person, I assume. So any theories on if these would actually damage a human if it DID pass through them?

  20. Say... by Devil's+BSD · · Score: 1

    Did anyone else think "neutrino" besides me? Who knows, it may be another form of neutrino, since billions pass through the earth every second.

    --
    I'm the Devil the Windows users warned you about.
    1. Re:Say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Standard Model holds that neutrinos are massless. On the other hand, there is some evidence lately that says they have a very, very, very, tiny mass and we better tweak the Standard Model a bit. But take your pick, both "zero" and "very very very tiny" masses are about as different from the postulated strangelet / quark-nugget particle as it is possible for something to be.

      Likewise, neutrino velocity is very close to lightspeed, orders of magnitude faster than a strangelet's paltry million miles an hour. Neutrinos are very, very, small, too - you could put (roughest of estimates here, take grains of salt as needed), say, 1015 or so neutrinos in the volume of a pollen-grain-sized strangelet. (Or a pollen-grain-sized pollen grain, for that matter.) Again, it might be possible for two things to be more different, but it sure ain't easy.

      The size, mass, and velocity of a strangelet, as described, are much closer to those of, say, a dump truck than to a neutrino's. The ratio of stranglet mass vs. dump truck's mass is close to unity, because they're both a few tons; compare this with the strangelet / neutrino mass ratio, probably 1075 at least, if not NAN for dividing by zero? You can put a heck of a lot more neutrinos in a pollen grain than you can put pollen grains in a dump truck, too, by a few orders of magnitude. The velocities don't work out quite as well, but it's a fast sort of truck, and hey, it's from space. Even if it isn't, trucks and strangelets plod along at boring Newtonian velocities; the zippy neutrinos make them both look like they're standing still.

      Oddly enough, no one has yet picked up on the similarities and ventured a speculation that strangelets are really some hitherto unknown form of industrial machinery . . . maybe I can publish first!

    2. Re:Say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but I thought 'dump truck'. The size, mass, and velocity of the proposed strangelets are orders of magnitude (about fifteen orders of magnitude or so for size, and hundreds - if not thousands, or even NAN for division by zero for the mass ratio) closer to a dump truck's values than those of a neutrino. Velocities are closer, too: the dump truck and strangelet plod along at ho-hum velocities in their Newtonian frame; they may as well be standing still as far as the zippy relativistic neutrinos are concerned.

      In sum, it might be possible for two things in the universe to be less similar than neutrinos and strangelets, but it wouldn't be easy.

      Personally, I'm amazed that no one has noticed the similarities and postulated that we're really dealing with some hitherto unknown type of industrial machinery. Perhaps I can publish first!

    3. Re:Say... by DoubleEdd · · Score: 1

      Nah, neutrinos are associated with electrons, muons and tau particles, so there's only the three kinds (and we're sure there *are* only three). There isn't room for a ton-mass neutrino in the scheme of things.
      There's probably a few other supersymmetric particles that these things might be, but they ain't neutrinos.

  21. strange... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    as these things travel at 900000 miles an hour, or about 4.8 times lightspeed, they would have more than infinite energy, since it takes an infinite amount of energy to actually reach light speed, let alone going faster than that (i know, more than infinite is mathematicly impossible). At this energy level, the thing would also have infinite mass, and therefor an infinite momentum.
    This completely defies the laws of relativity, and we should sue them for it.

    1. Re:strange... by dtdns · · Score: 1

      As someone else pointed out earlier, light speed is WAY faster than that (138,000 miles per second IIRC), so your whole post is moot.

    2. Re:strange... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (by the same Anonymous Coward)
      So mph suddenly stands for -meters- per hour?
      otherwise, ofcourse, it wouldn't take 26 minutes to reach the other end of the earth.

    3. Re:strange... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speed of light is 691,000,000 mph

    4. Re:strange... by dtdns · · Score: 1

      Opps.. 186,000 miles per second, not 138,000.

  22. Another Mystery Solved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I do believe that we have discovered the root cause of lifes oldest mystery...of course I am talking about Spontaneous Combustion.

  23. Re:Would these actually create an entry/exit wound by camusflage · · Score: 2

    So any theories on if these would actually damage a human if it DID pass through them?

    I dunno. From the article, it "packed the punch of several thousand tons of TNT." If you put several thousand tons of TNT on the head of a pin, would it really matter how many angels there were?

    Think back to high school physics.. F = 1/2 mv^2. From the article, if you get several tons up to 900,000 mph, that's going to leave a mark if it hits you...

    --
    The truth about Scientology, Xenu, and you: Operation Clambake
  24. Spontaneous Human Combustion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The mystery is solved .. and is stranger than anyoen had imaginged. (Pun maliciously intended.)

  25. Re:Would these actually create an entry/exit wound by nightfire-unique · · Score: 2
    So any theories on if these would actually damage a human if it DID pass through them?

    Unfortunately, the energy released just from the localized destruction of the tissues would be enough to instantly vaporize any poor soul who were to find themselves in the path of one of these things. Luckily, as noted, the odds of this are infinitesimally small.

    Knock wood, I guess. :)

    --
    A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
  26. What are the chances by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of earthquakes happening simulataneously on both sides of the glove nearly at the same time? Probably enough to nullify this experiment. If they really wanted to find out, they'd point some satellites at the ocean and look for ceernkov radiation in the water, as something this massive and moving that fast, would create quite a bit.

    Also, perhaps a clump would ionize a path in the atmosphere and trigger lightning, and maybe leave a path high into the atmosphere causing the sprites and devil phenomena.

    Do you think they'd cite my comment on slashdot? Hah.

    1. Re:What are the chances by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just thought of something to add. Correspond the quakes with lightning data, that should be enough.

  27. Everyone's speed of light is different.... by Spaceman+Spiff+II · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's funny how all the replies list different speeds of light in mph..

    --
    I understand that life's not fair, just why is it never unfair in my favor?
    1. Re:Everyone's speed of light is different.... by Jester99 · · Score: 2

      Well, clearly everybody here is correct, however nobody's specifying the speed of light through what. The speed of light particles through a pure vacuum is 3.0e+8 meters per second, however it is thought to be slower through air or other dense media. Everyone's just responding in their own frame of reference. :)

      (FWIW, I calculate it as 7.7e+8 mi/hr)

    2. Re:Everyone's speed of light is different.... by isorox · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's funny how all the replies list different speeds of light in mph..

      Only because everyone's ruler is a different length

    3. Re:Everyone's speed of light is different.... by Snafoo · · Score: 2

      Everyone knows the speed of light is 600mph, which it's day on one side of the world's disc while night on the other.

      (With apologies to Terry Pratchett).

      --
      - undoware.ca
    4. Re:Everyone's speed of light is different.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, for what it's worth i came up with this on google...

      "186,000 miles per second: It's not just a good idea, it's the law!" (in a vacuum)

      EM Radiation Travels as a Wave
      c = 3 x 108 m/s
      It's not just a good idea, it's the law!

  28. I'd like some more details... by Indras · · Score: 1

    Given the quote "The small size of strangelets means the blast is only big enough to have a very localised effect and humans are unlikely to be harmed."

    Shouldn't we instead say "the strangelets are unlikely to be harmed?"

    This reminds me of an experiment back in the 1900's when a man shoved a candle into the barrel of a gun and shot it at a wooden plank. The candle was completely unharmed. Given the softness of wax, it should've smashed down into a pancake, but it didn't change shape in the slightest. It did, however, go completely through the plank, breaking it in half. I would think that if one of these strangelets hit a human being, it would definitely kill them, but not harm the strangelet at all.

    But then again, given the chances of one actually hitting a human being on the earth, maybe the original quote is more appropriate.

    --
    The speed of time is one second per second.
    1. Re:I'd like some more details... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And a strangelet is a *lot* more tightly bound than a candle...

  29. You, sir, are a dumbass :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    light travels at rougly 186,000 miles per SECOND.

    900,000 mph isn't quite that fast.

    In fact, it needs to be over 700 times faster to even get close to light speed. That means it would need to be more like 669,600,000 mph.

  30. ScoreBoard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    11,100,000 mph: 1
    669,600,000 mph: 2
    496,800,000 mph: 1
    667,000,000 mph: 1

    1. Re:ScoreBoard by ragnarok · · Score: 1

      11,100,000 mph: 1
      669,600,000 mph: 3
      496,800,000 mph: 1
      667,000,000 mph: 1

      we have a winner emerging

      --
      Search first, ask questions later.
    2. Re:ScoreBoard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      11,100,000 mph: 1
      669,600,000 mph: 3
      496,800,000 mph: 1
      667,000,000 mph: 1
      691,000,000 mph: 1
      Al Gore : 4

    3. Re:ScoreBoard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want a recount, i think that first one was a pregnant chad

  31. Thus Proving... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Han got warp drive working just in time to hit the South Pole.
    2. Aliens use IDrive.

  32. seems a little dodgy.... by Slurpee · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The scientists looked through "millions" of records of earthquakes, and find two examples where a disturbance occurs kinda on the other side of the world, approx 20 seconds later.

    And from this they are able to determine the speed, size and effects of the particles.

    The lack of specific data disturbs me, as does the jumps in logic.

    Does anyone have links to anything with more specifics?

    1. Re:seems a little dodgy.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  33. Not totally convinced... by mdubinko · · Score: 1

    Based on the (skimpy) description, couldn't it just as easily have been a Neutron Star fragment or a primordial black hole?

    Oh yeah, there is also a cool poster -m

    ---
    http://dubinko.info/blog/

    --
    --- Learn XForms today: http://xformsinstitute.com
    1. Re:Not totally convinced... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      Neutron star fragments are not stable; without the enormous gravity of a whole neutron star, they quickly explode under their own degeneracy pressure.


      Primordial black holes face similar problems; a 1-ton black hole will evaporate due to Hawking radiation in about 85 nanoseconds, so we're unlikely to measure any hitting us if they're that light.

  34. Not wounds, but woundlets... by jerryasher · · Score: 2, Funny

    Well they weigh several tons. One article said they would leave a crater. My body typically reacts violently when craters appear in it. (And that hasn't regularly occurred for 15 years now...)

  35. Sweet by Wrexen · · Score: 1

    Another excuse for not doing my homework -- "The paper was alll finished, but a strangelet killed my hard drive"

  36. Trajectories by jsapo · · Score: 1

    If these little guys did in fact come from the Big Band, could it be possible to calculate their trajectories and maybe locate the center of the universe? I imageine these stranglets are just like comets traveling through space with REALLY REALLY big orbits, presumably around the center...?

    Or mabye a gravastar pooped them out.

    1. Re:Trajectories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
    2. Re:Trajectories by aderuwe · · Score: 1

      Fine, you just show me the center of something infinite...

    3. Re:Trajectories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, if they came from the "Big Band", they would have died out in the 1940s...

    4. Re:Trajectories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Afaik, in a way there is. It may be everywhere and expanding, but you can still measure your motion relative to it from red/blueshift of background radiation.

  37. Re:Would these actually create an entry/exit wound by Consul · · Score: 5, Funny

    Could these be the long-awaited explanation for spontaneous human combustion? ;o)

    --

    -----

    "You spilled my egg... I needed that egg."

  38. and I thought.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    having a bird crap on ones head would make for a bad day.

  39. Re:Would these actually create an entry/exit wound by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's funny! Sorry, no mod points :(

  40. ScoreBoard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    11,100,000 mph: 1
    669,600,000 mph: 3
    496,800,000 mph: 1
    667,000,000 mph: 1
    691,000,000 mph: 1

  41. The link about tea and bones is crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tea contains high amounts of flouride. Why? Because it concentrates flouride from groundwater in it's leaves, which is released from the teabag.

    Flouride does make it into the bones. It increases bone density, however that bone is more brittle than regular bone. Additionally, One of the symptoms of flouride overdose is osteopherosis. You already get flouride in your water, flouride gets concentrates in foods that are produced using flouridated water. That means meats, teas, just about everything you consume contains flouride. But the statistics used in determining how much flouride are based on the assumption that you will only be getting your flouride from the water alone. And if you look at the science that was behind the fouridization movement, you will find that it was sloppy science.

    Yep, this is just another conspiracy theory, don't bother spending 10 minutes of your time to try to confirm this yourselves.

    1. Re:The link about tea and bones is crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ya know, Skippy, you'd be a lot more credible if you actually knew how to SPELL fluoride (not to mention osteoporosis).

    2. Re:The link about tea and bones is crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh. An insult from a pedant. My spelling errors can be corrected more easily than your personality defect.

  42. And therefore as a strangelet give it welcome. by Semi-Psychic+Nathan · · Score: 1

    You left out the ", Horatio," bit. Everyone does, though. I'd say it's one of the most misquoted lines of Shakespeare, next to "Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio...". Strange how Horatio gets left out of all the quotes, isn't it?

    --
    I have nothing to allude to, and I am alluding to it.
    1. Re:And therefore as a strangelet give it welcome. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Horatio was a fag

    2. Re:And therefore as a strangelet give it welcome. by inkswamp · · Score: 1

      You left out the ", Horatio," bit. Everyone does, though.

      I was wondering if someone would catch that. Actually, I did that purposefully (thus the "quotes/sayings" bit in my post.) Many of Shakespeare's quotes are altered into more generalized sayings like this, i.e. the reference to Horatio is unnecessary to understand the gist.

      I'm trying to think of a few other examples, but none come immediately to mind. I know there are other instances where quotes of his were altered to become common sayings.

      BTW, each of Shakespeare's work had an impact on literature that was akin to the impact of a strangelet on the surface of the earth. Just wanted to steer this back on topic. ;^)

      --Rick

      --
      --Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
    3. Re:And therefore as a strangelet give it welcome. by ocbwilg · · Score: 1

      I'm trying to think of a few other examples, but none come immediately to mind. I know there are other instances where quotes of his were altered to become common sayings. Here's one: "There is a method to my madness" is actually, "Though this be madness yet there is method in it".

  43. I'm scared by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anybody read Greg Bear's Forge of God?

    We don't have much time left!

  44. i guess there's new unluckiest way to die by Edmund+Blackadder · · Score: 2

    get hit by strangelet on the head.

    Now if a nuclear warhead gets hit by a strangelet, well then its the unluckiet way to die for some unlucky city, or state.

    1. Re:i guess there's new unluckiest way to die by BCoates · · Score: 2

      I don't think nuclear weapons go off just by being hit, even if you hit them really hard.

    2. Re:i guess there's new unluckiest way to die by Kris_J · · Score: 2

      If it was in True Lies then it must be true? I thought that a nuclear weapon was two halves of a suitably-processed radioactive material that was rammed together by conventional explosive -- giving it the mass and energy it needs for a runaway reaction. (Hence the term "critical mass".) Surely a stranglet would contain enough energy to at least set off the conventional explosive if not the nuclear material directly.

    3. Re:i guess there's new unluckiest way to die by G-funk · · Score: 2

      I'd say they definitely would (at least the trigger nuke) if hit by something that small and dense, travelling that fast. After all it's smashing a bunch of heavy stuff together really hard that creates the inital fission reaction in the first place.

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money!
    4. Re:i guess there's new unluckiest way to die by RollingThunder · · Score: 2

      Somewhat correct... but the explosives must -perfectly- slam the subcritical masses together. That's why making a nuke is still hugely expensive.

    5. Re:i guess there's new unluckiest way to die by stevey · · Score: 1

      Having no real knowledge of such things it seems odd to me that we'd change from having the traditional two chunks of matter slamming together; to a more complex system with lots of little pieces and precision patterns.

      Is there a good reason to do so? I'm assuming there must be and I'm just not capable of thinking of it at the moment ..

