Slashdot Mirror


Black Hole Birth Detected this Morning

An anonymous reader writes "SPACE.com is reporting on the first optical afterglow ever detected from a short-duration (milliseconds) Gamma-Ray Burst. The GRB signals the birth of a black hole resulting from a merger between two neutron stars. Theory had predicted the whole thing, which was all spotted this morning by NASA's Swift satellite and ground-based observatories, thanks to an automated email system that notifies astronomers worldwide."

337 comments

  1. Upon Further Review... by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Funny

    The Gamma ray burst was determined to emitted from a very large cigarette lighter igniting a very, very large cigarette. SETI recorded the first successfully detected extraterrestrial broadcast of a message, which they believe was "Was it good for you, too?" Bachelor and bachelorette scientists around the world are extremely puzzeled and have few clues as to what it all means.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Upon Further Review... by falzer · · Score: 4, Funny

      Scientists say these new findings strengthen the "big bang" theory.

    2. Re:Upon Further Review... by g-san · · Score: 2, Funny

      You can't smoke in space, silly.

    3. Re:Upon Further Review... by Nos. · · Score: 5, Funny

      Geez, they said I couldn't smoke in planes, then theatres, now restaurants. Now I can't smoke in space? This is getting out of hand!

    4. Re:Upon Further Review... by FidelCatsro · · Score: 0

      You cant smoke , you cant drink and dammed if anyone can hear you scream.

      --
      The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
    5. Re:Upon Further Review... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In space, no-one can hear you cough.

    6. Re:Upon Further Review... by learn+fast · · Score: 4, Funny

      Next you'll be telling me that you can't smoke in ANY vacuum.

    7. Re:Upon Further Review... by Fishstick · · Score: 1

      Well, my first thought too was about making a joke about cosmic copulation, but I couldn't come up with a good one either.

      --

      There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
      Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

    8. Re:Upon Further Review... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I personally welcome our bonking, smoking alien overlords!

    9. Re:Upon Further Review... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well who would want to smoke in a vacuum anyway? Believe me, those rubber belts and electronics can smell damn foul if you accidently burn something with your cigarette.

    10. Re:Upon Further Review... by BigDogCH · · Score: 2, Funny

      Either way, it is old news.

      "it actually took place 2.2 billion years ago"

    11. Re:Upon Further Review... by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      Female scientists all over the world have begun hanging up pictures of planets on their walls. When asked why, all they say is "look at them balls."

    12. Re:Upon Further Review... by drsquare · · Score: 1

      Actually you can, all you need to do is dip the cigarette in liquid oxygen beforehand. Just ask any smoker who's been to space.

    13. Re:Upon Further Review... by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      "...and when they came for the space-smokers, there was nobody to speak up for me."

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    14. Re:Upon Further Review... by Almost-Retired · · Score: 1

      Good grief. Is there no end to the slashdot effect and its apparent ability to subtract 100 points from the posters IQ?

      To me, this is one of the reasons I'm running Einstein@home in parallel with seti@home.

      Now we have a known point in time that hopefully we also have data from the gravity detectors for, because one of the things the gravity detectors are looking for is the waves that would be created by the merger of a couple of heavy bodies (neutron stars leftover from previous supernovas would be good candidates) that would create a black hole.

      All this of course depends on the pv* of a gravity wave, and assumes its C speed. If its not (some have conjectured gravity could be much faster than C speed), then our chances of finding a valid correlation between the GRB and the data from the gravity detectors becomes many times more difficult, say about 10ee+61 or thereabouts. So until we have a detected gravity wave event we can correlate to a visible event, I'm not betting either way on the speed of gravity since we've not yet come up with a method of turning it off and on. To measure it, one must have a method of controlling it...

      Give that some thought, because the first lifeform in the universe to master that will truely rule the universe it can see because it removes in one swell foop, all impediments to achieveing near C speed transportation for that lifeform.

      pv=propagation velocity.

      --
      Cheers, Gene

    15. Re:Upon Further Review... by BigDogCH · · Score: 1

      My disclaimer, I am not a physist, but I do enjoy reading articles such as this one.>

      What do you mean by..."To measure it, one must have a method of controlling it...". Why do we have to control it to measure it? We measure gravity all the time, don't we?

      Also, I have read several times that we are going to need to wait for a supernova event, or something like this, in order to use our "gravity detectors" to help us determine the speed of gravity. Why does it need to be something so large? Why can't this be done with other bodies of mass? Also, hasn't there already been several expiriments which show quite clearly that the speed of gravity is within 1% of the speed of light?

    16. Re:Upon Further Review... by Almost-Retired · · Score: 1

      What do you mean by..."To measure it, one must have a method of controlling it...". Why do we have to control it to measure it? We measure gravity all the time, don't we?

      Ahh, yes, we measure its effect at the instant we weight something. What we don't know, because there is no way to turn it off, thereby creating a difference in the measured weight, and giving us the ability to measure the lag from the instant of turning it off to the instant our distant devices measures the difference in the weight. This has never been done because we puny humans do not have that sort of energies at our disposal.

      So we are forced to wait for an event such as a distant star merger, hopefully of objects large enough to create a black hole. As a considerable amount of the masses so merged will be ejected at near C speeds at the instant of the merger (or at least our observations have tended to disclose these beams ejected from the objects polar rotation axis in what we think are old mergers), which will in turn create a gravity wave we should be able to measure at a considerable distance. In the case of this event, if gravity's propagation velocity=C speed, we should have recorded a gravity wave that coincides rather nicely with both the GRB and any remnant xray afterglow once the xray scopes got slewed around to look there, in this present case 50 seconds later, an eon in black hole creation merger time.

      However, if all we are recording is noise that cannot be correlated with these GRB's (and possibly from the neutrino detectors too, I haven't heard anyone noting that Kamiokandi(sp) recorded anything yet) then we either need to go back to the theory's drawing board, or refine our math to search the entire range of time from the start of the gravity wave detectors recorded archives. If indeed its instantainous over intergalactic distances, we will be seriously constained by the fact that we've just started these recordings in the past year or 2.

      We WILL be in the dark as to gravities pv until such time as a valid correlation can be done.

      Also, I have read several times that we are going to need to wait for a supernova event, or something like this, in order to use our "gravity detectors" to help us determine the speed of gravity. Why does it need to be something so large? Why can't this be done with other bodies of mass?

      Because basicly, at non-relativistic speeds, mass is mass. Even the triggering of an atomic weapon consumes so little mass that at a distance great enough to survive the blast, any change in the net mass of the area of the bomb going off is probably 70+ digits to the right of the decimal point.

      Also, hasn't there already been several expiriments which show quite clearly that the speed of gravity is within 1% of the speed of light?

      If there have been, I'm not aware of them. That doesn't mean there haven't been successfull attempts. Just that I haven't heard or read of them in the last 60 years. I would assume that if its been confirmed to the level of accuracy for the Hubble Constant, itself still fuzzy to the right of the decimal point a wee bit, that it would get more ink than it has. I don't recall reading about that in Hawkings work, at least not in terms that say "this is gravities speed" to the unwashed masses such as this old fart.

      However, if I'm wrong, please supply some url's because I'd really like to see what the state of the art really is.

      --
      Cheers, Gene

    17. Re:Upon Further Review... by ikkonoishi · · Score: 1

      Good luck inhaling. :/

  2. email notification by Eric+Smith · · Score: 3, Funny
    Unfortunately the email notification didn't get to most of astronomers, because AOL's spam filter blocked the message due to the subject line "A special powful astronomical object".

    It's unclear whether the newborn is a boy or a girl, but what is known is that it has no hair.

    1. Re:email notification by pompom246 · · Score: 1

      How do you get on the list to recieve those e-mail notifications?

    2. Re:email notification by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      Post your e-mail on slashdot.

    3. Re:email notification by pompom246 · · Score: 1

      hey, i put it up, but if you can't see it: rich.pompetti@gmail.com thanks

  3. Terrible Secrect of Space? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Grossest. Dept. Ever.

    1. Re:Terrible Secrect of Space? by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Funny
      Grossest. Dept. Ever.

      That's what I thought when I heard about Paula Abdul on Idol... this is how burned out old stars on earth behave, they attemt to merge with younger, brighter stars. A little titillation and BAM(!) their radiating again and the envy of all their neighboring dying stars.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:Terrible Secrect of Space? by robertjw · · Score: 1

      Sounds more like Demi Moore than Paubla Abdul to me. I hear Demi even wants a child...

    3. Re:Terrible Secrect of Space? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hear Demi even wants a child...

      I'd volunteer, but I just know I'd muff it (at least first).

  4. Mother and baby are doing fine by winkydink · · Score: 4, Funny

    Dad's a little dazed...

    --

    "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    1. Re:Mother and baby are doing fine by weighn · · Score: 2, Funny

      what sort of cruel parents would name a child "GRB050509b"?!

      --
      Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
    2. Re:Mother and baby are doing fine by Walterk · · Score: 1

      Geeky parents.

  5. Automated email by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is there anything it can't do?

    1. Re:Automated email by glassjaw+rocks · · Score: 1

      It can't send e-mail manually.

      --
      -gjr
  6. Er... by Avyakata · · Score: 5, Informative

    Wasn't there another slashdot article a few weeks ago about how blackholes don't exist? I think it was talking about this report.

    1. Re:Er... by ackthpt · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Wasn't there another slashdot article a few weeks ago about how blackholes don't exist? I think it was talking about this report.

      Let's rename them 'Schrödinger's holes' - They may or may not exist. Seems to fit in with a lot of the battling theories.

      Our astronomy club hosted a local speaker, studying the lives of black holes, where the entire cycle was explored. Pretty cool stuff. I'll try to remember his name and find a link.

      they should put these doctoral types on american gladiator and have them defend their theories!

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:Er... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First nanotubes, then buckyballs, and now Schrödinger's holes. What is wrong with these people?

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

      Like most radical claims, it was very poorly substantiated. Chapline did not demonstrate that black holes don't exist. What he actually did was suggest a vague, qualitative way in which certain field theories might mimic black holes without black holes actually existing -- motivated by his not liking the nonlocal nature of event horizons, rather than by any actual physics -- and gave no actual mechanism by which these black-hole mimics might form or why we should believe that a field theory of that particular type even exists.

    4. Re:Er... by Royster · · Score: 1

      That's how science works. You have to distinguish between massive compact objects with an event horizon and speculations about what goes on behind that horizon. The article was saying that singularities don't exist. It's pretty clear that objects with an escape velocity in excess of the speed of light do exist. the conventional term for these things is 'black holes'. No one knows exactly what physics goes on behind the event horizon.

      --
      I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
  7. "You've Got a Black Hole!" by Esion+Modnar · · Score: 4, Funny

    They had to tune down their email spam filter to let that one through...

    --

    They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
  8. automated email system that notifies astronomers by Typingsux · · Score: 4, Funny
    See hot teen neutron stars get it on.


    No credit card required click for details.

    --
    The above post is an editorial, the poster cannot and will not be held responsible for all or in part for it's contents
  9. presents by Umbral+Blot · · Score: 2, Funny

    What kind of gifts do you get for a super massive object? You don't want to make mom and dad angry, that is for sure.

    1. Re:presents by seven+of+five · · Score: 3, Funny

      ... just don't promise her the Moon....

  10. The mother by Timesprout · · Score: 4, Funny

    will require serious stitching or no star will want to merge with her again.

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
    1. Re:The mother by Murdoc · · Score: 2, Funny
      Are you kidding? She's much more attractive now than she ever was before.

      Funny though how in space this attractiveness doesn't depend on looks...

      --
      Our ignorance is not so vast as our failure to use what we know. - M. King Hubbert
  11. The details... by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 4, Funny

    The black hole was a noningth of an inch in length and weighed about the same as a large star.

    --
    If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
    1. Re:The details... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you mom must be so fat for the NASA to find this black hole in her pants !

    2. Re:The details... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      That's the dumbest yo momma joke I've seen... ever.

      Go sterilize yourself with a cheese grater. It's for the good of the gene pool.

    3. Re:The details... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One does, of course, wonder about the mass of the newborn. And the APGAR score...

