Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Origin of Antimatter Cloud Discovered

Posted by Soulskill on from the finding-an-anti-silver-lining dept.

Active Seti brings us news that astronomers have discovered the origin of an enormous antimatter cloud surrounding the galactic center. Data from the European Space Agency's "Integral" satellite indicated that the cloud's distribution is similar to that of a group of binary star systems containing black holes or neutron stars. From NASA's article: "The cloud itself is roughly 10,000 light-years across, and generates the energy of about 10,000 Suns. The cloud shines brightly in gamma rays due to a reaction governed by Einstein's famous equation E=mc^2. Integral found that the cloud extends farther on the western side of the galactic center than it does on the eastern side. Integral found certain types of binary systems near the galactic center are also skewed to the west. Because the two "pictures" of antimatter and hard low-mass X-ray binaries line up strongly suggests the binaries are producing significant amounts of positrons."

136 comments

  1. Um... by Smordnys+s'regrepsA · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...I feel stupid saying this, but...
    In English, please?

    --
    Just -1, Troll talking to another.
    1. Re:Um... by SetupWeasel · · Score: 4, Informative

      "The cloud itself is roughly 10,000 light-years across, and generates the energy of about 10,000 Suns. The cloud shines brightly in gamma rays due to a reaction governed by Einstein's famous equation E=mc^2. Integral found that the cloud extends farther on the western side of the galactic center than it does on the eastern side. Integral found certain types of binary systems near the galactic center are also skewed to the west. Because the two "pictures" of antimatter and hard low-mass X-ray binaries line up strongly suggests the binaries are producing significant amounts of positrons."

      The cloud of antimatter is big and hot. When matter and antimatter come together they produce lots of Gamma rays, and that is happening. There are certain types of neutron stars or black holes that are orbiting in pairs that appear in the same pattern as the cloud or antimatter (positrons) so astronomers think it is likely that the pairs are causing the cloud.

    2. Re:Um... by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "In English, please?"

      It's all explained near the bottom of TFA - "We expected something unexpected, but we did not expect this," says Skinner.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    3. Re:Um... by Chief+Camel+Breeder · · Score: 1

      10,000 light years is a very big cloud. Our galaxy is reckoned to be about 60,000 ly diameter (IIRC; that's the diameter of the disc, not the halo) and we are about 2/3 of the way out to the edge of the galactic disc.

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

      It'd help if you learn English. ;)

    5. Re:Um... by jollyreaper · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...I feel stupid saying this, but...
      In English, please? In the voice of Ollie the Blackucast weatherman:

      "CLOUDS GO BOOM!"
      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    6. Re:Um... by nacturation · · Score: 3, Funny

      If I weren't heading off to work, I'd tell you the story of Dick (matter) and Jane (antimatter) whose sordid love affair resulted in their eventual meeting and annihilation of their corporeal forms, converting the sum of their body mass into pure energy. Alas, if I were to continue the tale I'd be late for work.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    7. Re:Um... by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      And wouldn't that be the expected "unexpected"?

      I'm so confused.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    8. Re:Um... by TheBearBear · · Score: 1

      The cloud of antimatter is big and hot. When matter and antimatter come together they produce lots of Gamma rays, and that is happening. There are certain types of neutron stars or black holes that are orbiting in pairs that appear in the same pattern as the cloud or antimatter (positrons) so astronomers think it is likely that the pairs are causing the cloud.
      >
      Can you put that in lamens terms please? =)

    9. Re:Um... by SetupWeasel · · Score: 1

      ... 9/11 was bad

  2. That's so cool! by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I always heard that the Universe consisted entirely out of matter. Now they discovered antimatter in the wild! That's exciting...

    1. Re:That's so cool! by chuckymonkey · · Score: 1

      Fascinating huh? Kinda makes the Microsoft, Linux, BSD, Apple, GPL2, GPL3 flamewars seem pretty insignificant. Not only in the figurative sense, but literally as well since that cloud is immense and very hot from all the matter/antimatter collision.

      --
      "Some books contain the machinery required to create and sustain universes."-Tycho
    2. Re:That's so cool! by stardaemon · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That there is antimatter in the wild isn't news per se; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron_emission. It's the amount, imo, that's interresting here. And the way it's being produced.

      --
      The only way to stay sane in an insane world, is to be mad yourself...
    3. Re:That's so cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now they discovered antimatter in the wild! That's exciting "Naturally" occuring antimatter has been observed for a long time. It's old news. In particular the giant cloud of antimatter around the galactic core has been observed for some time. The story here is that they think they now understand how that cloud formed.
    4. Re:That's so cool! by mapkinase · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And the fact of relative concentration in one place.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    5. Re:That's so cool! by kalirion · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The question is, could that cloud ever form into an anti-matter star?

    6. Re:That's so cool! by tardyon · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, this anti-matter cannot form stars. According to the Nature paper, the anti-matter is purely positrons. No anti-protons, so it can't form anti-hydrogen. The gist of the paper is: we see lots of gamma rays that correspond to electron-positron annihilations. This glow is not symmetric. It has more or less the same distribution as a class of exotic systems which are capable of producing a lot of energy. If some of that energy is converted into electron/positron pairs, and if the positrons can escape the system and reach the "safety" of interstellar space, they should form a cloud which is about the right shape to match this glow.