    6. Re:i guess there's new unluckiest way to die by LWolenczak · · Score: 2

      It depends on how it hits... but really, with it's mass, and speed..... If it hit any fissionable material... it would be bad... very bad.... It may not be as bad as the full effect of a nuke going off, but lets say 1 ton, in at the size of a pinhead... hitting an unstable decaying nuclear material. I wonder what has happened when one of these things has hit fissionable material underground...

      Maybe this is something for all those supercomputers my tax dollars go to.

    7. Re:i guess there's new unluckiest way to die by BlueUnderwear · · Score: 2
      If it was in True Lies then it must be true?

      Not necessarily. It could also be a lie...

      --
      Say no to software patents.
    8. Re:i guess there's new unluckiest way to die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can get a larger explosion from less material this way.

    9. Re:i guess there's new unluckiest way to die by fredrik70 · · Score: 1

      yupp, this is definitely one for the darwin awards...

      --
      if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
    10. Re:i guess there's new unluckiest way to die by BCoates · · Score: 2
      Steven M. Bellovin (one of the people responsible for USENET, dontcha know) has a cool page about nuclear weapon security systems. He makes it pretty clear that it's nontrivial to set off a modern nuclear weapon accidentally or even maliciously if you don't have the codes to fire them. Even in 1961, setting off a the explosives didn't necessarily mean a nuclear yield:

      In at least one incident, a nuclear weapon did come very close to accidental detonation. In 1961, a B-52 with two large warheads crashed near Goldsboro, North Carolina; the impact set off the conventional explosives in one of the bombs, and triggered all but one of the safety mechanisms in the other.
      --
      Benjamin Coates
    11. Re:i guess there's new unluckiest way to die by kmellis · · Score: 1
      Having no real knowledge of such things it seems odd to me that we'd change from having the traditional two chunks of matter slamming together; to a more complex system with lots of little pieces and precision patterns. Is there a good reason to do so? I'm assuming there must be and I'm just not capable of thinking of it at the moment ..
      Yes. Like the previous poster, I highly recommend Richard Rhodes's book, The Making of the Atomic Bomb .

      As the previous poster said, the gun type weapon fires a subcritical mass of fissionable material at another subcritical mass of fissionable material. It is much simpler to construct. However, since this design requires the use of uranium-235 as the fissionable material, it is both much larger and heavier than the implosion type, and the fissionable material (u-235) is much harder to produce than what the implosion device uses.

      The reason for this is because plutonium-239 (what the implosion weapon uses) has a high enough neutron absorption cross-section that a) you need much less p-239 for a critical mass than you do u-235; and b) you can't shoot one sub-critical mass of p-239 into another quickly enough to avoid premature detonation in a gun design. You can't use p-239 in a gun design weapon. So it's obvious that the gun type has the disadvantage of being much larger and heavier, since it requires u-235 instead of p-239.

      But the bigger problem is that u-235 is very, very hard to produce. It makes up less than a tenth of a percent of natural uranium, which is mostly made up of u-238. It differs from u-238 only very, very slightly in mass, and so "enrichening" uranium (which means increasing the ratio of u-235 to u-238) is a very, very expensive and difficult process. The fact that anyone has managed to do it is something of an engineering marvel in itself.

      On the other hand, a fission reactor using uranium-238 (u-238 works fine for a reactor, which doesn't require explosive criticality....in fact, explosive criticality would be something of a design flaw, wouldn't it?) produces plutonium-239 in small amounts in the course of its operation. And p-239 is pretty easy to refine from the u-238.

      So, at the time at which they were ready to test the first bomb at Trinity Site, they had only enough u-235 for a single bomb, but enough p-239 for two bombs. The gun design was almost certain to work, and so they didn't need to test it -- and they only had enough u-235 for one bomb anyway. What they weren't sure of was whether the implosion type would work. They had enough for two, so they could test one.

      The real trick isn't just in getting a perfectly sperical implosion, as the previous poster said. Rather, the real trick was figuring out how to shape the charges by "lensing" such that the compression waves interfered with each other just so that chaotic effects were delayed long enough for super-criticality to occur. Without the lensing, a simple spherical implosion had compression wave interference patterns that would desymmetricize the super-criticality and causing only a small, if any, mass to explosively become super-critical. The implosion design is the other quite amazing engineering marvel of the Manhatten Project. And it worked the first time. They used the single u-235 gun-type weapon on Hiroshima, which they were pretty sure would work. They used the other p-239 on Nagasaki.

      So, gun type bombs are easy to build, but they require hard-to-produce fissionable material. And they're big and heavy. Implosion type bombs are much harder to build, but they use very easy to produce fissionable material, and are quite small. (Note that the gun design also requires a total mass that is somewhat higher than critical mass; while a sophisticated implosion design can actually utilize a total mass that's sub-critical and achieve criticality through compression.)

    12. Re:i guess there's new unluckiest way to die by TheSync · · Score: 2

      Fission weapons are generally two pieces of fissionable material brought together rapidly. Their total mass and orientation must be one where more enough neutrons stay in the material to fission it rather than leave the surface of the material in order to achieve an exponentially increasing rate of fission...i.e. critical mass.

      As they approach, neutrons released from spontaneous fissioning begins to fission other atoms, releasing neutrons, chain reaction + heat, etc. If they are brought together too slowly, the fissionable material will simply blow itself apart and no longer be at critical mass, thus not releasing the full possible energy. Thus, the use of explosives for rapid assembly of the critical mass.

      In plutonium fission weapons, a shell of material is imploded upon a center core which actually deforms and compresses. This is because the achievement of the non-critical vs. critical mass is a bit touchier than with uranium weapons. (The other side of critical mass is keeping the two masses non-critical until initiation). Uranium weapons are usually "gun type" where a projectile is fired into a stationary target.

      In all fission weapons, there is a neutron generator made up of polonium and beryllium that, when crushed at the moment of impact of the two fissionable masses, generates plenty of neutrons to ensure that the fissioning process gets going, otherwise again the two masses may pass by/through each other without achieving optimal criticality.

    13. Re:i guess there's new unluckiest way to die by stevey · · Score: 1

      Thanks for that .. It makes a lot more sense now; it looks like a classic trade-off.

    14. Re:i guess there's new unluckiest way to die by kpetruse · · Score: 1

      Nice answer, clear, informative and correct. And no mod points. Nice to see the moderation system working so well....

      To add to this conversation, bombs have become far more efficent and require less fissionable material to produce a very powerful weapon. In order to do this, special timing devices (the name of which escapes me right now) are required. In the late 80's, a British firm tried to export some to Iraq. Not really a very bright idea and thankfully most of the shipment was caught by Customs, but it is thought that some slipped through the net. No-one's quite sure what this firm was doing. Scared yet?

      Actually, I don't mean to scaremonger. It's a big step from having the timing devices and the plutonium, since there's still a hell of a lot else to do, to make a decent nuclear weapon. And as soon as you try testing, everyone knows what you are up to.

      Going back to the original post, if the strangelet can release enough energy to cause two magnitude 6 earthquakes (one at entry, one at exit - well, if you read their paper, it's more like one long earthquake at each point), then it's obviously having enough of an effect on normal matter to cause a human some problems. If it is indeed strange matter at all, and not just coincidence, given that these guys looked at data for a million or so unexplained earthquakes. What are the chances that you have two earthquakes happening within 30 seconds of each other?

    15. Re:i guess there's new unluckiest way to die by kmellis · · Score: 1
      Nice answer, clear, informative and correct. And no mod points. Nice to see the moderation system working so well....

      I tend not to be moderated up. Dunno why. Possibly because I'm relativiely verbose, and people simply aren't reading the posts in the first place.

      I've also wondered if there's something about my signature that annoys people.

      Oh, well. It only matters a little bit to me in terms of ego; I'm more chagrined just that I took the time to write it and be as clear as possible, but it's not being read.

      I was thinking this morning that mod points should be divided into two groups: points that can be applied to 0-2 posts, and points that can be applied to 3-5 posts. Say 75% of the mod points that are given out would be the lower level, thus encouraging people to mod -- and read -- the lower rated posts. My sense is that most of the people that really care are filtering at +2 or above, and so there's something of a glass ceiling at 2. Then, there's not a big distribution within the 3-5 range, because the posts that make through the ceiling mostly get modded up to 5. Just a thought.

      I pretty much don't worry about anyone building a bomb that's a threat to the US or whomever. I'm very skeptical of anything less than a top-notch science and engineering facility building an implosion bomb. And u-235 is very rare and prohibitive to produce. I've thought that the bigger danger was someone getting ahold of a working bomb -- one of the ones that were supposed to be decommisioned in the former USSR.

      I don't know what to make of the stranglets passing through Earth story. Seems like pretty sparse data to me. It's one of those things that doesn't mean anything until it's confirmed and repeated by several other researchers.

    16. Re:i guess there's new unluckiest way to die by kpetruse · · Score: 1

      This story does have a whiff of Ockham's razor about it - or rather the opposite. It's looking for a hugely unlikely solution to a problem, when there's a fairly simple one. Which is that earthquakes can happen on opposite sides of the planet within seconds of each other, and still be discrete events. It looks like some grad students trying to make names for themselves....but it's certainly an interesting paper and not as ill-thought out as many posters on /. think (I've got a geophysics degree so understand the process behind earthquake detection).

      I'm not worried about nuclear weapons either, but it does go to show that even the difficult to obtain parts are available to anyone with the intelligence to seek them out. Enough countries have made fairly effective bombs that it's worth thinking about. But as 9/11 showed, you don't need technology to kill thousands. You just need to use your enemy's technology effectively.

      As for moderation - I know what you mean. I don't bother using the filters because sometimes the best posts are posted anonymously (because the poster doesn't want to be identified). It's a fundamental problem with this style of moderation, but still, it's better than nothing. But there are some very strange mods being made lately which I simply can't fathom - for example, people who have not read the /.'d article still get a +5 (insightful). As the Yanks say, what gives?

  45. Funny by PageMap · · Score: 1

    I always like how the media always ends a potentially unsettling article by saying "humans are unlikely to be harmed." I think if a human was hit by one of these they would have more than a scratch.

    1. Re:Funny by hplasm · · Score: 1

      "'Ere! That bloody strangelet just took my arm orf!!"

      "Are you injured?"

      "Nah. It's just a scratch."

      .

      --
      ...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
  46. Re:Would these actually create an entry/exit wound by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    thats kenetic energy = 1/2mv^2 not force.

    force is massflow (not mass, massflow) times velocity.

  47. Older Physics Review paper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Herrin co-authored this Physics Review paper from 1996 about "nuclearites". aps.org

    Interesting, but as a particle physicist, I think that saying that "strangelets" are the most likely explaination for what are basically small earthquakes detected in coincidence is really a stretch. This just isn't very good evidence for something so far fetched.

    1. Re:Older Physics Review paper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Before we can accept a result from an earthquake we should be to see them in the lab. However this has not been the case. Here is an interesting result, strangelet search, setting limits on the decay of the stranglet which may contradict the earthquake results.

    2. Re:Older Physics Review paper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Interesting, but as a particle physicist, I think that saying that "strangelets" are the most likely explaination for what are basically small earthquakes detected in coincidence is really a stretch."

      "Small earthquakes detected in coincidence" doesn't even begin to make sense. This would require 7 or 9 earthquakes to happen in a completely straight line over distances of thousands of kilometers with sub-second timing. To top that off, the waveforms themselves look nothing like earthquakes, as the authors point out. Perhaps there is another explanation, as they also concede, but small earthquakes detected in coincidence ain't it.

      Do you know who these guys are? Herrin is one of the top two or three experts in the world on nuclear seismology, and Teplitz is on leave from his university post to advise the US President on nuclear policy. They are both old experienced hands with hundreds of publications under their belts, established, well known and respected in their fields. This is not some desparate attempt to secure funding, or enthusiastic amateurs eager to make the newspapers, or foolish pseudo-scientists ignorant of the rigours of the scientific method. The newspaper stories did them no service by incorrectly reporting their research. Read the paper itself. The authors make no outlandish claims. The extravant claims are all from news-media and /. hoopla.

  48. Cowbow Neal? by moniker_21 · · Score: 2

    "Strangelets were formed in the Big Bang. They are predicted to have many unusual properties, including a density about 10 trillion (10 million million) times greater than lead. Just a single pollen-sized fragment is believed to weigh several tons."

    Or approx. the same density as Cowboy Neal, although I'd bet he can't move nearly as fast as these little suckers do.

    --
    I posted to /. and all I got was this stupid sig
    1. Re:Cowbow Neal? by damien_kane · · Score: 1

      Well of course CbN wouldn't be able to move that fast. If you think about it, CbN is about 10 trillion times the size of a pollen-sized fragment. If his density is that of these strangelets, i.e. 10 trillion times that of lead (11.4 g/ml), then the strangelets are approximately 114 MT/ml. If we (widely inaccurately) assume CbN's displacement to be about 45 litres (with numbers as big as 114Megatons/Millilitre it really doesn't matter that much... does it?)
      Now, 45l * 1000 ml/l is 45000ml...
      45,000 ml * 114 MT/ml (bear in mind i'm using metric tons, not Imperial tonnes) makes CbN's mass approximately 5.13 million megatons, or 5.13 petatons.
      With a mass this large, its no wonder he can't move, hell even the Big Bang probably didn't expend enough energy to move him.
      And people wonder where most of the mass in the universe is... Yet another reason why the hyper-intelligent (and not-so-hyper intelligent) astro-physicists should read Slashdot, we solve all of their problems for them :)

  49. Interesting. by DaCool42 · · Score: 1

    Neat stuff, I've never heard of these before. One thing I've been wondering is when the Big Bang Theory ceased to be a theory. It seems everyone just accepts it as fact now.

    --

    ----
    All of whose base are belong to the what-now?
    1. Re:Interesting. by SanGrail · · Score: 1

      Well, it's kinda the other way round.

      A theory just tries to explain the facts we already know, so people will refer to the theory when they want to obliquely reference all the facts that the theory encapsulates, eg the whole 'the Universe is expanding' thing.

      Til a better theory comes along, or too many facts contra-indicate the theory, it'll be used as shortform for the current range of known facts.

      Blah.

      --
      ---- I've fallen, and I can't get up.
    2. Re:Interesting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A theory is always a theory: no theory can be proven correct. But there are no existing viable competitors to the Big Bang at this time, and there is a lot of evidence supporting it. Hubble had the first major piece (cosmological redshift) in 1929; in 1948 Alpher and Gamow came up with the next big piece (light element nucleosynthesis) in their famous "alpha-beta-gamma" paper; then Penzias and Wilson in 1965 discovered the last major piece, the cosmic microwave background radiation. Everything since then has been increasingly accurate refinements (e.g., the COBE CMBR data, and later measurements of the acoustic peaks predicted by inflation).

    3. Re:Interesting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From dictionary.com:

      theory Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr)
      n. pl. theories
      1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
      2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
      3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
      4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
      5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
      6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

      Science, technology and engineeering usually use definition 1, most people assume they mean definiiton 6.

  50. Re:Would these actually create an entry/exit wound by neoptik · · Score: 1

    No you dumbass, F != 1/2mv^2. F = ma = dp/dt, etc.
    Now, kinetic energy on the other hand = 1/2mv^2

    --
    I dont have a .sig just yet.
  51. another theory by Romancer · · Score: 2, Interesting


    Couldn't these earthquakes be a result from internal shifting within the Earths core? If a small inner-earth bubble/rupture/explosion/quake/etc occured and was slightly off center then the two resulting earthquakes would be a result of this internal verifiable cause. One directly following another. Rather than a mysterious super dense non detectable string of big-bang aftermath.
    As they are looking at the effect only, without other data (as far as I saw) this explination fits as well as theirs and doesn't involve unverifiable cosmic strings.