  12. If you hear the bomb fall... by RobertB-DC · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I read somewhere about workers at an Army ammunition plant. A newbie came on, and was being shown around his area of responsibility, when there was a loud metallic CLANG, as some object in the warehouse full of high explosives dropped to the floor. The newbie instinctively dove to the ground has his compatriots chuckled. As he stood back up, they told him, "If you hear it hit the floor, it didn't explode."

    Looks like this one was a dud. Lucky much?

    --
    Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
    1. Re:If you hear the bomb fall... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RTFM n00b!

    2. Re:If you hear the bomb fall... by TorKlingberg · · Score: 1

      Fun story. But you should read more astronomy and less apocalypse theories.

    3. Re:If you hear the bomb fall... by Flaming+Foobar · · Score: 1
      Looks like this one was a dud. Lucky much?

      See inverse square law.

      --
      while true;do echo -e -n "\033[s\n\033[u\134_\033[B";done
    4. Re:If you hear the bomb fall... by thePjunisher · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Inverse square... Yeah, so what? You fail to realise just how much energy a supernova releases... If one goes bang 5000 light years away, you'll be able to see it burning bright even during the day. But within a thousand lightyears... We really would never know what hit us...

    5. Re:If you hear the bomb fall... by Jim+Starx · · Score: 1
      2.2 Billion light years is a tad farther away from a thousand.

      A bit like worrying that a pickpocket in China is gonna get my wallet here in america, don't you think?

      The odds of life being wiped out by a burst like this are pretty low. We're more likely to die of our own doing first I think.

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    6. Re:If you hear the bomb fall... by Flaming+Foobar · · Score: 1
      Inverse square... Yeah, so what? You fail to realise just how much energy a supernova releases... If one goes bang 5000 light years away, you'll be able to see it burning bright even during the day. But within a thousand lightyears... We really would never know what hit us...


      The idea that a supernova would just happen to pinpoint all that energy towards the Earth in such accuracy has such a low likelyhood that making claims that it such an event happens once every 100 million years is meaningless. I can see why there is exactly one scientist supporting this theory, like the article says.

      --
      while true;do echo -e -n "\033[s\n\033[u\134_\033[B";done
  13. Outstanding! by east+coast · · Score: 2, Funny

    I told Rosie O'Donnell not to eat that last HoHo... Looks what she's done now!

    --
    Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    1. Re:Outstanding! by jacen_sunstrider · · Score: 1

      I may give you the fact that she's as massive as a neutron star. However, a hoho? they're just good!

  14. What about Dr. Reinhardt? by Deinhard · · Score: 3, Funny

    Too bad the Cygnus wasn't there to watch!

    --
    Successfully condensing fact from the vapor of nuance since 1998.
    1. Re:What about Dr. Reinhardt? by sjaskow · · Score: 1

      Dating yourself, eh? I actually saw this movie in the theaters in '79 and it wasn't as bad as everybody makes it out to be.

    2. Re:What about Dr. Reinhardt? by Eccles · · Score: 5, Funny

      Dating yourself, eh?

      This is slashdot. It's not like anyone else will date us.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    3. Re:What about Dr. Reinhardt? by CodeMonkey4Hire · · Score: 1

      Dating himself? Yeah I guess that does sound like typical /. behavior.

      Seriously though, what self-respecting geek isn't going to show this movie to their kids, er, geeks-in-training. This one's on my list (if I can get approval from the wife ;) Might have to throw in some Ladyhawke in between Ghostbusters and E.T.

      --

      Let's go Hurricanes!!! 2006 Stanley Cup Champions!!!
  15. Weak! by The+Woodworker · · Score: 5, Funny

    It happened 2.2 billion years ago. Slashdot really needs to try and stay current.

    --
    Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach him to fish and he'll wipe out the species.
    1. Re:Weak! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How stupid are you? Geez! Slashdot is a news reposting site for discussiong, not a news site! DUH!

    2. Re:Weak! by killjoe · · Score: 4, Funny

      " It happened 2.2 billion years ago"

      YOu better let the Kansas school board know about this. The universe is only about 3000 years old don't you know.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    3. Re:Weak! by astrokid · · Score: 1

      2.2 Billion years in the making, a day or two for duping.

      --

      Chewie does not get a medal. Come on, George. Can a Wookie get a medal?
    4. Re:Weak! by caino59 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Yah know - religious zealots know not to take everything in the bible as 100% literal - parables and whatnot...

      You would think that maybe, just maybe, they'd realize that maybe God's creation 'week' wasn't a week with days as we know them - 1 day could equate to thousands of years...

    5. Re:Weak! by sjaskow · · Score: 1

      You mean like this ahref=http://www.americanrhetoric.com/MovieSpeeche s/moviespeechinheritthewind.htmlhttp://www.america nrhetoric.com/MovieSpeeches/moviespeechinheritthew ind.html>
      I've never seen the movie, but the play is gripping.

    6. Re:Weak! by Mick+Ohrberg · · Score: 1

      I try to think of time as a combination of cycles and arns. Same arn, different dren.

      --

      Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.

    7. Re:Weak! by sickofthisshit · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Or maybe you'd realize that Genesis is no more accurate than the Hindu or Shinto or Greek or Babylonian creation myths.

      This kind of "well, if you squint your eyes, it looks partly accurate" is the most pathetic type of grade-school apologetics. The language is pretty damn clear, and it meant "day" not "uh, could be a day, could be billions of years, but whichever it is, this story is still 100% completely accurate, so believe it."

      Anyhow, with that absolutely incisive analysis "day == thousands of years" are we all supposed to slap our foreheads, and say, "Oh, my. Now I understand that Genesis IS 100% true, I just need the right decoder ring. I'll stop looking through my telescope now, because it is all right there in the Good Book. Thanks, caino59, you've made my life better."

      Next, I'll suppose you'll tell us about the angels guarding the entrance to the Garden of Eden, so that none of us wander back there.

      The only thing more annoying is those people who will talk about the "talents" in Matt. 25:14-30 as a metaphor for our abilities, even after admitting that talent is just a unit of weight.

    8. Re:Weak! by Eccles · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't that be "Same dren, different arn," at least if you mean the same structure as the original?

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    9. Re:Weak! by killjoe · · Score: 1

      THe zealots do their math like this

      So your "one day is actually a thousand" falls apart when you consider that Moses lived to be a 120 years. So by your calculations moses lived longer then some planets!.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    10. Re:Weak! by Mick+Ohrberg · · Score: 1

      Uh, you're absolutely correct. :) That GRB must have scrambled some synapses.

      --

      Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.

    11. Re:Weak! by caino59 · · Score: 1

      Um, wow did you take my post out of context. I was just saying - if one thing isn't true or 100% accurate - what makes the rest of it true or 100% accurate.

      I think you assume entirely too much.

    12. Re:Weak! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Yup, I'll use the same logic when your consulting bill comes in. When you said dollars, maybe you meant pennies...


      BTW, religious-freak-jackass, your website is sooo down. Fix it. Or just pray to the big invisible sky-friend, he'll fix it.

    13. Re:Weak! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but you assuming some half-ass two thousand year old story has any relevance today isn't assuming anything at all, huh?

    14. Re:Weak! by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > Next, I'll suppose you'll tell us about the angels guarding the entrance to the Garden of Eden, so that none of us wander back there.

      No, no, it's guarded by the military... You DO know what's in Area 51, don't you? *sshhh, don't tell*

    15. Re:Weak! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it must - it sure comes up as a topic, even here, quite frequently.

      sure - nothing in our past is relevant today.

      berlin wall, world wars...

      why do we even bother with history?

    16. Re:Weak! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, history != mythology. Um, WWII.... Bible crap... Umm.... Which one of these is history, which is myth? Better call your college tomorrow and find out about refunds.

    17. Re:Weak! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don't you find that possible that something in the book may have actually happened....i mean raising people from the dead and such nonesense...

      oh wait..the whole thing is pretty damn far-fetched, eh?

      now i still don't know where you people get the idea that i'm touting religion - i'm merely saying that religious nuts look at their 'infallible' piece of literature, point and say "LAW!"

      Especially when they are willing to accept that pieces of the book are subject to question or open interpretation - doesn't that kind of throw a wrecnh into the whole deal and prompt them to think a little more?

    18. Re:Weak! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You would think that maybe, just maybe, they'd realize that maybe God's creation 'week' wasn't a week with days as we know them - 1 day could equate to thousands of years...

      Overheard in a church during the scopes monkey trial...

      Priest: Lord, what is a billion years to you?
      God: It is but a second my son.
      Priest: And Lord, what is a billion dollars to you?
      God: It is but a penny my son.
      Priest: Lord... may I have a penny?
      God: In a second.

  16. Come on! This morning? by grumpyman · · Score: 0, Redundant

    It probably happened few million years ago. It's history...

  17. Wait a minute... by dfn5 · · Score: 4, Funny
    Slashdot just told me that black hole's don't exist. I don't know what to think anymore.

    --
    -- Thou hast strayed far from the path of the Avatar.
    1. Re:Wait a minute... by FidelCatsro · · Score: 4, Funny

      Rimmer: But a Black Hole's a huge, compacted star! It's millions of miles wide! Why didn't you see it on the radar screen?
      Holly: Well, the thing about a Black Hole, its main distinguishing feature, is it's black. And the thing about space, your basic space colour is black. So how are you supposed to see them?
      Rimmer: But five of them! How can you be ambushed by five Black Holes?
      Holly: Always the way, isn't it? You hang around in deep space for three million years and you don't see one. Then, all of a sudden, five all turn up at once.

      --
      The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
    2. Re:Wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, they did exist 2.2 billion years ago. They don't anymore.

    3. Re:Wait a minute... by markana · · Score: 1

      I was probably just a few specks of dust on the Swift lens....

    4. Re:Wait a minute... by Craig_P92669 · · Score: 0

      Holly was always like HALs young, lazy alcoholic brother that never did quite fit in anywhere.

      --
      http://xs4.xs.to/pics/04481/p556222.gif
    5. Re:Wait a minute... by FidelCatsro · · Score: 1

      that was the female Holly who said that one.

      --
      The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
    6. Re:Wait a minute... by Skye16 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I hate to ask this and lose whatever geek credibility I *may* have had, but what is this from? I have a feeling I'd love to check it out.

    7. Re:Wait a minute... by Black.Shuck · · Score: 5, Informative

      Red Dwarf, Season 3, Episode 2 "Marooned."

    8. Re:Wait a minute... by FidelCatsro · · Score: 3, Informative

      RedDwarf ,Cult Sci-fi comedy from the UK ;) out on DVD and VHS and most likely other places and ways

      http://www.reddwarf.co.uk/

      --
      The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
    9. Re:Wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry about your cred. It's safe here. Of course I say this as I'm posting anonymously so as not to ruin my geek cred.

      A much lower level geek introduced me to Red Dwarf a while back. He kept on talking about it saying that it would be "right up my alley" but I didn't listen to him because of his low geek status. After all, he dragged me to see The Faster and The Furiouser. Then again, people can be surprising.

      Do yourself a favor and check out at least the first two seasons. It's a great Sci-Fi Comedy that can best be described as a precursor to Farscape only with less cohesive plot and more general wackyness. Then again, what else would you expect from a British sitcom. Those Brits are smegging light years ahead of us in sitcom technology.

    10. Re:Wait a minute... by DaemonDazz · · Score: 1

      I'm scared... Did you just know that or did you have to look it up?

    11. Re:Wait a minute... by DaemonDazz · · Score: 1

      OK I'm scared, did you know that or did you have to look it up?

    12. Re:Wait a minute... by DaemonDazz · · Score: 1

      Argh, stupid slashdot tells me I hit submit too quickly, and then accepts the submission anyway!

  18. ...But they don't exist! by bigtallmofo · · Score: 0, Redundant

    It was just about a month ago that it was reported that blackholes don't exist.

    I wish physicists could make up their mind.

    --
    I'm a big tall mofo.
    1. Re:...But they don't exist! by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      OK, so two neutron stars merged into an object that's not a technicaly a black hole, but looks and acts just like one from the outside. Same difference.