    7. Re:That's so cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd sure like to know who pays you to publish such fantastic rubbish! Everytime you delve into science fiction you infringe on some legitimate abstract art theorist. robert lowell jarvis seattlejojoblak@yahoo.com

  3. Sorry everyone by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1, Funny

    I won't eat the chilli again.
    I only started after the last gas cloud from my curries occluded polaris.

    --
    liqbase :: faster than paper
    1. Re: Sorry everyone by flargleblarg · · Score: 2, Funny

      So the gas cloud originated from Uranus?

    2. Re: Sorry everyone by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      No, those are the Klingons your thinking of. They just opened a wormhole close to the existing cloud and got the coordinates off a little so it just looks like it is coming from Uranus.

      You gotta watch out for klingons.

  4. east/west??? by sveard · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Eastern and western side of the galaxy? Right...

    1. Re:east/west??? by famebait · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why is that any more stupid than eastern and western hemispheres of a planet?

      Both designations are arbitrary, but once agreed on they are useful for
      communicating, which is sort of what language is for. Just because _you_
      don't often need to differentiate between far regions of the galaxy doesn't mean
      astronomers don't, and have arranged it so they can.

      --
      sudo ergo sum
    2. Re:east/west??? by yotto · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's entirely subjective, but the Galaxy does have eastern, western, northern, and southern "sides". You can't find them with a compass but when discussing the structure of the galaxy people have to be able to discern one part from another, and using words we already know makes sense.

      --
      Pulp Audio Weekly - Geek News and Reviews
    3. Re:east/west??? by PrinceAshitaka · · Score: 1

      We could call the different parts of our galaxy the alpha, beta, gamma, and delta quadrants.

      --
      quis custodiet ipsos custodes
    4. Re:east/west??? by DarkGreenNight · · Score: 1

      Yeah, of course, why not? Except that that needs someone to tell us where are the quadrants.

      Give a map (that doesn't need rotation) to someone and tell him to place the quadrants. What would he do? There are several different ways to place them, all of which make sense:

      Western Comic: a b
                     c d

      Eastern Comic: b a
                     d c

      Circunference: b a
                     c d

      North-south:  a     a
                   b c   c d
                    d     b

      and probably some other ways too. Using a known convention is much much easer, and lets us, laymen, figure what they are talking about.

    5. Re:east/west??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the alpha and gamma vs. the beta and delta quadrants, for you Star Trek geeks :-)

      http://wmh.walla.co.il/community/forums/3002/Galaxy_Map.jpg

    6. Re:east/west??? by aadvancedGIR · · Score: 1

      I don't know i it is done that way, but you could define the north and south sides of a galaxy (or any rotating object) by looking in which way it rotates around its axe.

    7. Re:east/west??? by Steauengeglase · · Score: 1

      What you haven't noticed where the great galactic sun sets?

    8. Re:east/west??? by SQLGuru · · Score: 1

      Ummm Sci-Fi fans have been dealing with Alpha - Delta quadrants for a while......and I would bet whoever named them North/South/East/West was a Sci-Fi fan and would have understood those terms.

      Layne

    9. Re:east/west??? by provigilman · · Score: 1

      The point he was making was that calling "Alpha Quadrant" is just as aribtrary as calling it the "Wester portion of the Galaxy". Heck, it's just as arbitrary as calling it "Trish". Anything we use to describe will just a lable assigned to an agreed upon area, so why not use something we're already familiar with?

      --
      "Life's short and hard, like a body building elf." -- The Bloodhound Gang
    10. Re:east/west??? by SQLGuru · · Score: 1

      And my point was that those of us familiar w/ Sci-Fi are also familiar w/ Alpha Quadrant.....and Alpha Quadrant was already applied in the current context.....East/West is a new application of existing terms instead of an existing application of existing terms.

      Layne

    11. Re:east/west??? by hummassa · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the east and west, too, defining the east as the place where it's rotating to (like on earth), relative to some point (like the earth).

      --
      It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
    12. Re:east/west??? by joto · · Score: 1

      So what? Even though you are familiar with [Alpha/Beta/Delta/Gamma] Quadrant, all of the people in the world are familiar with east, west, north, and south, and all of us know where they are in relation to each other. Do you prefer an ambigious system familiar only to people reading bad bad science fiction, or one that is immediately useful and easy to understand for everyone?

      Arguing that it's a "new application of existing terms" should definitely go in its favour. This is similar to use the word "program" about computer programs. We could call them "snuximop", "collection of binary data structured to run on an automatic computer system and perform a useful purpose", "theta data", or something else. In the end, a common word was chosen even though its meaning isn't exactly equal to its non-computer-related meaning. Which by the way, is also how the word "computer" started its existence.

    13. Re:east/west??? by 2names · · Score: 1

      Heck, it's just as arbitrary as calling it "Trish"

      I believe she changed her name to Trillian.

      --
      "I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
    14. Re:east/west??? by dwye · · Score: 1

      Anything we use to describe will just a lable assigned to an agreed upon area, so why not use something we're already familiar with?

      So it is the Greater Trantor Metropolitan Area?

    15. Re:east/west??? by provigilman · · Score: 1
      Actually, it's not. One other problem with the Alpha-Delta thing is that their names do not describe their relation to each other. If you know which portion of the galaxy is "North", you can figure out where South, East and West. If you know which area is "Alpha" though, where's Beta? To the left, the right, up, down?

