Search for the Missing Universe

Chris Gondek writes "The Sydney Morning Herald has reported that one of the greatest discoveries of our time could be made under the Yorkshire moors. Deep in a Yorkshire mine, scientists are toiling to solve a cosmic puzzle that has baffled astronomers for 70 years: about 90 per cent of the universe is missing. Analyse the movements of stars and you can work out how much matter is making them swirl round in galactic islands and how much makes galaxies cluster together as they do - in other words, you can work out how much mass makes the universe look the way it does. But measurements suggest that the universe is not what it appears."

Comments

Bush Administration cites Missing Universe Theory

[Anonymous Coward]

The Bush administration today announced that they believe Iraq's WMD are being stored inside the missing 90% of the universe. "They're definitely there, in the missing 90%, because we can't see them." said White House Chief of Staff Ari Fleischer. "We'll continue to look for them, but if we don't find them, feel confident no one else will be able to, either."

For starters

[Faust7]

about 90 per cent of the universe is missing

I'd look in Windows.

Re:For starters

[theos07]

Windows? Indeed!!
Could this just be another marketing ploy of Mr Gate's monopoly in trying to make us think that the other 90% of the universe isn't really missing. Just like they make us try to think there is no other OS besides Windows!

Re:Bush Administration cites Missing Universe Theo

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh now it all makes sence...The info minister IS Ari Fleicher! Have you ever seen them both on tv at the same time? I thought not.

Did you look in your shoes?

[.com b4 .storm]

Whenever I lose something, sometimes it turns up in my shoes.

</obligsimpsons>

Re:Did you look in your shoes?

[Greyfox]

I always look under the couch when something goes missing. I wouldn't be surprised if 90% of the mass of the universe is actually under my couch.

Hey, go ahead and laugh, but it's at least as good a guess as anyone else has managed to make. It just has much less funding.

Re:Did you look in your shoes?

[Emugamer]

Are you sure? Check to see if there are any coins in your couch.. I actually paid for a steak dinner for a girl I was dating after she suggested I clean out the couch (She had the audacity to try to find a missing remote under the couch) with around $45 I found in there.

Yeah okay okay I did find a $20 and a $5 in there so only $20 in real coins

You might be a lot more funded then you think you are

Re:Did you look in your shoes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, man: $45 will NOT buy you a decent steak dinner. Here's my recipe for the best steak you've ever had.

Go to a decent grocery store that sells USDA Prime beef. Find yourself some fillet steaks, also known as fillet mignon. You want two steaks as close to the same weight and thickness as possible. They should be between 6 and 8 ounces.

Heat your oven to 500. If your oven won't go to 500, set it for as high as it will go. Then sit down to watch The Simpsons or something, because getting a home oven to that temperature takes a while. Be patient here.

Dry your steaks thoroughly with paper towels. You want the surface to be completely dry, both on the top and bottom and on the sides. Why? Because liquid turns to steam, and we don't want steamed steaks. Your goal is perfect dryness here, so do a good job.

Once your oven is hot, put a heavy, all-metal, oven-safe skillet on top of the stove. Cast iron works, but I have a stainless-steel-clad, aluminum-core skillet with a riveted metal handle that I use for this. Turn the burner or element to high, and leave it there for at least five minutes. You're looking for something really incredibly hot here. Don't be afraid to let your pan get hot. It'll be fine.

Season your steaks liberally with salt. You want something with a coarse grain, because it makes a great texture when it cooks in. I like kosher salt for this (Morton's) but sea salt is good too. Fleur de sel is the best, but at $10 for a couple of ounces, it's a little pricey for most folks. But if you're blowing $25-$30 on raw meat, you might as well go all the way.

DO NOT PUT PEPPER ON YOUR STEAK. I don't care if you like it that way. Pepper burns at the temperatures we're planning on using. If you want pepper, crack a little over your steak once it's on the table.

Once your pan is hot enough to brand a steer--which is basically what we're planning to do here--plop in the steaks. No oil, no nothing. Just drop 'em into the dry, rocket-hot pan: szzzzzzz. There will be some smoke, so crack a couple of windows for ventilation.

Do not touch the steaks for two solid minutes. Seriously. Don't touch them. Don't move them, don't poke them, don't prod them. Don't talk to them. Don't ask them questions. Just let them sit there.

"But the meat will stick to that hot pan!" you cry. And you're absolutely right: it will. That's exactly what we want. What we're doing is called "searing." Searing is cooking in a dry pan over incredibly high heat. Searing isn't frying; frying involves lubricating the pan with fat or oil, and we don't want that. Instead, we just want dry, raw meat to hit blisteringly hot metal and to sit there for two minutes.

What's happening is called the Malliard reaction. (That's pronounced "my-yard.") It's complicated, but the short version is that proteins in the surface of the meat are denaturing and chemically changing into a brown, crusty substance that tastes really, really good. You don't get that with any cooking method other than searing.

After two minutes, turn the steaks over with tongs. Not with a fork, not with a spatula. Tongs. Grab the steaks gently around the middle and lift straight up. They'll lift right off of the pan, no sticking. If they do stick, just wait a few seconds. They'll let go by themselves because of the heat of the pan and that Malliard thing I talked about. Turn the steaks over and leave them for one minute.

During that minute, look at the seared surface of the meat. It should be brown and crusty, almost like it was battered and deep-fried, but darker than that. If there are tiny black specks here and there, that's okay. If there are big black specks, you left it on too long, but it's still edible. If the whole thing is solid black... well, the dog's in for a treat tonight.

After one minute, move the entire pan--use an oven mitt for god's sake, that pan is a branding iron by now--to the oven. We've seared the surfaces of the steak, and now we're going to cook the interior.

There

Re:Did you look in your shoes?

[petecarlson]

We don't have the answer... != +5 Informative
We don't have good ideas... != +5 Interesting
We can joke about it... = +5 Funny

Re:Did you look in your shoes?

[CAIMLAS]

In case you read this and think, "I wnat to try this, it sounds good!" let me warn you that this will... make an incredibly delicious and juicy stake. Yes, that's right. A nice -juicy- stake.

Re:Did you look in your shoes?

[Keith_Beef]

That really is a good idea, except that you missed a really important detail.
Your piece of meat needs to weigh about twelve ounces, and be at least an inch thick.

Oh, and it should be accompanied by a bottle of reasonable wine, like maybe a Gigondas, or a Chateauneuf du Pape. Something with enough body to carry the flavour of the meat.

My own pereference, however, would be to just sear the meat for about 90 seconds per side, so the inside is still bleeding raw.

Re:Did you look in your shoes?

[Bisqwit]

Go to your preferences, and set the Funny modifier negative. That's what I did.

Re:Did you look in your shoes?

[rtscts]

That'd be all the blood, coz it's still fucking raw.

Re: Did you look in your shoes?

[Black Parrot]

> I guarantee you, if you follow these directions to the letter and use halfway decent ingredients and equipment, these will be the BEST steaks you've ever eaten. Period.

I'd rather just swing by Krusty's for a ribwich.

Re:Did you look in your shoes?

[Rares Marian]

I have seen this before... ECP?

Re:Did you look in your shoes?

[SubtleNuance]

Better than USDA Prime: Find a local farmer who grows beef. You want farm-raised organic beef if you can get it. Not this factory-farm "USDA prime" BS.

In the winter ask him for a half side or something, pay him up front -- VISIT your beef through the year. LEARN to trust this man, build a relationship with your food. If this beef-farmer is worth his salt, he will also be aging the beef 2-3 weeks he eats himself... ask him to age YOUR beef as he would his own. Anyone who knows their ass from a hole in the ground knows 2 day-old dripping-blood supermarket beef == crap. Beef hanging in a cooler w/ a "little mold" (dont be alarmed) == WHAT YOU WANT.

This results in A) a better pc of meat for your table B) ecologically-sensative, ecologically-sustainable and responsible food-choices (if your going to eat meat at all) C) better profit for your local farmer (cut out the middleman) D) sustainable food-supply for yourself and your community because you havnt undermined local/small producers by ONLY buying food from FuckingWalmart and %Big-Agricorp%.

Re: Did you look in your shoes?

[alienmole]

Sorry to have to tell you this, but the ribwich has been discontinued. The animal from which it was made is now extinct. No, not pigs or cows - think something with more legs...

Re:Did you look in your shoes?

[clarkc3]

you could've just said 'this is how to broil steak' - they actually make broiled steak seasonings too so that the season doesnt burn (like pepper). And on a side note - if you want really good steak, you goto a real butcher, not a grocery store

Re:Did you look in your shoes?

[jonfelder]

I don't see how this is complicated or naziesque...It's actually very well written instructions on how to cook a steak without a grill. Many people who live in an urban environment or in an apartment do not have a grill.

If you want less complicated:

1. Buy prime filet mignon 6-8 oz (1 - 2 inches thick).
2. Pat dry.
3. Season with kosher salt.
4. Sear steak on preheated non-nonstick heavy skillet over high heat for 2 minutes on one side, 1 minute on the other.
5. Bake in preheated oven at 500 for 4 minutes or until internal temp reaches 120 - 130 (I'd rather stick it then feel it).
6. Let rest for 5-10 minutes.
7. Eat.

BFD

Re:Did you look in your shoes?

[Rares Marian]

Anonymous Coward claiming originality on a recipe I heard 2 years ago in #slashdot on openprojects.net. ...

Click! Click! Bang!

Re:Did you look in your shoes?

[Rares Marian]

You missed the pun on the ubiquitous Anon Cowa.
That's the only reason I was question the "Originality" since anyone can be an Anon Cowa.

And someone who used to be a regular of said IRC channel did in fact post something like that.

It reminded me of the old days, so I was curious.

Re:Did you look in your shoes?

[renehollan]

Good advice, though if you'd rather spend money than cook, Ruth's Chris has these insane ovens that will broil a steak rare, with that nice seared exterior, and no need for a skillet.

Re:Did you look in your shoes?

[renehollan]

You can't sear without meat-to-metal contact. It's physically impossible. Radiant heat transfer simply isn't efficient enough to put the right amount of energy into the meat in a sufficiently short amount of time.

You've never seen an 1800F oven, have you?

Believe me, it was seared.

And yes, at home I sear my steaks rare (well, "blue", actually, if we're talking about a filet mignon) with a skillet.

My mother in law once had me cook a filet mignon well done for here. I cried.

Re:Did you look in your shoes?

[tgrigsby]

... an incredibly delicious and juicy stake. Yes, that's right. A nice -juicy- stake.

You meant "steak", I presume. Otherwise, this gets to sounding a bit vampirish. Perhaps rather than using a knife and fork I'll just sink my fangs into it.....?

"Excuse me, Lestat, would you mind passing the A-1?"

Re:Did you look in your shoes?

[renehollan]

I have seen 1800F ovens, though not *personally* in a restaurant kitchen. I can only presume that the description I received ("How did you DO that?") was accurate. But an oven that hot would have the desired effect.

In any case, the steak I received was (a) seared, (b) quite rare, (c) claimed to be cooked by broiling only in an 1800F oven. It was very good.

Supposedly, traditional methods of searing result in side reactions (besides the desired Maillard sugar/protein reaction) that produce, among other things, acrylamide (unpleasant, toxic, and reputedly carciongenic). Still, searing in a *hot* pan is how I cook my steak at home.

Re:Did you look in your shoes?

[renehollan]

Did you not read my post? An 1,800 oven would MELT THE PAN THAT YOU PUT IN IT in a matter of SECONDS.

Ceramics exist which can stand that heat. Stop thinking about wimpy metal.

Though, it is quite possible, that I *was* misinformed.

There are two issues here: 1) whether it is theoretically possible to sear a steak rare by broiling, and 2) whether this was done.

I believe that (1) is possible, and was claimed to have been done. The latter may, upon reflection, been an exaggeration (pan searing having most likely been used as well as broiling).

Perhaps one day when I have access to a kiln again, I can try an experiment. :-)

Re:Did you look in your shoes?

[renehollan]

By definition, it is not. Searing means cooking by putting meat (or whatever) in contact with metal.

All right, oh pedantic one. The question should be, can a Maillard reaction take place at the surface of meat by radiative heating alone? I think the answer is yes.