    2. Re:...But they don't exist! by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1
      Ah, but you see, this means there are "gaps" in gravitational theory, which is why those so-called scientists can't make up their minds. All these "gravitists" in the gravitational community are just spouting nonsense and can't see through the obvious flaws in this whole "gravitation" theory (which is just a theory, after all) and are trying to cover up over mountains of contradicting evidence. So, I guess this gap in the theory just proves that gravity doesn't really exist.

      [BTW, for the sarcastically impaired, :-)]

    3. Re:...But they don't exist! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Of course he did, christians don't believe in gravity."

    4. Re:...But they don't exist! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering Gravity as an emergent property may yield some interesting results.

    5. Re:...But they don't exist! by drxray · · Score: 3, Informative

      You're probably joking, but you got modded informative so:

      From your link "according to a physicist"... There is a general consensus that black holes with singularities exist, but the universe doesn't give a damn about our consensual opinion - the Earth would be flat otherwise.

      This is how science works, people come up with testable ideas which are proven right or wrong. No-one is arguing that super-dense, intrinsically dark objects don't exist, we have plenty of evidence that they do. Infinitely dense singularities, well, maybe not - if they exist as we predict they're inside an event horizon and therefore unobservable so actually directly verifying their existance is always going to be impossible... all we can do is come up with odd ideas like dark energy stars which might bounce matter out and see if we can observe that happening.

      --
      Slashdot - Mutual Assured Discussion
    6. Re:...But they don't exist! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to nitpick, but please don't lump all Christians together with modern, primarily American fundamentalists. They are an annoyingly loud and politically powerful group, but they are also very much a minority viewpoint in the Christian world.

    7. Re:...But they don't exist! by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      the universe doesn't give a damn about our consensual opinion - the Earth would be flat otherwise.

      I'm pretty sure the consensus is against you on that one..

  19. Happy Birthday! by nizo · · Score: 4, Funny

    I almost put up a big "Happy Birthday you Big Black Hole" banner at work as a joke, but luckily I found out beforehand that one of my co-workers has a birthday today. I am guessing that banner wouldn't have gone over too well with him.

    1. Re:Happy Birthday! by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Funny

      I almost put up a big "Happy Birthday you Big Black Hole" banner at work as a joke, but luckily I found out beforehand that one of my co-workers has a birthday today. I am guessing that banner wouldn't have gone over too well with him.

      Especially if he also happens to be a large gay afro-american...

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    2. Re:Happy Birthday! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Obvious
      2. Racist
      3. ???
      4 . Profit!!!

    3. Re:Happy Birthday! by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > 1. Obvious
      > 2. Racist
      > 3. ???
      > 4 . Profit!!!

      3 = Become a standup comic.

      Unfortunately, 3a is "get funny material," so that step has not yet been reached.

    4. Re:Happy Birthday! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why not just say black man instead of this afro-american crap? who says they are african in decent? or even american? it is complete PC bullshit. one stupid american even called nelson mandela an african-american once. ffs, get a grip of yourselves.

    5. Re:Happy Birthday! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why use the PC invention 'black'? It was invented in 1968 by a bunch of liberals. Why not just use the term "negro"?

  20. Space the final Frontier by Boogiesbunny · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    "Mr. Scott I need your warp 8 speed now"...."Captain I'm giving you all that I can muster"

    1. Re:Space the final Frontier by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish there was an imposed period of, say, a hundred thousand new subscriptions, before Slashdot lets newcomers post. This is just pathetic...

    2. Re:Space the final Frontier by Boogiesbunny · · Score: 1

      It is whole lot easier to post as the Anonymous Coward though. Some of stories are not worthy of serious thought..case in point. Not a newcomer but was tired being an AC.

  21. Detected how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    How did a gamma ray burst escape the black hole? Sounds contradictory to me.

    I call bullshit! Prove me wrong.

    1. Re:Detected how? by SirTalon42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Poor wording. It didn't come from inside the event horizon, but probably right outside it, or before an event horizon was created it was emitted.

      IANAP; though, I do have a strong intrest in it.

    2. Re:Detected how? by cecille · · Score: 1

      I am not a physicist, but from what I understand of it (which may not be a lot), particle pairs (matter particle and an anti-matter particle) are able to appear together in space. I'm a little fuzzy on this part because it seems counter-intuitive to me, but apparantly this does not violate the laws of conservation of energy because the matter is generated along with the anti-matter, which creates a balance.

      Usually, just after the creation, the matter hits the anti-matter and they disappear. But at the event horizon of a black hole, it is possible for one of the particles to get sucked in, meaning that its partner is left visible. This is what creates the emissions from black holes, which actually makes them not so black at all, but visible to physicists so they can study them.

      Someone correct me if I'm way off base with this.

      --
      ...no two people are not on fire.
    3. Re:Detected how? by Detritus · · Score: 4, Informative
      I believe you are describing Hawking radiation.

      From what I've read, you have a better chance of detecting a black hole by looking for the effects of its gravitational field on light that passes nearby. It should warp the apparent positions of stars.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    4. Re:Detected how? by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 3, Informative

      Black holes are detectable. The accretion disk about the even horizon emits a lot of gamma rays, because matter falling into the hole are accelerated like crazy. Once matter has reach the even horizon of course, nothing escapes.

      Think of it as a last cry of atoms being swallowed.

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    5. Re:Detected how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      god did it. He's really powerful, you see, and while children die in pointless wars, he decided to aim some gamma rays at satellites this morning. See? god is powerful. It explains EVERYTHING.

    6. Re:Detected how? by Hatta · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Every other post seems to be a joke, so I'll just put this here. What's with the artist's rendition? The article said the event was photographed, why not use that image instead of some swirly colors that may or may not have any relation to reality?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    7. Re:Detected how? by Alex+P+Keaton+in+da · · Score: 1

      " How did a gamma ray burst escape the black hole? Sounds contradictory to me."
      I belive the sphinchter pinches it off... Otherwise it would have a miles long trail behind it at all times....

      --
      And All I Ask is a Tall Ship And a Star to Steer Her By
    8. Re:Detected how? by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1
      You are attempting to describe Hawking radiation. The burst wasn't Hawking radiation.

      Also, I studied black holes for a bit (quantum field theory in curved spacetime 'n' all that). At no point was I able to make a connection between what I studied and the pop science description you just attempted. I think it probably bears little relation to the real physics!

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    9. Re:Detected how? by CodeMonkey4Hire · · Score: 1

      The way you describe it would still violate the conservation of energy. When matter and anti-matter interact they are annihilated and energy is released. So, in order to create matter/antimatter you would have to consume energy. It's been a while, but they probably think the energy is coming from the background energy of the universe or some zero-state. These types of phenomena might be allowed under the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle though, as long as the dEnergy*dTime is less than hbar(?) or something.

      --

      Let's go Hurricanes!!! 2006 Stanley Cup Champions!!!
    10. Re:Detected how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The article said the event was photographed, why not use that image instead

      Because the picture is of a black hole taken against the black background of space. There ain't nothin to see but BLACK!

    11. Re:Detected how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Real image: (Note it is a negative - black means lots of light. The big thing in the middle is a galaxy, and the error box is pointing to somewhere on its outer edge.)
      http://www.srl.caltech.edu/~cenko/grb050509b/05050 9.jpg

    12. Re:Detected how? by Tyler+Durden · · Score: 1
      Also, I studied black holes for a bit (quantum field theory in curved spacetime 'n' all that). At no point was I able to make a connection between what I studied and the pop science description you just attempted. I think it probably bears little relation to the real physics!

      That's odd. His explanation of Hawking Radiation sounded like one I heard before, so I looked it up. In A Brief History of Time (in Black Holes Ain't So Black), Hawking's explanation matches the parent's explanation pretty damn closely. I'm sure Hawking dumbed this particular description down a bit, but the gist of it should be accurate.

      --
      Happy people make bad consumers.
    13. Re:Detected how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two words:

      Phone interview.

      Besides, detecting an afterglow doesn't necessarily mean a picture. Maybe they just measured the amount of light coming from that direction (think 1 pixel camera). Or in fact, the picture just shows a single light pixel in a dark background. Irrefutable evidence, but not in teresting to look at.

    14. Re:Detected how? by balaam's+ass · · Score: 1

      Thanks for posting that!

      Pretty much lacks any semblance of media-savvy glitz factor, which is probably why space.com went with the artist's rendering.

    15. Re:Detected how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What was seen is the very brief period where the smaller neutron star was smeared into an accretion disk as it finally contacted the larger one. They were probably orbiting each other in miliseconds at that point, and once they came into contact the smaller one would be shreaded and rapidly lose mass onto the surface of the larger one, finally pushing it over the mass needed for collapse into a black hole. At that point what's left of the smaller one, which lost some momentum to the larger one in the collision, would rapidly fall beyond the event horizon. It probably took less than a second from the initial collision to produce the black hole.

      I'd love to see what something like that looks like in visible light (through really thick sunglasses).

    16. Re:Detected how? by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

      The explanation he gave is given in every popular text on the subject. But it looks different to the formal arguments. In the version I studied, you investigate how the vacuum evolves near a black hole. All kinds of funky stuff happens because your spacetime is curved and but the long and the short of it is that a big chunk of your wavefunction can't be observed because it's inside the black hole. The bit you can talk about, which is a kind of "half wavefunction" because part of it is missing, looks like multiparticle states. It's not really about particle-antiparticle creation. For example here is a link that has more words than the formal treatment I studied. Maybe there is a way of looking at this stuff that involves pair creation, but even when I raised this topic on sci.physics.research many years ago no physicist responded with an explanation of the popular account.

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    17. Re:Detected how? by iamlucky13 · · Score: 1

      If it's bullshit, it's because the afternoon of the day the burst was detected seems kind of early to be declaring how it formed. On the other hand, they've predicted this type of event for years...

      Anyway, the burst didn't escape the black hole. RTFA. Theoretically, it was caused by the collision of two neutron stars. Just before they actually collide, the smaller one would collapse and form an accretion disk. If I understand them correctly, this collapse is involved in the creation of the "really big boom."

    18. Re:Detected how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once matter has reach the even horizon of course, nothing escapes.

      Almost. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation

  22. after all ... by vlad_petric · · Score: 0, Redundant
    Black holes don't grow hair

    Yes, I should be modded -1 sexist.

    --

    The Raven

    1. Re:after all ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Black holes don't grow hair

      Shows how many black holes you've seen!

      I've seen a bunch that had hair.

  23. The whole hole? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny
    Theory had predicted the whole thing

    Didn't you mean "theory had predicted the hole thing" ?

  24. In other news... by Shin+Chan · · Score: 2

    ... This years intergalactic golf competition has started with a complete revamp of the course including a new hole deep into the galaxy! This looks like a promising season to me, so everyone, get your space-clubs out and try not to hit your little ball into that newly formed gas cloud! Oh, and, we appologize 2.2 billion year delay of "this" years golf magazine from outer space.

    --
    Proud owner of BOT2K3 [ bot2k3.net ]
  25. Afterglow afterbirth by digitaldc · · Score: 1

    "A fraction of a second before contact, the lower mass neutron star is disrupted and forms a neutrino driven accretion disk around the higher mass neutron star," Sigurdsson told SPACE.com. "It implodes under the weight and forms a maximally spinning low-mass black hole."
    Man, this sounds like a big bang going on here.

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
  26. PUSH!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You should have heard the mother scream.

  27. Could've been worst... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    Instead of a black hole being created, it could've been a free-falling whale. Just a bunch of kids showing off their hot rods with an Infinite Probability Drive.

    1. Re:Could've been worst... by TeatimeofSoul · · Score: 1

      Did you mean infinite _im_probability drive, or was there another level to the joke, that went over my head?

    2. Re:Could've been worst... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Beats me. I'm not Douglas Adams, but thanks for all the fish anyway. :P

    3. Re:Could've been worst... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Sorry about that. I don't think too well with my other head under my chin. :) The probability of the improbability drive creating a black hole was too much to comprehend.

  28. Those impetuous scientists! by kclittle · · Score: 5, Funny

    The burst has been named GRB050509b

    I mean, really! How droll, how clever...