      While your system would in fact name them, it does not provide an clues to the location of the other sections...which means it's not as good of a system. If you require an example, that's easy. Tell me where the Delta Quadrant in Star Trek is in relation to the Alpha Quadrant. Do you actually know? Do you which spiral arm it encompasses? Probably not, unless you have some sort of "official" Star Trek liscensed map. That's probably why they didn't use it.

      --
      "Life's short and hard, like a body building elf." -- The Bloodhound Gang
    16. Re:east/west??? by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      the great galactic sun never sets on the Galactic Empire, rebel traitor!

    17. Re:east/west??? by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      If you know which portion of the galaxy is "North", you can figure out where South, East and West. No, what is East from the perspective of one side of the disk would be West from the other side, and knowing North doesn't tell you which is the canonical side of the disk of the galaxy.
      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    18. Re:east/west??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The best approximation would be to use the orientation of the Earth. At the North pole, the Earth spins counter clockwise.....at the South pole, the Earth spins clockwise. Define a Prime Meridian (for example at the leading "base" of the arm that includes Earth) and an "Intergalactic" Date line 180 degrees from it. East/West, North/South. Done.

    19. Re:east/west??? by provigilman · · Score: 1
      As was pointed out elsewhere, you simply go by Galactic rotation. "East" on the Earth is defined as the direction that Earth rotates towards. More simply put, if you're looking at the Earth from above the north pole, then Earth rotates in a clockwise fashion. The direction of rotation is what we call "East", and the reverse of it is what we call "West". (I will concede that you need some sort of agreed upon terminator here, but that's not different from any other system that seeks to divide up an area. You will always need agreed upon line...we're just talking about the terms used to describe and catalog them)

      The same logic, applied on a Galactic level, will still work. Our Galaxy has a definite rotation, so you merely label the direction of rotation as "East", and the others will fall into line. Again, you still need a starting point, but once you have that you can figure out the rest.

      For example, let's say Earth lies in the "North" section of the Galaxy. Looking at the galactic plane you merely have to follow the rotation to determine that the next section is "East", then "South" and finally "West". If Earth were in the "Alpha Quadrant" though, how would you proceed? Were the quadrants labeled in ascending ordering along the direction of rotation, or against it? Were they named in order of discovery? Activity? Proximity? That's why the N, E, S, W system is easier.

      --
      "Life's short and hard, like a body building elf." -- The Bloodhound Gang
    20. Re:east/west??? by AJWM · · Score: 1

      Are we looking at the galaxy from "above" (north?) or "below" in those diagrams?

      Does the circumference sequence go spinward or antispinward (trailing)?

      Et cetera, et cetera.

      --
      -- Alastair
    21. Re:east/west??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      val is val

  5. Ha ha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doesn't matter.

  6. cool/uncool by denzacar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I myself prefer the cool/uncool division of our planet and/or galaxy.

    Its very simple. I just take an arbitrary imaginary line and divide the planet/galaxy along that line.
    The cool part is the one I'm on at the time. Simple.

    Yeah, it sucks a bit for all those uncool people out there but its their own fault really.
    For a price of a plane ticket and a beer they can be on the cool side too.
    Get me a house/job/money/car/female-combo and I might consider making their neighborhood my permanent residence, and thus - cool.

    Until someone from say... Delta Quadrant comes up with a better offer.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:cool/uncool by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      If you consider that this cloud has a non uniform distribution, and it is radiating energy, then that would definately mean there are at least cool/warm sides to the galaxy.

      I hope I don't have to pack up and move.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    2. Re:cool/uncool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      house/job/money/car/female-combo

      So you desire an object that you can fuck, live in, move around in, and trade in at the store for doritos and beer? Man, and I thought my non-caucasian fetish was weird.....

    3. Re:cool/uncool by SQLGuru · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's all of those CFC's causing Galactic Warming.....legislate now! Save the galaxy!

      Layne

    4. Re:cool/uncool by Altus · · Score: 3, Funny


      Sure, like your "anti-matter credits" are going to do anything to help.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    5. Re:cool/uncool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A line? Do you live in 2D?

    6. Re:cool/uncool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A very fat prostitute. Emphasis on very.

    7. Re:cool/uncool by denzacar · · Score: 1

      I meant it as a combo offer.
      Just like there is no beer that is also a plane ticket and plane tickets that are also a beer. Which really is a shame.

      But your Plastic Man/T1000-like vision is also interesting.
      You should patent that. Call it a "Life Partner".

      Just think of the commercials.
      "My girlfriend goes from 0-60 in under 10 seconds and has an indoor swimming pool".

      All you need is some nanobots.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  7. Shields! by FridayBob · · Score: 1

    Captain Kirk would not want to fly into such a cloud, especially at high speed, as it would eat away at the Enterprise's hull producing lots of gamma ray radiation. Definitely worse than a magnetic storm.

    1. Re:Shields! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just reverse the polarity of the main deflector grid...

    2. Re:Shields! by Rick+Genter · · Score: 1

      But he did!

      --
      Don't underestimate the power of The Source
    3. Re:Shields! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No no. You need to emit a tachion pulse into it.

    4. Re:Shields! by FridayBob · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but that was an episode in the animated series, which I considered a poor substitute even when I was a kid and they had just cancelled the original series a few years back. Therefore, you can't expect any self-respecting Trekkie to be familiar with such trivia.