If it involves radiant heat, it's not searing. A different set of physical (not chemical; physical) reactions is going to take place on the surface of the meat, because infrared radiation penetrates meat differently from the way actual conductive heat does.

Well, that's an interesting point. I've assumed that if the radiation source is intense enough, penetration isn't going to be an issue. You're probably right that there will be differences -- the question is will they be significant in the face of intense radiation?

Re:Did you look in your shoes?

[CAIMLAS]

Yeah. Please note the sarcasm. This person's a troll, and I don't doubt there'll be several ruined pieces of meat as a result.

Re:Did you look in your shoes?

[Yunzil]

Thanks, but I'd rather have a hamburger.

And I like my steaks well done. So there!

Re:Did you look in your shoes?

[jacks0n]

The cited temperature is the temperature which the burning gas in an infared ceramic broiler reaches, not the temperature at the surface of the meat or on the grill's surface. That is somewhat lower, as evidenced by the fact that you can reach into one of these broilers and poke the surface of the meat, without losing too much skin. Surface temp maxes out at 700-800 degrees. The Gas temp can go as high as 2400 degrees. The person who impressed you with that big number wasn't lying, just being slightly disingenuous.

This is the type of broiler that Ruth's Chris, Morton's, and Peter Luger's use.

Addendum to steak specification:
Steak should be USDA Prime Yield Grade Three, Dry Aged 6 weeks in a temperature and humidity controlled room with a carefully cultured bacterial colony growing on a shortloin, which is then cut into two inch slabs on a bandsaw.

Re:Wrong credit

[benna]

Here is the link to the original story.

Perhaps it's not lost.

[bonsai_kitty]

There is allways the chance it is just compressed....with bz of course :)

Re:Perhaps it's not lost.

[NicenessHimself]

lzipped?

From the article

[xeroh]

"might be about to be revealed"

I wouldn't hold my breath.

Not 42?

[Joe Jordan]

So does that mean that the answer to the universe isn't really 42?

Re:Not 42?

[Rhinobird]

You asked the wrong question.

Re:Not 42?

[atomicdragon]

We know the answer is 42, we are just trying to fix the problem that we only have 4.2 now.

Re:Not 42?

[LeiGong]

Do we always have to reference "42" in EVERY Astrophysics article? And why does the 42 post always get mod'ed up? And I get the Douglas Adam reference...

We need more fresh content and not just the same old cliched posts.

Re:Not 42?

[Jason1729]

Have we narrowed the possible range for the Hubble Constant any more? It seems like it's been converging on 42 for the past few decades.

Jason
ProfQuotes

Re:Not 42?

[Stween]

You're asking for original content on slashdot? But that goes against everything slashdot is about!!

Re:Not 42?

[frisket]

Oh for heaven's sake (literally :-)

Everyone who is anyone knows we are on the back of four elephants, riding on the back of a great turtle...

Re:Not 42?

[Verteiron]

And don't anyone even THINK about asking what the TURTLE stands on... turtles swim.

Re:Wrong credit

[benna]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xm l=/connected/2003/04/30/ecfwimp30.xml&sSheet=/conn ected/2003/04/30/ixconn.html

The question bad then too?!

[Ikeya]

Does that mean that the question is no longer "What is 8 times 6?" then as well?!

Re:The question bad then too?!

[inaeldi]

8 times 6 is 48

Re:The question bad then too?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well. Back to the drawing board.

Re:The question bad then too?!

[cappadocius]

Not in base 13. But of course "no one writes jokes in base 13" - DNA (of course)

But anyway, wasn't the question "What is 7 times 8?" I don't have the book handy.

Re:Wrong credit

[Rhinobird]

Is you link mixed in with the 90% of the missing universe?

Re:Wrong credit

[Anonymous Coward]

Today, little beena we'd be learning a new word.

'preview'

preview
n 1: an advertisement consisting of short scenes from a motion
picture that will appear in the near future [syn: {prevue},
{trailer}]
2: a screening for a select audience in advance of release for
the general public
v : watch a movie or play before it is released to the general
public

Please write a 2000 page essay on this word, along with 687 sentences of 'preview' being used as a word and 582 sentences of 'preview' being abused as a word.

Professor Slash bin Dot.

Duh, which way to mars?

[fearless_froggie]

I find it slightly strange that we expect to know where to find the entire universe, when we haven't even made it to Mars yet.

froggie

Re:Duh, which way to mars?

[iso]

Did it occur to you that perhaps we haven't gone to Mars because we can gather so much information about the Universe without actually going there? Why spend all that money going to Mars when we could use it to observe so much more than just one little planet.

Re:Wrong credit

[benna]

yes, yes I should preview but YOU my friend spelled my name wrong.

Thought...

[Skyshadow]

Rather than 90% of the mass in the universe being AWOL, isn't it possible that we don't have an accurate understanding of how gravity functions on an extremely large scale? Could this, in turn, be related to how the expansion of the universe appears to be actually speeding up rather than, as we'd expect, slowing down?

I'd welcome any thoughts on this one... Anyhow, it's late and this is way out of my area of expertise, so forgive my spitballing.

Re:Thought...

[benna]

If gravity did not work like this we would all be fucked. We already have a problem using reletivity on very small things. We don't need that problem with large things too. Yes I know this doesn't mean its not possible that you are right but I don't think scientists will admit this any time soon.

Re:Thought...

[wojie]

absolutely impossible. if large scale gravitation was subject to a different set of laws, we would have noticed this a very long time ago. there would most certainly be manifestations of this on a smaller scale -- especially if the final result by omission of these effects was 90% off!

Re:Thought...

[God of Lemmings]

What works on the quantum scale isn't necessarily the same as normal scale. Why does normal scale have to be the same as a galactic scale? I think your idea of expansion could be valid in this case.

Re:Thought...

[efuseekay]

Yes, modifications to Gravity is one of the way to explain away dark matter/dark energy problems. It is an active field of research, but it is a hard one.

The problem is that while there is no direct tests of gravity at very large scales, there are a lot of "consistency" checks of the various cosmological observations (say of the cosmic microwave background anisotropies) that you have to satisfy.

In other words, there is no proof that such theories of modified gravity do not exist. But to find one is really hard.

Re:Thought...

[efuseekay]

We won't be all fucked :). (Though I would need to get some soon.)

In fact, large scales modifications to gravity is one of the "in" thing in cosmology right now. So there.

Re:Thought...

[SectoidRandom]

The situation here quite the opposite to what you suggest, our understanding of gravity has proved that our understanding of the universe is missing something. Not the other way around as you suggest.

So either e!=mc^2 or we just don't quite know everything about everything out there.. I'd guess the latter.

Re:Thought...

[centron]

I agree that our understanding of gravity may be flawed, but bearing in mind that I am not a physicist, I suggest another possiblity:

What if there are objects with mass at very-near-light speeds?

Relativity tells us that as an object approaches the speed of light, its mass increases. As mass increases, so must gravity. A collection of these objects in orbit of one another at the center of a galaxy might be enough to explain the missing mass, because the objects are tiny and due to their intense gravity do not reflect light (like a black hole)

Actual physicists, I would be interested to know if this theory is basically flawed or theoretically possible.

Re:Thought...

[efuseekay]

The OP is stating that it may be the other way around, which is a completely valid point to make.

Re:Thought...

[benna]

I'm not sure but I have a feeling this wouldn't work because this change in mass only happens to some observers.

Re:Thought...

[efuseekay]

This argument is actually flawed.

The answer is a bit involved.

But basically, the weighing of the matter (as quoted in the article) does not depend on just mass, but a quantity called "mass-energy". It is true that a particle moving at very high speeds seemed to gain "mass". But depending on observers travelling at different velocities relative to this particle, each will see a different mass. However this particle, irregardless of its velocity, will have a consistent "mass-energy" to all observers. In other words, everybody in the unvierse can agree on the amount of "mass-energy" each particle have. So there is a consistent picture of weighing the amount of mass of the universe.

That is the beauty of Einstein's Special Relativity, which is to unify mass and energy into a (jargon warning) relativistically consistent picture of mass-energy.

Re:Thought...

[rikkus-x]

My understanding of how gravity functions is that it's a force like any other. Every other person in the world, however, seems to think that gravity pulls. There's no such thing as pulling, you're always pushing. Gravity pushes. Objects get in its way and cast shadows, so on the shadowed side you get the impression you're being pulled towards the object casting the shadow, when in fact you're being pushed towards it by the 'background' gravity.

Oh, and all matter emits gravity.

I was happy when some people, who are supposed to be able to figure out such things, decided the expansion of the universe was accelerating, because if it was slowing, that would have blown my theory out of the water.

So I figured out gravity. Can I have my Nobel prize now?

Rik

Re:Thought...

[Zebede]

Perhaps instead of 90% of the universe missing, *we're* the ones made up of 'dark matter'.

Anybody ever stop to consider that the other 90% must have some sort of structure? There's probably dark matter stars, planets, gas clouds, etc. Perhaps some sort of dark matter inteligent life as well. Whereas we are trying to figure out where 90% of our universe is, the other side may be trying to figure out where their missing 10% is.

Most of us here belive in some sort of extraterrastrial life. I doubt many of us are naive enough to belive that life only exists on a small blue planet in the backwaters of a single galaxy. Considering dark matter occupies 90% of the mass in the universe, I think it would be naive to assume that life consisting of dark matter doesn't exist as well.

Oh well, it's just a random thought. We can't (yet) even prove the existance of dark matter, let alone manipulate and study it. Observing and contacting a civilization composed of dark matter would be all but impossible.

Wouldn't it be funny if *we* are actually the strange aliens composed of the 10% of mass missing from the 'real' universe?

Re:Thought...

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

Anybody ever stop to consider that the other 90% must have some sort of structure?

There is no logical necessity for that. Although you can conceive of matter that exists subject to a host of strong interactions but which does not interact with us -- that there are two "classes" of matter that exist separately -- there is no evidence for that. Occam's Razor says, don't invent whole universes for the heck of it. The simplest explanation consistent with the facts is taken to be true.

Indeed, many of the "hot" dark matter theories presume exactly no structure to the dark matter ... just streaming neutrinos flashing throughout the volume of the universe.

Re:Thought...

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

Objects get in its way and cast shadows, so on the shadowed side you get the impression you're being pulled towards the object casting the shadow, when in fact you're being pushed towards it by the 'background' gravity.

Why aren't you "pushed" by the shadowing object, too? And since it's closer, its effect (one would expect) would be stronger ... so you should be repelled. And thus:

Can I have my Nobel prize now?

No.

Re:Thought...

[Paradise Pete]

Why aren't you "pushed" by the shadowing object, too? And since it's closer, its effect (one would expect) would be stronger ... so you should be repelled.

I think for his idea to work then gravity would have to increase with distance, and decrease with mass. Then the big close things hardly push you away at all, and so you get shoved into them. Maybe in the end it's exactly the same as "regular" gravity, but with the signs reversed.

Re:Thought...

[thogard]

Is this the same gravity that we understand so well, that we can't explain some slowing of GPS sats, slowing of all the deep space probes, funky stuff with pendulums durring an eclipse?

Re:Thought...

[Valar]

Sweet, lord. What has he done with those perfectly good theories?

Re:Thought...

[Mr. Slippery]

...there is no evidence for that. Occam's Razor says, don't invent whole universes for the heck of it. The simplest explanation consistent with the facts is taken to be true.

The problem is, it's not always simple to tell which is the simpler explanation. Is it simpler to posit two forms of matter which behave similarly but don't interact with each other, or two forms of matter where one has complex structure and one doesn't? Certainly in the latter case, you've got to explain why our type of matter comes in thirty-six flavors while dark matter only comes in vanilla.

Re:Thought...

[Daetrin]

"isn't it possible that we don't have an accurate understanding of how gravity functions on an extremely large scale?"

My first though on reading this was "Maybe Vernor Vinge's 'Zones of Thought' idea is real after all!"

Re:Thought...

[Planesdragon]

Rather than 90% of the mass in the universe being AWOL, isn't it possible that we don't have an accurate understanding of how gravity functions on an extremely large scale? Could this, in turn, be related to how the expansion of the universe appears to be actually speeding up rather than, as we'd expect, slowing down?

Hell yes.