    --
    Generally, bash is superior to python in those environments where python is not installed.
    1. Re:Those impetuous scientists! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's a jerky name. Still, it could be worse. I once knew burst whose name was 2Q4B. Poor sucker!

    2. Re:Those impetuous scientists! by Tenebrious1 · · Score: 1

      The burst has been named GRB050509b I mean, really! How droll, how clever...

      Speaking of the name, why "b"? Did they discover another black hole earlier in the day and name that GRB050509a?

      --
      -- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
    3. Re:Those impetuous scientists! by CodeMonkey4Hire · · Score: 2, Informative

      Gamma Ray Burst 2005 05 09 b

      I would guess that it was the second gamma ray burst (candidate?) detected (since 1200 GMT?). Lot of guessing on my part though.

      --

      Let's go Hurricanes!!! 2006 Stanley Cup Champions!!!
    4. Re:Those impetuous scientists! by uucp2 · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's obviously leetspeek - though GRBOSOSOGB does not make it much more sensible to me.

    5. Re:Those impetuous scientists! by lgw · · Score: 1

      We detect about 1 GRB per day on avereage, so I'd expect you're correct about 'a'.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    6. Re:Those impetuous scientists! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was the second GRB detected on that day. Normally swift sees about one a week, but sometimes it detects more. Lots of the things it detects aren't GRBs though... it finds other stuff like soft gamma ray repeaters as well.

    7. Re:Those impetuous scientists! by Mr_Huber · · Score: 1

      Well, their second choice was 'Madison', so its probably for the best.

    8. Re:Those impetuous scientists! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bursts are a bit like trains: you wait around for days then two come along at once - or in this case hours...

      There are two types of burst - long burst (10s of seconds - stellar collapse) and short bursts (millisecs - merging neutron stars). This would be the latter.

    9. Re:Those impetuous scientists! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GRB050509b

      GRB 05 (the year...) 05 (the month...) 09 (the day) b

      Hmm... think that just MIGHT have something to do with that being the date?

      Dimwit.

    10. Re:Those impetuous scientists! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oops... this was supposed to go on one of the comments after the post under yours.

      Doh.

    11. Re:Those impetuous scientists! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GRB050509b

      GRB 05 (the year...) 05 (the month...) 09 (the day) b

      Hmm... think that just MIGHT have something to do with that being the date?

  29. umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't Panic!?

  30. And from now on... by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 2, Funny

    Mama neutron star will be telling the Black Hole how many hours she was in labor for the rest of her life...

  31. LA-LA-LA-LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU by revscat · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    Great. More evidence for the fundamentalist Republicans to loudly ignore. "The universe isn't that old. God just put black holes in place to test our faith. Black holes are really a tool of Satan." They're in charge, though. Maybe they can change the definition of "black hole" to something more forgiving to creationism.

    Have you READ any of the "Left Behind" series? I only *wish* there weren't people out there like that. Holy moly.

    1. Re:LA-LA-LA-LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, hate much?

    2. Re:LA-LA-LA-LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      If you didn't catch last night's Simpson's, you really should. Homer gets caught up in the "Left Below" craze. Pretty sharp satire.

      --
      If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
    3. Re:LA-LA-LA-LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU by Detritus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I wouldn't give the so-called rational scientists too much credit either. They "knew" that the cosmos was perfect and unchanging, in spite of evidence to the contrary. All human beings have prejudices and irrational ideas.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    4. Re:LA-LA-LA-LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU by sulli · · Score: 4, Funny
      I only *wish* there weren't people out there like that. Holy moly.

      God put them on earth to test you.

      Via evolution, of course.

      --

      sulli
      RTFJ.
    5. Re:LA-LA-LA-LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU by revscat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They "knew" that the cosmos was perfect and unchanging, in spite of evidence to the contrary.

      The main difference being, of course, was once the evidence became irrefutable that such notions were incorrect, scientists changed the theories to fit the data. Religions have a tendency to kill people when challenged.

    6. Re:LA-LA-LA-LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      But the very BASIS of science is that it can change with new observations. NO ONE ever said that the final understanding of the universe has been achieved by a scientist. That is, no one who is intellectually honest, and not trying to make some sort of skewed point or make shit up.


      Science changes. Faith never does. Faith == blindness.

    7. Re:LA-LA-LA-LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU by mbrother · · Score: 1

      Your understanding of the history of science isn't too good. Real science began when such untrue "truths" of the Greeks were set aside in light of new observational evidence. The Greeks didn't use science for the most part, at least in the modern definition of science. Here and there, sure...but the real culprit here to blame is the church, which didn't want to throw out Aristotle's universe even when the first of the real scientists were clamoring for it.

      --
      Professor of Astronomy, Author of Spider Star & Star Dragon (Tor)
    8. Re:LA-LA-LA-LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 1

      Religions have a tendency to kill people when challenged.

      So what? You can change the theory while killing the data.

      Yes, religions tend to kill people a lot. But they're also capable of change. Where do you think the word "Protestant" came from?

    9. Re:LA-LA-LA-LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU by KingNaught · · Score: 1

      Yah relegions kill people when they get proven wrong by them, while scientists prove their theories by killing people. (i.e. Atomic Bomb)

    10. Re:LA-LA-LA-LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU by AVIDJockey · · Score: 1

      Yes, religions tend to kill people a lot. But they're also capable of change. Where do you think the word "Protestant" came from?

      Note that Catholicism didn't actually change. People just got fed up and did their own thing.

    11. Re:LA-LA-LA-LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU by MenTaLguY · · Score: 1

      Dude, the Reformation was FAR from bloodless, on both sides.

      --

      DNA just wants to be free...
    12. Re:LA-LA-LA-LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU by revscat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Where do you think the word "Protestant" came from?

      And how many people died as a direct result of the Protestant reformation? Compare, please, to the number of people who died as a part of the revolution in physics at the advent of quantum mechanics and general relativity.

    13. Re:LA-LA-LA-LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU by revscat · · Score: 1

      Funny, I thought it was politicians and militaries that made those decisions.

    14. Re:LA-LA-LA-LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU by Detritus · · Score: 1
      How long did it take "science" to recognize the true nature of meteorites? I wouldn't blame the church. See The New Science of Meteorology.

      Kepler was infatuated with Greek mysticism. Newton spent most of his time on alchemy and other nonsense. You can be a "real scientist" and still have trouble separating myth from reality.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    15. Re:LA-LA-LA-LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU by mbrother · · Score: 1

      Sure you can. These examples are much better ones than the "unchanging heavens" example above.

      --
      Professor of Astronomy, Author of Spider Star & Star Dragon (Tor)
    16. Re:LA-LA-LA-LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      As a phd student I can only say:
      Licence to kill? I wish!
    17. Re:LA-LA-LA-LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      I think quite a few people died from the a-bomb.... I always wondered if there was meant to be a b-bomb, and they decided against it because it sounded like they were stuttering.

      "Deploy the b-bomb"
      "Which bomb?"
      "The b-bomb."
      "Yeah, I know you want the bomb deployed. But which bomb?"
      "The bomb after a."

    18. Re:LA-LA-LA-LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 1

      And how many people died as a direct result of the Protestant reformation?

      That was in the era when, e.g., duels to restore "offended honor" were commonplace and often resulted in deaths for both. How many people died as a result of Vatican II?

      Compare, please, to the number of people who died as a part of the revolution in physics at the advent of quantum mechanics and general relativity.

      What's all this about Albert Einstein encouraging Roosevelt to develop the atomic bomb? Even if you argue this was solely for defense against Germany, a) America is the only country so far to have used atomic /nuclear weapons in war, and b) it was the "revolution in physics," as you said, that gave government scientists in both Germany and America the foundation to build atomic weapons.

      The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have been impossible without the physics developed at the beginning of the 20th century. Compare that, please, to the number of people killed in the Protestant reformation...which probably numbers in the thousands, but definitely not in the millions.

    19. Re:LA-LA-LA-LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 1

      What about Vatican II? I don't think even a drop of blood was spilt over that...and that was pretty serious, as far as reformations and changes in thinking.

    20. Re:LA-LA-LA-LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU by revscat · · Score: 1
      Don't tell me. You're a Christian.

      That was in the era when, e.g., duels to restore "offended honor" were commonplace and often resulted in deaths for both.

      To even attempt to brush under the carpet the untold millions who died as a part of religious zealotry, from the Crusades to the Inquisition, as merely "more barbaric times" is insulting and borders on being an outright lie. Millions died because religious zealots were too stupid and immoral to even contemplate the destructiveness and wickedness of their actions. That is a Truth you cannot hide, no matter how distasteful you may find it.

      What's all this about Albert Einstein encouraging Roosevelt to develop the atomic bomb? Even if you argue this was solely for defense against Germany, a) America is the only country so far to have used atomic /nuclear weapons in war, and b) it was the "revolution in physics," as you said, that gave government scientists in both Germany and America the foundation to build atomic weapons.

      But it was not competing scientific worldviews that was the underlying foundation of the conflict; it was fascism vs. secular liberalism. Science provided the tools, rightly or wrongly, which were used to fight the conflict, not the impetus.

      The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have been impossible without the physics developed at the beginning of the 20th century. Compare that, please, to the number of people killed in the Protestant reformation...which probably numbers in the thousands, but definitely not in the millions.

      In a heartbeat. And do you really doubt that if the bomb had been available at the time that those who were pushing for the Crusades would not have used it?

      Evangelical zeal is the enemy of science and good men everywhere, and it is energetically eschewed by scientists therefore. Religion finds reasons to justify murder and tyranny. Science, as a philosophy, tends to oppose such justifications.

    21. Re:LA-LA-LA-LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU by MenTaLguY · · Score: 1

      Well, I specifically meant The Reformation, not "a reformation". I was pointing out that GP picked a bad example.

      --

      DNA just wants to be free...
    22. Re:LA-LA-LA-LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 1

      I'm going to start by conceding a whole bunch of points:

      A) Yes, I'm a Christian, and that's part of the reason I'm sticking up for Christianity.

      B) Yes, I realize that religious wars were very deadly, very wrong, very immoral, very distaseful, and unfortunately true. However, please remember that the zealots weren't all religious zealots, and many of the religous weren't even zealots. Martin Luther, for example, only wanted peaceable reform, not violent schism.

      C) Of course the Crusaders would've nuked the Muslim world if they could. They were blinded by religion. They were wrong. There is only one thing I hate more than a deadly devotion to God (and that is a deadly devotion against God).

      It is never defensible to kill others in the name of religion. That means only that you find neither your god strong enough to win the battle without fighting, nor your religion strong enough to convert the enemies instead of killing them.

      I am not attempting to defend the worldly misdeeds of various religions throughout history (even those whose religious viewpoints I agree with). The only point is that religion is only one of many causes of war. Politics is far more common. Science is pretty much the only means by which war is fought. So what if the debates in science cause no deaths? The number of deaths would've been impossible without those debates being answered.

      No field is completely immune, and I think religion in general is getting a bit of a bad rap. Not many modern movements in religion (other than "Islam's bloody borders" and all that) are deadly, ofr example.

    23. Re:LA-LA-LA-LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU by revscat · · Score: 1

      However, please remember that the zealots weren't all religious zealots, and many of the religous weren't even zealots.

      I very much recognize that. I'm a Unitarian, but I named my youngest son after Benjamin Franklin. He was a Christian (and a scientist!) of great virtue whom I hold worthy of the greatest respect. Unfortunately his kind hold very little sway in the modern context; I sincerely hope that changes. Christianity is not my enemy. Zealous evangelism that seeks tyranny over mankind is.

      No field is completely immune, and I think religion in general is getting a bit of a bad rap. Not many modern movements in religion (other than "Islam's bloody borders" and all that) are deadly, ofr example.

      One that is based upon solid history. I personally believe that a large reason that we don't have internecine conflicts within this nation is because there is a systemic bias against it: the Constitution. And now we have religious theocrats who by all evidence want to abolish it. Religion is frequently and demonstrably a dangerous thing, especially when it mixes with politics. Religion, I believe, is at its most noble when it is at its most distant from the political realm.