    --


    ) Human Kind Vs Human Creation
    ) It'd be interesting to see how many humans would survive to serve us.
    1. Re:another theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The earthquakes were vetted for only ones coming from localized point sources at the surface of the Earth.

    2. Re:another theory by Klox · · Score: 1

      I'm not quite sure what kind of bubble/rupture/explosion/quake/etc you're talking about, but It would seem to me that you wouldn't detect just two points as a result. If you view the Earth as a hollow sphere and try to imagine what would happen if there was a b/r/e/q/etc inside that sphere, what would the intersection of the shock wave from that event be? Assuming the event was off-center, it would first appear as a single point where the Earth's surface was closest to the event and would spread in a circle outwards, eventually meeting at the opposite side of the sphere (but so weak that it's effects would be lost in the noise). Now, if the shock wave didn't travel at the same rate in all directions, the "circle" expanding out from the initial point would not be round, but it would still be evident that it is radiating out from that point.

      In addition, that would have to be a pretty scary-big bubble/rupture/explosion/quake/etc to cause detectable earthquakes thousands of miles apart. I'd think there would have to be other evidence of something that massive that would have caught somebody's attention back in 1993.

      If you think about it, all earthquakes (with the possible exception of those in 1993) are caused by an inter-earth bubble/rupture/explosion/quake/etc (usually plates scraping against eachother), but they're only a few miles down, so thay don't really seem to be "inter-earth".

    3. Re:another theory by Dastardly · · Score: 1

      A couple posters have already linked to the source paper which is actually not terribly difficult to read. But, here is the gist of the analysis.

      Essentially, they didn't detect two earthquakes. They went through the data looking for groups of at least seven detecting stations that detected seismic events that were not attributed to earthquakes using a point source model. They then attempted to fit the seismic data from all seven stations to a linear model where each station would not have necessarily detected the entry or exit point, but actually would have received the first signal from the point of closest approach(POCA). Some of the stations even had directional capability, so instead of having just a 7 data point fit to a linear event, they had a 9 point or more fit. So, the same results would actually require at multiple earthquakes which would have been corroborated as earthquakes by other stations.

      On top of all that the seismograph signals really don't look much like earthquakes. Firstly, magnitude 4 - 4.5 eathquakes just don't last 30 seconds. Secondly, You don't get 15 seconds of earthquake plus 15 seconds of lesser earthquake consistently over 30 seconds from a 4 - 4.5 earthquake. But, you can get the second from a strangelet whose POCA to the station was 15 seconds from exit, and upon exit the station just receiving echos from prior to POCA.

      Dastardly

  52. Strange story. by Crusty+Oldman · · Score: 1

    In the San Gabriel Valley (Southern California), in the mid-1980's there was a strange sort of earthquake. I was on my back on a concrete floor (alone, dammit), and felt it fairly well. It was big enough to be reported on the news, but there was no report of an earthquake from Caltech. Curious!

    So the next day I went there and talked with one of the scientists. She said that this was definitely a curious thing, but it was not a seismic event. And would not comment further.

    1. Re:Strange story. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, after that third time your mom got rid of the vibrator....

    2. Re:Strange story. by BJH · · Score: 1

      Obviously, you're a strange attractor! *Rimshot*

  53. Need Funding? by Perdo · · Score: 4, Funny

    Tell the military they can weaponize this. See how long it takes them to allocate the funds to restart the superconducting supercollider. Just fire a negatively charged strangelet at the chinese and watch the entire country dissapear... sure, the entire planet would be destroyed too, but that was the case with nuclear weapons, and it never stopped their deployment.

    --

    If voting were effective, it would be illegal by now.

    1. Re:Need Funding? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just fire a negatively charged strangelet at the chinese and watch the entire country dissapear... sure, the entire planet would be destroyed too,


      Do we choose the Big Gun, or the Good Package? (Google for the reference.)


      but that was the case with nuclear weapons,


      All the nuclear weapons in the world might give higher forms of life a hard time, but they wouldn't even come close to denting the planet itself.
    2. Re:Need Funding? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would have to feel VERY sorry for the country thats on the other side of the earth to China...

  54. Yes, yes I am. by dadragon · · Score: 1

    Simple mistake... mph != mps.

    I was going by mph == mps

    Let's all have a good laugh at my expense... :)

    --
    God save our Queen, and Heaven bless The Maple Leaf Forever!
  55. What's going to happen if... by countach · · Score: 1

    one of these rips through a nuclear reactor?

    1. Re:What's going to happen if... by dangermouse · · Score: 1
      Probably there would be a hole in the nuclear reactor.

      Not much point in worrying about what would happen if a multi-ton pellet hits something important at 900,000 mph. For one thing, it's not likely. For another, you sure aren't going to stop it.

    2. Re:What's going to happen if... by Kris_J · · Score: 2

      Don't need stranglets for that.

  56. THE SKY IS FALLING by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Somebody save CowboyNeal!

  57. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  58. what? by RayBender · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Let me get this straight - these guys combed through a database of ??? earthquakes and found a whopping two instances where two earthquakes hapened within a few seconds of each other on nearly-opposite sides of the world. Given how frequent these small earthquakes are I'm surprised they only found two - just from random chance.

    And they use this rather sketchy data to make claims about a very extraordinary discovery... an until now completely unknown form of matter.

    This isn't the first time I wish a bit more critical thought had been applied by the journalist. Or the reviewer for that matter.

    --
    Human genome = 3 billion base pairs = 6 GBit. Windows + Office = 20 Gbit. Which is more impressive?
    1. Re:what? by Kris_J · · Score: 2

      They weren't earthquakes -- they were explosions that can be picked up by earthquake monitoring equipment.

    2. Re:what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to see the acyual paper. I doubt it is as sensational as the news report makes out.

    3. Re:what? by tconnors · · Score: 5, Insightful

      RTFP:

      http://xxx.adelaide.edu.au/abs/astro-ph/?0205089

      What, you trust everything the popular media says? You don't watch to CNN, do you?

    4. Re:what? by RocketScientist · · Score: 2

      As far as the antarctica bit, there is a very sensitive seismograph at the south pole. Two reasons: very sparsely populated area (fewer false readings) and it probably makes it easier to triangulate where seismic events happen since it's far away from the rest of the seismographs.

    5. Re:what? by styrotech · · Score: 1

      Let me get this straight - these guys combed through a database of ??? earthquakes and found a whopping two instances where two earthquakes hapened within a few seconds of each other on nearly-opposite sides of the world. Given how frequent these small earthquakes are I'm surprised they only found two - just from random chance.

      But wait, if they stop assuming the particles passed through the centre of the earth, they could correlate any two earthquakes anywhere. It must be true!

      Seriously, have they thought that adding up the lengths of all the faults (known and unknown) in the world, and looking at tremor return periods for all those faults, that there might just be a likelihood of two coinciding at any one time. Hell we get 1000 earthquakes a year in NZ, that's 3 a day in one small part of the world - how many would happen daily worldwide? 1000s??

      Two earthquakes a few seconds apart don't mean squat. I notice each event was only mentioned on 2 seismometers (Bolivia came up twice?) - maybe someone bumped a table seconds apart in both locations? No mention of NZ seismometers, both events seem to have happened nearby, and NZ is renowned (along with Japan and California) as earthquake research experts.

      Maybe if they could explain detecting the rippling through the earth better, I might be convinced.

    6. Re:what? by wildsurf · · Score: 1

      ...two instances where two earthquakes hapened within a few seconds of each other on nearly-opposite sides of the world.

      There must be more to it than this. Strangelets (if they exist) are equally likely to hit the Earth at any angle, so the entry and exit points need not be antipodal. They could enter at Los Angeles and exit at Seattle, for instance.

      The how-fast-are-they discussion reminds me of those "rail-guns" in the movie Eraser, where the bullets are said to travel at 1/3 c, yet visibly take several frames to move from the gun to the target. 26 seconds to cross the Earth is not an appreciable fraction of the speed of light, by any stretch.

      Also, the jump to label these events as caused by "stranglets" brings back memories of a college physics lab, where the professor was describing particles scattering off gold nuclei. He said, "Does anyone know what these particles are called?" Some guy in the back shouted, "Call them 'Scatterons!'" As in Scooby Doo, eventually we'll see what these strangelets REALLY are...

      --
      Weeks of coding saves hours of planning.
    7. Re:what? by henrym · · Score: 1

      The seismograph is about to get even more sensitive in the next year or so. The current one is slowly being crushed by the ice, and is susceptible to local interference from all the local vehicle traffic. (We are in the process of building a new station after all....) The new seismograph is part of a project called SPRESO, and is located about 5 miles out from the station. I had the privilege of setting up a wireless lan out to the site about six months ago. There's nothing like the feeling of driving a snowmobile across the polar platau at 50 mph in -45 degree temps. :)

      I think I'm going to start wearing a hardhat just in case...these stranglets seem to like us for some reason.

    8. Re:what? by zevans · · Score: 1

      Wow. Where do you get 802.11 cards that work at minus 45?

      --
      "... and more and more now there are all kinds of electronic goodies available" -- Pink Floyd 1972
    9. Re:what? by henrym · · Score: 1

      You don't...you only use them in heated buildings. Luckily, the antennas and feedlines have no problems.

  59. Some info about strangelets by ChenLing · · Score: 5, Interesting

    First of all, some basic particle physics:
    There are 6 kinds of quarks (in increasing mass):
    up, down, strage, charm, bottom (beauty), and top (truth).
    The last of which was experimentally verified only recently.

    All matter is made up of combinations of quarks, usually either in pairs (mesons), or trios (baryons).
    For example, protons are made up of two ups and one down; neutrons are made up of one up and two downs.

    Strange quarks are named such because the particles that contain them are produced fast and decay slow (ie., they have very long lifetimes), which is very odd considering that they are much more massive (heavier things tend to decay faster).

    Strangelets now, are an odd beast. They usually contain more than 2 or 3 quarks, and can contain quarks other than strange quarks.
    One variety (the more common one) contains a large mixture of up and some down quarks along with the strange, and has a net positive charge.
    These are quite safe as they will bond with a pair of electrons and act like an unusually heavy helium isotope.
    One that is mostly strange will have a net negative charge, and (I don't quite understand the process) gobble up all the positively charged atomic nuclei that it encounters.

    As a side note, strangelets are supposed to only occur in conditions of high pressure and (relatively) low temperature, like inside of a neutron star.

    --
    "You have the option of insanity. I do not. And that makes me crazy!" - Brian to Angela, My So-Called Life
    1. Re:Some info about strangelets by Observer · · Score: 2
      All matter is made up of combinations of quarks...

      And leptons. Don't forget the leptons.


      (Insert reference to Spanish Inquisition sketch here.)

    2. Re:Some info about strangelets by stevelinton · · Score: 5, Informative

      To explain a bit more, a system is only stable, if it can't get to a lower energy state without breaking some rule. Since one kind of quark can turn into another pretty freely, this favours systems made up to the lowest energy quarks, namely up. However, two things combine to make the proton stable (uud) rather than the particle with three up quarks, whose name I can't recall:

      One is ordinary electrostatics. up quarks have positive charge (2/3 of a unit, as it happens), down quarks negative (-1/3) so cramming three u quarks together involves overcoming more electrostatic repulsion that forming a proton.

      The other is a litle subtler. Many of you will be familiar with the idea of "shells" of electrons inside an atom, representing groups of possible energy levels for an electron, each able to hold just one electron. Something similar goes on in any compact collection of quarks: isolated baryon, atomic nucleus, strangelet or neutron star core. Each energy level can be occupied by at most one quark <emph>of each flavour</emph>. This favours structures with reasonably equal balances between the types of quarks. So a proton, uud with the us in the two lowest energy states and the d in the lowest state, ends up with lower total energy than uuu, which would have to use three enegry states.

      OK. Now what happens when we try and compute the stable options for clusters of quarks.

      With small numbers of quarks, we have to strike a balance between the fact that u are lighter and the goal of balancing u & d to keep the energy levels low and the electrostatic problems to a minimum. Solutions to this make up all the stable atomic nuclei from 1H (uud) to lead nuclei with 250--300 quarks of each type.

      Somewhat larger stable clusters do not form, the electrostatic repulsion and the high energy states into which the quarks would be forced mean that they can lose energy by splitting into two smaller clusters, so they do, hence nuclear fission.

      When cluster sizes get very large, then gravity starts to play a role. Solar mass sized clusters of u and d quarks (2 downs to 1 up, so the whole thing is neutral) can be stablized, despite the energy cost of all the down quarks, by the mutual gravitational attraction. The result is a neutron star. The fact that quarks are in different spatial locations also helps with the energy level problem.

      It is suggested that collections of quarks intermediate in mass between nuclei and neutron stars may be stable, if they contain a significant portion of strange quarks. Although basically heavier and so more energetic than u and d quarks, they would be free to occupy the lowest energy levels. Estimates of how massive these clusters would need to be to be stable vary wildly. One the one hand people are looking for extra-compact neutron-star like objects on the other hand for "stranglets" a few microns across and massing tons.

    3. Re:Some info about strangelets by hplasm · · Score: 1

      Alright. Apart from the quarks AND the leptons... what have the Romans ever done for us??

      --
      ...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
    4. Re:Some info about strangelets by anshil · · Score: 1

      up, down, strage, charm, bottom (beauty), and top (truth).

      The third is called strange.

      --

      --
      Karma 50, and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt.
    5. Re:Some info about strangelets by Permission+Denied · · Score: 1
      by at most one quark <emph>of each flavour</emph>

      Ah...the consummate physics/math geek. You've been doing too much LaTeX, my friend. It's <em> in HTML :)

      BTW, this is a nice explanation - managed to make it interesting even for me, who almost failed basic quantum mechanics.

    6. Re:Some info about strangelets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All matter is made up of combinations of quarks...



      And leptons. Don't forget the leptons

      And the stuff that isn't made from quarks or leptons. So, to sum it up, everything is made of combinations of quarks, except for the stuff that isn't, which is all leptons - except for the stuff that isn't quarks or leptons...

    7. Re:Some info about strangelets by ChenLing · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I just bought a Kinesis Ergonomic keyboard....it takes some getting used to.

      --
      "You have the option of insanity. I do not. And that makes me crazy!" - Brian to Angela, My So-Called Life
    8. Re:Some info about strangelets by room101 · · Score: 2

      Nice, but you misstated something:

      Many of you will be familiar with the idea of "shells" of electrons inside an atom, representing groups of possible energy levels for an electron, each able to hold just one electron.

      Not true. The first shell can hold two, and the upper ones can hold more than that. I did a google search for "electron shells" and took the first link; it talks about this a bit at the bottom of the page. In fact the idea of the noble gasses depends on the fact that they have the properties that they do because each sucessive shell is maxed out, thus they are inert. You could even say that the idea of the periodic table organization is built upon the idea of the filling of electron shells.

      Perhaps you just got this confused with the quark theory and misspoke?

      HTH.

      --
      room101 -- how much can you stand before they break you?
      (they always break you eventually)
    9. Re:Some info about strangelets by stevelinton · · Score: 2

      Each shell groups a number of levels. Each level can only hold one electron.

    10. Re:Some info about strangelets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Other than quarks and leptons, there are only the bosons -- but those do not constitute "matter".

    11. Re:Some info about strangelets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems pretty arrogant of you to assume that the information you gleaned from a hasty google search is more accurate than your post's parent. That is karma whoring at its worst.

    12. Re:Some info about strangelets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It seems pretty arrogant of you to assume that the information you gleaned from a hasty google search is more accurate than your post's parent.