Astronomically speaking, we're expecing to understand how wall street works by doing nothing more than staring at the trading room floor in a language we don't understand and without auditory input.

For some reason, science falls back on "we've got gravity down, so we must be missing dark matter" before "we might have gravity a bit off."

Historical Analogues

[Farley Mullet]

Back in the 19th century, astronomers had noticed that there was a minute procession in the perihelion of Mercury (in other words, the point in Mercury's orbit that is closest to the sun kept moving forward) that they couldn't account for using the Keplerian/Newtonian model of celestial dynamics. Astronomers thought that it must have reflected the influence of some massive, distant unknown planet; predictions were made about where this planet was and what its mass was, but astronomers couldn't find it. Then all of a sudden General Relativity came along, and our understanding of mechanics in gravitational fields was improved, and the procession was easily predicted (within an incredibly small margin, as I recall). So it seems just as likely that the "missing mass" is due to a theoretical deficit as it is due to an observational deficit.

Re:Historical Analogues

[efuseekay]

This is actually a very good cautionary tale. The mysterious "massive unknown planet" is the first case of "dark matter". Of course it went away after GR was discovered by Einstein.

Who knows if the current mess of missing matter would not go away if we have gain deeper insight into the nature of gravity?

Re:Historical Analogues

[Weaselmancer]

Extremely well put.

Strange isn't it? How a well educated group of people who admit they haven't solved for quantum gravity use gravitational effects to conclude that 90% of the universe is missing.

A history lesson or two would probably do as much as the funding.

Re:Historical Analogues

[krlynch]

While this is a useful cautionary tale, you have to be a bit careful in your interpretation of it. It is quite easy to show (and it is a typical undergraduate classical mechanics homework problem) that the perturbations of Mercury's orbit CAN NOT be explained within the Newtonian model by the addition of another point source (ie, a planet), because any such explanation would cause a larger than observed perturbation to the orbits of Venus, Earth, and Mars. And this was a well known issue BEFORE Einstein started working on his GR theory. In other words, physicists knew there was something wrong with the theory long before they had a theoretical solution, because the preminent gravitational model of the time was predicting the wrong thing when confronted with the available data.

The cautionary aspect of the tale, though, is well understood by the larger physics community, and dozens of modified and new models of gravity HAVE been proposed in the literature to explain the apparent "missing mass" of the universe without invoking unobserved particles; but they all run afoul of some observation or other. The current model has been arrived at by the consensus of a large number of physicists and astronomers around the globe over a long span of time ... it isn't a flash in the pan, and while it could be wrong, the data on many length and time scales just seems to get more compelling as we add to it, rather than less.

In this case, we understand GR, its cosmological implications, and the requisite post-Newtonian approximation schemes well enough that we have developed a model that match ALL known observations with the inclusion of dark matter and dark energy components. It isn't just one or two observations of rotation curves that have pushed us in the direction of dark matter, but literally dozens of observations, from widely different length and time scales, from cosmic background radiation to rotation curves, from earthbound laboratory measurements to interstellar radiotelescope observations. It is certainly POSSIBLE that there is a theoretical description available that doesn't require dark matter/energy, AND explains all of the data, but it looks more likely to the daily practitioner that the current theory is good at the length scales it is being applied to, and the dark matter/energy is the simpler solution.

I'd like to point out one other cautionary tale to those who want to blame the theory, and points out that well tested theories are not tossed out immediately when new or contradictory data comes along: in the early part of the 20th century, observations of beta decay led many physicists to conclude that the very fundamental conservation laws of energy and momentum (and the entire theoretical framework that so neatly explains them) would have to be tossed out the window, because the observed decay products (electrons and nuclei) didn't appear to follow those conservation laws. But some very smart people, including Pauli, said "Wait, the theory has worked so well up to now that we should look for a SIMPLER explanation; we propose a to-date unobserved particle with no charge and no mass produced in association with electrons in these decays." That was scoffed at by many, but a few years later just that very particle was observed: the electron neutrino. My point is just that, while you need to keep an open mind and be willing to challenge both experiment AND theory, you have to do so with the WHOLE picture in mind, and not just a tiny corner .... that is what science and the scientific process is all about.

So thats where my dryer sends my clothes

[1nsane0ne]

If 90% of the universe is missing, I'm betting that my dryer is the portal to the missing part. Let me explain. I put a load of clothes in the washer. Then I move them from the washer to my dryer. Then when the dryer gets done with them and I put them on my bed to be folded, stuff that was there when I put the clothes into the dryer is always missing. This has convinced me that my dryer is a portal of sorts to somewhere. On a side note if anyone wants to get in my dryer and try to open this portal somehow you're more then welcome assuming you get me my clothes back.A big plus would be that you'd get the credit for finding the rest of the universe.

Re:So thats where my dryer sends my clothes

[haystor]

I've solved the mystery of where clothes go in the dryer. They turn into dust.

This explains several things. Where dust comes from and where clothes go. It also explains that are clothes don't just *seem* to get smaller every year, they actually are.

Re:So thats where my dryer sends my clothes

[inaeldi]

I thought the dryer went to Narnia.

Re:So thats where my dryer sends my clothes

[JohnFluxx]

Whatever the missing 90% is, I sure hope it isn't coachroaches.

Re:So thats where my dryer sends my clothes

[barakn]

2 words: Dryer cam.

Re:So thats where my dryer sends my clothes

[MorePower]

I've done some experiments and discovered that clothes actually disappear in the WASHER, not the dryer like everyone thinks. This is the main thing that is holding up missing sock research. Once the mainstream scientific community accepts my unorthodox washer theories, I'm sure rapid advances in our understanding of how clothes disappear will follow quickly.

Personally I am a big advocate of the Spontanious Conversion to Lint thoery (how else do you explain where all the lint comes from? I certainly don't put a big wad of lint in my laundry) but I admit that the dimentional portal theories have some merit. Clearly there is much more research to be done.

Stephen Hawking's wishful thinking

[kindofblue]

In his book, A Brief History of Time, I think he said something to the effect that he believes that we'll figure out most of the big questions about the nature of the universe within 10 years or so. That was about 15 years ago. Does anybody remember reading this?

When I saw that, I remember thinking that's naive and contrary to the entire history of scientific research. Anyway, it reminds me that even some of the best minds say some of the stupidest things. Especially in physics.

I'm not a physicist but I'm pretty damn sure that Stephen Wolfram and Roger Penrose have had some pretty wacky theories when they venture away from straight physics, like into cellular biology, free will, philosophy, ...

Re:Stephen Hawking's wishful thinking

[benna]

Not to be cruel but I think he said that just cause he wants to be alive when it happens. Don't get me wrong he is very interesting but I think some of his more optomistic predictions are for that reason.

Re:Stephen Hawking's wishful thinking

[wojie]

prof hawking has strayed somewhat into the science of speculation.

for some funny reading check out the website devoted to the non-existance of gravitation. they speculate that everything is expanding at an ever-increasing rate, so that's why we 'fall' toward the earth, and experience a push when we stand on it. pretty hilarious. if someone has the link ...

Re:Stephen Hawking's wishful thinking

[bonsai_kitty]

What if Hawkings is right? Our visable universe could be partially inside of a Black Hole/Gravity Well or whatever trying to look out at the rest. By extension of one of his other theories we wouldn't know it...it would be eternity before we were crushed or what not.

Re:Stephen Hawking's wishful thinking

[SectoidRandom]

At the beginning of the 90's many new theories like Superstring theory were thought to be on the verge of a break through, Hawkings was not alone to think this and other questions would be answered very soon.

It's perhaps not so wrong anyway, there are after all many "theories" about what this mass may be made up of, just not many can be easily proved / disproved. Hence this experiment and /. topic!

Re:Stephen Hawking's wishful thinking

[Buzz_Litebeer]

I mean, why are we here discussing Jesse Venturas "Guide to how the Universe works" I mean in his book, it would be possible that when I post this message, It might accidently get posted in a Universe where say some bonehead like that wrestler Steven Hawking as a crippled SuperGeneous, and we havent seen that kind of mind since Eisenhowers general theory of relativity in 1938.

I mean how do we know these things dont happen all the time?

Re:Stephen Hawking's wishful thinking

[Galvatron]

I think he said something to the effect that he believes that we'll figure out most of the big questions about the nature of the universe within 10 years or so. That was about 15 years ago.

I have a video clip (from circa 2001) where he's being asked about this very issue. His reply is "in 1980, I said I thought there was a 50-50 chance we would find a complete unified theory in the next 20 years. Well, we didn't make it. However, my estimate is still that we will find a complete unified theory in the next 20 years, but the 20 years starts now."

So, he admits he was wrong, that the promising theories did not pan out, but he's still optimistic. *shrug* If you think that a complete unified theory will never be found, that's fine, you're welcome to ignore his predictions. He's obviously biased, because he believes that there is a complete unified theory out there somewhere, waiting to be discovered, and he wants to know what it is.

Still, I wouldn't totally dismiss his beliefs out of hand just because it seems contrary to the history of science. If you think of the universe as being like a murder mystery, just because you've found many clues, which first caused you to to suspect one person, then proved his innocence and led you to suspect another, doesn't mean it's impossible to find out who the culprit really is. The analogy may not be perfect, but it is dangerous sometimes to conclude that future progress is either inevitable or impossible because of the past.

Re:Stephen Hawking's wishful thinking

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

it would be eternity before we were crushed or what not.

No, in our reference frame, it would take only the free fall time to reach the center. Unless of course something were "holding" us away from it -- in which case, light falling in from outside (and there would be some, even if only from thermal emissions or even quantum fluctuations -- would be infinitely blueshifted and fry us in a blaze of ultraviolet glory.

Re:Dark Matter/Ether?

[benna]

No because ether was supposed to be everywhere and be charectoristically different from all other matter. This dark matter should in theory at least be similar in nature to other things we see. So I will keep my physical theories background independent thank you very much (if you got that last thing please reply so I can add you to my freinds list).

Missing matter

[God of Lemmings]

Regardless of whether they find some "missing matter" by finding a number of wimps, just as they have found failed stars (machos), I feel there is still too much of the universe missing to be covered by wimps and machos. It seems that it is far more likely that science is wrong about how gravity and/or matter work over long distances than the amount of missing matter to be around 90%.

Just another WIMP-seeking experiment

[dragonsister]

The article is remarkably light in details, not even mentioning whether or not the experiment is looking for neutrinos or something else. There are a number of experiments involving big detection systems underground - most of them designed to pick out neutrinos - and there's an on-going discussion as to whether or not neutrinos have mass, because if they do, there's enough of them that they might well make up the missing mass of the universe.

To show that neutrinos have mass, it suffices to observe solar neutrinos and look for changes in neutrino flavour. Last I heard, although large regions in which the neutrino masses could have lain had been ruled out, the evidence was mounting in favour of flavour changes and neutrinos having mass.

However, with all I've heard about neutrino studies over the last few years in a Nuclear Physics department, this article doesn't give enough information to let me work out if I already know of the experiment or not (though I probably have attended seminars by associated researchers; these projects are not exactly three-person exercises capable of being missed!) They don't even give the experiment's *name* - NOMAD, CHORUS, SNO, etc (many listed on this page)

The article *might* be referring to the UK Dark Matter Collaboration who apparently look for neutralinos instead (neutralinos appear to crop up deep inside what we Nuclear Physicists call 'Particle Physics', which is full of leptons and mesons and other fun particles, fine, and some of the most brain-bending mathematics it has been my priviledge to not understand.)

Rachel

Re:Just another WIMP-seeking experiment

[zCyl]

and there's an on-going discussion as to whether or not neutrinos have mass, because if they do, there's enough of them that they might well make up the missing mass of the universe.

The discussion has pretty much moved toward conclusion, and the conclusion is that neutrinos DO have mass, and that the limits placed upon their mass, while greater than zero, do not yield enough total mass to account for the remainder of missing mass. These results might shift slightly with corrections of experimental error, but a drastic change is unlikely.

Re:Just another WIMP-seeking experiment

[Associate]

Ok, ok. It's 89% of the universe is missing. Still doesn't keep my coffee warmer longer, or make my breath minty fresh. And what about those missing socks?