  32. Fate of Black Holes. by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Informative

    Found it. Donald Coyne of UCSC gave a talk on the Ultimate Fate of Small Black Holes. Be sure to check the Milagro link on his facutly page.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Fate of Black Holes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Insightful? You got to be freakin' kidding me. This is off-topic/flamebait/troll all at once much more than it is insighful or interesting. Geez!

    2. Re:Fate of Black Holes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Be sure to check the Milagro link on his facutly page.

      For those who can't read it, it goes something like this:

      Darmok and Jalad at Milagro.
      Darmok, his arms open wide.
      Jalad, his pants unfurled.
      Darmok at Milagro when his pants fell.

  33. Hypernovas by StarWreck · · Score: 1

    I thought gamma ray bursts and the resulting creation of a black hole were the result of Hyper-Novas not from the merger of two neutron stars.

    --
    ... and in the DRM, bind them.
    1. Re:Hypernovas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      There are different types and different source of gamma ray bursts. Hypernovas, neutron star mergers, black hole mergers, etc.

  34. Terminology, people! by WormholeFiend · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Shouldn't this be more appropriately described as a black hole being ripped, rather than being born?

    1. Re:Terminology, people! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't use the R word, the RIAA might hear it.

    2. Re:Terminology, people! by lobsterGun · · Score: 1

      We just tore the universe a new time hole!

    3. Re:Terminology, people! by phyruxus · · Score: 1

      Since Hawking said that black holes don't actually tear a hole in space time, I don't think ripped is more appropriate than born. Unless I'm misremembering that story, which is possible.

      --
      "A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
      "d'Oh!" ~Homer
    4. Re:Terminology, people! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He meant the big black hole of the mother I believe...

    5. Re:Terminology, people! by balaam's+ass · · Score: 1

      What, like a fart?

      Sounds like you're thinking that black hole formation results in a topology change (a "tear") in spacetime. For astrophysical black hole formation, in classical general relativity....eh, it seriously depends on your coordinate system, but maybe the most relevant answer is "no". Even so, we expect classical GR to break down anyway near the center of the black hole (the "singularity"), which is where any "rip" would occur.

      I'm looking on the web for a nice "Kruskal diagram" of astrophysical BH formation, and all I'm finding t right now is this one:
      http://www-cosmosaf.iap.fr/MIT-RG7_fichiers/fig_se ven18.jpeg

    6. Re:Terminology, people! by StikyPad · · Score: 0

      You know God's pissed when he tears space a new one.

    7. Re:Terminology, people! by squidgyhead · · Score: 1

      Well, I guess we should call it "GRB_MACDUFF" and send it off after the super-black hole M111, colloquially known as M_ACBETH. That thing is beginning to get out of hand, what with all the dark matter it's been dealing with.

    8. Re:Terminology, people! by syousef · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      No cause then the RIAA would have you in jail for having anything to do with it!

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  35. Suprise Suprise by weavermatic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So far these have been the least intelligent responses to scientific matter I believe I have ever see on slashdot. If this were anything related to YRO, linux or windows the people would be busting out certifications & degrees in bunches, but the recorded creation of a blackhole, all we get is poorly constructed sexual innuendo. Fantastic.

    1. Re:Suprise Suprise by iztaru · · Score: 1

      The comments are not as bad as the people moderating them. Can you explain me how this thing got motherated 3:Interesting:

      Shouldn't this be more appropriately described as a black hole being ripped, rather than being born?

      This thing shows me that people here knows almost nothing about these matters and that the Science category is Off-Topic.

    2. Re:Suprise Suprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I agree, but I think it's necessary to recognize Black Holes have been done to death on /. and for every story announcing the existence of Black Holes there's another arguing against the existence of Black Holes. If you search the archives you'll find lots of informed posts.

    3. Re:Suprise Suprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      So far these have been the least intelligent responses to scientific matter I believe I have ever see on slashdot.

      Sure was, until you came along an ruined it.

    4. Re:Suprise Suprise by bitrott · · Score: 1

      Right. Because we're all astrophysicists with anything more than a passing interest in the findings of said field. Don't be a tool. There's humor to be found in everything, and some of these witticisms have been derned witty. If occasionally tasteless. Is it irony you were aiming for by critiqing without actually adding anything substantial to the meat of the discussion?

    5. Re:Suprise Suprise by stlhawkeye · · Score: 1
      So far these have been the least intelligent responses to scientific matter I believe I have ever see on slashdot. If this were anything related to YRO, linux or windows the people would be busting out certifications & degrees in bunches, but the recorded creation of a blackhole, all we get is poorly constructed sexual innuendo. Fantastic.

      I postulate that it's because your typical Slashdot poster has little to no physics expertise and can't even put forth a good front of having anything intelligent to say about it.

      But we can wax intelletual ad nauseum over copyright infringement and misquote US code all afternoon. After all, you can Google some facts on legal cases and mostly understand them.

      But physics is freakin hard!

      --
      "I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
    6. Re:Suprise Suprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interestingly, I'd just reached the exact same conclusion a second before I came to your post.
      This has to be the most banal thread I've ever seen on Slashdot - especially for such an interesting event. It's just an endless string of obvious (or obviously flawed) remarks, and attempts at humour that would make your average home economics teacher cringe.

    7. Re:Suprise Suprise by grozzie2 · · Score: 1

      Makes one wonder, if the technically literate crowd here has no real interest in black holes, then I'm sure John Q. Public is considerably less interested, and probably wondering why his tax dollars get pissed away on stuff like the equipment used to find them.

    8. Re:Suprise Suprise by Robotdog · · Score: 1

      I'm a student at Caltech, and my astronomy professor just happened to be at observing at Keck last night when this happened. Apparently, because GRBs are over so quickly, when the call comes in that Swift has detected one, you are forced to stop what you are doing and gather data for the GRB astronomers. My professor wasn't exactly thrilled. Anyway, in lecture this afternoon, he showed us some of the first spectral analysis of this event. He showed how the characteristic lines (of elements like sodium, oxygen, etc.) of the galaxy that it had to shine through had been redshifted, and how the amount of redshift was used to determine the distance to the GRB. It was interesting stuff. Then he started talking about inflationary theory and I fell asleep.

  36. It's stuff like this by lheal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    that makes makes me glad I'm not an astronomer.

    A Gamma-ray burst lasting less than a second from 2.2 billion light years away, followed by an X-ray afterglow (for a few seconds).

    Probably a black hole.

    Or maybe the civil war on Zebulon III finally escalated to gamma-ray weapons.

    But what funding agency would believe that?

    --
    Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
    1. Re:It's stuff like this by learn+fast · · Score: 1

      We must invade NOW.

      Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed with Gamma-ray weapons. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.

    2. Re:It's stuff like this by System.out.println() · · Score: 1

      If it was something other than what they had predicted it was going to be, the odds it would happen precisely at the moment it was predicted to happen (or rather, 2.2 billions years before, but who's counting) are insanely slim.

    3. Re:It's stuff like this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      How insightful. Thanks 1heal.

      Mods? WTF?

    4. Re:It's stuff like this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can you be so fucking stupid that you don't realize that this joke is NO LONGER FUNNY, or indeed that it NEVER WAS?

  37. Finally! Illudium Q-1 to Q-35, nothing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Illudium Q-36: Kaboom!

    Marvin

  38. God divided by zero by drewzhrodague · · Score: 2, Funny

    This is nothing new, God was just dividing by zero!

    --
    Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
    1. Re:God divided by zero by drewzhrodague · · Score: 1

      Uh, so where's my sig? Don't tell me the black hole ate it, either.

      --
      Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
  39. ROTSE did that before? by helioquake · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Wait a second...didn't ROTSE detect an optical afterglow first in 1999?

    ROTSE's first detection of optical afterglow /a?

    1. Re:ROTSE did that before? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but the hole in question was GOATSE.

    2. Re:ROTSE did that before? by lgw · · Score: 4, Informative

      There are long and short GRB events. This was the first time an optical afterglow was detected for a short event. The theory was that long and short GRBs were caused by similar events, and we should see an afterglow for both - which, of course, is the evidence that was found.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    3. Re:ROTSE did that before? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It's the other way around. Astrophysicists thing that the long and short bursts are generated by different processes.

      The current leading theories are that the long bursts are caused by enormous stars going supernova. However, instead of forming a neutron star in the middle, they form black holes. The resulting accretion disk in the star's center accelerates a jet to near the speed of light, and if we look down along the axis we see a burst of gamma rays as it breaks out of the star and then hits the interstellar medium.

      The short bursts are thought to be due to two neutron stars colliding. The result is also a black hole + accretion disk, however the timescales involved are much smaller because the jet doesn't have to break out of a dense stellar core in order to be seen.

      There are other theories... but they are less accepted. One of them is that some neutron stars are metastable - and could spontaneously `tunnel` into something with a denser equation of state i.e. a quark star. This would release a huge amount of energy, and could possibly explain some GRBs. Another option is that a neutron star could be held up by centrifugal force, and if it spins down enough it would collapse into a black hole, with a resulting accretion disk + jet.

    4. Re:ROTSE did that before? by lgw · · Score: 2, Informative

      They're both caused primarily by black hole formation, though. Other hypotheses about GRBs have been quite diverse, as you point out. It's a good point that GRBs are probably caused by a variety of events. The X-Ray and optical afterglow is the signature of black hole formation (by one means or another), which had been predicted for the short bursts and confirmed for some of the long bursts.

      As I understand it, the biggest GRB we've seen in our galaxy was not thought to be black hole formation, however, but a collapse of magnetic energy around a neutron star. I don't understand that one myself.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    5. Re:ROTSE did that before? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The event you mention that happened in our galaxy was not a GRB. It was a soft gamma ray repeater, which is completely different. If you look at the light curves, a GRB tends to be 'spikey' or a smooth hump, or something in between. Whereas a soft gamma ray repeater has an oscillatory spectrum - there is a spike followed by lots of reverberation. The other big difference between the two classes of events is that soft gamma ray repeaters repeat; Every ten years or so a given object will have an event. GRB's are totally different - they go off, and then are never heard from again.

      Astrophysicists think that soft gamma ray repeaters are due to the decay of extremely strong magnetic fields (strong enough to almost cause vacuum breakdown) in a class of neutron stars called `magnetars`. The reverberation seen matches the period of a pulsar in the error box in at least one case. However, just as we don't know exactly how pulsars pulse, the exact emission mechanism for soft GR repeaters is poorly understood.

    6. Re:ROTSE did that before? by lgw · · Score: 1

      Cool, I wondered what SGR stood for. Presumably they don't repeat at the same magnitude, however, as the event in December was the first we've seen that was so strong it messed with the ionosphere.

      I'm certainly at a loose to understand how a neutronstar mainatains such a large magnetic field in the first place, with no electric charge. Presumable it's not ferromagnetic.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    7. Re:ROTSE did that before? by peter · · Score: 1

      Neutrons are magnetic (i.e. they have a magnetic moment), and in a neutron star they're all lined up.
      Look at some of these search results

      --
      #define X(x,y) x##y
      Peter Cordes ; e-mail: X(peter@cordes , .ca)
  40. sorry about that by voudras · · Score: 3, Funny

    must have been the microwave burritos

  41. Not really a neutron star by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, it was all the extra apostrophes people put in ITS and make plurals with that end up at the end of the universe. They just exceeded the Chandrasekhar limit for apostrophes and imploded this morning.

  42. Baby black hole? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hope it doesn't start crying in the night!.
    Wait, nothing can left the bh, so I will not be able to hear it!
    I want one to put in my baby mouth!

  43. They detected a White Hole too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what is it?

  44. Does this constitute Proof of Black Holes? by sd.fhasldff · · Score: 1

    C.f. this Slashdot story from about a month ago where a phycisist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory claims that 'it's a near certainty that black holes don't exist.' Time to eat crow or do his "dark energy stars" exhibit the same behavior as black holes?

    1. Re:Does this constitute Proof of Black Holes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That article was written by a widely acknowledged crackpot.

      But still, this does not "prove" the existance of black holes, it merely brings us some % closer to being "sure" that they exist. The current level is probably "fairly sure", but many other theories that were "certain" in the past have been tossed out when better observations have been made.