      What's going on? Is it name-calling week? room101 probably wanted to make sure the correction that he was going to post was indeed correct, rather than risking egg due to misremembering some physics text learned years ago.

      That does not make his contribution any less valuable: without his vague recollection, he would not have had the idea of typing in those particular search terms into google. A search engine is just a tool, you still need a brain to come up with meaningful keywords to look for.

    13. Re:Some info about strangelets by anshil · · Score: 1

      I know how this feels, recently I've switched to a dvorak keyboard. Well vocal misspelling is quite repretive now, as against the advices I'm typing QWERTY also sometimes. (dvorak at work, qwerty at home)

      --

      --
      Karma 50, and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt.
    14. Re:Some info about strangelets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The first shell can hold two [electrons]

      Specificly, that would be two electrons having opposite spins.

  60. violent and localized? by ryochiji · · Score: 1
    >blast is only big enough to have a very localised effect
    and
    >packed a punch of several thousand tons of TNT

    How "localized" is the effect? I mean, I understand you wouldn't get a huge crater or anything, but "several thousand tons of TNT" is equivalent to a tactical nuke.... It could still do a lot of damage if, say, downtown LA were to be hit (of course, the chances of that happening are...well, okay, it's probably too low to even consider).

  61. What would happen if you hold one of these things? by ChocoboKnight · · Score: 1
    Imagine you could hold a gram of these things in your hand. Would the gravity force exerted by that thing on you make you disappear?

    If it stayed still for a while, would it engulf something? maybe make the world disappear.

    Something similar was published in april in tne New York Times, the article is now archived, but here's some info.

  62. Re:Yes, yes I am. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just for reference, light could travel around the earth 7 times in one second. This particle took A good chunk of a minute to do half a lap, cutting corners!

  63. Both events in Antarctica? by BobTheWonderMonkey · · Score: 1


    Isn't that statistically a little improbable? Maybe a lot improbable?!

    --
    S.
    1. Re:Both events in Antarctica? by FKell · · Score: 1
      Not really if you think about it for a second. If the theory is that they were created from the "big bang", then they were all oriented most likely in some spherical pattern and moved out from there. Now gravity would affect the direction as well as colisions. But all in all, any strangelets that do hit the earth would most likely be comming from the same general orientation to the solar system, and thus would pass through the earth at a certain angle, it just happens that they seem to come in from either the top or botom of out solar system, meaning perpendicular to the orbital plain that the planets create around the sun. And thus, would tend to go through antartica.

      But since these stragelets do not seem to be going directly perpendicular, they probably are coming in from some angle to the solar system's orientation that is not quite perpendicular, but reasonably close to it. Add that in with the earth's axis of rotation being several degree's off of perpendicular to the orbital patern, and you get the strangelets going in on random points around the earth (because of the spin) that have a trajectory that seems to pass through Antartica.

      It all makes sense when you start to think about it.

    2. Re:Both events in Antarctica? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If the theory is that they were created from the "big bang", then they were all oriented most likely in some spherical pattern and moved out from there.


      No. The Big Bang wasn't an explosion outwards from some center; there is no center, and no preferred direction.
    3. Re:Both events in Antarctica? by chairmanKAGA · · Score: 1

      But it still has probability...you can statistically win the lottery 1000000 times in a row however unlikely.

      --
      "Allez Cusine!"
    4. Re:Both events in Antarctica? by foobar104 · · Score: 2

      Um... yeah. Or you could just go with the "magnetic field" interpretation and have done with it.

  64. Re:Would these actually create an entry/exit wound by ShoeHead · · Score: 1

    F = ma
    KE = 1/2 mv^2

    Take out a sheet of paper and number from 1 to 10, class...

  65. Re:Would these actually create an entry/exit wound by Bios_Hakr · · Score: 2

    Didn't they explain that on CSI last season...next season...Jack the Ripper

    --
    I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
  66. My CAT by Konster · · Score: 1

    This explains what happened to my cat :o

  67. Re:Would these actually create an entry/exit wound by ergo98 · · Score: 1

    I find it odd that they quantify the "punch" of it: Are they talking about the absolute kinetic energy that would have to be released for it to come to a complete stop? Of course the energy transmitted is directly relational to what it hits: If it hits a big ball of pudding, obviously it wouldn't release much energy whatsoever to go through it. On a similar theme, if something like that hit a human, which would "give" very easily (perhaps bursting some cells in between), and it truly is the size of a piece of pollen [I believe about 0.1mm], then I wouldn't imagine it would do much damage whatsoever: Travelling at 900,000mph, it's not like there's much time for it to do thermal transmissions. You might lose a bit of memory if it hits your Quake3PlayingCortex, but I doubt you're going to explode, and it's not going to release the same energy as if it hit a solid Earth crust.

  68. The new middle-school nerd put down... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "May you be struk by a strangelet and die!"

  69. formed in the big bang? by rabidcow · · Score: 2, Interesting

    as they tore through Earth at up to 900,000 mph

    Formed in the Big Bang and inside extremely dense stars,

    Any ideas why anything moving that fast, formed in the big bang would still be important?

    Unless the universe is closed, wouldn't they be further out than anything less crazy?

    1. Re:formed in the big bang? by bertok · · Score: 5, Informative

      The big bang is not an explosion with a epicenter -- a common misconception perpetuated by the popular media. It started everywhere, and the results of the explosion are going outwards from every point. The diagrams at the Cosmology FAQ help:

      http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html

    2. Re:formed in the big bang? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless the universe is closed, wouldn't they be further out than anything less crazy?


      That's a common misconception. The Big Bang happened everywhere, and anything created in the Big Bang was thus created everywhere, so no matter when something was formed, if it's still around, you will find some at any location.
    3. Re:formed in the big bang? by Skapare · · Score: 2

      If the universe is expanding, then doesn't that mean there is some measure (even if we don't know what it is) of the size?

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    4. Re:formed in the big bang? by luphus · · Score: 1
      The big bang is not an explosion with a epicenter -- a common misconception perpetuated by the popular media. It started everywhere, and the results of the explosion are going outwards from every point.

      Sounds suspiciously like some fool crossed the streams.

    5. Re:formed in the big bang? by rabidcow · · Score: 1

      Uh, ok...

      So is the universe closed then?

      The cosmology faq seems to say that there is no edge, so either the universe is closed or there's an infinite number of galaxies out there.

      As for the diagrams, well I have a hard time seeing why an explosion would necessarily have an inner edge, unless all the particles thrown from it were moving at roughly the same speed. The other two diagrams could easily be from a portion of the first, and it would be difficult to find the edge from anywhere remotely near the center.

      But then I need to take more physics classes and such...

    6. Re:formed in the big bang? by rabidcow · · Score: 1

      Yes, but if everywhere was a single point, I would expect the faster-moving objects to separate themselves from their slower-moving bretheren.

      Whatever. I guess I'll just cross "astronomist" off my list of possible career choices.

    7. Re:formed in the big bang? by servo8 · · Score: 1

      A surface can be finite yet unbounded. A good, if simplistic, example is a beach ball. 2-dimensional beings living on the surface of said ball would observe that their world has no edge, but at the same time is not infinite in size -- if they were to continue walking in straight line eventually they'd get back to where they started.

      Now, imagine what would happen if the beach ball was being inflated - the total surface area increases, and objects on the ball get further away from each other, but there is no center of expansion.

    8. Re:formed in the big bang? by rabidcow · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's what I meant by "closed." Probably the wrong word, but hey.

  70. Re:Yes, yes I am. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    make a dumb @$$ comment, get verbally abused....thats about what always happens, dont feel special or anything

  71. Stop modding parent up: it's wrong! by jnana · · Score: 1
    From the article you linked to: "Fears that the production of strangelets would lead to some runaway reaction in which more and more ordinary matter would be turned into strange matter, with catastrophic effects for our planet, have been largely dispelled (Dar et al., Physics Letters B, 16 December 1999; and Jaffe et al., Review of Modern Physics, Oct 2000; Select Articles) partly by pointing to the fact that nature has always been producing heavy-ion collisions in amid cosmic ray interactions. "

    This is not the kind of danger we're talking about. Why they might be dangerous is that a ton of matter going through your brain probably isn't a good thing, regardless of what does or doesn't happen when strange matter interacts with ordinary matter.

  72. Re:What would happen if you hold one of these thin by mabinogi · · Score: 2

    I think you'll find that one gram of them wouldn't do much more than one gram of anything.

    The only difference is that one gram of strangelet would be so small, that you wouldn't know you were holding it in the first place.

    grams are a measure of mass, and the gravitational force an object exerts is relative to it's mass.
    Objects with a mass of 1 gram don't tend to make worlds dissapear.

    --
    Advanced users are users too!
  73. Horseshit. by Bowie+J.+Poag · · Score: 4, Funny



    A pollen-sized grain of anything weighing over a ton and travelling at 900,000 miles an hour would leave a crater so large that it could fit the entire quantity of bullshit pseudo-science that comes out of Southern Methodist University.

    Amazing.

    Cheers,

    --
    Bowie J. Poag

    1. Re:Horseshit. by chairmanKAGA · · Score: 1

      What is your proof of this and why have no other scientists mentioned this?

      --
      "Allez Cusine!"
    2. Re:Horseshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if it actually stops when it hits something, as other people have mentioned. If it retains most of its kinetic energy and just shoots through the earth, it seems it wouldn't do that much damage.

    3. Re:Horseshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, well, 1) a pollen sized object weighing several tons could only be made of some pretty unusual stuff, and 2) if it did not couple significantly with whatever it hit, it would deposit very little energy into that whatever and hence do relativley little damage.

      And it would take a very big crater to hold the amount of psuedo-scientific bullshit in existance...

    4. Re:Horseshit. by Alsee · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A pollen-sized grain of anything weighing over a ton and travelling at 900,000 miles an hour would leave a crater so large

      No, it will make a disruption a bit larger than a pollen grain. Kind of like firing a rifle bullet at a piece of tissue paper.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    5. Re:Horseshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      No, it will make a disruption a bit larger than a pollen grain.

      Uhnles it manges to hit another one coming the uther way. Then yuo've got some serious probums.

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

      >>A pollen-sized grain of anything weighing over a ton and travelling at 900,000 miles an hour would leave a crater so large

      >No, it will make a disruption a bit larger than a pollen grain. Kind of like firing a rifle bullet at a piece of tissue paper.


      That's going to depend on how much energy it transfers, isn't it? No energy transfer suggests no crater. Detectable seismic events suggest a LOT of energy transfer, and thus some potential for cratering. Anything with that mass and velocity will have enough energy that even a trivial transfer would cook you. The good news, I suppose, is that after 5000 years of history, no one knew about these things. They can't be interacting with humanity very often.

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

      Bowie. You're an idiot. Shut up.

    8. Re:Horseshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More succinctly:

      Compare hollow-point bullets to normal bullets

      It's possible to fire a gun through an apple and leave just a hole; it's also possible to blow it to pieces

    9. Re:Horseshit. by looseBits · · Score: 1

      Unless you have advanced degrees in whole lot of subjects and a very large computer to run simulations on, you can really have no clue what kind of impact crater something with that much KE would make. Matter offten acts in non-intuitive ways when we are talking about that much energy (on the order of 1E14 J).

      Do you think you can compare the impact of a bullet (slow, low mass) or meteor (not as slow, low density) with this proposed entity?

      --
      Lord, bless my users that they may stop being such fucking idiots!!
  74. Matrix? by Daengbo · · Score: 1

    You enjoyed the philosophy of "The Matrix," didn't you?

  75. out of curiosity... by 7-Vodka · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What would happen if one of those hit someone in the head?

    --

    Liberty.

  76. Holy fuck dude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Time to upgrade that modem you're running the webserver from to a 56K.

  77. Strange fantasy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    As I grabbed her bottom, she got up, took off her top, gave me a strange glance, then went down on me and charmed ol' one-eye.

    1. Re:Strange fantasy! by BJH · · Score: 1

      ...while making a face at the flavor.

  78. Re:What would happen if you hold one of these thin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On that note, which is heavier, a ton of scrap iron or a ton of feathers?

  79. man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Holy fuck dude, Windows 2000 Professional takes like FOREVER to boot.

    By the time it takes to boot, I have already forgotten "where I wanted to go today". I mean, at first, before turning on my computer, I wanted to search some things in google, or check out a few sites, etc. But after it's on and the START button actually works (I've turned off McAfee), I automatically type "slashdot.org" and come here and type some random crap and then I don't remember what else I wanted to do.

    Is there something wrong with me?

    Should I switch to XP?

    Thanks dudes

    1. Re:man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why do you turn your computer off in the first place? just leave it on all the time.

  80. Earthquakes v. Strangelets by Groganz · · Score: 1

    The team, from the Southern Methodist University in Texas, analysed more than a million earthquake reports, looking for the tell-tale signal of strangelets hitting Earth.

    So they went looking through a huge pile of earthquake data just to find two seismic events that happened soon after the other and blame it on a particle that has been posited but never observed.

    Numbers of earthquakes in a year

    1. Re:Earthquakes v. Strangelets by plarsen · · Score: 1

      http://xxx.adelaide.edu.au/ftp/astro-ph/papers/020 5/0205089.pdf .

      They did not just "...went looking through a huge pile of earthquake data just to find two seismic events that happened soon after the other...". (look at the nice figures if you're to lazy to read it)

      And by the way, it's only a theory which got blown up by media, don't blame the scientists for anything, I'm sure they're just doing their job.

    2. Re:Earthquakes v. Strangelets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "So they went looking through a huge pile of earthquake data just to find two seismic events that happened soon after the other and blame it on a particle that has been posited but never observed."

      Absolutely wrong. Read the paper. It's an easy read. The newspaper reports are inaccurate. Your criticism is based on the news article, not the paper. You are not even close.

      For a good thumbnail sketch, read dastardly's posting "another theory." Seems he actually read the original paper. Amazing!

      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=32506&thresh ol d=1&commentsort=0&tid=160&mode=thread&pid=3508565# 3512813

      Let me repeat his comments for dramatic affect: the newspaper report is wrong! The SMU team DID NOT look for two earthquakes in succession. They looked for 7 or more stations each reporting a different location with timing and array pointing characteristics that fit a line, rather than a point. They say that repeatedly in the paper: "The reports could not be forced to fit a point source, or multiple point sources."

      I noticied that ScienceNow and New Scientist are also running stories about this paper.
      http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/ 2002/513/1

  81. Armageddon... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't panic!
    The american goverment will certainly find some civilian that will save the earth

  82. Think first... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Man of E blathered without thinking... "Little events like that probably happen quite often."

    Then WHY didn't they find MORE of them if they probably happen quite often?

  83. Citizen of Alpha Complex Rejoice! by severed · · Score: 1

    Citizen Tuttle-R,

    You have been selected by, your friend, the Computer to investigate the recent delection of traitor ^h^h^h^h^h^h^h loyal citizen Nevo-U-MND by unclassified physics phonomenon.

    Please report to R&D for your phamplets titled "Strangelets & *-U" and "Duck and Cover revision 6.66"

    Compliance is mandatory. Serve the Computer Have a nice day.

    --

    HaXXXor.com - Naked Chicks Teach You How To Ha

  84. Re:Yes, yes I am. by chairmanKAGA · · Score: 1

    At least your a good sport about it. =) It's an easy error to make I'm sure...let's just wait and see if more of the socially maladjusted slashdotters take offense to your apparent inferority to physics! =P

    --
    "Allez Cusine!"
  85. Witten's original 1984 strangelet paper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
  86. Re:out of curiosity... by XBL · · Score: 2

    Imagine a hole through your head that is wide as a grain of pollen. So small, but would still do a lot of damage for sure. There might be an exit wound the size of a pin head, at the largest.