Re:Just another WIMP-seeking experiment

[barakn]

The article is remarkably light in details, not even mentioning whether or not the experiment is looking for neutrinos or something else.

Neutrinos aren't WIMPs, so they have mentioned that it is looking for something else. The new lab is the news. A large number of experiments have or will be performed there.

NEWS FLASH!!!

[KewlPC]

Item: the universe has matter that can't be seen from earth using our current technology!

Item: retarded scientists conclude that because we can't see it, regardless of why (too small, too far away, maybe obscured by some other object, maybe it just isn't reflective enough (like many objects in our own solar system), etc.), it must be some mysterious new type of matter! WIMP! MACHO! Dark matter! Crazy death x-ray xeno mega matter!

Black Listed

[OneArmedMan]

Its not that 90% of the Universe is missing, but because of all the Email spam problems we have, the Earth has been Black Listed. I contened that once we solve the spam problem, we will be able to reach the rest of the Universe. With that said, dont epect to be able to reach the rest of the Universe for quite some time.

Other Experiments

[jpflip]

It's worth noting that this is far from the only such experiment searching for WIMP dark matter on earth. The Cryogenic Dark Matter Search (which I work on), for example, is in the process of an analogous experiment with silicon detectors in Minnesota's Soudan mine. Other such experiments were listed in a Scientific American article in March.

Re:Other Experiments

[benna]

Kewl I have been there...I love it when they take you down in the mine and turn of the lights just for fun.

Re:Dark Matter/Ether?

[benna]

We couldn't test for ether's existance. Thats the point. It doesn't exist and according to einstein there is no need for it to. As for dark matter affecting time. In large enough quantities any matter can create enough gravity to do that.

Re:er (AKA Reality check)

[bonsai_kitty]

There are two ways to glide through life with out thinking: Belive everything blindly or disbelive it in the same fashion, either way you will never see the point.

Not True

[efuseekay]

Not true.

Gravity is only tested to solar system scales, and in an indirect way, galactic cluster lensing effects.

At very large scales, say of the Hubble radius, we have no tests of gravity. Cosmological models are almost always based on the belief that Gravity works at the very large scales, an extrapolation of many orders of magnitude. There is no proof that this is a valid extrapolation, and there are hints that they are not. (Like they lead to an extremely highly unlike situation. Check out This Talk )

Large scale modifications of gravity may affect the smaller scales, but these effects are naturally suppressed (you can cook up theories where they are not suppressed, but then it is not "large scale" modifications anymore). So to discover these effects are hard.

We have experimental constraints of course, but they are not very strong.

Re:Not True

[leonbrooks]

Gravity is only tested to solar system scales, and in an indirect way, galactic cluster lensing effects.

Agree. And we make an awful lot of assumptions about the continuity of physics even at galactic scales.

The bottom line is that we start by assuming that because a theory fits some observed properties of the universe -and- we have not yet thought of a better (or at least more appealing to us) theory, the one we have is true. "If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."

This is especially true of the really grand assumptions like "the universe has no centre and no edge" and "the en-bloc redshifting of distant objects is evidence of recession caused only by the stretching of space"; the problems these assumptions cause conventional science run deep, yet so well embedded in orthodox scientific dogma are they that the vast majority of scientists would rather reject the growing collection of conflicting data than the dogma. (see here for discussion of something even weirder).

Re:Not True

[efuseekay]

THe article you linked to is actually full of inaccuracies. Take the bit about quasars for example.


Very accurate positional measurements by radio telescopes (using very long baseline interferometry) revealed the astounding fact that some quasars appeared to be expanding at up to ten times the speed of light. This was in complete violation of the accepted laws of Einsteinian physics

This is an argument from incredulity. IN fact, the apparent superluminal expansion is explained neatly away by the fact that the jet of the quasars are pointed right at us. It is a nice little problem in relativity to show this is true.

Here is another one :
The orthodox view is that quasars are just abnormal (e.g. superluminous) galaxies and that they can only have a redshift caused by velocity. Arp drew attention to quasars interlinking with galaxies. But a large body of opinion now holds that galaxies can violate the redshift distance-relation. It is the most peculiar galaxies, those most like quasars, which offer the most compelling evidence for non-velocity redshift.

This is an argument from false authority. Most galaxies close to us obey the Hubble Law to a great accuracy (those further away has a distinct deviation from velocity-distance diagram, but they are exactly as predicted by general relativity with 75% dark energy). Peculiar velocity is a contribution to red-shift, that's true, but the contribution is very small. In fact, it is a known systematic that can often be removed. (THey lead to so-called fingers of god in redshift-luminosity diagrams, i.e. a small 'stretching' of otherwise homogenous distribution of galaxies.)

It is good to entertain heretical ideas, but they have to pass the same stringent tests as those which you called "scientific dogma". Science has no dogma, just tested ideas. Any of them can fall, but if you want to overturn it, you better come up with a better one, not just a different one.

I will end this with a fallacy of my own :), that's it, a personal attack : becareful of Arp's ideas, many (if not all) of them are plain wrong.

Dark data....

[mseeger]

Hi,

i'm currently investigating a similar matter: dark data. It seems to occupy around 90% of my hard disk.

Bye, Martin

Re:Dark data....

[MisterEGecko]

Around these parts, that's called pr0n.

-- The Gecko of Mysteries

Re:Dark data....

[Mortenson]

If you are being half-way serious. Try downloading Space Monger. On Windows at least it does a Great! job of helping you understand what the "dark data" on every hard disk actually is. Always amazes me how much of it is under the Windows directory.

Cheers, Leif

Re:Dark data....

[orius_khan]

i'm currently investigating a similar matter: dark data.

I've seen 'dark data' before... (I think they called it Lore). It was kinda cool, until that whole cheesy fiasco of him making Borgs with feelings... that was just plain stupid.

Re:Bush Administration cites Missing Universe Theo

[powerlinekid]

I thought Iraq kept their WMD in heaven?

Correct me if I'm wrong,

[inaeldi]

but couldn't black holes, neutron stars, and whatnot account for some of this missing matter?

too much D&D

[DrMrLordX]

I keep wondering if their experiments will be complicated by random encounters with umber hulks in the mines . . .

Does the missing matter in the universe matter?

[zakezuke]

based on our current understanding of the universe there are

1. Things that matter
2. Things that don't matter
3. Things that are mattering

We need to determine wether or not this missing mater matters, or does not matter. If it indeed does matter or is matering, we have a bunch of confused astrometers on our hands.

Re:Does the missing matter in the universe matter?

[teasea]

OTOH, does your fecal matter?

Re:Does the missing matter in the universe matter?

[keller]

And if it doesn't matter, is it news for nerds then?

The New Gravity

[mindpixel]

Dark Matter isn't the only explanation for Fritz Zwicky's 1993 observation.

MOND or Modified Newtonian Dynamics proposed by Moti Milgrom is I think better. If I were to bet on someone winning a future Nobel, Milgrom would be the person.

I'm driving the VLT as I type this...sentence was interrupted for a preset...I'm back now.

Anyway, I know a number of scientists that seriously consider the Newton's may not work at large scales. Nature recently rejected a paper from some rather prominent that seemed to confirm that gravity behaves differently at large scales. But, science is very reluctant to change its equations and publication will have to await more data.

Just remember - Dark matter may not exist. Be skeptical of those who treat it as fact.

MOND FAQ

Dark-Matter Heretic [This is a wonderful article]

Re:The New Gravity

[benna]

Dark Matter isn't even an explaination. Its just a scary name given to a lack of understanding.

Re:The New Gravity

[mph]

Dark Matter isn't the only explanation for Fritz Zwicky's 1993 observation.

Zwicky died in 1974, so explaning his 1993 observations will require truly remarkable new theories of time and causality. It will make explaining his 1933 observations look easy.

I'm at the Palomar 200-inch, by the way. But we're in fog for the third night straight, so I have plenty of time for posting to Slashdot.

Re:The New Gravity

[mindpixel]

That's what I get for driving and posting at the same time!! 1933 obviously.

Re:The New Gravity

[mindpixel]

Hey! I've never run into a fellow telescope operator before. Very cool. Seeing .44 right now... looking 161019/-113838 for a comet that does not seem to be there...

Re:The New Gravity

[mph]

I'm actually the observer, not the operator. (This is fine example of our tendency to see the world through our own perspective; I assumed you were an observer.)

This is the last of my three nights and we haven't opened yet. Hasn't even been close. Tonight looked promising in the afternoon, but the fog has just completely stalled out here. Another two hours or so and it will officially be a completely useless run. Glad you're doing better... send some of that up here.

Re:The New Gravity

[mindpixel]

We were closed monday night...and closed early on another night this week...can't remember which...they all blur together...would be easier to figure out if people would just wear different clothes on different nights, but I 've given that one up as hopeless.

Re: The New Gravity

[Black Parrot]

> I'm actually the observer, not the operator.

"...but let the engine jump the track and see who catches hell!"

Re:The New Gravity

[sunaj]

...looking for a comet that does not seem to be there... uhhh...is it moving towrds us...or away????

What? Where? (Excuse me?)

[benja]

Did I... get that right? They found 90% of the Universe in a Yorkshire mine of all places?

Damn... oughta've RTFA...

Re:Bush Administration cites Missing Universe Theo

[Anonymous Coward]

Furthermore, if Al Quaeda were to buy, steal, or receive plutonium as a gift from the missing 90% of the universe, then Al Quaeda would be dangerously close to having a nuclear weapon. This is unacceptable.

Clearly, 90% of the universe needs to be destroyed. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

Missing Socks

[mrbrown1602]

So THAT'S where all my missing socks are!!!

my english101

[The Unabageler]

paper from 5 years ago about dark matter was more informative than that article. This thing reads like it was written by a mouthbreather -- one too stupid to close their mouth and breathe through their nose.

Re:This brings up an interesting question...+ essa

[zakezuke]

the front of software patents and IP, I tend to divide rights into those that are inherent, and those that are granted. Inherent rights are those that cannot be taken away: the right to travel, the right to work, the right to property, the right to learn, the right to think or believe as you choose..

Why have granted rights? Well, a country with inherent rights and much charity doesn't need granted rights -- but I have yet to see that happen.

You feel that politics, IP laws, and patent infringement is denying our access to 90% of the mater in the universe, and because our respective nations grant us rights to much in the way of matter in the universe. Interesting theory, I imagine the RIAA and MPAA have something to do with this, the fact that they both feel they have exclusive rights to distrubute matter.

I agree it would be nice if we were able to gain access to matter for just a small monthly fee, and have the right to compress our matter as we choose.

This was solved a long time ago...

[tlambert]

This was solved a long time ago...

...the missing mass is AOL disks.

-- Terry

Yes, there are tests...

[mindpixel]

Yes, there are tests for gravity at large scales. See for example: A Test of Newton's Law of Gravity in the Weak Acceleration Regime

From the abstract:

"A pilot experiment suitable to test Newton's law of gravity down to the regime of acceleration typical of galaxies has been carried out in Omega Centauri. Stars in the extreme periphery of this globular cluster are used as test particles immersed in such weak gravitational field. The stellar velocity dispersion is found to remain constant at large radii, rather than decrease monotonically, starting at acceleration a=10e-7 cm/s2. This is comparable to the acceleration at which the effect of dark matter becomes relevant in galaxies. Explanations for this result within Newtonian dynamics exist (e.g. cluster evaporation, tidal effects, presence of dark matter) but require fine tuning of the relevant parameters in order to make the dispersion profile flat. An interesting alternative is that this result, together with a similar one for Palomar 13 and the anomalous behavior of spacecrafts outside the solar system, suggests a breakdown of Newton's law in the weak acceleration regime."

Re:Yes, there are tests...

[efuseekay]

It is a test of Newtonian gravity. In fact it is not even a test of newtonian gravity, but just a test of the centripetal force = newtonian gravity law. You can imagine either to be wrong, or inaccurate.

They found that gravity "breakdown" at some small acceleration scale. The problem with "acceleration scales" breakdown is that 'acceleration', as defined in their paper, is not a (jargon!) covariant statement. In other words, they are saying acceleration with respect to the center of mass of the cluster. But of course a different observer, say somebody flying in a spaceship next to the cluster, will measure a different acceleration wrt to him. This means that the apparent breakdown is depends on coordinates you choose, but physics should not depend on coordinates. While there is no proof one cannot formulate some screwy theory which can fit this observations and be also coordinate invariant, nobody has done it yet. (It's called MOND, and somewhere along this /. article somebody has posted the links.)