      True scientists use words like "proof" very sparingly.

  45. Re:More black holes on the web: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought it was funny...

  46. How bright was the burst? by Ignorant+Aardvark · · Score: 1

    I haven't found the answer in any articles yet so I'm wondering if anyone here knows - how bright was the burst? Magnitude or photon flux and wavelength is fine - I'm just wondering how bright this thing was to be seen 2.2 billion lt-yr away!

    1. Re:How bright was the burst? by Detritus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't know if you can estimate the actual brightness of the object. If it is like the longer duration bursters, it produces two jets of radiation along an axis through the center of the object. How close are we to the center of that axis?

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    2. Re:How bright was the burst? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how bright was the burst? Magnitude ...

      The article said that it was as bright as the full moon, but in X-rays. So there's your magnitude, ie. about -12.6.

      And it also said that it was a 10,000 trillion trillion trillion watt event. Despite the inevitably rough estimating, the general strength of this appears to be known, within some orders of magnitude.

    3. Re:How bright was the burst? by Ignorant+Aardvark · · Score: 1

      Thanks a lot! That's very interesting info. Especially the overall estimated energy of the event, 10^40 watts ... plain ridiculous! I wonder though ... when they talk about a comparable magnitude to the Moon, do they mean raw number of photons, or is it adjusted for the fact that X-rays are more energetic?

  47. Re:Suprise Suprise "Left Behind" by homerito · · Score: 1

    You forgot to mention the "Left Behind" series....

  48. Starting to feel like the universe is.. by Alzheimers · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Great. Now it really is starting to feel like the universe is just one big version of Conway's Game of Life?

    1. Re:Starting to feel like the universe is.. by AceyMan · · Score: 1

      user 467217 wrote:
      Now it really is starting to feel like the universe is just one big version of Conway's Game of Life?

      Too bad the parent isn't a "ha ha, only serious" post.

      There is a sizable undercurrent of elite thinkers who, in fact, believe your mock hypothesis is exactly the case. This is the school known as digital philosophy or digital physcis.

      In this view, the universe is just a massive `simulation` as it were; where the 'ultimate particles' are 0's and 1's. There is no 'stuff'. Google on 'Rudy Rucker' and 'Gregory Chaitin' to learn more.

      [As if anyone's cares, I came to this conclusion even before I had heard of these gentlemen. It was refreshing to learn I wasn't the only one with this world view.]

      --
      -- Experience is a wonderful thing. It enables you to recognize a mistake when you make it again.
  49. And remember what they say... by Chriscypher · · Score: 3, Funny
    Whenever a black hole is born
    a sith lord gets his wings
    --
    "You have liberated me from thought."
    1. Re:And remember what they say... by psychopracter · · Score: 1

      Great, so on top of what episodes 1&2 gave us ...



      --
      OS X:*nix for the real world.
  50. Re:I've Wondered... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Why is it that in the last 50 years or so seemingly 90% of people who don't understand jack shit about the world think they know better than the people who do?


    It has all the earmarks of "We don't understand this sh*t, so we think no one else does, so we think god did it". And the rest of the illiterate rabble thinks the same and says "Well that SOUNDS right, let's be skeptical about the very science that lets us use computers in the first place!"

  51. farsighted by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Human sense augmentation has come quite a long way when we can identify a millisecond event in a gigayear process within a gigaparsec radius. But we can't find Osama, or my car keys.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:farsighted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, Osama took your car keys. He went for a heck of a ride in Kabul!!!

    2. Re:farsighted by Daetrin · · Score: 2, Funny
      Human sense augmentation has come quite a long way when we can identify a millisecond event in a gigayear process within a gigaparsec radius. But we can't find Osama, or my car keys.

      I realize you're being droll, but it's obviously a signal to noise ratio issue. The gamma ray burst was a friggin huge signal against a (comparitively) quiet background. If Osama or your car keys were the loudest thing on the planet by an order of magnitude we'd have no trouble finding him/it. Alternatly if the US army started removing noise by killing every living creature they came across eventualy they'd be able to single out Osama's signal.

      ...er, on second thought, perhaps i should have kept that idea to myself.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
  52. Is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or did anyone else actually hear a middle-eastern accent when reading the parent post?

  53. congrats! by spamchang · · Score: 1

    it's a boy!...wait...we need to check again. we'll get back to you in 50,000 years.

  54. Gravity waves! by neonleonb · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Hopefully, a sensor was able to catch some gravity waves from this. This is the sort of event that should produce large, measurable gravity waves, so we may finally have evidence of their existence. I certainly hope so.

    1. Re:Gravity waves! by Rauser · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Amen brutha--I was hoping that there would be discussion about this, but I'm sad to see it so low down the page. Apparently we're all comedians on Slashdot today (no, I'm not new here).

      Hopefully the physicists haven't been completely driven away yet. A gravity wave detection coincident with the gamma ray burst and visible light aftermath would be a great event for these folks.

      --
      The white zone is for loading and unloading only. If you need to load or unload go to the white zone. It's a way of life
    2. Re:Gravity waves! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don't know much about the state of maturity on gravity wave detection. However, the article seems to imply this event was a small fry as far as GRBs are concerned. Whatever the case may be for current G-wave detection technology, odds are better a more powerful event would bare fruit. If there *should* be success this time around....well then, aren't we lucky?

    3. Re:Gravity waves! by cmsavage · · Score: 3, Informative

      From an event such as this 2.2 billion light years away, the gravity waves would be negligibly small. The LIGO detector will not be sensitive enough to detect merging neutron stars farther away than the local galaxy cluster (10 million light years in diameter).

  55. Damn mods by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Offtopic? How is Rosie O'Donnell reaching critical mass offtopic?

  56. yes, then new evidence changes minds by bobalu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That's the way it's supposed to work. "They" didn't ALL believe that obviously, and when there was enough evidence to the contrary the theory was updated.

    Scientists can be just as guilty as anyone of holding onto their beliefs, the difference is they can't say "God told me so" and justify killing the nonbelievers.

    --
    The revolution will NOT be televised.
  57. "so much for the afterglow" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "so much for the afterglow"

  58. In the style of pop science articles... by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

    It was so bright that if it had happened just over 2 billion light years away we'd still be able to see it with a powerful telescope.

    --
    Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
  59. Chuck Jones syndrome by KC7GR · · Score: 2, Funny

    I must have Looney Tunes on the brain this morning, because my gray matter parsed this...

    "...thanks to an automated email system that notifies astronomers worldwide..."

    As this:

    "...thanks to an automated anvil system that notifies astronomers worldwide."

    I had this bizarre image of all different types and sizes of anvils, all with messages about the GRB attached, dropping onto (and through) desks and computers of astronomers all over the place while, in the background, Marvin the Martian is cackling about it in that lovably maniacal way that only Mel Blanc could give him.

    Essence, I wish Chuck Jones was still around to exploit this one... ;-)

    --

    Bruce Lane, KC7GR,

    Blue Feather Technologies

    1. Re:Chuck Jones syndrome by pcnetworx1 · · Score: 1

      Off the dust man, off the dust...

  60. Re:I've Wondered... by east+coast · · Score: 1

    And the rest of the illiterate rabble thinks the same and says "Well that SOUNDS right, let's be skeptical about the very science that lets us use computers in the first place!"

    You sound like Jeff Goldblume in a bad movie about aliens or dinosaurs or whatever...

    The truth is that if we really examined the number of theories vs. the number of provable truths you'd realize that the skeptics are the odds on winners. Being a skeptic doesn't mean you're rejecting anything other than the idea that half assed theories are best ignored until more data is gathered.

    --
    Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
  61. Re: hairy ship men by arbitraryaardvark · · Score: 1

    Once upon a time, the student paper at my alma mater ran a classified ad:
    Red giant seeks white dwarf for binary relationship. Contact harry shipman [phone number for astronomy department.]
    Even since then, the paper has required ID to place a personal ad.
    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0395 243424/002-4715325-2440858?v=glance
    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-ur l/index=books&field-author=%20Harry%20Shipman/002- 4715325-2440858
    Black Holes, Quasars, and the Universe
    by Harry L Shipman

  62. Merger between two neutron stars? by Eminence · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The GRB signals the birth of a black hole resulting from a merger between two neutron stars.

    Is that the current scientific consensus? Because I've just yesterday read about a whole different theory behind GRBs, namely that they signal a collapse of a super-massive star inside star nurseries at the edges of the observable Universe.

    1. Re:Merger between two neutron stars? by stevelinton · · Score: 1

      There are (at least) two kinds of GRB: long ones (minutes) which are believed to be giant single stars collapsing directly to black holes and short ones (milliseconds) which are believed to be colliding neutron stars.

  63. no, no, no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The dad was handing out cigars and someone one lit one up soon afterwards.

  64. Re:In other news...guaranteed hole in one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This would make for the easiest hole on the course. As long you hit the ball anywhere near the black hole it will make it in the hole in one shot ... eventually

  65. Obligatory statement by eremitic · · Score: 2, Funny

    And so a star was born.

    Er...wait...nevermind.

    --
    Warning: Could be fatal if taken seriously
  66. Drake's equation by Morgaine · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So far these have been the least intelligent responses to scientific matter I believe I have ever see on slashdot.

    Yeah, kind of dire. :-) But then, it's Slashdot, and it does have its moments.

    Here's a slightly scientific thought for you though (but only slightly). What's the extinction radius of a 10,000 trillion trillion trillion watt event like this one?

    Because if the extinction radius is at all large, and if this happens at all frequently on a cosmological timescale, then it ought to be factored into Drake's equation.

    It could be the reason why the galaxy doesn't appear to be crammed full of high-tech intelligent life --- maybe random sectors of the galaxy everywhere get sterilized back to lifelessness by magnetar events often enough to keep the average density of life in the galaxy near zero, because life simply can't persist very long?

    --
    "The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
    1. Re:Drake's equation by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      16 +5 comments on this article, and this is the only one which was remotely serious.

      Jokes are nice and all, but can we at least have a little content, mods?

    2. Re:Drake's equation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen. I'd love to see somebody tackle the question raised in the grandparent post.

    3. Re:Drake's equation by wayne606 · · Score: 1

      Getting hit with a fatal GRB in your neighborhood can't be very common, because life on Earth has avoided it for a few billion years. At least, the atmosphere-scouring kind. Maybe some of the periodic extinction events in the past have been due to such things? But I guess we would know it if a black hole were a few 1000 light years from us, assuming it was active (had an accretion disk).

      The comments on slashdot are pretty inane, but look at what the original author wrote... "The merger occurred 2.2 billion light-years away, so it actually took place 2.2 billion years ago and the light just reached Earth this morning." Nobody with even a basic understanding of relativity would write about space-time in that way.

    4. Re:Drake's equation by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1
      Nobody with even a basic understanding of relativity would write about space-time in that way.
      The 2.2 billion year delay in us seeing the burst has nothing to do with relativity.
      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    5. Re:Drake's equation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The newest discovered pair of infalling neutron stars is said to be coming together in around 85 million years' time, and they're only 2,000 light years away.

      Although it's comforting to know that our biosphere clearly hasn't been entirely wiped out within the last few hundred million years (or even within the last billion), I get the odd feeling that we might be underestimating the frequency of critical events of various kinds.

    6. Re:Drake's equation by haggar · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Did you take into consideration that Gamma-ray bursts are directed (beamed) and not spherically dispersed? I think talking of an extinction radius is wrong for this and other reasons. You could be on a planet reasonably close to a black hole formation without any risk of estinction, because you are away from the axis of the beam.

      Also, at a distance wherethe Gamma-ray flux is fairly weak, you might find yourself on the opposite side of a planet, and survive.

      In fact, it is not impossible that life as we know it, is not the only one possible. Life may not be based on carbon, or organic matter. The excellent movie "The Andromeda Strain" in fact, describes a lifeform based on non-organic chrystals. Who is to say that such lifeform wouldn't be much more resistent to Gamma rays.