    5. Re:Shields! by Sobrique · · Score: 1

      Did you just use the words 'self respecting' and 'trekkie' in the same sentence?

    6. Re:Shields! by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      You wouldn't want to take a General Products hull through it either.

  8. Quote hurts my brain! by Sciros · · Score: 4, Funny
    From TFA:

    "We expected something unexpected, but we did not expect this," says Skinner. I really don't have anything to say about it other than... "huhwhat?" If he said something like "we expected something unexpected, and that's what we got," that would be better. But it's 7am on Monday and that doesn't help in any case.
    --
    I like basketball!!1!
    1. Re:Quote hurts my brain! by hcdejong · · Score: 2, Funny

      Must have been the Spanish Inquisition...

    2. Re:Quote hurts my brain! by Eponymous+Bastard · · Score: 4, Funny

      From TFA:

      "We expected something unexpected, but we did not expect this," says Skinner. I really don't have anything to say about it other than... "huhwhat?" If he said something like "we expected something unexpected, and that's what we got," that would be better. I'm guessing they were expecting something unexpected but got the Spanish Inquisition instead. A fine astronomy tradition. Even Galileo didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition.

      But it's 7am on Monday and that doesn't help in any case. Ok ... that statement was unexpected ...
    3. Re:Quote hurts my brain! by Sciros · · Score: 1

      But it's 7am on Monday and that doesn't help in any case. Ok ... that statement was unexpected ... Wow see mornings are bad for me. Even .. Friday ones. Yay it's Friday :3
      --
      I like basketball!!1!
    4. Re:Quote hurts my brain! by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 3, Funny

      We expected something unexpected, but we did not expect this

      They expected whatever expectorated the radiation was an unexpected source. Yet the expectation that they would find the source of exectoration to be quite so unexpected, that the excited scientists exclaimed that such an extraordinary event was quite unexpected. The exact reason for the non-uniform distribution is still unexplained.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    5. Re:Quote hurts my brain! by Sciros · · Score: 2, Funny

      Man you are NOT helping here! Especially with that extra "expect" type word you put in there. And then you also misspelled it later. And the second sentence is more like a sentence fragment. Clearly this article is hurting a lot of people's brains.

      --
      I like basketball!!1!
    6. Re:Quote hurts my brain! by arkham6 · · Score: 1

      It really must have hurt your brain, since its 7am on FRIDAY. ;)

      Or if you want to have fun with the string theorists, it hurts your brane.

    7. Re:Quote hurts my brain! by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 3, Funny

      Man you are NOT helping here! Especially with that extra "expect" type word you put in there. And then you also misspelled it later. And the second sentence is more like a sentence fragment. Clearly this article is hurting a lot of people's brains.


      I would eagerly extract and edit the erroneous item. Except the egregeous use of exacting diction to exemplify my etymological interests entails effort. Instead I end it entirely, ere I make an assonance of myself.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    8. Re:Quote hurts my brain! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!!!
      The clouds chief element is antimatter...antimatter and matter.
      TWO! The clouds chief elements are antimatter, matter and the occasional neutron star.
      THREE! The clouds chief elements are antimatter, matter, the occasional neutron star, and black hole.
      our FOUR!!!...no, I'll come in again.

    9. Re:Quote hurts my brain! by provigilman · · Score: 2, Funny

      Perhaps the giant gas cloud not only has anti-matter but anti-brain particles as well. The more we look at it and talk about, the more we absorb and the less intelligent and easily confused we'll get. Eventually it will get so bad that....Oh, SHINY!!!

      --
      "Life's short and hard, like a body building elf." -- The Bloodhound Gang
    10. Re:Quote hurts my brain! by realtyem · · Score: 1

      Congrats on helping to prove that the letter E is the most commonly used letter in the English language. I chose not to participate for my own diabolical reasons however, lol.

    11. Re:Quote hurts my brain! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a bad cold and have been consuming more cough syrup than coffee, so thanks a good laugh, it really made my day. It was so funny I unexpectedly expectorated expectorant through my nose.

  9. Journalists strike again by mapkinase · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Original article

    As reported by an international team in the January 10 issue of Nature


    Today is 11th of January and it is still not on the website. Obviously, the author of the article knows in advance about this publication.

    What pisses me off is that he wrote about that in the past tense. Ordinary folks like myself who wanted just to read the peer-reviewed article, not their popularizing crap, are mislead to go there.

    Is it that difficult to write "to be published" instead of "published"?

    Rant off.
    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    1. Re:Journalists strike again by dreamchaser · · Score: 3, Informative

      Ordinary folks like myself who wanted just to read the peer-reviewed article, not their popularizing crap, are mislead to go there.

      While I would also prefer the peer reviewed article, you're making the false assumption that we're ordinary folk. Most people want the popularizing crap, not the actual science.

    2. Re:Journalists strike again by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      I meant that characterization of me as ordinary folks was in the context of comparison to the author of the article at NASA website who was privileged to have access to. I admit that my "who wanted just to read the peer-reviewed article" has mislead you.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    3. Re:Journalists strike again by joto · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think most people want to read popularized stuff that's well written and explained, by someone who actually understands science, but also knows how to popularize it. I certainly don't want popularized crap written by journalists who don't even understand what they are writing. But maybe that's just me.

    4. Re:Journalists strike again by tardyon · · Score: 1

      It's up now: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v451/n7175/full/nature06490.html

    5. Re:Journalists strike again by bughunter · · Score: 1

      Today is 11th of January and it is still not on the website.
      [snip]
      Is it that difficult to write "to be published" instead of "published"?