But it is true that the so-called "small acceleration" breakdown at about 10^{-8} cm/s is an annoying thing that won't go away. The Pioneer 10 spacecraft has the same anomaly. The paper you cited is a increase in the "scale" to globular cluster scale, which is interesting, but you can imagine (as the paper itself noted) many things can explain it other than modification to gravity. (the paper suggested perhaps some objects are actually binaries, so their counting of mass may be wrong.)

The point of the paper is that while you can argue away the same "breakdown" in newtonian physics in galaxy scales by putting in dark matter, you cannot do the same with globular clusters, since DM is not known to cluster around such objects. This is interesting, but we'll wait and see :).

But anyway, these are consider tests at "small scales" :). The large scales I mean, bigger than Galaxy Cluster scales...

Re:Yes, there are tests...

[mindpixel]

Need an OWL to do this on the scale you speak...Marconi is here tonight at Paranal, Scarpa usually is as well and Gilmozzi is my boss...it was me that pointed to MOND.

Re:Yes, there are tests...

[efuseekay]

Hehehe. I spent an entire year trying to formulate a covariant form of Mond with no success. So there!

Re:Yes, there are tests...

[mindpixel]

Anyone who knows what MOND is is great in my books. Anyone who tries to formutlate a covariant form of MOND is just plain wonderful. Keep trying!

Re:Yes, there are tests...

[efuseekay]

well, you might be interested in this :

http://xxx.lanl.gov/ps/astro-ph/0302030

Re:Yes, there are tests...

[mindpixel]

Thanks. It's on the way to the printer now.

This much I know..

[ilyag]

..IANAP (i'm not a physicist), though.

There are two strage things happening in the universe on the large scale. The first one is the "dark matter". Basically, if we apply Newton's equations for gravity to various galaxies, we find out that they are spinning too fast. If the force holding them together is what we think it is, most of the stars in a galaxy should have been slingshoted away and left the galaxy. So there must be something making the attraction stronger than we think.

The second strangeness - the "dark energy" - concerns the expansion of the universe. Different pieces of matter in the universe attract to each other by gravity. This slows down the expansion of the universe. As far as we know, gravity is the only thing that can affect the universe on a large scale. So, the expansion of the universe should be slowing down. However, as WMAP showed, the rate of expansion of the universe is actually speeding up. So, there must be something that makes the universe speed up faster than we think.

In both cases, there are two possibilities. The first one is that the anomality is equally distributed through space. This would mean that our equations are a little bit off. For instance, we can account for the "dark energy" by adding an extra term to Einstein's equation for the expansion of the universe. If we change Newton's equation to make gravity stronger over large distances, we can eliminate dark matter.

Yet, there is a possibility that there can be more of the "strangeness" in one point in the universe than in another. For example, one galaxy may be held together tighter than another one of the same size. That would mean that there is another strange beast in the universe apart from the types of matter and energy we know. A whole new branch of physics will be needed to deal with the beast and ask questions like "Why is there more dark matter here than there is there?" and "Does dark matter interact with ordinary matter in any other way than gravity?". Dark matter will compress things on a smaller scale; dark energy will expand things on a larger scale. Obviosly, the statement that "Universe is 75% (or whatever) dark matter" will only be meaningful in this case. As far as I know, we need more precise observations to choose between the two possibilities.

I hope that someone who actually is a physicist, is not asleep, or can reach the "Reply" button will explain all the points I'm wrong on...

Re:This much I know..

[Keith Gabryelski]

Simply put... god is a hack -- He had a week to make the universe -- instead he watched kung fu movies for 6 of the days and pulled in an all nighter ...

when he was done he found galaxies weren't spinning perfectly with e = mc^2 ... (the bug is actually in the large_scale_effect() method -- but that is another story) ... so he put in a couple of frobs to get things moving at the rate he thought satisfied his artistic needs.

Checked it in... no one QA'd it... packaged and shipped it ... and we bought it en masse.

uhh... if you have a better explanation, bring it forward...

The answer to the riddle of the socks

[MousePotato]

If they ever find the missing 90%... I want back all my missing socks, several sets of keys, two wallets and my mind...

Re: The answer to the riddle of the socks

[Black Parrot]

> If they ever find the missing 90%...

I think it has been converted to sock puppets on the internet.

We hardly ever heard complaints about missing mass before the internet came around, you know.

Re:I'd check the dryer...

[Wakkow]

At first I thought you said stocks.. But then again, I'm sure many people are wondering where 90% value of those went too...

That's twice.

[leonbrooks]

Does that mean that the question is no longer "What is 8 times 6?"

It never was. Try "What do you get when you multiply six by nine?" And the answer is 42 iff you do the arithmetic in base 13 and read out the answer in base 10:

bc 1.06
Copyright 1991-1994, 1997, 1998, 2000 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.
For details type `warranty'.
ibase=13
6*9
42
^D

As I understand it, Douglas didn't plan it that way. The universe is always odder then it seems.

Re:That's twice.

[hpa]

Presumably you mean the opposite: you need to read out the output in base 13 (obase=13). You can do the arithmetic in any base >= 10.

Re:That's twice.

[xaaronx]

I don't make jokes in base 13. Anyone who does should get help.
--Douglas Adams

Re:Bush Administration cites Missing Universe Theo

[Anonymous Coward]

in other news, iraq's former information minister denied the presence of weapons of mass destruction, denied the existence of the universe, and swore that the numbers '9' and '0' could not possible go together and "were commiting suicide at the walls of the '%' sign."

"the evil, insidious dogs of war who continue to spread these lies of a universe are defeated -- and they are dead," said the confused, babbling minister of information "my feelings - as usual - we will slaughter them all, and they will be slaughtered."

It's in energy

[minkwe]

E = mc**2

Re:It's in energy

[TMB]

Nice try, but most of the mass-energy of the universe really is in mass. In the very early universe, most of it was in energy, but the density goes down faster with the expansion of the universe than the matter density does (R^-4 instead of R^-3)... the matter is (quick calculation) about 20,000x more important currently.

[TMB]

Earlier BBC article about this

[orbitalia]

There is a more detailed article about this at the BBC

explains a lot

[VanillaCoke420]

What most people don't know is that this portion of the universe that is unknown and missing, is actually growing, day by day. And once we can find it, that will be the day when the missing socks will turn up, as well as a lot of pennies and dimes, a few keys, and all those darn Lego pieces you were searching for all those years ago.

thats a relief

[KingRamsis]

about 90 per cent of the universe is missing.


that explains what happend to my favorite mouse pad

s/procession/precession/

[leonbrooks]

procession

precession

Not very different, those words, but don't go astrogating without the correct one. (-:

Re:s/procession/precession/

[Farley Mullet]

thanks for catching my error.

;)

Re:s/procession/precession/

[leonbrooks]

No worries, I see where you're coming from, mate. (-:

Hah, forget the shoes...look in the CAT5 Forest!

[opti6600]

No way! Definitely in my cable pile...I found a fire extinguisher and a Talking Heads CD in there the other day (no joke!)!

Missing matter found?

[rhs98]

Missingmatter found?

Obligatory Ren & Stimpy quote...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Wanna know how to be a genius? Just say 'everything stinks'. That way you're never wrong."

Universe Lite

[Zakabog]

We couldn't afford the Pro version of the Universe which comes with 100% of the mass in a fully functional universe, so we settled with Universe Lite which is a toned down, cheaper, consumer market version. Most of the missing mass is in gas and small particles anyway so we didn't need it that badly.

If this is news for nerds...

[CPgrower]

...would it be stuff that matters?

HmMMm...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Lost a universe, Master Obi-Wan has. How embarrassing... how embarrassing!"

Correction...

[clambake]

Clearly, 90% of the universe needs to be destroyed.

I think you meant "liberated".

Um...

[clambake]

Hey, man: $45 will NOT buy you a decent steak dinner.

Actually, $22.50 steak * 2 = $45... He probably already has salt, pepper and an oven.

Re:Um...

[jagilbertvt]

I think he was stating that you have to do it yourself, not buy a cooked steak at a restaurant to get a decent steak dinner.

It's not the Universe we're missing 90% of

[thehunger]

It's the equations physisists use that 90% lacking. It's an emporors clothes thing.

Re:It's not the Universe we're missing 90% of

[dollar70]

There's a bit more truth here than you realize. Back in ancient times, churches hated the notion that the earth went 'round the sun, because it defied their religious beliefs. So too today, we have a religious belief in the force of gravity. But consider for a moment the possibility that gravity is not what is truly at work.

You see, we perceive gravity because things fall down. But just as the sun going around the earth would have looked exactly the same to those primatives back in medieval times, we don't see what the actual effect at work is.

Look at this in terms of mass vs. weight: Where is your best deal on purchasing a pound of hamburger: On top of a mountain, or at sea level? Most people with meager skills in physics will be able to tell you that the hamburger will weigh less on top of a mountain, so you will get more mass.

But now let's take a look at what happens as you go below sea level: There is every indication that the deeper you go beneath the earth's surface, the hamburger gets heavier. If gravity were the force at work, then wouldn't the matter above the hamburger attract it and make the mass "lighter"? But this is not the case. In fact, as one goes deeper into the earth, the mass gains weight more and more. This is a measurable fact that scientists just tend to gloss over.

So what is going on here? Why wouldn't the matter above the mass counter the matter below? Simple. Matter does not contain gravity. Gravity is but the illusion you see as the apple falls. Newton was an idiot who pointed out a scientific observation as pathetically outdated as the sun going around the earth.

The actual equation can be balenced when you are finally ready to tackle the real force at work: Space Repels. That's right. Nature doesn't abhor a vacuum in as much as that empty vacuum abhors all matter. It forces it to clump together when it can, and spread the heck out when it can't contain it all in one spot.

This is why the current equations don't work. They rely on fautly precepts that don't work on the cosmological scale.

Good luck to you people who want to tackle the equation from the right perspective... You've got a lot of Newtonian crusaders who would just love to argue ad nauseum before anything productive could ever be accomplished.

Re:It's not the Universe we're missing 90% of

[Big_Breaker]

Actually the hamburger gets lighter if you could qeigh it below sea level. Convince yourself with the differential form of the gravity equation and some integral calculus but:

outside of a solid sphere gravity drops off as the square of the distance.

inside of a solid sphere gravity starts at zero at the center and increases linearly to the surface of the sphere.

The same math goes for electrostatics... here is a link: musr.physics.ubc.ca/~jess/hr/skept/Gauss/node4.htm l

Search for the Missing Universe - huh?

[kasperd]

Did they misplace it again? When are they going to learn it? Always put the Universe back once you are done using it!

We're not alone - we just can't see them

[esanbock]

Here's my theory: the rest of the Universe is actually normal and is made up of dark matter. Us "regular matter" people are in the minority so we think we're alone in the universe. But if you ask me, the intelligent life in the universe that's made up of dark matter is regularly interacting with other dark-matter civilizations in Star Trek fashion.

That, or we're all just computer simulations.

Crucial question

[Anonymous Coward]

Heat your oven to 500

Centigrade or Fahrenheit??!

Not just another WIMP-seeking experiment

[levell]

I'm feeling smug at the moment as I went to the official opening of the latest stage of this project last Monday and actually got to go down the mine!

There are a few experiments down there, the main three are Zeppelin I, Drift I and an NaI detector.

All three are looking for WIMPS - weakly interacting objects - heavy particles that provide extra gravitation to the universe but are hard to see. But there are differences between them. The NaI experiments main job is to rule out completely (or confirm) a possible discovery of WIMPs made at another such lab - Gran Sasso in Italy. The signal seen there is very strange and indiciates masses of particles we don't expect so I think most people expect it to have a problem with that experiment.

Drift I and Zeppelin I are both really R&D devices built to test technology to be used in bigger experiments (Drift II and Zeppelin II) that are being built now. Zeppelin is a conventional dark matter detector and can search for a bigger range of pssibe masses than Drift but Drift is the first WIMP "Telescope", if it sees anything it can tell which direction the WIMP came from which makes it easier to rule out background noise but will also tell us interesting things - is the dark matter in a disc like our visible galaxy or a sphere like some simulation predict it is.