      --
      Sigged!
    7. Re:Drake's equation by wayne606 · · Score: 1

      My point was that in modern physics there is no meaningful way that you can say "X and Y happen at the same time" if they are not at the same location. Twin paradox and all that.

    8. Re:Drake's equation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could be on a planet reasonably close to a black hole formation without any risk of estinction, because you are away from the axis of the beam.

      The pair of neutron stars is orbiting their center of gravity at 1,000 times a second or more (according to the proposal), so unless the beam is very precisely aligned axially, a 1/10th second event will sweep out the surface of a cone 100+ times.

      I doubt that these things have the precise geometric symmetry of mathematical shapes. Being within 1,000 light years, even if way off axis, would probably be career limiting. :-)

    9. Re:Drake's equation by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1
      That's a valid point. But even in a classical universe with EM traveling at c we'd still have a 2.2 billion year delay.

      Also, there are meaningful ways to talk about the same time at different locations, at least approximately. For example there is a natural inertial frame for points in the universe, the one in which the cosmic background radiation appears to be at rest. (See here.) It seems reasonable to base statements about when large scale events in the universe happened on this frame. In fact, this is what astronomers implicitly do all the time and few astronomers would hesitate to say that this recent burst happened 2.2 billion years ago, even though someone flying past us at high speed might suggest a different date.

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    10. Re:Drake's equation by wayne606 · · Score: 1

      *pedantic grumbling* Maybe so. But you would not expect an experienced science writer to point out the fact that it takes light 2.2G years to travel 2.2G light years as if it were some kind of big surprise...

    11. Re:Drake's equation by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

      I have low expectations of science writers :-)

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    12. Re:Drake's equation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you take into consideration that Gamma-ray bursts are directed (beamed) and not spherically dispersed? I think talking of an extinction radius is wrong for this and other reasons.

      If the burst is focussed into a beam, that makes the extinction radius even larger since power is then carried to greater distances, although the extinctions then becomes sparse within that sphere of destruction.

      Whether your particular planet is sterilized or not will depend upon whether you happen to be in the path swept by the beam, and of course upon beam width at your distance from the center, which could certainly be wide enough to render entire solar systems devoid of life.

    13. Re:Drake's equation by LurkerXXX · · Score: 2, Informative
      Yes you would, depending on who he thought his audience was. This is space.com we are talking about. Lots of general public types look at it.

      Extremely experienced scientists dumb down their talks all the time for lay people. When I give a talk to my colleagues, I use entirely different language and skip over very basic stuff that I definitely do go over when I talk to the general public.

    14. Re:Drake's equation by r2q2 · · Score: 1

      The Andromeda Strain was a book, not a movie. By John Crighton the same author who wrote Jurassic Park.

      --
      My UID is prime is yours?
    15. Re:Drake's equation by antispam_ben · · Score: 1

      The Andromeda Strain was a book, not a movie.

      I could have sworn I saw that movie, er, book, on television back in the 1970's.

      By John Crighton the same author who wrote Jurassic Park.

      He's quite a popular author, his latest "State of Fear" (I even have it but haven't read it yet) has stirred up some controversy among the Global Warming proponents, and I'm sure Michael Crichton would be dissapointed to learn that his name isn't better known or spelled.

      --
      Tag lost or not installed.
    16. Re:Drake's equation by igny · · Score: 1

      just reached Earth this morning

      is it usual for black holes to appear in the morning?

      --
      In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra
    17. Re:Drake's equation by Rick+Genter · · Score: 1

      Michael Crichton. I think John Crighton was the lead character on Farscape.

      --
      Don't underestimate the power of The Source
    18. Re:Drake's equation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the book was made into a movie dumbass.

    19. Re:Drake's equation by haggar · · Score: 1

      Not a movie?
      Really?

      Thanks for correcting me, now I have my facts right.
      Oh, btw, have you ever heard of a certain Michael Crichton? Apparently, he had something to do with The Andromeda Strain (the book, not the non-existing movie, obviously) and that Jurassic Park that you mention.

      --
      Sigged!
    20. Re:Drake's equation by Zonekeeper · · Score: 0

      ...maybe random sectors of the galaxy everywhere get sterilized back to lifelessness by magnetar events often enough to keep the average density of life in the galaxy near zero, because life simply can't persist very long?

      Thanks. I'm gonna sleep real well tonight now.

  67. People comments of scientific articles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People comments here are just getting more stupid everyday ...

  68. Why is it relevant that... by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

    ...at the moment of discovery part of the world had just rotated out of its own shadow relative to the Sun? For one thing, this is always true, no matter what the event is.

    --
    Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
  69. Re:...But they don't exist! Mod parent up by Kristjan+Kannike · · Score: 1

    Mod parent up, one should take all those new hypotheses with a grain of salt indeed.

    --
    If God manifested Himself to us here He would do so in the form of a spraycan advertised on TV. -- Philip K. Dick
  70. Old news! by Locke2005 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    This is something that happened 2.2 billion years ago, and they are just now getting around to reporting it?!?

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  71. MOD PARENT UP! (Re:And from now on...) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    THIS IS FUNNY!

    MOD PARENT UP!

  72. AstroCapella song about Swift... by TheLoneDanger · · Score: 1

    Does anyone remember this song about Swift? It came up a long time ago on Slashdot in a story on the RIAA bothering people over mp3s that contained the word "usher" in them.

    --

    "But I trust in the people's capacity for reflection, rage and rebellion." -Oscar Olivera
  73. Re:I've Wondered... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Prove it.

  74. yep... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its true, i saw it too from my terrace, enjoying a cup of capuccino.

    Salut,
    AC

  75. Automated Email by Semireg · · Score: 1

    ./starsearch.pl | mail -s "You have a new black hole!" space-folk

  76. Re:automated email system that notifies astronomer by benjamin264 · · Score: 1

    Typingsux, you forgot to post the link.

  77. Obligatory Red Dwarf quote by grolschie · · Score: 2, Funny

    Holly: As it transpired, there weren't any Black Holes.
    Rimmer: But you saw them - you saw them on the monitor.
    Holly: They weren't Black Holes.
    Rimmer: What were they?
    Holly: Grit. Five specks of grit on the scanner-scope. See, the thing about grit is, it's black, and the thing about scanner-scopes...
    Rimmer: Oh, shut up.

  78. Some context: by grolschie · · Score: 1

    For those unfamiliar with the quote, here is the previous reference:

    Rimmer: But a Black Hole's a huge, compacted star! It's millions of miles wide! Why didn't you see it on the radar screen?
    Holly: Well, the thing about a Black Hole, its main distinguishing feature, is it's black. And the thing about space, your basic space colour is black. So how are you supposed to see them?
    Rimmer: But five of them! How can you be ambushed by five Black Holes?
    Holly: Always the way, isn't it? You hang around in deep space for three million years and you don't see one. Then, all of a sudden, five all turn up at once.

  79. Indeed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think it probably bears little relation to the real physics!

    Naturally, you have proof! Right?... Right?

    Yeah, that's what I thought. Without proof, the THEORY that YOU CHOOSE to believe is no better or more valid than any fantasy that I may conjure up on the subject. "Studied black holes for a bit", indeed!

    1. Re:Indeed? by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

      Try reading the posts before you respond.

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
  80. Did LIGO detect it? (sorry, a serious comment) by antispam_ben · · Score: 1

    http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/
    This is exactly the type of thing they're looking for a gravitational 'signature' from - it should give a 'chirp' or a signal with increasing frequency as the neurton stars orbit around each other closer and closer.

    Here's a relevant quote:

    http://pr.caltech.edu/media/Press_Releases/PR12367 .html

    "In Einstein's theory, alterations in the shape of concentrations of mass (or energy) have the effect of warping space-time, thereby causing distortions that propagate through the universe at the speed of light. A new generation of detectors, led by the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO), is coming into operation and promises sensitivities that will be capable of detecting a variety of catastrophic events, such as the gravitational collapse of stars or the coalescence of compact binary systems."

    --
    Tag lost or not installed.
    1. Re:Did LIGO detect it? (sorry, a serious comment) by balaam's+ass · · Score: 1

      Hi. We won't know for a while. LIGO is still working on data from the "S4" 4th science run, which ended in March...so S5 will take time.

      Even so, I seriously doubt it'll show up in the data.
      Design sensitivity for LIGO has it (barely) detecting NS-NS mergers in Virgo, which is 50 million light years away. This GRB be was 2.2 billion light years away...

  81. How to turn off it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    There was a birth of the black hole in the room ...

    Fearful boy: Turn off it!!!

    Idiot engineer: How to?

    Fearful boy: Turn off it!!! We've not time!!!

    Idiot engineer: Excuse me ...

    Fearful boy: Quick!!!

    Idiot engineer: Where is the interruptor?

    ...

    Ooooarrrgghhhhbllooooormmmmm!!!

    The black hole did eat them.

  82. Re:I've Wondered... by lgw · · Score: 1

    It's because we don't know where we dropped the car kes, so we might as well search under the street lights. We look for evidence to test the leading theories. (Also, of course, in some fields there are so many theories yet unresolved that it would be nearly impossible to describe evidence that wouldn't fit one of them.)

    However, gamma ray bursters are a great example of evidence that no one had predicted. Then came hypotheses to describe what they might be, which resolved into a theory with further evidence, which was further confirmed today.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  83. Old old idea by devphil · · Score: 1


    See Manifold: Space and Diaspora for two of the better-written novels exploring the concept of gamma-ray bursts punching a galaxy-wide Big Red Button.

    --
    You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
  84. what they detected... by cahiha · · Score: 4, Informative

    What they detected was a gamma ray burst and an afterglow. Everything else is speculation; they are basically saying "if all our theories are correct, then the explanation that this is two neutron stars merging into a black hole is the most plausible explanation". The observation does not provide any additional evidence that black holes exist.

  85. OT, but what the hell by gregwbrooks · · Score: 1
    If I *had* mod points right now, I'd mod you up based on your sig line.

    That is all.

    --


    "It was a summer's tale: Just a boy, his Linux, and a head full of dreams..."
    1. Re:OT, but what the hell by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

      I may have to change it. I think it might be possible for the creator of our universe not to be able to deceive people in it. For example, one day people might figure out how to create mini-universes in a particle accelerator without having any means of interacting with what goes on within them. On the other hand, in this case it might not be correct describe such creators as deities. Similarly it might be possible to create a simulation of a universe on a computer without having the software tools to actually scan the vast amount of data produced to check for the existence of lifelike phenomena.

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
  86. 50 milliseconds out of 2 billion years. by lcsjk · · Score: 1
    We have been very lucky to observe this phenomenon. Here, two billion years later, we are staring at the sky just in time to see a 50 millisecond event. How many times in the last 15 years have we read articles about astronomers observing the formation of a star, or some other event that happened millions or billions of years ago. We are only around for a hundred years or so, and we have only had optics and electronics for some 50 years. So in this short span of 50 years we hear multiple stories of stars forming or exploding or dying. Such a time coincidence. If we had been born 60 years earlier or later, we would have missed it. If we were not looking at the time, we would have missed it. Satellites and other space probes saw it and sent back information quickly for an email to be sent round the world and astronomers got to their instrumentation just in time to record this millisecond event. Heck, once the satellite detected it ----Wait! Doesn't light and X-rays travel past he satellite to earth faster than a microprocessor can setup and send an email?---Did I miss something when I studied physics?

    What did this celestial event look like? Luckily, we get to see an artist's rendition of what we think the x-rays must have shown.

    I must admit, I am not really sure I agree with all the assumptions and timing from things like this. Do astronomers get lucky at lottery also?

    1. Re:50 milliseconds out of 2 billion years. by AVIDJockey · · Score: 1

      1. We are only around for a hundred years or so
      2. Did I miss something when I studied physics?

      Maybe? ;)

    2. Re:50 milliseconds out of 2 billion years. by cmsavage · · Score: 1
      The gamma rays only appeared in a short burst. The object still emitted x-rays for a few minutes after this, just long enough for the Swift telescope to reorient itself and catch the tail end of the glow.

      From the article:

      Swift automatically repositioned itself within 50 seconds to image the same patch of sky in X-rays. It just barely caught an X-ray afterglow, Gehrels said in a telephone interview.