    This would be fatal, as the brain would probably just seize until you are dead.

  87. Why remove data from non-earthquake events? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The article in the telegraph mentions that data from non-earthquake events is deleted. Why is this? Data storage is cheap, and I imagine this sort of data is very compressible.

    %conspiracy mode on%
    Could it be to hide evidence of nuclear weapons testing, perhaps to avoid international incidents?

    The people want to know!

  88. You know what this means, don't you by Tablizer · · Score: 2


    Yet another reason for your insurance company to jack up your rates.

  89. Re:out of curiosity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't think a pollen-sized hole in your head would do much. That's barely larger than what a scalpel would do during brain surgery.

  90. Re:Would these actually create an entry/exit wound by damien_kane · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I don't think so.
    If you shot a bullet at a piece of cloth or paper that was held taught, it would merely put a hole in the paper, not obliterate it.
    If you shot it at point-blank, the explosion from the initial firing of the shell would have more effect on the paper than damage caused by the shell itself.
    If such a strangelet shot through matter, it would probably do two things (both, not one or the other)...

    1. It would create a tiny pin-sized hole in what it was passing through (as the only way matter can go through other matter is to push said other matter out of its way).
    It's not like the particle would mushrooom like a hollowpoint round, think of it more as an AP round (DUC maybe?).
    If a person gets shot with a depleted uranium shell (at a far enough range with a high velocity) It will merely pass through said person, whereas a hollowpoint (because of the mushrooming) would either leave a big exit wound or bounce around for a little while turn said person's guts into pudding... (no, don't say blood pudding... that's just a bad pun)...

    2. A lot of the matter it passes through would be converted to some other form of matter, as the strangelet particle loses/gains other quarks from the surrounding matter it passes through. If effect, passing through something like a planet would probably take half its mass and at least some of its velocity as the energy is expended.

  91. Localized effects of high density matter by oldzoot · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wonder what kind of neat science tricks one can do with managable amounts of extreme density matter. The strangelets are one example, the problem of interacting with them has more to do with their speed than with their mass. If we could find a way to slow one down it could be very interesting to study. Perhaps we could magnetically contain it to prevent contamination with "regular" matter. The interesting thing would be to study the interaction of time and gravity. We have lots of things in the world which weigh many tens, hundreds or thousands of tons, however becauseof their more normal density we can not get close enough to the center of their mass to really study localized gravitational effects. With extreme density matter, we should be able to measure intersting things getting much closer to the center of gravity of a significant mass. Matter of this type might make an interesting component of a ground based anti-balistic missile system. The bullet would be microscopically small, but would have incredible mass and could hold significant kinetic energy, suitable for the destruction of a warhead. The energy source for the prime mover could be any typical huge ground based power plant. Because of the microscopic size of the projectile, air resistance would be insignificant relative to the kinetic energy.

    Zoot

    --
    enough is too much
    1. Re:Localized effects of high density matter by stevelinton · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Matter of this type might make an interesting component of a ground based anti-balistic missile system. The bullet
      would be microscopically small, but would have incredible mass and could hold significant kinetic energy, suitable for the
      destruction of a warhead. The energy source for the prime mover could be any typical huge ground based power plant.
      Because of the microscopic size of the projectile, air resistance would be insignificant relative to the kinetic energy.


      Unfortunately, the target would offer little more resistance than the intervening air. You would drill a micron-sized hole right through the target warhead, depositing almost none of the strangelet's KE in the process. Like trying to shoot down a smoke-cloud with a rifle.
    2. Re:Localized effects of high density matter by Saib0t · · Score: 2
      Matter of this type might make an interesting component of a ground based anti-balistic missile system. The bullet would be microscopically small, but would have incredible mass and could hold significant kinetic energy, suitable for the destruction of a warhead.

      Except that, with this technology, there'd be no war head, "they" would instead simply fire a couple of these nasty massive microscopic thingies directly at the targets...

      Congratulations on inventing a new killer weapon ;-)

      --

      One shall speak only if what one has to say is more beautiful than silence
    3. Re:Localized effects of high density matter by Telastyn · · Score: 2

      Note that due to the time distorting effects of the high density, it may be impossible to slow the things down =]

    4. Re:Localized effects of high density matter by LuxFX · · Score: 1

      That would make quite a weapon -- except for the fact that it would take a proportionally enourmous quantity of fuel to move the thing. So tiny projectiles are more or less out of the question -- most of the volume of modern day missles is fuel.

      Although I agree that this would create excellent opportunity for study. It sounds like a good candidate for testing of string theory....

      --
      Punctanym: alternate spelling of words using punctuation or numerals in place of some or all of its letters; see 'leet'
    5. Re:Localized effects of high density matter by dbretton · · Score: 2

      Of course, that's after making the assumption that you know can predict the *exact* position of the warhead when the particle would arrive.

      No easy feat!

  92. Re:out of curiosity... by 7-Vodka · · Score: 1

    the article said the impact had the force of several tons of tnt. Small pinhole or goodluck finding any of you?

    --

    Liberty.

  93. probably wouldn't explode by Goonie · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Only the "gun" uranium fission design works like that, and they are the simplest, most primitive form of nuclear weapon. None of the known nuclear powers uses these any more (the Hiroshima bomb worked like this, but not Nagasaki, and the only other use since was allegedly in South Africa's covert nuclear program because all they were interested in was a proof-of-concept). Implosion designs (the basis for later fission weapons and fusion-boosted designs) rely on multiple chunks of uranium and plutonium to be forced together by precisely-shaped bits of chemical explosive into a superdense, supercritical mass. If they don't go off in precisely the designed pattern, they don't explode.

    Therefore, I'd expect the bomb to be turned into molten slag rather than explode.

    IANA Nuclear Physicist, so I could be horribly wrong :)

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
    1. Re:probably wouldn't explode by ender81b · · Score: 2

      You are mostly right - The first pakistani nuclear weapon was a 'gun' type. The key difference between the two is that the implosion bomb is more 'efficent.' It is also extremely hard to design and build.

      One of the key problems is getting all the chemical explosives to detonate at precisely the right time. I'm talking within nanoseconds of each other, otherwise you get partial yield. Furthermore, you need to 'shape' the explosives into 'lenses' to focus the detonation wave. Once you do that you MUST insure that the entire thing will collapse as a perfect sphere. Any deviation and you won't get a full yield explosion. One of the critical secrets that Klas Fuchs passed on to the russians was the lense design of the explosives - invented by a Army Seargeant (sp?) whose name escapes me and probably the hardest part of the whole bomb design. Finally, you need a small 'starter' source of nuetrons at the center of the bomb to give off enough nuetrons to cause an explosion at precisely the right time. The whole bomb is constructed like an onion, with the Explosive lenses on the outside, Natural uranium tamper in the next layer, pu239 core, and an 'initator' at the very center.

      The 'gun' type of Nuke weapon (little boy) consists of a Cordite explosive at one end followed by a U235 'bullet'. At the end of the cylinder are u235 target rings embeded in a steel tamper. A velocity of 3,000 Feet per second is needed (at least for little boy). When the bullet hits the rings.. bam.

      All the above is taken from Richard Rhode's The Making of the Atomic Bomb (pulitzer prize winner). Very interesting - I would recomend reading it if you want to learn more.

  94. Misspelled ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did u mean Upless? Downless? Topless? Bottomless?Charmedless ?

  95. Re:out of curiosity... by Edmund+Blackadder · · Score: 2

    its an interesting question.

    It depends how much energy those things will release inside your body. That basicly depends how much you slow it down.

    If you slow it down even a litlle bit ud probably evaporate right then and there.

    But maybe beceuse it is so damn small and fast and humans are nice and soft, it will just cut trough you without changing its speed at all and then you may get lucky. (of course you wil have to worry about the seismic event when it hits the ground).

    As a way of comparison imagine cutting a tomato with a fast swing of a supper sharp japanese sword - the tomato wont be damaged much (aside from being cut in half) now if you try that with a dull knofe you will have one bruised up tomato.

    But this is a very interesting question and i dont think the answer is trivial.

  96. thats what it was by r00tarded · · Score: 1

    i thought it was a mosquito bite.

  97. My name is not Albert.... but.... by insane8 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How did they know at what angle the stranglets hit the earth at?

    Ripping through the earth at what angle makes a large difference. Imagine 2 stranglets hit NY NY at the same time. One is comming from a north west direction and the other is comming from south east. The one comming from north west will exit the earth thousands of miles from where the south east one will...

    This tells me that the scietists just looked for any seismic activity that resembled the first (entry) hit. Seismic measurment tools are not all that precise, especially equipment 10 years ago (I had a 486 10 years ago just to give you an idea) and the fact that they are looking for the impact of a particle that is 1/10 of a hair in size. There "proof" relys on the fact that in the past ten years there were two seismic activitys on different parts of the planet that were similar to eachother. Not much proof if you ask me....

    1. Re:My name is not Albert.... but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gee, maybe if you had actually bothered to read the paper, you would have realized that they addressed this question. What your assumptions 'tell' you is completely wrong. Jackass. Just enough brains to think you know enough to argue with results you haven't even bothered to look at.

  98. Easy to defend against. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just polarize the hull plating, and divert power to aft shields. You can also reconfigure the deflector dish to create a dampening wake as well. It's simple.

  99. Re:Would these actually create an entry/exit wound by dragons_flight · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, I'm hardly an expert, but off hand I'd say it's worth seriously asking whether you would even notice?

    Obviously these carry huge kinetic energies and it would only take only a small percentage of that energy to totally fry a human being. The real question is how much of the energy can a human actually absorb?

    These things have enormous amounts of momentum, and keep in mind that the whole EARTH isn't enough to stop one of these. How much could the soft tissues or even the bones of a human really do to stop one? Passing through at 900,000 mph, these would certainly leave a pollen grain sized hole straight through your body, but how much does it disrupt the surrounding tissues?

    I have been told (though perhaps someone can verify this?) that exit wounds decrease in size as a) bullet size decreases, b) velocity increases, c) less tissue is disrupted along the bullet path. In fact, IIRC exit wounds are larger primarily because of fragementation of the bullet and fragments of bones that get carried out with it. Entry wounds of course just reflect the cross-section of the bullet.

    So a very tiny, very massive, and very fast projectile might well have an exit wound of similar size to the entry wound. In which case the soft tissues of the body might just fill in and you'd never actually know that a pollen grain hole had been made through your body.

  100. Music, maestro, please by Observer · · Score: 3, Funny

    Strangelets in the night....
    </Sinatra>

    It's OK, I was just leaving anyway.

    1. Re:Music, maestro, please by jamesmartinluther · · Score: 2


      exchanging gluons...
      </Sinatra>

  101. Black hole? by blair1q · · Score: 2

    Anyone with the density handy want to cobble up the Schwarzchild radius of one of these puppies and see if it fits inside?

    In case you need it,

    r = 2 G m/c^2.

    c = 2.998e+08 m/s
    G = 6.672e-11 N m^2/kg^2

    --Blair

  102. size by InsaneCreator · · Score: 2

    What?? _Poland_ sized strangelets travelling at 900,000 miles per hour hit the earth... ??

    oh, wait... that's "pollen sized"... whew.

  103. Re:Would these actually create an entry/exit wound by BlueUnderwear · · Score: 2
    If effect, passing through something like a planet would probably take half its mass and at least some of its velocity as the energy is expended.

    If it left some matter behind, wouldn't that matter expand once it turned "normal"? And wouldn't said "materialization" of 500kg of ordinary matter in a tiny spot actually cause more damage as the passage itself?

    --
    Say no to software patents.
  104. Re:Would these actually create an entry/exit wound by Xerithane · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In fact, IIRC exit wounds are larger primarily because of fragementation of the bullet and fragments of bones that get carried out with it. Entry wounds of course just reflect the cross-section of the bullet.

    I'm sure you have heard the expression "Hollow Point" in regards to ammunition rounds. The way that most ammo works is it mushrooms as it makes contact. Having a hollow point round means it mushrooms larger, and you also have rifling (which causes the bullet to spin) in some cases. This is the primary factor in exit wound sizes. The amount of tissue damage that is done is directly associated with the compression (force of the bullet, hydrostatic shock is what it is called, IIRC) of the bullet moving through, and the current size of the round (remember, after it makes contact it expands.)

    Most bullets do not fragment, unless they are designed to do so. I knew someone who had rifle rounds that had tips that were designed to break into eighths after contact with a hollow point center. The reason why I wouldn't worry about a pollen-size object travelling 900Kmph is because it's entrance and exit wounds would be nearly identical, because it's A) Going very fast, B) Very dense and C) theoretical :) I would worry about compression shock though, which would result in having a lot of bones break and lungs collapse and what not. Very mysterious death, I would say.

    --
    Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
  105. Re:out of curiosity... by _ph1ux_ · · Score: 2

    your sig makes me laugh every time i see it... whats it from?

  106. implications for interstellar space travel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The interstellar space arks will need to be massively redundant. While a hit might be unlikely in any given year, interstellar journies will take generations. Wouldn't want the whole endeavour to be scuttled by a strangelet taking out Scotty and all of engineering.

  107. Why straight through? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Not quite sure, but from reading that it looked like they looked for earthquakes on exact opposite sides of the earth. If they just looked for earthquakes within a few seconds of each other, they would find hundreds, most likely.

    Wait a second. Who says the stragelet has to hit Earth at a 90 degree angle?

    Although I bet it would look VERY cool if it just skimed the surface of some city.... suddenly theres holes in the walls and a trail in the air, a few random people fall down.. would be very good for hollywood...

    1. Re:Why straight through? by nukey56 · · Score: 1

      Actually, comparing a spore of pollen (10-100 microns) with a platelet (2 microns) shows that it would take a very small amount of them to patch the subsequent hole. I really doubt someone would notice the effects of having a hole poked through them at that scale. As for buildings, I'm sure we've seen enough episodes of Law and Order to know that buildings (at least in NY) have an infinite capactiy for bulletholes, roughly 10000 microns.

    2. Re:Why straight through? by WebMasterJoe · · Score: 2

      Actually, they weren't at 90 degree angles - one entered at Antarctica and left from the Indian Ocean, and one entered the Pacific and left through Antarctica. Odd that they both involved the South Pole, though - is it possible that the magnetism of the earth had an effect on them? It is considerably larger...

      I also have to wonder how they can calculate its speed to be 900,000 mph. Sure, if they measure the distance from its entry to its exit, and divide by the difference in time they could come up with a number. But that would imply that the Earth is sitting still in space. Instead, we're spinning and revolving, and the focus of our revolution (actually just one focus, since the path is elliptical) is in turn rotating and revolving, and moving away from the center of the universe too. What is that 900,000 mph in relation to? What if the particle was actually sitting still, and the total velocity of the Earth is actually 900,000 mph?

      Disclaimer: I am by no means an expert in physics, astronomy, geometry, grammar, or magnetism.

      --
      I really hate signatures, but go to my website.
    3. Re:Why straight through? by PhuCknuT · · Score: 1

      The 900000 mph was in relation to earth, and considering the entry point was near the south pole, there wouldn't be much of a difference in that 900000 if you neglected to take rotation into account.