The mine itself is very cool - deepest in Europe and they mine Potash and rock salt but the tunnels are rock salt so that you they feel soft to the touch, the tuneels are much bigger than I was expecting too! They drive vans around down there that have been lowered down the mine shaft nose first!

90% smells funny

[thepupil]

Please, Correct the ignorance you are about to witness. Could the missing 90% simply be parallel universes affecting the "known" universe like in that photon experiment? I apologize for my lack of information on this subject. This is only a curiosity to me since I would die many thousands of times before the nature of the universe would ever challenge my existance.

Re:90% smells funny

[Muad'Dave]

By "that photon experiment" do you mean the one in the novel "Timeline" by the science fiction writer Michael Crighton? I thought it was a neat literary trick, but certainly not science fact.

Re:90% smells funny

[Muad'Dave]

s/Crighton/Crichton/g

Rats!

Is the basis of the mass question valid?

[slinted]

In following the "big questions" of astrophysics, it seems like it boils down to

1. Dark Matter - Look at spinning galaxies, our current theories of gravity say they spin too fast for so little mass...do some math, ok...we're short by 90% from what is visible.

2. Dark Energy - Look at far off galaxies, they are moving away from us...and they're accelerating, and since our current theories say that gravity, an attractive only force, is the only significant player on those scales.

So, if we lack an understanding of what forces act on large scale distances to such a degree that ...well, it isn't even orders of magnitude, its positive where we'd expect it to be negative...hell, we don't even *have* candidates for repulsive forces acting on something the size of a galaxy at that distance, then why do we think that our calculations of what a target galaxy's mass *should* be based solely on...yup, our imcomplete equations for gravity, would be correct? Seems to me like they're both wrong in the same direction...if there were a sustained repulsive force, say...the force or "geometry" behind einstien's cosmological constant, then we'd fill in both blanks: repulsions to make distant galaxies travel away from us faster, and a force which would explain the lack of mass in galaxies.

Re:Is the basis of the mass question valid?

[TMB]

So, if we lack an understanding of what forces act on large scale distances to such a degree that ...well, it isn't even orders of magnitude, its positive where we'd expect it to be negative...hell, we don't even *have* candidates for repulsive forces acting on something the size of a galaxy at that distance, then why do we think that our calculations of what a target galaxy's mass *should* be based solely on...yup, our imcomplete equations for gravity, would be correct? Seems to me like they're both wrong in the same direction...if there were a sustained repulsive force, say...the force or "geometry" behind einstien's cosmological constant, then we'd fill in both blanks: repulsions to make distant galaxies travel away from us faster, and a force which would explain the lack of mass in galaxies.

A few points:

1. They're wrong in opposite directions. Dark matter pulls things tighter, and dark energy repels.
2. We have a couple of candidates for repulsive sources of gravity, though they're unsatisfying. The vacuum ("cosmological constant") isn't all that ugly in and of itself - it's the size that's ugly. Quintessence is ugly, but it's a candidate.
3. There are theories that try to use the dark matter particles to power the cosmic acceleration, the so-called "Cardassian models" (no, I'm not kidding, that really is what they're called). Basically, you need something that has no pressure on "small scales" (small = tens of Mpc) so it predicts clustering and structure formation the same as the currently-favoured Cold Dark Matter models but negative pressure on very large scales so it can power acceleration. They usually try to do this by having the particles self-interact or decay on really long timescales.

So yes, people have thought about it, but no one's come up with a single theory to explain both that seems any less contrived than having two slightly-less-contrived independent explanations.

[TMB]

Topology of the Universe

[SaXisT4LiF]

I recall an earlier article about the universe being topologically equivolent to a torus. Could this topology account for some of the inconsistancies in these "mass of the universe" calculations?

Consider any two stars of mass m and M. With distance r between them:
The Gravitational force of attraction is G*M*m/r^2.

But you'd also have a gravitional force wrapped once around the torus of G*M*m/(r+L)^2.

Then you could wrap around again and again and again....

Of course, generally the distance would be too huge to make difference, but when you consider how many stars there are and the infinite number of loops around the torus you could make, it would add up eventually.

Any thoughts on this?

Re:Topology of the Universe

[QuantumFTL]

Hmm, interesting question. Let's look at it point by point...

I recall an earlier article [slashdot.org] about the universe being topologically equivolent to a torus.

Firstly, the experiment didn't prove anything by a long shot, it merely suggested that the universe may be topologically equivilent to a torus or cylander. But let's assume it is for a moment.

Consider any two stars of mass m and M. With distance r between them: The Gravitational force of attraction is G*M*m/r^2.

Nice to see someone remembers their introductory physics :) Unfortunately that's a classical approximation to gravity's actual effect, and we don't have any proof that it works like that on the kinds of scales we are talking about (see another post in this thread about Modified Newtonian Dynamics). But even assuming this is true, there's still a few problems.

Then you could wrap around again and again and again.... Of course, generally the distance would be too huge to make difference, but when you consider how many stars there are and the infinite number of loops around the torus you could make, it would add up eventually.

Well, kinda. There's two flaws with this. Lets look at the first one, mainly the inverse r^2 dependence and wrapping. Basically the magnitude of the gravitational effect from any given object A with mas m on an object B with mas M will be:

Sum n=1->infinity of G*m*M*(-1^(n+1))/(r+n*W)^2
where W is the width of the universe. The oscillating negative 1 term reflects the fact that the object Ahas "mirror images" on BOTH sides of object B (think about pacman, if you go far enough to the left, you'll eventually reach something to your right). This series converges VERY quickly (it's 1/(n^2) not 1/n so it converges, plus it's oscillating so additional terms pretty much cancel out). Because the width of the universe W is very large, and the series oscilates, the first term (classical term for an open universe with no wraparound) completely dominates. This would be true if the only two things in the universe was a large black hole the mass of the universe, and your object B... essentially closed or open makes almost no difference on the amount of attraction you feel unless you are at a distance from the object on the order of magnitude of W. (yes I know general relativity affects things like black holes but the length scales here pretty much nullify any need to take that into account)

So already this doesn't really make much of a difference, but there's still another reason! The universe is roughly isotropic as far as we can tell from long distances away... That is, the amount of mass to one side of you in the universe is pretty much the same as the other side. This means that mass that's far away from you has little effect, because all the force vectors from all the other galaxies pretty much add up to zero (they cancel each other out). So even if this wraparound effect really did add up to a lot, it's coming from EVERYWHERE and would cancel itself out!

But wait I'm not done yet, there's yet another reason! Even assuming that the visible mass of the universe created a net force on stars in some direction because of this wraparound effect, it makes no difference to intragalactic dynamics! The length scale here is the width of the universe, so this force would not vary significantly along the width of a galaxy, and would pretty much be a uniform acceleration. This uniform acceleration does not affect the relative motions of the stars WITHIN the galaxy (intragalactic dynamics). So even if everything you speculated was completely true, it'd still never make a difference. We're looking for a source of gravity pulling things TOWARDS the center of the galaxy, not away from it or in some arbitrary direction. As far as we can tell, the only force that can do this is gravity from some hidden source within the galaxy (unless you make modifications to the fundamental theory of gravity on these

Supermassive Black Holes

[Peverbian]

I can't believe no one brought this up yet. Recently some astronomers have been using hubble to look at the middle of galaxies and have discovered Supermassive Black Holes there. In fact, they've found a bunch of 'em, and there's a relationship between the size of the galaxy and the size of the singularity, and every galaxy seems to have one, even our own! And IIRC they figured this would account for the missing stuff.
-Peverbian

Re:Supermassive Black Holes

[QuantumFTL]

can't believe no one brought this up yet. Recently some astronomers have been using hubble to look at the middle of galaxies and have discovered Supermassive Black Holes [thehubbletelescope.com] there. In fact, they've found a bunch of 'em, and there's a relationship between the size of the galaxy and the size of the singularity, and every galaxy seems to have one, even our own! And IIRC they figured this would account for the missing stuff.

Well, as far as I understand, that's some missing mass, but not nearly enough. More importantly, it's not the right distribution to explain the velocity curves. I did some googling (you can do some more if you like) and found this page. I'm sure theres better ones out there but it appears to be pretty accurate. This is not simply a problem of having enough mass in the galaxy, but having enough mass in the right places... The velocity curves of stars in different galaxies of the same mass provided that the mass is distributed differently. The curves we get are rather consistant with a spherical halo of dark matter (yes there's other theories but this is simple to imagine) which acts much different than a point mass at the center of the galaxy. This can be seen by the fact that anything inside a spherical shell of matter feels no net gravitational pull. for instance, if the earth was a perfect hollow sphere, on top of it you'd feel plenty of force, but go inside of it, and the forces from all directions cancel out. Same with a spherical halo of dark matter, stars only "feel" a force from the dark matter in the part of the halo that has a radius smaller than their orbital radius, the rest cancels itself out. This makes a significant difference in the measured velocity curves, and these curves do not point to dark matter simply being a point source in the center of the galaxy.

So I don't really think that discovery is that relevant to this discussion. Cool? Yes. But doesn't come close to explaining the mystery that is dark matter. (Yes, I'm aware of various modifications to gravity theory that could also explain this as well)

Cheers,
Justin

Disclaimer: I am not a physicist yet (still one more year to go before my degree). I do however have published research in astrophysics, as I do research with two respected astrophysicists here at Cornell University. If I've made a mistake anywhere in my reasoning here, someone please correct me :)

The matrix is incomplete

[hemanman]

It's because the matrix is incomplete.

No need to waste computerpower when all most of us normally see is 10%.

-H

Re:The matrix is incomplete

[axxackall]

So, instead of wasting time to search for non-exisitng "missed" parts of the universe, it's better to find the way how to crack the Matrix and actually to fix it. I think it's worthy of Matrix-4 in the sequel :)

Poor CIA...

[Black Parrot]

> I thought Iraq kept their WMD in heaven?

Now each CIA operative is being required to frisk 72 virgins in search of the missing WMD.

Measurements suggest...

[quantum bit]

...the the owls are not what they seem.

In other news...

[intermodal]

researchers seeking Michael Sims' ethics and editing abilities were not hopeful and expected a fruitless search.

Re: Really Not True

[leonbrooks]

the apparent superluminal expansion is explained neatly away by the fact that the jet of the quasars are pointed right at us.

One would immediately have to ask how come so very many of them turn out to be aimed right at us, given 360x360 degrees for them to "choose" from? <python>Are these quasars all French, to fart in our general direction like that?</python> However, it turns out that even if this grossly unlikely coincidence is true, we face yet other problems. Some of these quasars are so bright (if the deduced brightness is correct and I bet it ain't) that there's not enough room around the quasar to squeeze out anything like that many photons, to say nothing of any putative mechanism for producing so much light. Here is another attempt at explanation to chew on. There are a few serious alternatives around, hinting that a real problem exists. Don't confuse "unorthodox" with "wrong". You can't use orthodox authority to defend orthodox dogma, that's a tautology! (-:

(quoting article) Arp drew attention to quasars interlinking with galaxies.

You may not like what Arp has to say, but Arp only drew attention to this phenomenon, he didn't invent it, and he's not been alone. It is one of several sticks in the spokes of cosmological orthodoxy, and as long as we resolutely hold to only building on that orthodoxy, never daring to step outside its holy tenets, for just so long we'll be scientifically stalled. Arp has some wild and untamed theories, and I don't think they're going to turn out to be anything like as correct as he evidently hopes, but several of his observations are valuable pointers away from some of our current dead ends.

Good to see you doing some research

[leonbrooks]

Top marks, that Euro!

Socks!

[printman]

Actually, we already know what the 90% of the "missing" Universe is - socks!

One Quibble

[Greyfox]

I don't like filet for... well... anything. It's too soft. That's good if you don't like your meat to have any texture at all, but I do. Go with a nice ribeye or New York Strip and otherwise keep the recipe the same. (That's 500 Fairenheit, by the way.)

Most people are afraid to get their oven and cooking utensels hella hot, and that's a shame because that's the only way to really cook your food well. For the longest time, I shared my mom's fear of taking the oven over 375 (Fairenheit) and my cooking suffered for it. Now I'll crank it up as high as it'll go and am always rewarded.