      The X-ray counterpart was barely detectable and only observed for a few minutes.

  87. Congratulations Mr. & Mrs. Neutron Star..... by bobdobbs3 · · Score: 1

    ...it's a bouncing baby black hole.

    Length: Theoretically Infinite

    Weight: Theoretically Infinite

    Mass: Bigger by the second.

    That's quite the apgar score!

    --


    This is the best Democracy money can buy?!?!?
  88. Emphasis: SHORT duration GRB by balaam's+ass · · Score: 1

    For the people asking about "haven't these things been detected before?:

    This was an optical afterglow from a "very short duration" GRB.

    Optical afterglows from OTHER, longer duration GRBs (e.g. GRB000630) HAVE been detected.

    There are different types of GRBs, and this is the first time people detected an optical afterglow of this type. Here's some on this (cf. SWIFT):

    * There are two classes of GRB: those that last less than about 2 seconds, and those that last longer than about 2 seconds
    * The long bursts occur at cosmological distances; while distances of the short bursts have not been measured
    * Given the distance of the long bursts, they must put out about 1053 ergs of energy (if they emit energy equally in all directions)

    To get an idea of how much energy 1053 ergs really is, our Sun puts out about 1033 ergs each second. It would take our Sun, then, 880 billion years to put out the same energy as a GRB! For perspective, our Sun will only live to be about 10 billion years, and our Universe is only about 12 billion years old.

    Putting the facts together, astrophysicists have narrowed the field to two promising theories for the origin of GRBs: neutron star/neutron star mergers and hypernovae. The truth may lie between these two theories somewhere -- for example, the long bursts may be from hypernovae while the short bursts are from neutron star/neutron star mergers. However, it may also be that GRBs originate from something that astronomers haven't considered yet.

    Neutron Star/Neutron Star Merger:

    As two neutron stars orbit each other, they lose rotational energy to gravitational energy, thus decaying their orbit. (Actually, the orbit of any two bodies decays, but in the case of two neutron stars, it occurs much faster than it would in, say, the Earth-Moon or Sun-Earth system.) Eventually the two neutron stars will collide, forming a black hole and possibly radiating a large amount of energy.

    Hypernovae:

    At the end of a massive star's life (mass greater than about 10 Suns), it dies spectacularly in a supernova explosion, leaving behind a neutron star or black hole. Astronomers have known about supernovae for quite some time. However, if the star is very massive (mass greater than about 40 Suns) the collapse may appear different from a supernova, with an energy output greater than a regular supernova by about 100 times. Such large explosions are called hypernovae, and could be the source of at least some GRBs.

  89. Layers of interdependency in science by quokkapox · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Human sense augmentation has come quite a long way when we can identify a millisecond event in a gigayear process within a gigaparsec radius.

    Not just identify and detect, but predict. This is just another nail in the coffin of Intelligent Design "theory" and similar nonscientific drivel. This whole science business we modern humans have been working on, and all the theories that are widely accepted today, are all interconnected, with layers upon layers of interdependency, which provides a sort of check-and-balance on the whole mess. One cannot accept that modern scientific theory predicted this black-hole event, which observers around the world could see and record with (technologically augmented) senses, while completely denying the validity of interdependent theories like electromagentism, gravity, relativity, quantum physics, etc. It's important to make this clear to those who would pick and choose which theories they happen to like or which support their own offbeat schemes for how the world works. It's all connected, and you can either take it all (with a grain of salt and a good measure of critical rationalism, of course, because nothing is beyond all doubt and one should always be open to new evidence that contradicts an accepted theory) or chuck it all and go read your horoscope.

    --
    it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
  90. Re:I've Wondered... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It has all the earmarks of "We make this sh*t up, then go looking for it." And God says, "Well, if that's what you want - then here it is!"

    I hereby solemnly predict hot chicks will find slashdot nerds irresistably attractive.

    God? are you listening???

  91. black hole as a result of merger ... by porky_pig_jr · · Score: 1

    of two neutron stars?

    somehow it reminds me of Chrysler and Daimler-Benz. Not sure why.

  92. Re:I've Wondered... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah, someone's been reading his Laumer...

  93. I, for one by wheatwilliams · · Score: 1

    I, for one, welcome our new incredibly dense overlords.

    1. Re:I, for one by What+me+a+Coward · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't that be old encredibly dense overloards? Or how about encredibly old dense overlords? :D

      Or encredibly dense old overlords? :P

      --
      Coward? Coward! Thems fighten words!!
  94. "1053 ergs"? Learn to quote powers of ten! by antispam_ben · · Score: 1

    A thousand ergs here or there didn't seem like much, so I googled for a definition, and one erg is almost literally one fleapower:

    It has been suggested that 1 erg is approximately the amount of energy required for a mosquito to take off. (http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_g ci789813,00.html)

    Quoting parent's quote of the linked page:

    To get an idea of how much energy 1053 ergs really is, our Sun puts out about 1033 ergs each second.

    Well that's what, about a two percent increase over the Sun's output? Wait a second, The Sun only puts out a thousand fleapower???

    Quoting the actual linked-to webpage http://swift.sonoma.edu/about_swift/grbs.html:

    To get an idea of how much energy 10^53 ergs really is, our Sun puts out about 10^33 ergs each second.

    OH! That's Ten to the power of 33, not a thousand and thirty three for the Sun's output. And the GRB puts out Ten to the 53rd power ergs, or 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 times as much as the Sun, for its few seconds of glory.

    Oh well, no big deal, what's twenty orders of magnitude between friends?

    --
    Tag lost or not installed.
    1. Re:"1053 ergs"? Learn to quote powers of ten! by balaam's+ass · · Score: 1

      arrg. Didn't see that error.

      It'd be nice if Firefox would include formatting info when you do the highlight-click thing.

  95. Re:I've Wondered ... Computers are Black Holes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Huge amounts of money are poured into computers. Huge amounts of time, Huge amounts of life. Very few computers are used to do anything constructive or productive (making food or shelter). Very few of the people that use them understand how they work, and in almost all cases a pencil and paper would achieve the same work more efficiently.

    They certainly emit Xrays, I bet they emit bursts of gamma radiation as well.

  96. Just wondering... by MorseKode · · Score: 1

    As I was reading the article I was amazed to read that this happened 2.2 billion light-years away == 2.2 billion years ago.
    So I was thinking, that suppouse that we could find a way to travel faster than light and maybe teletransport us anywhere in a reasonable ammount of time.....
    How are we going to know where we should go if what we are able to see are things that are not there anymore ?
    (I mean not in the place we see them, and maybe they doesn't exist anymore)
    We could try to calculate the new coordinates of things, or simulate how things would be arround there now, but that is and will be far away from being usefull.
    (try simulating the whole galaxy 2 billions of years in the future)
    Errors in calculations due to inexactitude would mean inmense distances beacuse of the magnitude of the travel distances we are talking about.

    So the places that we decide to go would always be wrong, and it would be very dangerous because it would be easy to appear in the wrong place (inside a planet, too close to a black hole, etc.) or it would be really easy to hit something at that speeds since there would be no alert, no radars, beacuse of travelling faster than light.

    Are we doomed to travel at sub-light-speeds and never be able to reach that very very far places in considerable time?
    (I know Einstein says so)

    1. Re:Just wondering... by RealBorg · · Score: 1

      I am certain that we will not be doomed to sub-light-speed travel in the future. One thing quantum mechanics has already proven is, that information can travel faster than light. For example take two coupled photons and send them out in opposite direction. Both can either show wave like or particle like properties, depending on what happens to it's twin. This implicates that energy can travel faster than light and in turn all matter is energy.

    2. Re:Just wondering... by MorseKode · · Score: 1

      That characteristic of quantum mechanincs was something i never understood...
      Doesn't it matter the distance between the coupled photons?
      This only works with a couple (2 photons) or can be done with n photons ?

    3. Re:Just wondering... by RealBorg · · Score: 1

      The distance doesn't matter, I am pretty certain it could be done with n photons but I doubt it has been tried yet.

  97. Some scientists HAVE factored it in... by CuriousKangaroo · · Score: 1

    See:

    Annis, James. "An Astrophysical Explanation for the Great Silence," Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, 52, 19 (1999).
    You can view the article at:
    http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9901322
  98. Dirty Mind by cyranoVR · · Score: 1

    The two stars "merged," there was a "black hole," and then an "afterglow."

    Am I alone here in thinking that the Astronomers who made this discovery might be a little frustrated? ;)

  99. No optical afterglow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A faint x-ray afterglow was detected, but there is currently no convincing detection of the optical afterglow.

    See http://gcn.gsfc.nasa.gov/gcn3_archive.html for the latest.

  100. Quite a difference. by aepervius · · Score: 1

    This was not a physicist which ordered the bomb beeing thrown on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Actually the physicist were horrified at what they "built" and some bitterly regretted it. They came up with the idea how to create energy, but they can't be held responsible on how moron then abuse the idea.

    On the contrary the church itself came up with the idea of inquisition, heresy, burning people at stakes and so on.

    I hope you see the difference between the two, isn't it ?

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  101. A belated happy birthday by Gopal.V · · Score: 1
    > "Happy Birthday you Big Black Hole" banner at work as a joke,

    A very belated Happy Birthday ?. This black hole was probably born before there were mammals on earth , I suppose.

    Looking into deep space is sort of looking back into time - time is space and space is time ... *head explodes*
  102. Wow by thea64man · · Score: 1

    Wow, these astronomer people really have their act down. A explosion lasts a couple milliseconds, and an automatic email is sent around the world. I wish I could do this myself. If I oversleep a couple milliseconds, the optical afterglow from my brain patterns is spotted from a satellite, and an email is sent to my boss saying I'm sick. The perfect solution to oversleeping: the NASA "SLEEP": Sound Ladar Electronic Emplusation Pre-sequencer.

  103. Worse yet... by tgd · · Score: 1

    I watched it a few weeks ago on DVD.

    Can't be that bad if 26 years later I'm still watching it.

    Might be blasphemy around here, but I think its as good or better than another sci-fi movie that came out around that time...

  104. What he REALLY MEANT WAS... by newpath4comVersion2 · · Score: 1

    Since my post is the most important one here don't read any of the (puke) others. But hey, while you're not going to STOP ANYWAY you might as well crowd on over to MY website http://www.newpath4.com/ where no one posts. EVER. Just ME. I write and everyone else reads.

  105. Slowwww by Tsalg · · Score: 1

    you've gotta be careful with them nasa guys advertisements... Remember not so long ago they loudly claimed the discovery of pure quark stars which got prime time on NASA TV and then the story slowly died... Is there a funding deadline coming up sometime soon? Let's wait a month or two and see whatever comes out of it in peer reviewed places.

  106. Re:I've Wondered... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're confusing the issue. The way you put it, skeptic (with a K) is simply an empirical philosophy. The author was referring to people abandoning that philosophy in the course of shunning (becoming sceptical of [with a C]) science and the scientific method of understanding the world.

    There is a large amount of pseudoscience floating around in popular religoius culture, and it's difficult to point out the "pseudo-" nature of these beliefs. I don't understand how a bunch of people who claim to adhere to a strict interpretation of the Bible can adopt such bizarre pseudoscientific beliefs willy-nilly.

    Now when it comes to the legitimate scientific progress, which is ongoing and can call into question theories from any discipline in its course, that's another matter entirely. Calling theories like the Big Bang or Evolution "half-assed" can be regarded as pseudoscientific, since more than 95 out of 100 scientists agree that these are not only sound theories, but that they are integral in the formulation of other predictive theories in their respective disciplines. Pseudoscience, of course, can explain anything by working backwards from desired explanation to any possible supporting information, and then conveniently finds said information. Anyway, everyone here is familiar with this debate.

  107. how come the gamma rays got here first? by tkjtkj · · Score: 1

    as i understand it, gamma rays do not travel at lightspeed .. so please tell me why, as described in the article, the GRB occurred, seen on earth, and THEN moments later, the light arrived.

    inquiring minds ...etc etc...

    --
    "There are 11 kinds of people: those who know binary, those who don't, and those who could not care less!"