      You realize that Nature is a physical, paper journal? Not a web-only publication like Salon.com or Newsmax.

      Also, frequently these dead tree publications are post-dated so that -- with some luck -- they arrive in the subscriber's snailmail on the date of the issue (or in the case of porn rags, a month earlier), especially the weekly ones.

      Just because it's not on the website doesn't mean it's "not published." If Nature published their articles on the web before most people received the laminar cellulose version, who would pay $199 per year for the latter?

      Therefore "published" is correct.

      --
      I can see the fnords!
    6. Re:Journalists strike again by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      First of all, if you or your institution is not subscribed you cannot see the full text.

      Second, there is "advanced publications" (or smth like that, it is really inconveniently places apart from the "current issue") section which whole purpose is to appear before the paper copy arrives to your snailbox.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  10. Warning for GP hull users by charlesbakerharris · · Score: 1

    Beowulf Shaffer says: Stay away!

    1. Re:Warning for GP hull users by lanthar · · Score: 1

      and mind those neutron star tides!

  11. Do those particles travel over here? by master_p · · Score: 1

    and what will happen if a normal matter object flies into the antimatter cloud? will it explode?

    1. Re:Do those particles travel over here? by sacremon · · Score: 1

      and what will happen if a normal matter object flies into the antimatter cloud? will it explode?

      That is where the observed x-rays are coming from; They are the result of matter-antimatter annihilation.

      --
      If you can't beat them, embrace and extend them.
    2. Re:Do those particles travel over here? by aadvancedGIR · · Score: 1, Interesting

      No (it's way too far way) and yes.

      The existence of such a cloud can only be explained by the massive creation of antimatter (there is most likely also the same amount of regular matter produced but it is probably cast the other way by an electric or magnetic field) that eventualy cleaned a portion of space of all regular matter. Puting any kind of matter into that cloud will result in particule-corresponding antiparticlue reaction into very high energy photon (gamma radiation). If an hypothetical spaceship entered the cloud, I don't know if it will be changed into pure energy almost instantly or not (the violent reaction at the surface of the hull will probably push back the antimatter cloud, and you need the same mass of antimatter to totally disintegrate the introduced matter) but it will be like putting it into a fusion reactor so the crew would die very fast anyway.

    3. Re:Do those particles travel over here? by Orange+Crush · · Score: 2, Informative

      Probably not much at all would happen to an object traveling through the cloud. I couldn't find any information on how dense the cloud is thought to be, but any "cloud" in space is by its nature going to be extremely diffuse. A few particles impacting a normal matter object passing through is not going to do any noticeable damage and the extra gamma rays are likely a drop in the bucket compared to all the radiation encountered moving closer to the galactic center.

    4. Re:Do those particles travel over here? by inviolet · · Score: 2, Funny

      If an hypothetical spaceship entered the [antimatter] cloud, I don't know if it will be changed into pure energy almost instantly or not (the violent reaction at the surface of the hull will probably push back the antimatter cloud, and you need the same mass of antimatter to totally disintegrate the introduced matter) but it will be like putting it into a fusion reactor so the crew would die very fast anyway.

      Indeed. This issue is hush-hush, but antimatter is the only thing a General Products hull isn't proof against.

      --
      FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
    5. Re:Do those particles travel over here? by aadvancedGIR · · Score: 1

      Thinking of it, there could be a working protection from antimatter: if the cloud is ionized, an containment magnetic field could keep those nasty particules away in the same way it keeps the superhot gas far from the hull of a fusion reactor. But if there are anti-neutron or anti-H2 in the gas, you're toast.

    6. Re:Do those particles travel over here? by AdamThor · · Score: 1

      I'm reminded of the words of the great Stanley Spadowski, who said:

      George, you know I was wondering, like if you were traveling through outer space, I mean like you're going real fast, like the speed of light, you know... hoooohhhhh... and all of a sudden you started screaming... aaaahhhhh aaaaahhhhh... Do you think your brain would blow up?

      --
      -- "Oh. This guy again."
    7. Re:Do those particles travel over here? by Agripa · · Score: 1

      A few particles impacting a normal matter object passing through is not going to do any noticeable damage

      Tell that to Beowulf Shaeffer.

    8. Re:Do those particles travel over here? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      I would wonder if any normal matter object could get to that cloud.
      As you got closer there would be more and more really nasty radiation. That might be enough to "destroy" just about any object that you can imagine.
      Plus space is big, really big. You can not just fly into this cloud. As you get closer and closer the object would get hit by more and more antimatter. It would probably tend to erode over time as it flies into this cloud.
      But if an object was going fast enough I would say yes it would make a very pleasant earth shattering koboom.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    9. Re:Do those particles travel over here? by spun · · Score: 1

      Indeed. This issue is hush-hush, but antimatter is the only thing a General Products hull isn't proof against. That's why you need a Slaver stasis field. Oh, and GP Hulls may be immune to large tidal forces, say from a neutron star, but unfortunately, the things inside a GP hull are usually not so well constructed.
      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    10. Re:Do those particles travel over here? by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

      I'd like to hear more about these "anti-neutrons"... :-)

    11. Re:Do those particles travel over here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Knock yourself out.

    12. Re:Do those particles travel over here? by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

      Nifty, I learned something today. Thanks, AC!