By the way, you absolutely do not want to use a teflon or other non-stick coated surface for this. I have a cast iron pan I got at K-Mart for $5 and its entire purpose in life is to cook meat like this. And also don't ignore the suggestion to use prime meat. The difference between the USDA choice and prime ratings is easily noticable even if you don't eat a lot of beef. You might use a couple of choice steaks to get used to the idea of using a pan that's freaky-hot. They'll still be tasty. But once you move up the scale to prime, you'll see a huge difference and everyone you entertain will always talk about how you make the best steaks in the world.

In other news..

[Frank of Earth]

... France surrenders

Re: Really Not True

[drudd]

You have a selection effect you're not considering, in that the quasars with jets pointed directly at us are much brighter (relativistic beaming effects) and are thus MUCH easier to see than those which aren't pointed at us.

It's clear by reading your source that the person writing it really doesn't have a good understanding of the current theory on Quasars (or the observational evidence for that matter). I'd suggest you look around a bit more for a better source.

Doug

You really have no clue...

[DesertFalcon]

how unbearably sexy it is to hear a girl discussing mind-bending physics. Or anything that's way over my head, for that matter.

Re: Really Not True

[leonbrooks]

You have a selection effect you're not considering, in that the quasars with jets pointed directly at us are much brighter (relativistic beaming effects) and are thus MUCH easier to see than those which aren't pointed at us.

What led you to believe that I hadn't considered beaming? The second article I linked relies on selection-by-beaming for its logic - but AFAICT it still isn't anything like enough to explain the differences, to say nothing of the impossible photon densities and flabbergasting energy outputs. We have lots of lovely pictures of galaxies ejecting stuff at high velocity, and no particular evidence that anything along the ejection path is having an enlightening experience. You would expect to see dark (baryonic) matter lit up by a beam occasionally, no?

One may bask at the warm fire of faith or choose to live in the bleak uncertainty of reason - but one cannot have both.

Why not?

Many scientists have faith in their intuition, and it doesn't matter in this example whether their faith is justified or not. Reason takes them thus far, and then they strike out in faith, not knowing whether their suspicions will bear fruit. And sometimes it's a bleak uncertainty of faith, too, unencouraged (or even hampered) by their workmates and peers.

You also don't appear to have considered those people (rationalists) who have faith in reason alone, is their faith warm because it's faith (-: the creed of sola rationa? :-) or bleak because it's aimed at reason? And how about those people who have reasoned their way to a particular belief?

I do hope your thinking isn't as circumscribed as your tagline suggests. (-:

This recipe is legit.

[positive]

It sounds very similar to Alton Brown's Pan Seared Rib Eye recipe. Regardless, the steaks are delicious, and using pepper (as Alton's recipe calls for) doesn't seem to cause any problems. I really need to get myself a cast iron skillet.

Re:Bush Administration cites Missing Universe Theo

[t0ny]

I thought Iraq kept their WMD in heaven? They had to take them out. There wasnt enough room too keep all the suicide bombers, the fifty virgins they are supposed to get, and all Saddam's WMDs.

On a side note, how can they say 90% of the universe is missing? Its still there, they just cant account for it. Missing is when you cant find your keys. Their statement is like saying Columbus invented America.

Re:Bush Administration cites Missing Universe Theo

[kaoshin]

No, its really a chocolate factory.

Breaking news! Scientists have discovered...

[naasking]

Scientists have just discovered that the missing 99% of the universe's mass is composed of missing socks accumulating since their invention, oh-so-many years ago. Also, thought to contribute are missing keys, gloves and wallets, though their existence is highly speculative at this moment.

Awesome picture

[Spunk]

Here's another article on this. I don't know if it's any more informative, but the picture is just hilarious. It appears as though they are shooting lasers out of their heads.

Missing Universe == Missing Brain

[Ken Broadfoot]

Omega just has to be one, eh?

AND that girl at the end of the bar likes me.

Oh, and there has to be something more that this, right? Some kind of afterlife.

And Microsoft is going to see the light and open up their code.

And someday music will once again come from a garage instead of from a Fox television show.

The only "Wimps" are the folks who can't concieve a Universe that will end in the horrible "cold death" of infinite expansion. This is what all the evidence leads to.

This is what happens....

[huckamania]

when Universes collide. If two universes collided, one that is m-dimensional and another that is n-dimensional, than a new universe is created at the point of intersection that is m+n dimensional. The new universe shares the dimensions that are common and also incorporates the unique dimensions provided by each universe (if both have unique dimensions to provide).

Those of us in the interior of the new universe see only a small % of the matter. That's because the remaining large % is still outside the collision area. The big bang was the point of impact, which spread along the dimensions of the two universes involved in the collision. The reason we see more universes and stars everywhere we look is because as the impact area expands there is more of our universe to see.

This will be proven in the future and will account for all of the inconsistencies in current models of the new universe.

Luckily, no one gets burned at the stake for suggesting this.

Recursive Universe

[Mittermeyer]

Personally I think the universe is recursive, i.e. the higher dimensions curve back into what we consider to be 4-D mass and exerts effects far beyond the relatively simple Newtonian gravity.

It's a side effect of the zero dimension, i.e. no length, width, depth or time, everything is connected.

You heard it here first.

Re: Really Not True

[efuseekay]

>The second article I linked relies on selection-by-beaming for its logic

How so?

>Many scientists have faith in their intuition, and it doesn't matter in this example whether their faith is justified or not. Reason takes them thus far, and then they strike out in faith, not knowing whether their suspicions will bear fruit. And sometimes it's a bleak uncertainty of faith, too, unencouraged (or even hampered) by their workmates and peers.

NOw you are committing the same fallacy as the last one in my previous post : a personal attack, on the entire scientific community no less :).

>Many scientists have faith in their intuition, and it doesn't matter in this example whether their faith is justified or not. Reason takes them thus far, and then they strike out in faith, not knowing whether their suspicions will bear fruit. And sometimes it's a bleak uncertainty of faith, too, unencouraged (or even hampered) by their workmates and peers.

Please supply proof (anecdotes don't count) of such an assertion.

Re: Really Not True

[efuseekay]

Ops, wrong cut-paste. The last quote should be :

>You also don't appear to have considered those people (rationalists) who have faith in reason alone, is their faith warm because it's faith (-: the creed of sola rationa? :-) or bleak because it's aimed at reason? And how about those people who have reasoned their way to a particular belief?

Please supply proof (anecdotes don't count) of such an assertion.

Re: Really Not True

[Zebra_X]

Unfortunately leon has a bit of trobule being able to prove his wild assertions.

Fudge Factor

[filledwithloathing]

Although IANAP, here's what I see happening. Scientists have theories about how the universe works. It turns out (after doing some math) that the numbers don't back up those theories. So they come up with a Fudge Factor for their equations.

Fudge Factor 1: Although our theories require X amount of mass in the universe we can only account for 10% of that. We'll create something called Dark Matter that is completely undetectable and say that that fills up the other 90% of the universe, therefore allowing our equations to work and to keep out theories intact.

Fudge Factor 2: After doing some more math the Scientists realize that the equations still don't work right and that although now they have enough mass they don't have any clue as to why the universe is increasing it's rate of expansion. Some Scientist realizes if they can fudge the mass in the universe to make their equations work, why can't they also fudge a whole new unknown force in the universe!

At some point you'd think they'd realize that if you have to: 1. Fudge the amount of mass in the universe up by 1000%. 2. Fudge a whole new unknown, unobservable force in the universe. ...just to get their theories to work right they'd realize that there was a fundamental flaw in their model of the universe.

Of course the simple answer might just be Fudge. That stuff is really dense.

My .2 Cents . . .

[Dausha]

The problem is not that we are missing ninety percent of the Universe. The problem is that our formulae are wrong. I mean, scientists have been crunching the numbers and all, but they just haven't figured it out yet. Because it doesn't add up, they have to lump in the whole dark matter bit. And, you cannot use the Chewbacca Defense.

Perhaps we have to come up with better theories that explain the observations rather than say that the observations are wrong. Maybe the reason why we only account for ten percent of the Universe is because that's all there is.

Perhaps, even The Big Bang Never Happened . Or, perhaps not.

what about gravity

[zejackal]

I know this is kind of blasphemous and all, but maybe we don't have as good a handle on gravity as we think. After all, Newton's Law of Gravity seemed to work just fine until we looked at Mercury. It was close enough to the sun that Relativistic effects had a visible impact. For the rest of the planets (within the margin of error of the measurement devices of the day), Newton's Law held true, but the closer you got to the sun, the more and more Newton and Einstein diverged.

At Mercury's orbit, Relativity ended up getting rid of about .5 degrees (if memory serves) of the orbit around the sun. This was observable, and unexplained until Einstein came along. Perhaps we are seeing another such divergence, between the accepted theory and reality as we look at gravity on a galactic scale.

Re:what about gravity

[AGumbus]

Or how about taking electromagnetic torque into account, from such exotic, highly electromagnetically charged, spinning interstellar plasma sources like...oh...I dunno...stars, for example...

Might consider a review of plasma cosmology, which attempts to cover the observed behaviors of stellar and galactic phenomena without resorting to Big Bang theories or the presence of dark matter at all...

Dark side of Particle Physics

[Roger W Moore]

Being a physicist and Yorkshireman I can't help commenting on this...The mine in question is the Boulby Potash mine and there have been Dark matter experiments going on there for quite a few years.

Although these experiments are performed deep underground, like neutrino, experiments their physics is somewhat different. Dark matter experiments are aimed at finding new fundamental particles as yet unknown to physics. Neutrino experiments, on the otherhand, study the properities of neutrinos and it is these experiments (SNO, SuperKamiokande) which have produced the exciting discovery of neutrino oscillations.

The reason dark matter is such an interesting field at the moment is because of the WMAP result. This indicates that only ~5% of the universe is what we call "baryonic matter" i.e. the stuff that we are made of. A further ~20% is made up of non-baryonic matter. This includes things like neutrinos, but just neutrinos is nowhere near enough. So, if we believe the WMAP result, there is a sizeable amount of matter which we cannot account for given our current understanding of physics.

However, dark matter experiments are not the only ones out there looking for this missing mass. I'm working on a collider experiment called D0 on the Tevatron collider at Fermilab near Chicago. This is currently the highest energy collider in the world (until the LHC at CERN, Geneva starts in ~2006). As such it is an excellent place to look for new physics and one such example is something called SuperSymmetry. You can essentially think of this as a symmetery between force and matter (in technical terms its a symmetry between fermions and bosons) and it doubles the number of fundamental particles.

So how does this explain the dark matter? Well, a lot of supersymmetrical models have the lightest supersymmetric particle being stable i.e. it cannot decay. Now being neutral, stable and weakly interacting, this would be an ideal candidate for dark matter and might make up the missing mass of the universe. So instead of looking for these particles scattering off nuclei (as dark matter experiments do) we can actually look to see if we can make them in high energy interactions.

Some interesting web sites you might like to read for more information are

• UK Dark Matter Collaboration
• D0 Public Information Page
• The Particle Adventure: Basic explanation of particle physics

I'd particularly recommend the last site if you want to know how much we still have to understand! (click on "Unsolved Mysteries")

Crighton who?

[thepupil]

Okay, check this out. Thomas Young proved around 1801 that light was a wave using a double slit experiment in which light created an interference pattern. However he was flooding photons into it. In 1989 this experiment was done again with a twist. Only one photon at a time was sent into the detection area, but the same pattern emerges. So what is causing the interference? And couldn't this interference also explain why we "think" 90% of the universe is missing? Couldn't it simply be just a macro scale effect. I leave you with references other than Michael Crighton: http://www.fnal.gov/pub/inquiring/questions/light_ dual.html http://physicsweb.org/article/world/15/9/1 I might have only a passing interest in science, but I do try to discern between legitimate sources and science fiction. As Dirac is said to state that each photon is interfering with itself it has also been postulated by multiverse theorists (such as David Deutsch) that the interference is coming from photons in parallel universes. Since we really don't have a complete understanding of quantum mechanics couldn't it be possible that the so called "missing" 90% is just the effect that parallel universes are exerting on this universe?