  108. Quark, Strangeness and Charm by GafTheHorseInTears · · Score: 1

    Einstein was not a handsome fellow
    Nobody ever called him Al
    He had a long moustache to pull on, it was yellow
    I don't believe he ever had a girl
    One thing he missed out in his theory
    Of time and space and relativity
    Is something that makes it very clear;
    He was never gonna score like you and me

    He didn't know about
    Quark, Strangeness and Charm
    Quark, Strangeness and Charm
    Quark, Strangeness and Charm

    I had a dangerous liaison
    To have been found out would've been a disgrace
    We had to rendezvous some days on
    the corner of an undiscovered place
    We got sick of chat chat chatter
    And the look upon everybody's face
    But all that doesn't anti-matter now
    We've found ourselves a black hole out in space

    And we're talking about
    Quark, Strangeness and Charm
    Quark, Strangeness and Charm
    Quark, Strangeness and Charm

    Copernicus had those Renaissance ladies
    Crazy about his telescope
    And Galileo had a name that made his
    Reputation higher than his hopes
    Did none of those astronomers discover
    While they were staring out into the dark
    That what a lady looks for in her lover
    Is Charm, Strangeness and Quark

    And we're talking about
    Quark, Strangeness and Charm
    Quark, Strangeness and Charm
    Quark, Strangeness and Charm

    --
    "You're just scared like a little white pussy. I'll fuck you till you love me, you faggot!"
    1. Re:Quark, Strangeness and Charm by Disevidence · · Score: 1

      Good old Hawkwind. Im listening to them right now for instance. Funny.

      --
      Think nothing is impossible? Try slamming a revolving door.
  109. Spontaneous Human Combustion by solarlips · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Hmmmm, maybe this explains spontaneous human combustion? I don't believe that people can spontaneously combust, perhaps they are just being hit by these strangelets...???

    Talk about an excedrin headache

  110. why only two earthquakes? by g4dget · · Score: 1
    It seems odd that the strangelet would generate only two earthquakes, one on entry one on exit. Why wouldn't it interact while traveling through the earth and encountering different materials?

    Also, if the only evidence is two earthquakes separated by a few seconds, wouldn't we expect some of those merely by chance? What additional evidence is there for strangelets?

    1. Re:why only two earthquakes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are correct. It is the newspaper story that states the researchers were looking for two earthquakes. That is not correct. They looked for 7 or more stations reporting a series of signals that could not be forced to fit a point source, or multiple point sources. The authors address this question at length in their paper. Don't trust the newsmedia (and be appropriately suspicious of slashdot). Go to the source:
      http://arXiv.org/astro-ph/abs/0205089

  111. Re:Would these actually create an entry/exit wound by minghe · · Score: 1

    This is probably true. As your body doesnt offer much of a resistance it probably will be qute unaffected. Unless it pass directly throuh your brain or spine and manages to cut off some small but important neural pathway, that is.

    But then agan, when the little bugger impacts with the ground a fraction on a spilt second later, which absorbs a helluva lot more energy than you, it will probably wreck some minor havoc. The quakes and craters that these things supposedly have caused were not major, but you would actually be in the very epicenter of it. And I sure wouldnt recommend that...

    --
    ...um...like...a sig...
  112. Re:Would these actually create an entry/exit wound by blitz77 · · Score: 1

    So are you saying that throwing bullets cause more damage than using a gun?!Wow, hey Israel and Iraq, start chucking bullets at each other instead now!

  113. Re:Would these actually create an entry/exit wound by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember that quarks are bound by the strong force which is, as the name suggests, strong. I doubt therefore that very much would happen to the strangelet, it is really just too small, too dense and too tightly bound.

    But, yes, I suspect it would leave some trace on a human. How much obviously depends on how much energy it deposits in said human. It doesn't take that much energy to damage us fragile entities...

  114. Why 900k mph? by MickLinux · · Score: 1

    I wonder what is special about 900k mph -- that's 1/745 the speed of light.

    It looks to me like they looked for earthquakes spaced apart at that distance-time proportion, and then concluded that such earthquakes were caused by the strangelets. Unless I am mistaken, that implies that our earth would be moving at 1/745 through whatever field caused the strangelets to form.

    Now, I could see the case made for looking at particles travelling at a significant sizeable fraction of the speed of light, but this is nowhere close to that. Why, then, 900kmph? Does it have to do with their mass and stability, and if so, why do they assume that 900kmph particles will necessarily be a strangelets as opposed to a different kind of particle?

    This science doesn't look well-explained -- or if well explained, doesn't look valid.

    --
    Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
    1. Re:Why 900k mph? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They did not look for earthquakes at all, as the original paper makes abundandantly clear. They painstakingly culled their data to remove all earthquakes, explosions, and any signals which could be fit to a point source. The signals which were left, traditionally considered "noise" by seismologists, was then searched for sets of seven or more station reports whose timing defined a straight line, an extremely IMPROBABLE arrangement of seismic events. Even then, when the straight line fits were found, they attempted to fit the reports, or some subset of them, to a point source or several point sources, but were unable.

      The suggestion that these guys just found two earthquakes with the appropriate spacing does a great disservice to their work. I strongly urge you to read the original paper before forming your opinions based on news accounts.

  115. Re:Strangelets are strange but not dangerous by tve · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately the world hasn't been flat for quite some time and neither are most humans. Your calculations are correct for strangelets hitting the earth at a perpendicular angle.

    However, chances of getting hit are much higher if you take into account strangelets hitting the earth from all other angles, like the ones just missing the earth's surfice and hitting you in the head.

    You will just be in your garden, minding your own business, when WHAM!, you get hit from behind by one of those sneeky strangelets. They are evil, I tell you, evil!

    (You may now panic.)

    --

    If there is hope, it lies in the trolls.
  116. In fact it's 4 vs 458 occurrences by upside · · Score: 1

    Use "quoted search string" to get an exact match.

    --
    I'm sorry if I haven't offended anyone
    1. Re:In fact it's 4 vs 458 occurrences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know.

      I think I'll start using <JJ> before my comments to make it more obvious...

    2. Re:In fact it's 4 vs 458 occurrences by WryCoder · · Score: 1

      I get 151 vs 464

      Must have been a lot of unexplained fish in the past couple of hours. Could be serious.

  117. Esteemed scientific journal != Sunday Herald by shoppa · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The team analysed more than a million earthquake records for signs of strangelets hitting Earth, reports The Sunday Telegraph.

    Oooh, I'm sure the authors of the scientific paper had a tough bunch of high-energy-particle physicists at The Sunday Telegraph reviewing their submitted paper :-)

    I mean, it's nice to see something having to do with physics make the Sunday Paper (at least I'm not listening to the Joe Jackson song that disparages that media) but shouldn't we have slightly higher standards for something to make the Slashdot front page?

    1. Re:Esteemed scientific journal != Sunday Herald by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe so. I noticed that the online edition of "Science" (better, yes?) is running a story about their work, http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/ 2002/513/1

      as is "New Scientist" which reports the paper has been submitted to the Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. The original posting is from the Los Alamos National Laboratory archives. I'm sure those tough bunch of high-energy particle physicists at the National Lab will beat the crap out of these guys if they deserve it.

      On the other hand, ScienceNow reports that Nobel Laureat Glashow from Harvard, quoted in the SMU paper, finds their results "absolutely fascinating." No crap-beating going on there, at any rate. Jury is still out on the rest of the seismological and hep-ph community.

  118. Re:Would these actually create an entry/exit wound by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The use of hollow-point ammo in armed conflicts (ie wars) was banned by the Geneva commission sometime in the late 1800's. A hardpoint bullet (Full Metal Jackets, heh) will go straight through, leaving very small holes that are relatively easy to patch together. It's the shock that usually kills.

    The tapering / bullet spin improves accuracy, since the bullet will go straighter when revolving around it's own axle. (Just throw a football and see for yourself). Actually, bullets that don't spin and starts to wobble violently when they hit somebody will cause MASSIVE exit wounds - something like a foot across. Messy.

  119. Re:Would these actually create an entry/exit wound by Alsee · · Score: 2

    you'd never actually know that a pollen grain hole had been made through your body.

    While I agree the damge would be quite loalized, I'm sure you'd notice it :)

    You'd certainly hear it throught the air, and I can't imagine not feeling something from the internal shockwave.

    My advice is to avoid Antartica. These are strange particles, and that seems to be the only place they hit the Earth :)

    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  120. Re:Would these actually create an entry/exit wound by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Considering that a strangelet passes through thousands of kilometers of stone, without significantly slowing down implies that the interaction of strangelets with "ordinary matter" is close to nil. I think that being hit by a strangelet will be more like being hit by a bunch of neutrons; most of them pass through your body without doing any damage. Atoms are mostly empty space.

  121. Re:Strangelets are strange but not dangerous by tetrad · · Score: 1

    Good point. In fact, you can get hit from strangelets from *any* angle, even from strangelets coming through the Earth and striking you at your feet. Ouch. The odds are still quite small, though.

  122. Re:Would these actually create an entry/exit wound by Xaoswolf · · Score: 1
    packed a punch of several thousand tons of TNT.

    I think I would notice something like that.

  123. Re:Would these actually create an entry/exit wound by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Israel and Iraq? Since when are they fighting? It's called Palestina...you know where Arafat is from...the guy with the towel on his head.
    Saddam is from Iraq and as far as I know he's not fighting Israel (well, he probably would if he could because starting wars is one of his hobbies). Iraq is not even *near* Israel... (Jordan is between Israel and Iraq) Geez...
    -- Posting Anonymously, because correcting such stupid remarks shouldn't be punished with Offtopic.

  124. Re:Would these actually create an entry/exit wound by bertok · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The problem with your estimate of the damage caused by a strangelet to a human being is that it is based on theories that only apply to projectiles made of normal matter. Strangelets are both extremely dense, and charged. To a strangelet, a human being would present a target as insubstantial as the foam in you bathtub is to you. However, any charged particles (electrons or protons) orbiting the strangelet would be stripped off, which would result in a huge potential difference between the strangelet and most of your body. In other words, you'll get electrocuted, and your body will be ripped apart by the rapidly changing electric and magnetic fields.

  125. Dr. Strangelet by magicsquid · · Score: 1

    This reminds me of an old Wired article that talked about the Brookhaven Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider. In the article they discuss some of the possible "down sides" to the experiments... "In theory, RHIC could trigger the runaway formation of a poorly understood breed of subatomic particle known as a strangelet, which 'eats' all matter it encounters, a chain reaction that would consume everything everywhere."

    Then comes what I think is one of the funniest quotes of all time. "MIT physicist Bob Jaffe says that the chances of RHIC-induced Armageddon are 'exceedingly rare' bordering on nil, but as he admits, 'you never know.'"

    That's comforting Bob. Glad to see that we aren't all about to be eaten by runaway particles, but hey... you never know.

    --


    "Chances of RHIC-induced Armageddon are exceedingly rare, but... you never know." - MIT Physicist Bob Jaffe
    1. Re:Dr. Strangelet by connorbd · · Score: 2

      Do you want ice-nine in your drink? I promise, it'll send chills up your spine...

      /Brian

  126. Re:What would happen if you hold one of these thin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    4 elephants are more then 5 ants, right?

  127. Faster than light? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Traveling 900 000 mph is kinda odd, isn't it, seeing how the speed of light is 186 000 mph. And that's kinda sorta the speed limit of the universe.

  128. This explains Hollings by gila_monster · · Score: 1

    and his extremely strange, hole-ridden theory that piracy is a huge problems but the CPDTPA will not harm a living soul.

    --
    Ad luna, Alicia! Ad luna!
  129. Re:The articles builds up their destructive mass.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What If one of these things hit you before they went through the earth? You would be a pile of radioactive toast, thats what! It would be worse then taking a tour through chernobyl!

  130. the eric conspiracy by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

    Sounds like somebody is running out of grant money.

  131. Ya know... by buckeyeguy · · Score: 1

    I'm all for supporting pure science, in all its many forms, but this story just whispers to me: "desperate attempt for funding" ;)

    --
    I'd have a personalized plate on my car, but "toxic bachelor" won't fit into 7 letters.
    1. Re:Ya know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The two principle investigators on this paper are sited as Eugene Herrin and Vigdor Teplitz, both old and established scientists with funding out the wazoo. Herrin is an endowed chair and runs a series of extremely hi-tech seismic stations all over the world for the US Airforce. Teplitz was chair of the physics department and is now on leave in the Executive Office of the President as a special adviser on nuclear policy. I don't believe your characterization has any merit.

      I'm all for the free exchange of ideas and such, in all its many forms, but your posting whispers to me: "someone speaking from massive ignorance."

  132. Confirm of Deny? by bill_guts · · Score: 1

    From www.whatreallyhappened.com:

    "...the 7th paragraph reveals why scientists connected to religious institutions are often not very scientific. The scientists looked for Strangelets that produced two signals as they pass through the Earth, "one as they entered Earth and the other as it left." But this only works if the Earth is hollow. Any dense object passing through the Earth is going to produce a single continuous signal from entry to exit."

    --


    1. Re:Confirm of Deny? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The researchers did not "look for strangelets that produced two signals as the passed through the earth, one as it entered the earth and the other as it left.

      That is completely incorrect. Read the actual
      paper, not the newspaper.

      Alternately, "dastardly's" posting titled "another theory" explains it very well. The signals produced are indeed continuous. Read the paper.

      Lastly, Southern Methodist University is not a religious institution. Wrong on all counts.

  133. Better Sources by Pooua · · Score: 1

    "Ananova" is a "news of the weird" site, not a science site. The "Telegraph" is also attempting to sensationalize the story. However, the story at "Ananova" is essentially the same story that I read a few days ago. I don't remember the source of the story I read--probably the "Dallas Morning News"--and I can't find any links to the story on the Web. However, here is a brief blurb about the researcher at SMU:

    "Teplitz"
    "over the past three years has collaborated with Olness, Rosenbaum, Scalise, Stroynowski, Vega, two graduate students, and an undergraduate student, within the Department, and, outside the Department, with workers from SMU geology, JPL, William and Mary, Virginia Tech, the University of Texas, MSU, Maryland, Tel Aviv, Southwest Research Institute, and Oklahoma. His work, in this period, falls in three categories: exotic matter (6 papers); other particle physics (4 papers); and solar system physics (2 papers). Recent work of note includes: explaining the MACHO events with mirror matter; detailing possible searches for SIMPs - new neutral, stable, strongly interacting massive particles (on the basis of which an accelerator mass spectrometry experiment is underway at Purdue); searching for seismic evidence of ton-sized nuggets (about the dimensions of a red blood cell) of strange quark matter passing through the Earth; and computing finite density corrections to energy loss into Kaluza-Klein modes in astrophysical plasmas."

    http://www.physics.smu.edu/~web/research/index.h tm

    It is odd that Google can't find half these articles (that Altavista can), and Altavista can't find the other half (that Google can). I'm a bit surprised and not very happy that a major news story that I saw in print is not showing in either search engine.

    --
    Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
    1. Re:Better Sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The original article can be found on the pre-print archives:

      http://www.arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0205089

      Note also that strangelets may not be the only candidates.

  134. One thing strikes my mind.... by zhukher · · Score: 1

    Spontaneous human combustion

  135. Re:Would these actually create an entry/exit wound by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think that you all are missing the point - this stuff is acting like quantum material, and as such, will pass through the Earth, us, and all matter in general as a waveform, not a physical "bullet." It wouldn't even leave a hole in you because the speed and energy it carries is enough to allow it to pass through regular atomic matter in it's quantum waveform completely unnoticed. It's only when it goes through miles of dense earth that it eventually generates any kind of observable physical impact to said body of mass... Us humans are just too small and scrawny for this to affect us in the least bit.

    You may, however, feel slightly dehydrated after a couple of your H2O molecules in your body are vaporized and/or broken apart. ;)

  136. Re:Would these actually create an entry/exit wound by rnd() · · Score: 2
    hillarious... oddly, that was the first thought that popped into my head when I read the headline.

    Seriously, couldn't this actually be the explanation?