    13. Re:Do those particles travel over here? by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      Based on the amount of energy they are observing, I'm not sure that this would be the case at all. While it is a huge amount, it is also spread across a region 10,000 lightyears wide. At those distances it may only be 0.01 positrons per cubic mile.

      In contrast, the interstellar medium has a density of a few thousand to a few million atoms per cubic meter.

      Granted my estimate of a maximum of 0.01 positrons per cubic mile is based on their statement of 10,000 ly wide and 10,000 solar energy units. A positron/electron reaction releases about 511,000 eV of energy.

      So getting back to the concept of density, in what would be an apparantly rare event (assuming human distance approximations) an interaction by a positron and an electron would release a large amount of energy with respect to the amount of mass involved. However a single reaction would not be so dramatic as to have any meaningful impact on the theoretical object.

      If the field were so dense as to affect any object on a regular basis (and by regular I mean dense enough to cause an explosion) then you would see a violently active region of the galaxy that was devoid of stars.

      *caveat* My math was very loose on those calculations, please correct me if I'm off on my assumptions.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    14. Re:Do those particles travel over here? by AJWM · · Score: 1

      antimatter is the only thing a General Products hull isn't proof against.

      Well no, it doesn't work too well against high gravitational gradients (tides) either. Okay, actually the hull resists them just fine, it just doesn't do a good job of protecting the occupants.

      --
      -- Alastair
    15. Re:Do those particles travel over here? by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      The matter-antimatter annihilation matters not. The matter is too far away to matter.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    16. Re:Do those particles travel over here? by aadvancedGIR · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antineutron

  12. Just one question. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Why isn't this on the front page?

    This is news for nerds.

  13. Once again by argStyopa · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I don't think it takes an astrophysicist to understand that correlation does not prove causation?

    Facts (as far as I can tell from TFA):
    There's an asymmetry in the positron cloud at the center of the galaxy.
    There is a SIMILAR asymmetry in the distribution of low-mass, x-ray binary stellar systems.

    How do you go from that to some sort of causation?

    By the same logic, fat men and televisions in close proximity are CREATING couches.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:Once again by aadvancedGIR · · Score: 1

      Well, there is doublt, and common sense. I could shoot you in the head and tell the judge that your death is not related in any way and that he should let me go.
      Antimatter does not spontaneously form inside regular matter galaxies be magic, you need extremely high energy to produce matter-antimatter pairs and particular conditions to separate them before they recombine. The binary system with a black hole that shares the same geometry is simply almost infinitely more plausible source than the void beside.

    2. Re:Once again by eennaarbrak · · Score: 1

      I don't think it takes an astrophysicist to understand that correlation does not prove causation? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation In short: Correlation does not PROVE causation, but it sure is a hint.
    3. Re:Once again by AdamThor · · Score: 1

      By the same logic, fat men and televisions in close proximity are CREATING couches.

      On the contrary, sir! Couches and televisions in close proximity are producing fat men!

      BOO YA the scientific process at work!

      --
      -- "Oh. This guy again."
    4. Re:Once again by greg_barton · · Score: 1

      By the same logic, fat men and televisions in close proximity are CREATING couches.

      Aren't they, though? Fat man has TV, but can't properly use it. (No couch to sit on.) He says to the free market, "GIVE ME MY COUCH!" Free market says, "OTAY!" It makes a couch, and it is good.

      Here endeth the lesson.
    5. Re:Once again by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      I know you were going for +1 funny, but you actually prove my point.

      Fat Men + Televisions = Couches (which I'd used as my example)
      is not the same as
      Televisions + Couches = Fat men --- which you assert and I would agree is arguably more likely.

      Referring to the OP, they say that these binary pairs are creating a high quantity of positrons.
      One might alternatively suggest either:
      - a high density of positrons in the neighborhood makes it more likely you get these binary systems
      or
      (more likely, in my view) - whatever local condition or phenomena is creating the higher positron frequency is ALSO conducive to more of these particular types of binary pairs.
      .
      . ... both hypothesis then substantially & logically contradict TFA's assertion that these pairs are CREATING the positrons. And I believe (IANAA) that either is reasonably likely.

      --
      -Styopa
    6. Re:Once again by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      I replied more expansively to an earlier similar comment, but to reply to yours seriously:
      it's possible, yes, that couches are created (by market forces) due to the need for Fat Men to have a place to sit while watching TV.

      I'd assert it's more likely that a comfy couch in proximity to a nice TV is reasonably likely to fatten a randomly present man.

      This allegory illustrates my point. The simple presence of two things together aren't ipso facto a causal relationship, even it seems plausible. Occam's razor applies, of course, but there could be many formulations of cause & effect that involve the 3 entities (TV, Fat Man, and Couch) which are either discrete, or even rely on the permutation of some other, assumed ambient condition to end with the observed effect. This range of formulations are also going to have a range of probabilities ranging from the likely to the absurd.

      But to go back to the OP, it should be abundantly clear that simply because A and B coexist, A was not THEREFORE causing B, which seems to be the basis for their supposition that hard x-ray binaries are causing the positron densities. TFA doesn't even HINT at a mechanism, but in fact says essentially "we don't really know how it would do it but anyway we think this is the case"...I'd say that's logical weaksauce and the sort of thing that would/should get a grant proposal tossed into the dustbin without someone doing the intervening step of coming up with a reasonably plausible mechanism HOW they could be connected, at least theoretically.