Re: Really Not True

[barawn]

Definition, actually. Quasars that don't have their beams pointed at us (and, incidentally, they have 2-pi steradians to point at, not 4-pi: they have two beams, not one) aren't called quasars. They're called radio galaxies. Still the same object.

Quasars/blazars/BL Lacs/radio galaxies/Seyfert galaxies are all (now) beginning to be understood to be the same thing, just looked at from a different point of view.

Apparent superluminal motion really is just a completely normal point-of-view problem. It's a standard undergraduate problem in relativity.

COMPLETELY agreed.

[_outcat_]

ABSOLUTELY TRUE.

My dad is a rancher and we get the BEST beef you could ever ask for because he actually hand-selects what gets sold and what goes on our table, takes the animals to the butcher himself, and specifically gets the cuts we want. It's FABULOUS.

Also, I agree with you 100% on the "USDA factory" thing. My dad's cattle are healthy and happy, they don't eat tons of antibiotics or chemicals (they get vet care when they need it but they sure as hell aren't pumped full of shit to make them bigger) and they spend most of their lives disease-free eating what they would naturally--grasses and alfalfa and what-have-you. It makes a much better cut of meat that's much better for you.

Oh my god, there is NOTHING better than a properly aged, honest-to-goodness tenderloin from a local operation. NOTHING BETTER. It is SO goddamned good. :)

Re:COMPLETELY agreed.

[forii]

I have to agree here as well. The best burgers I've ever had was when visiting a cattle ranch when we ate the hamburger from the animal that they keep for themselves every year. It was seasoned with the same salt that they use for the salt licks, as well. :)

On our ranch we didn't have cattle, although I did raise sheep, and we always had a lot of lamb sitting in the freezer. And while some people don't like lamb, this lamb tasted good.

Hey benna wrong team!

[Begossi]

do you remember that one? ;)

Re: Really Not True

[wojie]

orthodoxy is not such a bad thing when it is founded in a hundred years of substantial evidence and, thus far, unarguable theories. the only aspects of our current theory of gravitation that have ever been disputed (and rightfully so) have been lemmas added in the end to reconcile them in the minds of their astonished creators.

we do not conclude that a theory is false by the argument that a lack of observation has failed to confirm it. but rather wait for an observation that disproves it with the utmost confidence.

is it likely that there is a vast quantity of dark matter resposible for the effects that we are seeing? absolutely -- our, up until now, undisputed theory suggests it, and it has served us well in so many ways that we have no reason to doubt it. is also possible that we may not be able to observe this matter due to the noise and insensitivity of our apparati? we would be naive to believe otherwise.

so given an overwhelming amount of indirect evidence for it's existance, and its complete compatibiliy with our current theory, do we believe that dark matter actually exists? you bet. especially since past predictions of other invisible matter -- neutrinos, etc. -- have proven themselves through observation. just imagine the slashdot discussion about antimatter had it been around when that was first suggested! can you imagine? what quacks! and yet... it all proved true in the end.

Please explain

[theos07]

Are there any physics buffs who can briefly explain this "missing universe theory" to me, or failing that send me a URL of where it is explained?

God

[mr100percent]

Obviously, God is responsible for the Universe acting the way it does. There really can't be many other explanations. Do you really think that Van Der Waals forces happen on their own?

Re: Really Not True

[leonbrooks]

The second article I linked relies on selection-by-beaming for its logic

How so?

Er, what does the word "lasing" mean for you?

NOw you are committing the same fallacy as the last one in my previous post : a personal attack, on the entire scientific community no less :)

Oh, balls! Does the name Nikola Tesla ring any bells? J Harlan Bretz? History is full of scientists and inventors whose genius wasn't recognised until all of their political opponents died of old age and it was then politically correct to question that particular bit of orthodox scientific dogma.

You also don't appear to have considered those people (rationalists) who have faith in reason alone, is their faith warm because it's faith (-: the creed of sola rationa? :-) or bleak because it's aimed at reason? And how about those people who have reasoned their way to a particular belief?

Please supply proof (anecdotes don't count) of such an assertion.

There are no assertions there, only two questions. Perhaps you'll do better after some rest?

Thank you...

[leonbrooks]

...mister Sour Grapes. (-:

Re: Really Not True

[leonbrooks]

More or less all the jets we see are aimed right at us, by definition; if they weren't, we wouldn't be able to see them (unless we could see them illuminating the nearby IGM, but that's not nearly as intense and we wouldn't be able to see as many that way).

Trouble is, we haven't seen any. And yes, people have been looking.

the consensus is that Arp's statistics are really lousy [...] Try papers by Newman or Hawkings; I can dig up references if you want.

Not entirely true. A few vocal people have claimed that Arp's statistics are lousy, a few other highly competent and widely respected scientists pointedly not referred to by them reckon that the statistics are fine (most of those disagree with Arp's conclusions from his stats, but not the actual stats).

Dawkins is well known for doing stupid things with stats to suit his own purposes. His METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL fiasco is an outright embarrassment. I've read both Newman and Dawkins. And Tifft for that matter. And Keel summarising them all (well written, but again he's wearing his orthodox blinkers, either that or not seen a good many of the proposals for a doppler-redshift replacement).

Re: Really Not True

[leonbrooks]

WRT the classification, I agree, I included consideration of that in what I said.

Apparent superluminal motion really is just a completely normal point-of-view problem. It's a standard undergraduate problem in relativity.

With a standard wrong answer. (-:

You can't exceed the speed of light by tacking and call the problem solved.

Besides... impossible photon densities? Nobody seems to have addressed those anywhere. Using Seyfert galaxies as an excuse won't wash, since the same problems are likely to impact both in similar ways.

Re:Wrong credit

[benna]

Who says that when I say regime change I don't mean "elect someone else" however that really shouldn't be necessary since we already DID elect someone else.

Re: Really Not True

[leonbrooks]

orthodoxy is not such a bad thing when it is founded in a hundred years of substantial evidence and, thus far, unarguable theories.

The sand in that vaseline being that wrong is wrong no matter how many times (or how long) you do it, the "evidence" (by which you, er, evidently mean the observations used as evidence in suypport) is constantly being updated, and the theories are indeed argued, and occasionally changed. However, far too many of the changes are rearranging the deckchairs in the Titanic as far as answering some current problems is concerned.

we do not conclude that a theory is false by the argument that a lack of observation has failed to confirm it.

Yes we do. All theories are false by default - unless and until they are proven (directly or indirectly) from what we consider to be axiomatic foundations. And of course, if an "axiom" turns out to be a dud, then all theories consequent on it should be falsified and need re-proving, but IRL that doesn't often happen.

is it likely that there is a vast quantity of dark matter resposible for the effects that we are seeing?

No. Given that non-baryonic matter existed, it would have to have a reason for forming itself into a neat spherical shell around every galaxy we see - and only there - else it would cause more problems than it was invented to solve. It's a completely different case from antimatter. It's also worth pointing out that neutrinos were at first thought to be massless, then thought to have enough mass to make up at least a goodly slice of the "missing" mass, and now it turns out that they have a little mass, but not enough to retire Dark Matter and related imaginitus.

Re: Really Not True

[barawn]

No, but I could exceed the speed of light via a poor explanation really easily.

Want to get to Alpha Centauri in, say, a year? No problem - that's about gamma = 4, or about 0.97 c. Of course, someone not familiar with relativity would say that you're travelling at 4c, but that's because of an improper definition of distance - in truth, you only traveled 1 light year, not 4 - the distance Lorentz-contracts.

Same situation here. Standard stupid way of calculating speeds against the sky don't work because your estimation of what the distance travelled is is wrong. It's just geometry.

Here for the math. You're not tacking. It's assuming that a distance in one reference frame holds in another, highly relativistic frame.

There are plenty of places to attack standard current astrophysics: the measurement of the fine structure constant changing? Very weak. SN 1a distance determination? A little odd, considering we don't really understand all the classifications we have. But superluminal motion is just a reference frame mistake.

Re: Really Not True

[efuseekay]

Rhetoric is not evidence. And neither are anecdotes about "martyr scientists".

>Perhaps you'll do better after some rest?

I think you have overstepped the boundary of civil discussion. End of discussion.

Re:Wrong credit

[benna]

Nothing I type without action is legally a felony and if such a law exists it could not be inforced. I would love to be the test case and take it to the supreme court. Don't give me bullshit about WWI becasue that was long ago when we were even dumber than we are now.

Re: Really Not True

[leonbrooks]

But superluminal motion is just a reference frame mistake.

Yes, but almost certainly not the kind of reference frame mistake you have in mind. (-:

Re:Wrong credit

[benna]

Ok lets start at the beginning. Inforcing something is to convict someone of it. Not to be arrested by the fbi. Lately ashcroft does whatever he damn well pleases but that does not mean such a thing would hold up in court. Now my statemnet that regime change starts at home does not say anything about the means of that change. As you can see in the law it must be by violance or assination and I declare my support for neither. So I did not come even close to threatening the life of the president. So that law does not apply. Next, the supreme court hears more like 80 cases a year. And are you telling me a case dealing with our very free speech right to speak out against the government is not a big deal. I think most poeple would say it is. Its no speeding ticket. I do believe that the current government of the united states of america should be overthrown in the 2004 election. This is how democracy works. Just because I say these thing before the election does not mean I support regime change out side of elections. In fact I always like it when people vote to change a regime. Aperently the Bush administration does not however judging by there complete contempt for the UN. So yes I do have a right to free speech and I do have a right to ask for the overthrow of the government as long as it is not violent and not through assassination as you yourself see in the law. Nice try budddy!

Immanuel Velikovsky, Copernicus, Louis Pasteur

[leonbrooks]

I think you have overstepped the boundary of civil discussion.

You didn't even look up the names I gave you last time, let alone hunt for more. Evidently there was no discussion going on anyway, so what have I lost? Really?

Don't kid yourself.

Re: Really Not True

[efuseekay]

Ok, I feel bad about this...

>is it likely that there is a vast quantity of dark matter resposible for the effects that we are seeing? absolutely -- our, up until now, undisputed theory suggests it, and it has served us well in so many ways that we have no reason to doubt it. is also possible that we may not be able to observe this matter due to the noise and insensitivity of our apparati? we would be naive to believe otherwise.

But DM has multiple problems at galactic scales, which is why people still entertain alternatives.

A nice review is this article .

Still, if i am a betting man, I'll put a lot of money on DM :).

Re:Irregardless

[efuseekay]

Nice :). Didn't know that!

BTW, June issue of Astronomy has a VSL article

[leonbrooks]

Might be worth your reading even if you don't feel inclined to communicate with disgraceful rabble like me.

I know where it is...

[Burb]

.. fallen down the back of the sofa like every other lost item in my house.

Dales Steak Sauce

[purduephotog]

You've touched upon one of my favorite recipes for steak- pan seared and broiled is incredible. Here's one of mine tho that you may find even better (needs beer instead of wine, unfortunately)
Get at least a 3lb eye of round roast- try to find one without any fat showing. Best quality you can. Soak it in Dales Steak Sauce (Think soysauce + salt), available in most southern state stores (I import mine from Indiana). Cook on broil for 5 min/lb on broil- watch the meat tho. If it's blackening you will need to take it out sooner.
After it's broiled, remove the pan, cool the oven to 350F.
Now season the outside of the meat with salt, pepper, and some more dales (which will flash off in the pan- becareful)
Put back in the oven and cook until you aren't scared to eat the meat.
Come to think of it, I'm gonna go find me some tonight :)

Re: Really Not True

[wojie]

good paper. i'm just a measly undegrad -- don't quite yet know what i'm talking about.

but i had a hoot reading this one:
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/cutting/grav.h tm

even better than the matter expansion hypothesis

i guess the point i was making is that we have great reason to believe the current hypothesis to be true. this indirect evidence of dark matter suggests we have yet to find something, and given such a strong theory, it wouldn't make any sense to conclude that what we can't see isn't there. it's much more likely that the former is true -- given the downright sexiness of the current theory.

may be off topic but...

[clarkc3]

Your Mom is so dumb that she tried to minimize a 12 variable function to a minimal sum of products expression using a karnaugh map instead of the Quine-McCluskey Algorithm.