    --

    Amazing magic tricks

  137. My discovery by heneon · · Score: 1

    In my laboratory where I experiment with all kinds of materials, and usually came up with something.. umm... interesting (read: my kitchen), I have found that when made of eggs past their "Best Before" date, Omelets pass through my body very quickly. It doesnt take long after I have put it to my mouth, before the stuff wants to come out from the opposite side of my body.

  138. do strangelets pass through earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the obvious thing not talked about is, the 900,000mph speed is a luck of the draw, we could be hit by a stranglet mass going slower. This would result in a nugget that would orbit the earth, maybe passing thru a bit on each pass. It would eventually slow down and settle into the inner core. What would happen then would be kind of interesting. What is the behavior of a stranglelet mass embedded in high pressure iron but not moving. Also, if we could get one of these nuggets, I'd think they might be very useful for fusion research, unlike the muons hypothesized for muon catalyzed fusion, these strangelets masses are stable. Maybe the strong E field at the strangelet nuggets surface might promote fusion.
    I suppose the reactor would have to be in space, it's hard to hold onto a multiton object the size of a pollen grain just by charge.

    Mark

  139. Spontaneous human combustion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    From what I know, spontaneous human combustion is not particularly paranormal, though it is rare. The model which best approximates the effects so far is meat surrounded by fat, wrapped in thick cloth. If the fat is heated so that it melts, it will soak into the cloth, and if the heat ignites it, the cloth will act as a candle wick, engulfing the flesh in a low temperature flame which eventually consumes it completely over a long period of time.

    Human fat is usually located almost entirely just below the skin.

    Obviously if a person were conscious or just asleep, they would feel the heat long before something like this happened. Most accounts seem to indicate this happens when unconscious - most of the victims are alcoholics, which could explain that, though they could be unconscious for other reasons (even dead beforehand - there's not much left to do an autopsy on).

  140. I don't know about you... by nitefallz · · Score: 1

    But I'm calling BS on this. Just seems a little way out there. Anyone else find any articles like this elsewhere?

  141. strangelets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When they come out on the other side of the earth, are they feet first or head first????

  142. Re:Would these actually create an entry/exit wound by warrior · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Perhaps this is a cause for the "spontaneous human combustion" phenomenon? It would leave no evidence as to what started the fire and would certainly appear quite spontaneously.

    --
    Intel transfer the difficult from Hadware to software, for get more power, programmer need more technology. -- chinaitn
  143. Interesting math by Pemdas · · Score: 2
    This story sounded a bit odd to me, so I ran some numbers:

    Generously assuming a 10-ton strangelet moving at 900,000 MPH, that strangelet has a kinetic energy of approximately 1.75 x 10^14 Joules, roughly equivalent to 25,000 tons of TNT.

    The story goes on to state that the entry impact released "several thousand tons of TNT" worth of energy. Let's be conservative here, and say that surface conversion was 3,000 tons of TNT. in the top 50 miles of the earth's crust.

    The strangelet would never have exited the earth, having expelled all it's energy on the interior!

    Unless I'm overlooking something pretty significant, either those strangelets must be moving at a bit faster clip, or must be quite a bit more massive to cause the sited effects.

  144. Umm right. by gotak · · Score: 1

    Now.. concidering these things are small. My question is how much of an effect would this have? You don't feel radiation hitting you... So for the earth a partical of this mass but so small and traveling so fast should have minimal effect. So how strong where these earth quakes?

    Also such a massive partical wouldn't it cause a great deal of gravitational effect? Should those grav wave detectors have been more useful to detect such things?

  145. I want one! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How do I get my hands on one of these babies?

  146. With all the off-the-cuff calculations... by GMFTatsujin · · Score: 2

    I think this post points to the need for a new set of moderation comments.

    I mean, folks are whipping out statistics, back of the envelope calculations, and all kinds of wacky definitions -- I don't think any one person would be able to go through and verify all the claims made by posters, expert or not.

    I propose "Yeah, I'll Buy That," "Sounds Good to Me," or "I Think I Read That Once Too." Whether they're +1 or -1, I leave up to other folks...

    GMFTatsujin

  147. Re:Strangelets are strange but not dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unfortunately the world hasn't been flat for quite some time and neither are most humans.

    ARRGG!! You heathen! I am flat!! I still believe in this age-old myth!!

  148. Not Harmful to Humans? by Mistah+Blue · · Score: 1

    Perhaps... unless one of these things hits you in the head... methinks you'd have at least a walloping headache (at the minimum). I'm partial to my head, so I don't think I want one of these things hitting me.

  149. Particle man... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Particle man hates person man. They have a fight, particle wins...particle man.

    Or something like that.

  150. This is very important for drivers by Aceticon · · Score: 2

    A whole new class of excuses for bad driving is born:

    - You Honor, i didn't willingly pass the red-light, a stranglet hit my car and pushed it through. I'm sure the microscopic size hole can be found.

  151. in other words... by shren · · Score: 3, Insightful

    According to Prof Herrin, the two events agree with predictions for strangelet impacts, which are expected to occur about once a year. He added, however, that finding more would be difficult, as seismic databases now automatically remove all signals not linked to earthquakes. He said: "To find more events we need to get at the data before that happens."

    In other words, various governmental sources have gotten tired of seismologists finding underground nuclear testing and told them to quit revealing the secrets. And they did.

    --
    Maybe the state's highest function is to grind out insoluble problems. (Zelazny, Hall of Mirrors)
  152. You mean it's possible... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To create a hole to to china with one of these??? To all people that doubted bugs bunny... now who doesn't make any sense??

  153. Re: Strangelets are strange but not dangerous by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

    Except when they hit a Slashdot moderator. Now we have a explanation for some of the crazy moderation around here. ;)

    --
    Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
  154. What about......... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .....the fact that if they were formed from the big bang, and the universe is expanding, wouldn't they all be heading away from us?

    Maybe the invaders are testing our planitary protection grid!

  155. Re:Would these actually create an entry/exit wound by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The US Army published a book some years ago entitled ``Wound Ballistics'', if I recall correctly. THis may well be the best source of information on this subject. I don't have my copy at my desk, so I can't check this out right now.

    I think that the important question might be ``How much energy gets transfered to the body from the particle?'' If there is essentially no energy transfer, then there might be no noticible damage. The original paper gave the force in terms of tons of TNT, so this seems a fond hope. The authors said (page 3)
    Briefly, a ton sized SQN would have dimensions of about 20 microns, the size of a blood cell. As it passed through the earth it would break inter and intra-molecular bonds, like a stone ropped in water, producing a seismic signal.

    This sounds more like radiation damage than a bullet wound. Perhaps the information in ``Wound Ballistics'' won't be very helpful.
  156. What would happen if you got hit by one of these ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would it pass straight through you, or would it kill you in a bloody violent explosion ?

  157. Another reason not to worry... by LeBain · · Score: 1

    Another reason not to worry: we exist. Had lots of these things been hitting the earth, killing of bits of life or civilizations here and there over the eons, we wouldn't be here.

    --
    Give serendipity a chance.
  158. Re:Would these actually create an entry/exit wound by Jburkholder · · Score: 2

    Now if any instances of SHC were always at the time of an earthquake, you would have something!

  159. Re:Yes, yes I am. by Graspee_Leemoor · · Score: 2

    If light did travel around the earth 7 times in a second would it go back in time (Star Trek) or would we go back in time (Superman) ?

    graspee

  160. Re:Would these actually create an entry/exit wound by Jburkholder · · Score: 2

    Yeah, that might explain those mysterious earthquakes that alway coincide with SHC cases!

  161. strangelets and the Gay world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, my next door gay neighbors have described each other as a "top" and a "bottom" before. When ever I meet one of their friends, they say "charmed", whatever that is suppose to mean. but I do know they have mentioned being categorized as a "up" or a "down" before as well, but I dared not ask to elaborate....it should be noted, I have seen a lot of "stange" coming in and out of their apartment though.....hmmm, I wonder if those who named quarks are gay.....hmmm

  162. Re:Would these actually create an entry/exit wound by rnd() · · Score: 2

    well, it could be that the hsg cases occurred from strangelets that passed within a few feet of the earth and hit a human but not the earth... good point though.

    --

    Amazing magic tricks

  163. Might this explain by CTalkobt · · Score: 1

    spontaneous combustion?

    Thoughts for the weird...

    Imagine one of these particles crashing into a human and the force that it would have. Ka-blooey there goes Fido on fire.

    --
    There's a gorilla from Manilla whose a fella that stinks of vanilla and has salmonella.
  164. That explains Spontaneous Combustion by Dark+Coder · · Score: 1

    Biggest mystery that is ever documented in all four-corner of this earth, is the spontaneous human combustion. Next would be Tesla's coil and the urgent bowel movements.

    Some of you may recall eerie pair of boots with charred stumps of the legs stick out. Of the ones I've seen photos of are: in front of the toilet in Appalachian Mtn, at the base of the maple tree (somewhere in Europe), and oddly, Ural mountain camping retreat by the gate entrance.

    this particle would explain LOTS if they actually perform quantum-level micro-thermonuclear chain reaction explosion around celluar clusters.

  165. cosmic rays more scary by peter303 · · Score: 2

    Because they are much more common and my turn your DNA into cancer. When you close your eyes and see random flashes of light - some of those are cosmic rays and some are just misfirings of nerve cells.

    1. Re:cosmic rays more scary by Tiny+Elvis · · Score: 1

      What random flashes of light? Get to the doctor quick man!

    2. Re:cosmic rays more scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's pretty funny, TE

  166. Re:Would these actually create an entry/exit wound by Decimal+Dave · · Score: 1

    Probably not... but they could very well explain the mystery of spontaneous human explosion.

    --

    "Leave the strategizing to those of us with planet-sized brains." -Tycho
  167. Re:What would happen if you hold one of these thin by ChocoboKnight · · Score: 1

    As mentioned in the Telegraph article: "Strangelets - sometimes also called strange-quark nuggets - are predicted to have many unusual properties, including a density about ten million million times greater than lead. Just a single pollen-size fragment is believed to weigh several tons." If the density of lead is: 11340 kg/m3 The mass of a spoonful of these strangelets would be (let's say the volume is 0.001m3) the density of the material times the volume. Let's also suppose this small quantity of strangelets is half a meter away from you. Using the formula for force of gravity by newton (F=G*m1*m2/r), the force exerted on me would be F=(6.672 x 10-11 * (70) * (11340 * 10,000,000 * 1,000,000 * 0.001) / (.5) = 1, 059, 246.720 Newtons Like someone putting 108, 086.4 KG over you. Its 119 tonf US. That's the problem, what would happen to you if it stayed still? You don't even have to hold it, but when you hold it, the distance between you and the strangelets tends to be zero, so the force exerted on you tends to infinity.

  168. So it is possible... by senior.ee · · Score: 1

    to dig a hole to china... To those who thought it was silly when bugs bunny tried... who's laughing now???

  169. sig. by 7-Vodka · · Score: 1

    I was showing a friend how to turn the fan backwards and reverse the airflow in his power supply.

    --

    Liberty.

  170. May produce different signals than earthquakes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a seismologist, I would have to guess that a strangelet impact, if real, would produce a very different signal on a seismometer than an earthquake. Both the frequency content and the radiation pattern should be different. So the first question I would be looking for in this SMU study would be "What did they look for on the seismometers?" However, since this study hasn't been peer reviewed yet (the Telegraph says it hasn't even been submitted for review), it is too early for any of us to believe the research.

    If you are interested in learning more about the use of seismometers, check out www.iris.edu

    1. Re:May produce different signals than earthquakes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They do indeed. See the original paper, figure 7. The paper is in the review process for BSSA.

  171. Re:Strangelets are strange but not dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good point. I imagine that considering athird dimetion does increase the odds of being hit from the only as likely as "winning the lottery back-to-back, then rolling a pair of dice once and getting snake eyes" to as likely as winning the lottery back-to back.

  172. Re:Would these actually create an entry/exit wound by Nevrar · · Score: 1

    It would make an awesome Movie... "The Strangelets", by say, Stephen King :)

    --
    Nevrar
  173. The grassy knoll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I didn't see this one in the Warren report, but it would explain a few things. maybe Kennedy was killed by a strangelet.

  174. Re:The articles builds up their destructive mass.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mmmm... toast...

  175. Re:out of curiosity... by jamcpherson · · Score: 1

    CowboyNeal!

  176. unless it's localized on right your arse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The small size of strangelets means the blast is only big enough to have a very localised effect and humans are unlikely to be harmed."

    bullseye!

  177. Re:What would happen if you hold one of these thin by ka9dgx · · Score: 2
    I was going to start doing the math, but it seems silly. Consider what happens when you stand next to a building, hill, etc... they weigh a lot, but have no noticable pull to them. The fact is, unless this thing sliced through you, you might hear the crack of the air as it whips by, possibly triggering a lightning strike, you might see the place where it hits the ground, but otherwise, you'd miss it unless you were warned and waiting for it.

    --Mike--

  178. how long before our gov. uses this as a weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we can make any science into a way to kill people.

  179. 900,000 mph? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Last time I checked no particle could travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum (186,000 mph). So what are these things doing at 900,000 mph?

    1. Re:900,000 mph? by nitefallz · · Score: 1

      Speed of light is miles per second, 186,000

  180. hard evidence? by jafac · · Score: 2

    ok, so they've supposedly recorded two of these "events" within a 10-year period. So, over the entire lifetime of the earth, we're talking about hundreds of millions of these events. So tell me. In the entire history of geology, has any geologist ever dug up a rock that had a tiny unexplained hole punched through it? I thought not.

    --

    These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  181. Lunar Strangelet Observatory? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hi. IANAAP (I am not an astrophysicist) but it occurs to me that the moon might make a suitable detector for collisions between strangelets and baryonic matter. The moon is much less seismically active than the earth (although not completely inactive). With less background noise, we might be more likely to detect a pair of quakes separated by the time proposed for a strangelet entering and leaving the moon. Also, the moon is less massive than the earth, so a collision of a given intensity would produce a quake of greater amplitude (?) on the moon than on the earth.

    We are able to very accurately moonquakes, at least at the one mirror placed on the moon by Apollo for this purpose. One could imagine multiple mirrors placed at locations across the visible side of the moon, so we could constantly look for seismic events. At the same time, shouldn't these collisions produce EM noise that could be detected by earthside radio observatories? It would be impressive to match a pair of seismic events with two bursts of radio noise from the lunar surface.

  182. Re:What would happen if you hold one of these thin by ChocoboKnight · · Score: 1

    Thing is, its not like a building. In a building, the mass is distributed all over the building (you can calculate the centroid, but it is much father away than this stuff). I was talking a physics teacher at school, when he saw this he said there's nothing we have right now to contain this stuff.

  183. /me wants a new weapon by npsimons · · Score: 1
    In other words, you'll get electrocuted, and your body will be ripped apart by the rapidly changing electric and magnetic fields.


    Am I the only person who saw that and instantly relished the thought of having a handheld weapon that uses strangelets as its projectiles? After the awful thought of "that must be painful!", of course.


    Dibs on placing my bet that this will be the next popular weapon in a FPS or Descent clone.


    "What this world needs is a five dollar strangelet weapon!" - /me after this article

    1. Re:/me wants a new weapon by Tekgno · · Score: 1

      I wanted one after reading the article, but after visualising the words of the parent to your post, I wanted one so much more, something about the combination of electrocuting and ripping apart me thinks.

  184. South Park by npsimons · · Score: 1
    Could these be the long-awaited explanation for spontaneous human combustion?


    No. Geez, doesn't anyone watch "South Park" anymore? It was explained quite clearly that the cause of spontaneous combustion was holding farts in.

  185. Earthquake data? by snowpuppy · · Score: 1
    I wonder what the source of their Earthquake data is? And I wonder what magnitude(s) would have been recorded?

    I did not see any "believed" Earthquakes with 26 and 19 second differences (respectively) listed on either day at the National Earthquake Information Center. I'm sure it's possible they weren't recorded by NEIC, although I suspect it would/should be. From reading the Professor's web page, it appears the data would have been taken from the source above, yet I didn't see it there. (Who know's, maybe I just missed it)

    The story still seems suspect to me although Dr. Eugene Harris does appear to be focused on exactly this type of research.

    I think more details are necessary to please the /. crowd.

    Snowdog

    1. Re:Earthquake data? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please the /. crowd? I thought folks might actually read the original paper, as several of us have. Not sure what sort of pop-culture news story would ever please the /. crowd. Not me, anyway.

      You will of course NOT see these events in the NEIC bulletins for the simple reason that every event reported in that bulletin is, by definition, an earthquake. These guys were culling through data that was rejected by the USGS because it could not be made to fit an earthquake. So they did not look through ANY earthquake data. At all.
      Any earthquakes they happened to come across left in the data, they removed. These seismic signals are not earthquakes. The data came from 8000 separate seismic stations back in the days when the USGS kept all data, even the data that could not be neatly fit to an earthquake or explosion.
      The new automated location techniques do not keep the "unassociated" data reports.

      The magnitudes quoted in the paper are 4 to 4.5.

  186. Unexplained earthquake detection by Gunnery+Sgt.+Hartman · · Score: 2, Funny

    All of those "earthquakes" probably coincide with the time of the aerobics class at the nearest Fat Farm.

    --
    [ ]
  187. Oh My God Particle... by snowpuppy · · Score: 1
    /.,

    Also of interest may be the "Oh My God Particle" from 1991. The research on this seems to be quite extensive, and pretty damn funny too.

    Check it out at:

    Oh My God Particle

    Snowdog

  188. Spontaneous Combustion by Whomever · · Score: 1

    They claim that this is not dangerous to humans. But, it's enough impact to be the equivalent "of several thousand tons of TNT." So, what are the chances that this is the real explanation for spontaneous combustion?

    --


    ----------
    perl -e 'print(pack("H*","646176652e7761676e657240676d6169 6c2e636f6d0a"));'
  189. HI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could it be the undiscovered phenomena maybe responsible for weird things like spontaneous combustion?

  190. Re:Would these actually create an entry/exit wound by jpatters · · Score: 2

    Yet we never see a case where an SHC event is accompanied by mysterious dammage to nearby buildings. Hmm... I think I'll still go with the "wicking" explanation.

    --
    "Remember, there never were pineapple-almond cookies here."
  191. In Related News... by dbretton · · Score: 2

    Scientists at the SNO facililty have reported that their detector has sprung a leak!

  192. Re:Would these actually create an entry/exit wound by kesuki · · Score: 2

    Keep in mind that the planet earth has an awful lot holding it in place, while us fragile humans don't suffer that same benefit. Therfore when a stranglet hits a person it's not like hitting a tightly held sheet of paper. However, we're mostly water, and to a strangelet we're interchangable for water in terms of how easily it can pass through us. Unlike water though we can't just fill in the hole it bores through us, and bone might be sufficently dense enough to cause an exchange of energy.
    I'm thinking that a stranglet would transfer enough force to shatter any bone it passed through, as well as make a microscopic hole through any organs it passes through.
    Based on this article I'd say it's safe to assume that any damage caused by a strangelet would entirely depend on how much force it could transfer into the body while making any holes, especially while hitting any bones. Since obviously the two recorded strangelets transfered a sizemic force the size of several thousand tons of TNT. If that much force was transfered into a human all at once the only image that comes to mind is that of a paintball grenade exploding.
    Hopefully though since the earth's crust is miles thicker and much more dense than a human that the amount of force applied at any given moment would only be slightly more than the amount needed to make a hole.

    BTW, does anyone else here wonder if the person who named this was chewing a pack of chicklets when trying to think up a name?

  193. Re:Would these actually create an entry/exit wound by jafac · · Score: 2

    If you look at high-speed photographs of rifle bullets passing through ballistic geletan, you'll see that fragmentation, mushrooming aside, high projectile velocities can still wreak serious damage on tissue through propagation of shock waves. A bullet only .30 inches in diameter fired from a rifle at close range can rupture arteries and connective tissue in a 6" diameter path.

    If you've ever seen the Zapruder footage, you know what I'm talking about.

    --

    These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  194. Strangelets through the Sun? by wildsurf · · Score: 1

    The article seems to indicate that strangelets passing through the earth would be barely slowed down at all, so they would exit the other side and continue on their way. What size mass would a planet/star have to be in order to capture a strangelet in its gravitational field, and what would be the consequences?

    Obviously, if scientists were to create and contain a strangelet in a lab, it would be bound by Earth's gravitational field. What if one got loose, and fell through the planet, without the energy to exit out the other side? Do these things decay, or would it continue gobbling up material? Scary stuff...

    --
    Weeks of coding saves hours of planning.
  195. Re:Strangelets are strange but not dangerous by SEWilco · · Score: 2
    No, his sample of two per year were not based only on perpendicular strangelet impacts. The article mentioned detection of two events which both went near the South Pole but went anywhere near the North Pole. Thus the approach angle is not relevant.

    Also, these events intersected the volume of the Earth. Neither surface area nor cross section. As we don't care much about damage done inside the Earth we are not particularly concerned with the chance of a certain cubic centimeter being hit (such as the exact center). So the chance of the entire surface area of the Earth being hit, at any angle, is a reasonable approximation.

    We also don't particularly care about the damage done inside a person, as any impact can be considered significant, so use the surface area of a person and calculate the ratio between impacts per Earth surface area to impacts per person surface area.

    As surface area increases fractally with decreasing scale of measurement, the surface area of a circle and the surface area of a cylinder are suitable.

    Do not cover the Earth with the additional volume of a person and try to calculate based on that, unless you really care about the chance of either you or the Earth being hit.

    Now go back the the back of your envelope and continue the exercise.

  196. Passing through it by my_name_is_steve · · Score: 1

    "Ananova are reporting that ultra-dense, pollen sized strangelets (aka nuggets of strange quarks) travelling at 900,000 miles per hour hit the earth, violently pass through it and have done on at least two occasions already."

    Damn, now I feel crappy about yelling at my wife about the cracked windshield...

  197. Re:Strangelets are strange but not dangerous by Tekgno · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't be too worried about being hit in the feet from below. A multi-flavoured quark enema would be more troubling to envisage.

  198. Re:What would happen if you hold one of these thin by Tekgno · · Score: 1

    Maybe you didn't mean gram, but meant a small volume.
    Who are you? Hercules?
    Even if you could support the weight, your skin wouldn't be able to handle it, it would rip right through your hand and you would have a stupid look on your face. "Hmmm, Bugger"

  199. Re:Would these actually create an entry/exit wound by scubaman · · Score: 1

    Firstly, the velocity of a projectile travelling through a body or object would be determined by the density, weight, shape and size of the object,in relation to the aerodynamic influences that impede or digress it's direction (i.e., slow it down/deflect it's path of travel). If the stranglete has truly travelled across time and space from the big bang, then that means that an incalculatable amount of influences have interacted with the 'object' since it's journey of 13 (odd) billion years to Earth. However, after all this time, it would still be somewhat influenced by the Earth's gravitational effect and that of the 'hard' particles that surround us. The density of the human body will matter little in the scheme of things if struck by an object travelling at 900,000mph. I would expect the person would not even get a chance to ponder the impact on their life. They are likely to not notice at first. The body would hardly register the particle passing through the body. But the heat from the object may very well vaporize the body immediately post-impact. So, entry and exit wounds and possibly path of travel passage through the body would be relative to the size of the strange quark nugget. They could be apparent (i.e. you could look through the entry hole, through the body along the path of travel and out the exit hole) for about a second before the heat energy has any effect (vaporization begins). I hope that this long-winded response sheds light on this interesting subject!

  200. Re:out of curiosity... by Tekgno · · Score: 1

    Previous poster:
    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=32506 &cid=3509 320

    Basically the other poster said that any body being hit would be electrocuted and then ripped apart by magnetic and electrical forces.

    Sounds fun, I want one.

  201. No, but by rs79 · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure one of these ate my homework in 1976 and I failed Russian history because of it.

    Another great mystery of the universe is now cleared up and the dog is absolved of all wrongdoing.

    --
    Need Mercedes parts ?
  202. Give me a break! by bumbadi · · Score: 1

    It all depends on the cross section of the said strangelet. If, it is the size of a quark, it will probably just pass through your body without touching anything!

    The reason is of course, that an atom is 99% ( maybe more) empty space. All the mass(okay, most) is concentrated at neucleus, and so the possibility of a strangelet just passing through would be very high.

    However, if a collison did occur,it would just push the colliding atom out of way and continue on its path. Not much will happen.

    So my thinking is, nobody needs to bother about strangelets hitting them.

    That said, I feel that todays particle physics has too many particles, and that is sign that something is wrong with our theories. Of course, this has no basis at all.

    --
    When in doubt, use brute force. -- Ken Thompson
    1. Re:Give me a break! by damien_kane · · Score: 1

      The problem with your statement is that the article said that these strangelets are the size of a piece of pollen.
      Pollen is monolithic when compared to the size of an atom. You get hit by a piece of pollen with a mass of a couple tons travelling at 900000 mph and tell me it wont leave a mark. It won't leave a large one, but it will leave one.

  203. stellar evidence? by mattr · · Score: 2
    IANA astrophysicist, but obviously these things
    are given their momentum, if not in fact created, in some major stellar process like a neutron star explosion or maybe even the Big Bang.


    What sort of things would you look for to try to find a source of such objects? How would they radiate or change fields through which they pass?
    What would a strangelet storm (tm) look like? Perhaps a wave of them would look like a gravitational field moving at relativistic speed?


    What about looking in the neighborhood of our own
    solar system for strangelets passing through perpendicular to the ecliptic? You might think they would interact with the Sun's surface and atmosphere, and create effects in high resolution images.

    1. Re:stellar evidence? by mattr · · Score: 2

      Also seems that we could find some strangelet sources by extending the line by which their paths intersect the surface of the earth and knowing where the earth was at the time.. Have these people tried to do so?

    2. Re:stellar evidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some scientists have proposed that strange quark nuggets can be formed in the collisions of neutron stars. If so, there might be local densities of these things higher than the galactic norm. Unwinding the trajectories to search for a source is an excellant idea, if the precision of their data allows it.

    3. Re:stellar evidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Witten's original 1984 paper that started the search for strange quark matter, as well as the additional work by Glashow, describes a number of possible ways of detecting SQM, of which searching fo seismic signals is only one. Another is to look for tracks in mica, a study that has gone on without results for about 20 years now.

      The idea of using the earth as a detector, and the exisiting CTBT (comprehensive test ban treaty) stations to hunt for these particles is brilliant, whatever they eventually uncover.

  204. Re:hold on, why the other side? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The other side" came from these slashdot musings, not from the media stories nor the paper that they reference. Neither of the two events they found went in one side of the earth and out the other. One entered in the ocean near antarctica and exited in the ocean near india. The other entered the earth in the south pacific and exited near antarctica.

    In fact, a strange quark nugget passing straight through the earth as you suggest would not have been identified by the search technique that the researchers used, because of the difficulty they site in analyzing complex signals that travel through the earth's core.

  205. Weaponize? by SimCash · · Score: 1
    sure, the entire planet would be destroyed too, but that was the case with nuclear weapons, and it never stopped their deployment.
    Except for some fun-loving physicists who took bets on whether the early bomb tests could ignite spontaneous atmosphere-consuming nuclear fires, no one ever believed that a single weapon could destroy the world. As for lots of them, well, looks like we'll never know now, since the US and Russia are reducing stores and the US is pretty much ready, willing, and able to militarily stop anyone from building those nuclear-winter levels ever again. I just hope Al Gore or Hillary C understands this if she gets in power. I doubt she does.
  206. the opinion of a particle physicist by quadong · · Score: 1
    I asked my father, a particle physicist at Fermilab, "Should I believe this?" and here was his response:

    My answer is a resounding "sort of." I first note that this article cites no scientific publication or conference presentation as its source, only the Sunday Telegraph. By contrast, the Related Story "Cosmic laws may need revising, claim astrophysicists" refers to a Phys Rev Letters article published last year. So it is impossible (or at least hard) to check up on this story. On the other hand, strangelets are a respectable, is speculative, concept in Quantum Chromodynamics.

    While the basic equations of QCD are pretty well established, it is an exceedingly difficult theory from which to do low-energy calculations, such as for bound states of quarks (baryons or mesons). For example, no one has been able to caclulate why the neutron is heavier than the proton, or why their mass is what it is. Nonethless, some QCD models claim that quark matter containing roughly equal numbers of up, down and strange quarks may be meta-stable or even stable, or even may represent the "true ground state" of strongly interacting particles. Such strange quark matter (SQM) could exist on a large scale (some have suggested that neutron stars may actually be SQM stars) or in small "strangelets." Atlthough such calculations are hardly robust, this motivates people to look for such "stranglets," either in accelerator experiments, in cosmic rays, or in astophysical observations.

    With a little searching I found a couple of review articles that address this question (together with other related ones), which I attach. The first is one written by several highly respected physicists (both experimenter and theorists) to address concerns that the high energy nuclear collisions at RHIC might somehow produce states of matter or of the vacuum that would destroy the earth or the universe. Production of strangelets of a particular type are among the scenarios they address. The second is a review from some conference that directly addresses astrophysical implications of the existence of strange quark matter, and what bounds we can put on the existence of SQM based on observations (section 6). Here they note in passing that earthquakes might be used as a signature for stranglets.

    Thus it is plausible that a group at SMU has, indeed, examined earthquake records to look for evidence of strangelets hitting the earth. Without seeing their paper I cannot judge whether this is believed by them to be a "positive" result or merely a "non-negative" one. Experience shows that in searches like this, and in cosmic ray experiments in general, there have been many observtions of new phenomena that later turned out to be very real and important, but also at least as many sightings that turn out not to be real. I wouldn't conclude that strange quark matter has been observed based on this article, but this is not obviously crack-pot nonsense either.

    ******

    Here are the articles he cites: one, two.

    1. Re:the opinion of a particle physicist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pass along to your father: http://arXiv.org/astro-ph/abs/0205089

  207. Re:Would these actually create an entry/exit wound by mdb59 · · Score: 1

    When you think about matter being dense enough to have a teaspoon full weigh
    thousands of tons, you realize how 'empty' normal matter is at the subatomic
    level -- there's a lot of empty space between the protons, neutrons and electrons
    in our body.

    So, my theory is that while it would happen fast, it would be no more destructive
    than slowly pushing a long, very thin needle through your body. You might feel it, but
    the surrounding tissue would close up pretty quickly.

    Think of a high pressure water jet cutting a steel plate -- the adjacent material
    isn't disrupted much.

    And, because your body and the rest of the 'normal' matter that makes up the
    earth is so porous/light/empty there really wouldn't be enough to absorb much
    energy/create much heat from this tiny thing passing through your body.

    So, have a Molson and blame your headache on that damn nugget that just zipped
    through your head.

  208. Re:Would these actually create an entry/exit wound by mdb59 · · Score: 1

    Although as I was thinking about it last night, if one of those 'nuggets'
    passing through the earth is disruptive enough to be measured on seismographic
    equipment, perhaps it would be a bit more disruptive to the human body than
    I first thought.

    We need a physicist to explain the gravitational and nuclear effects of
    something that dense instantaneously passing through 'normal' matter.