      --
      -Styopa
    7. Re:Once again by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      As someone else pointed out, correlation does not PROVE causation. There is the possibility that a third factor is involved.

      So what's the third factor? Until we identify one, since we have a spatial correlation between something that needs high energy to create it and some stellar objects that are known to provide a high energy environment, we let Occam's razor tell us to prefer the simplest theory.

    8. Re:Once again by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      > By the same logic, fat men and televisions in close proximity are CREATING couches.

      They do, in a sense. TV + natural desire to sit around instead of moving = de facto commissioning of couches from couch manufacturers.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    9. Re:Once again by AJWM · · Score: 1

      You've both got it wrong: Fat men + Couches = Televisions.

      They've got to have something to do while sitting there, ergo TVs. Which, after all, came last? Fat men and couches were both around before television.

      That said, I'm inclined to agree. Unless they propose a mechanism (okay, I haven't yet read TFA) for preferential production of antimatter by said binary x-ray stars, perhaps those stars are perceived as x-ray stars because they're sitting in the middle of a freaking cloud of anti-matter. You think that might cause a little extra radiation at the short end of the spectrum?

      Or, yes, there might be some other thing that's causing both.

      --
      -- Alastair
  14. They Are! by gbutler69 · · Score: 1

    Television is interesting and fulfilling to the intellectually lazy and/or comforting to the overworked (not everyone is lazy, sometimes they're just tired from slaving away at work). So, it encourages someone to watch. When someone wants to watch, they need a place to sit, so they buy couches. The demand for couches makes someone else want to provide couches. So, couches get made. Therefore, Fat men in proximity to TV's "make" couches. Q.E.D.

    --
    Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
  15. Small Contention by Jekler · · Score: 4, Informative

    "...governed by Einstein's famous equation E=mc^2."

    I think it's important for people to understand that scientific theories and laws don't "govern", they explain things. Einstein's theories don't direct or influence the universe, they're just an observation on how the universe appears to work.

    I know correct grammar on the internet has become a huge point of controversy, but when referring to science there's too much public confusion about how things work. Using words like "govern" in relation to scientific theories is a step towards lending credence to Intelligent Design, like scientific laws are control mechanisms of some "Great Designer".

    1. Re:Small Contention by Empiric · · Score: 1

      "The more I examine the universe and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming."

      --Freeman Dyson

      "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."

      --Stephen Hawking

      "The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation ... His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."

      --Albert Einstein

      Personally, "govern", "known", "adjusted", and "intelligence" seem like appropriate terms to me.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    2. Re:Small Contention by kwoff · · Score: 1

      And for that matter, what isn't governed by E=mc^2 ? (according to current theories, to a certain approximation, blahblah...)

    3. Re:Small Contention by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      "The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."
      --Stephen Hawking
      Personally, "govern", "known", "adjusted", and "intelligence" seem like appropriate terms to me.

      In those quantum realities where you don't exist, those words are not quite so appropriate.

  16. Your hypothesis fails by spun · · Score: 1

    There are so many other explanations besides "Someone set it up that way." If anything were different, we wouldn't be here to notice. One explanation: all possible universes exist, this just happens to be the one that we are in. And the 'design' theory raises the question: what made the designer's universe perfect for It to exist in? Either the designer and Its universe are somehow special, in which case the theory loses any explanatory power it might have had, or an even bigger designer designed our designer's universe, in which case we have an infinite regress, or universes perfect for intelligent life can come into existence on their own. Basically, the hypothesis that our universe must have been designed because some constants are perfect for our kind of life, is rubbish.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    1. Re:Your hypothesis fails by Empiric · · Score: 1

      "And the 'design' theory raises the question: what made the designer's universe perfect for It to exist in?" Sorry, "raising a question" which can be answered plausibly that something eternally existed, and which isn't in-scope of "design of physical laws" anyway (sorry, you don't get to define the scope of an inference to contain whatever you feel like)--hardly "fails" demonstrates. However, feel free to hold your view, that is, until you're Naturally Deselected, anyway.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    2. Re:Your hypothesis fails by spun · · Score: 1

      Okay, if a complex designer can be said to have existed eternally, then why can't a metaverse without a designer eternally exist? If our universe is but a pocket in an eternally existing larger structure, the question of parameter tuning is answered without recourse to designers. Eternity is a long time, within eternity, our universe would eventually come to exist if it possible for it to exist at all.

      You just aren't thinking clearly. It's sad to see how religion destroys some people's logical faculties.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    3. Re:Your hypothesis fails by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      I can think of one exception - if the number of possible universes is infinite, then even an infinite amount of time might not be long enough to enumerate each possible universe. Thus even in that scheme you can marvel at just how lucky we are to be here.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    4. Re:Your hypothesis fails by Empiric · · Score: 1

      "Okay, if a complex designer can be said to have existed eternally, then why can't a metaverse without a designer eternally exist?"

      I have nowhere claimed it can't. You're the one whose overextended your argument by claiming mine "fails". I'm avoiding that mistake, due to my relatively-well-functioning logical faculties, and actual argumentative honesty.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    5. Re:Your hypothesis fails by spun · · Score: 1

      Ahhh, no. Because an infinite number minus an infinite number is still an infinite number. And I was postulating a mutiverse where multiple universes might exist simultaneously.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    6. Re:Your hypothesis fails by spun · · Score: 1

      You are trying to say that because of the tuning of certain parameters, the universe must be designed, but that the designer himself is eternal and not in turn designed. I'm sorry, but I don't see the logic in that. Either something complex must be designed, or it can exist without being designed. If something complex can exist (eternal or not, doesn't matter for this argument) without being designed, then a complex universe can exist without a designer. If complex things can not exist without a designer, then a complex designer can not exist without some meta designer, and you have not answered any question about the origins of complexity at all.

      Perhaps I misinterpreted what you are saying, because originally, it sounded as if you were arguing for the existence of a designer, and now you say that you admit an undesigned universe could exist eternally. What exactly are you stating here?

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    7. Re:Your hypothesis fails by Empiric · · Score: 1

      I am stating that both positions remain unrefuted, but I consider mine more plausible.

      To simplify any further discussion of your basic line of reasoning here, I would first need to ask a clarifying question:

      If I propose that my car is designed, is it your position that this position is invalid unless I further demonstrate how the car's designer was designed (the core of your [that is, Dawkins'] "infinite regress" argument), and additionally formally refute the counterclaim that my car was not designed?

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    8. Re:Your hypothesis fails by ChronoReverse · · Score: 1

      Actually, it depends on the type of infinity you're talking about (yes there are different types of infinities).


      For instance, Let [A] be the set of all integers and [B] be the set of all integers except 1.

      Both are infinite sets.

      Subtracting [B] from [A] leaves us with a decidedly non-infinite set that contains only 1.

    9. Re:Your hypothesis fails by spun · · Score: 1

      A car is not a universe. You can actually show how, why, where, and when a car was designed. As with all car analogies, this one sucks.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    10. Re:Your hypothesis fails by Empiric · · Score: 1

      I'll take that as a "no".

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    11. Re:Your hypothesis fails by spun · · Score: 1

      Take it as a fudge sundae, it doesn't change the fact that it does not apply to the original argument. It's a very poor analogy, because showing that a car was designed is a trivial observation.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    12. Re:Your hypothesis fails by Empiric · · Score: 1

      Okay, lie.

      Fact is, your argument is that it is somehow invalid to say something is designed without saying everything is designed. Your claim is destroyed by counterexample.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    13. Re:Your hypothesis fails by spun · · Score: 1

      Nice strawman. I never said that it is invalid to say that anything is designed without saying that everything is designed. I said that if a complex thing, like the designer of a universe, can exist without being designed itself, then other complex things, like a universe, can also exist without being designed.

      You may as well give up on this, you only continue to make yourself look foolish.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    14. Re:Your hypothesis fails by Empiric · · Score: 1

      Yes, in fact you have said that, in more-obfuscated terms. You said that proposing design -logically necessitates- that the designer was designed. That is the only reason that there could even theoretically be a chain-of-inference such as an "infinite regression" at all, by what "regression" simply -means-. You stated this as a stand-alone argument, requiring no questions of scale or empirical dependencies whatsoever.

      Even you don't believe it's me who looks "foolish" here; why would I?

      Anyway, as I said, think what you want, for as long as you can. Bye.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    15. Re:Your hypothesis fails by spun · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm sorry I've been a jerk, and I'm not having much fun insulting you anymore. But you still don't get what I'm saying.

      Let me try to explain. Design does not necessitate that the designer was designed. Rather, an undesigned designer raises the question, if a designer itself needs no designer, why does the universe? That is the major flaw in your argument. You say that the universe needs a designer in order for all the constants to be set right. I say there are many other possible explanations that do not need a designer, and I gave a few examples. In addition, positing a designer as the answer to the question, "how did the constants get set" leaves one with an answer that is arbitrary and provides no real explanation. You have to posit an eternal designer who does not exist within a universal framework in order for it to make sense. But that designer's place could easily be taken by an impersonal meta-universal framework which is itself eternal. Positing a personal designer who created our universe and set the constants provides no greater explanatory or predictive power than positing an impersonal eternal framework that creates our universe through chance alone. No matter how small the chance, given enough time and space it will come about, without the added complexity of a personal creator. Occam's razor suggests the simpler explanation is the more likely to be true.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    16. Re:Your hypothesis fails by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      You are subtracting aleph null from aleph null; I was under the impression that subtraction is undefined at this cardinality.

  17. IMMA CHARGIN MAH LAZOR!!!!! by Max+Threshold · · Score: 1

    PEW PEW LAZERS

    It's kind of like that.

  18. Nobody expects... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the spanish inquisition! Amongst our weaponry are fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency and an almost ridiculous amount of anti-matter! Cardinal Fang! Fetch the positrons!

  19. OT, just a personal message to parent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Absolutely offtopic:
    @ the moment, your post is +3 Funny, I simply don't understand how it isn't in Karma Heaven.
    You absolutely made my day, even if it means all my colleagues turned to see me and my face is red as a beet right now.
    Thank you sir, for a great laugh!

  20. basic question by sentientbrendan · · Score: 1

    How is it that positrons are formed? Where do they come from? Obviously, they weren't just sitting around from the beginning of the universe, otherwise they would have annihilated with electrons a long time ago.

  21. Yeah... a line... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    You know... like an orbit or the equator.

    BTW... I think that the GP is the first post I aimed to be funny that was moderated as Insightful instead of Troll or Flamebait.
    Lets hope that will become a trend.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens