Slashdot Mirror


Hubble Finds Unidentified Object In Space

Gizmodo is reporting that the Hubble space telescope has found a new unidentified object in the middle of nowhere. Some are even suggesting that this could be a new class of object. Of course, without actually understanding more about it, the speculation seems a bit wild. "The object also appeared out of nowhere. It just wasn't there before. In fact, they don't even know where it is exactly located because it didn't behave like anything they know. Apparently, it can't be closer than 130 light-years but it can be as far as 11 billion light-years away. It's not in any known galaxy either. And they have ruled out a supernova too. It's something that they have never encountered before. In other words: they don't have a single clue about where or what the heck this thing is."

71 of 716 comments (clear)

  1. Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's no moon!

    1. Re:Obligatory by somersault · · Score: 4, Funny

      This is what happens when God plays with lighters after eating mexican food.

      --
      which is totally what she said
  2. That's no moon. It's a space station. by lecithin · · Score: 4, Funny

    FTA-

    "Apparently, a scientist at the LHC declared that the object is similar to the flash that an Imperial Star Destroyer does when reaching Warp 10.

    --
    It could be worse, it could be Monday.
    1. Re:That's no moon. It's a space station. by rodney+dill · · Score: 4, Funny

      ...but can it do the Kessel run in 12 parsecs?

      --

      Use your head, can't you, use your head,
      You're on earth, there's no cure for that
      - S. Beckett
    2. Re:That's no moon. It's a space station. by jaguth · · Score: 5, Funny

      "They've gone plaid!" - Barf - Spaceballs

    3. Re:That's no moon. It's a space station. by neltana · · Score: 5, Funny

      Come on, everyone knows that a Kessel is a measure of volume. Geez.

    4. Re:That's no moon. It's a space station. by MMC+Monster · · Score: 4, Informative

      And a parsec is a measure of distance.

      My thought (admittedly based on other folks on the 'net) is that the kessel run is a race from one point on the surface of the volume of Kessel, to another point on the far end of the volume.

      The fact that you can do it in a particularly small number of parsecs suggests that you are getting really close to the even horizon of a black hole at the center of Kessel.

      --
      Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
    5. Re:That's no moon. It's a space station. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      *dorkhat*

      Ding ding, the post-original movies explanation was that the run to kessel involves passing a cluster of supermassive blackholes where the goal to avoid detection as a smuggler was to trim the trip as close to the event horizon as possible without falling past the horizon.

      The closer to the event horizon you go, the faster you need to be going to get out again, which requires a higher maximum velocity. Doing so in 12 parsecs is apparently a good indication of a fast ship.

      *dorkhat off*

  3. I'm betting by debrain · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... it's a Bowl of Petunias, or a sperm whale (again).

  4. All thermal sensors are jammed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    One shows a million degrees. The others, minus five thousand.

  5. Aliens must own stock too. by tjstork · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's obvious that this was the flash of an extraterrestrial civilization that just destroyed itself when it realized that all of its savings were tied up in Lehman Brothers stock.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:Aliens must own stock too. by eebra82 · · Score: 5, Funny

      *Bursts out in sporadic laughter*

      It's clear to me... I just know... I just know what it is!

      *Sporadic laughter again*

      This is direct evidence of Xenu's lost civilization.

      Best regards,
      Dr. T. Cruise

    2. Re:Aliens must own stock too. by k2r · · Score: 5, Funny

      > My 10 year old photocopier can do that.

      Your 10 year old photocopier can reproduce, so you don't have to.

  6. Ominous! by Sockatume · · Score: 4, Funny

    Two and a half millennia ago, the artifact appeared in a remote corner of space, beside a trillion-year old dying sun from a different universe. It was a perfect black body sphere and it did nothing. Then it disappeared. Now it is back.

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    1. Re:Ominous! by CdBee · · Score: 4, Funny

      Time to call up a few friends

      Regards

      GSV Steely Glint
      (cc Fates amenable to change, Ethics Gradient)

      --
      I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
  7. The 5th element by webappsec · · Score: 5, Funny

    For those of you who have seen the movie the fifth element be scared, be very scared.

  8. I know what it is... by Sooner+Boomer · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...that dam' kid down the block with his laser pointer again!

    --
    Chaos maximizes locally around me.
  9. Re:In unrelated news... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 4, Funny

    Mike broke the Hubble! Mike broke the Hubble!

  10. Obvious answer by bobdehnhardt · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's a gigantic sphere of single socks, nonworking ball point pens, car keys, reading glasses, coffee mugs....

    Well, they have to go somewhere....

  11. His noodly appendages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    it must be the flying spaghetti monster!

  12. Probably. by Markimedes · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say it's a rock.

    1. Re:Probably. by blincoln · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say it's a rock.

      A rock that appears suddenly and then disappears later? And is visible from light-years away? And has a spectral signature that doesn't match anything in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey? That's some rock.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
  13. Re:they found God ? by gardyloo · · Score: 4, Funny

    When god is a bit more impressive than 21st magnitude, let me know.

  14. Hubble Windex: For that Deep [Space] Shine! by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That's no moon!

    Exactly! NASA obviously needs to do a better job of keeping the lense clean. :-P

    Joking aside (at least I HOPE I'm joking!), I have to wonder if this wasn't a large matter/antimatter event. Given that the "object" was described as suddenly appearing, increasing in brightness, then falling off until it disappeared.

    Current physics, to my understanding, postulate that the universe had to have consisted of 50/50 matter and antimatter at the beginning. One of the current puzzles the LHC is trying to solve is, what happened to all the antimatter?

    Since this is open space, it stands to reason that clouds of matter and antimatter may still be floating around, undisturbed. If the two attracted each other over a cosmically long period, we may be seeing the resulting fireworks.

    That's my best guess, anyway.

    1. Re:Hubble Windex: For that Deep [Space] Shine! by Xaositecte · · Score: 5, Funny

      Maybe it's another Alien civilization that just annihilated itself in nuclear\fusion\antimatter\something hellfire?

    2. Re:Hubble Windex: For that Deep [Space] Shine! by beetlenaut · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's a common misconception that the Hubble has a lens. But, like all large telescopes, it has a curved mirror instead.

    3. Re:Hubble Windex: For that Deep [Space] Shine! by g0bshiTe · · Score: 4, Funny

      Maybe it's the server of the site after getting /.'ed

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    4. Re:Hubble Windex: For that Deep [Space] Shine! by mrops · · Score: 4, Funny

      Correction, its an alien civilization that just did their first experiment on the LHC.

    5. Re:Hubble Windex: For that Deep [Space] Shine! by drDugan · · Score: 5, Funny

      my money would be on a Vogon Construction crew

    6. Re:Hubble Windex: For that Deep [Space] Shine! by MrMarket · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's no moon!

      Exactly! NASA obviously needs to do a better job of keeping the lense clean. :-P

      Those darn Water Bears are already causing havoc.

    7. Re:Hubble Windex: For that Deep [Space] Shine! by lilomar · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually, that was us doing our first experiment on the LHC, how we got back in time and so far away... well I guess we'll find out in a few weeks...

      --
      The creator of this post (Jacob Smith) hereby releases it, and all of his other posts, into the public domain.
    8. Re:Hubble Windex: For that Deep [Space] Shine! by verbamour · · Score: 4, Funny

      The shadowy figure waves back at you!

    9. Re:Hubble Windex: For that Deep [Space] Shine! by rkanodia · · Score: 5, Funny

      Liar. Antiswitzerland couldn't have a budget for fundamental research - all their money would be spent supporting their enormous military in aggressive wars.

    10. Re:Hubble Windex: For that Deep [Space] Shine! by wootest · · Score: 5, Funny

      Especially their enormous fleet.

    11. Re:Hubble Windex: For that Deep [Space] Shine! by ozmanjusri · · Score: 4, Funny
      If the military wants an antimatter bomb, it's to make a small yet potent explosive device.

      I foresee a slight problem with developing a hand-grenade that has a 2km blast radius...

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    12. Re:Hubble Windex: For that Deep [Space] Shine! by Krupuk · · Score: 4, Funny

      You mean their SHAB, the Small Hadron Apart Breaker.

  15. The Borg! by MarkvW · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's the Borg! I'm selling my Lehman stock now!

  16. please stop with the inane star wars jokes by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Funny

    what is wrong with you people?

    we all know deep in our hearts it is the decepticons

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  17. Modding system by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I do wish the Funny mod wouldn't make so many posts appear so prominently on a thread. Maybe the first few 'funny' modded posts can appear, after than 'insightful,' 'informative' or 'interesting' get priority. I mean, I've read all the posts above and they're very funny (even the /. cliches), but it starts to get a bit old when you scroll all the way down a thread and can't find anything that adds a bit of information to the discussion.

    I clicked on here hoping someone with an astrophysics or cosmology background might be able to have a stab and guessing what this thing might be, or have something interesting to say about Hubble.

    --
    Drill baby drill - on Mars
    1. Re:Modding system by TheCycoONE · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But there's nothing insightful, informative, or interesting to say. The summary covered that: "they don't have a single clue about where or what the heck this thing is."

    2. Re:Modding system by the_humeister · · Score: 4, Funny

      I clicked on here hoping someone with an astrophysics or cosmology background might be able to have a stab and guessing what this thing might be, or have something interesting to say about Hubble.

      hahahahaa!!... Oh wait, you were serious...

    3. Re:Modding system by Tipa · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Can't get much funnier than getting your astronomy news from a gadget site.

    4. Re:Modding system by crow · · Score: 5, Informative

      You can change your preferences to change how various moderations affect the score. If you are annoyed by funny posts, change the funny moderation to be a -1 instead of a +1.

    5. Re:Modding system by Jonny_eh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How insightful can a comment be when even the NASA astronomers don't know what it is? It's a post of ignorance, i.e. there's nothing more to be said unless someone has more data. The funny's just filling the void that would otherwise be filled with the chirping of crickets.

      In the absence of insight, funny wins out.

    6. Re:Modding system by Bemopolis · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Speaking as someone with an astrophysics background, I can say with great certainty that I have no idea what it is. And likely no one else will unless and until a decent spectrum of the object can be taken. Because, whereas a picture is worth a thousand words (and, if you are diligent, a light curve), a spectrum is worth a thousand pictures.

      If I had to guess, I'd say it's an *extremely* distant explosion (perhaps the hypernova of low-metallicity star), based on the weird light curve and the complete lack of an associated visible parent object. But I wouldn't bet more than a beer on that hypothesis.

      --
      "I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
    7. Re:Modding system by Tmack · · Score: 5, Informative
      Its called User Preferences. Use them, thats what they are for. Set "Funny" to -6, and bump up the "insightful" or "Interesting" ones to your liking. If you want funny, do the opposite.

      Tm

      --
      Support TBI Research: http://www.raisinhope.org
    8. Re:Modding system by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 5, Informative

      I do wish the Funny mod wouldn't make so many posts appear so prominently on a thread.

      If that ever changed, I'd stop reading it. I already get all the dry tech news I need, but come to Slashdot for the twisted geek view on things. A huge part of that is a shared sense of humor, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

      Think of Slashdot as a bar you go to after work. Sure, you'll hear some serious conversations, but you'll hear a lot more people telling jokes and enjoying themselves away from the office.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    9. Re:Modding system by clone53421 · · Score: 5, Funny

      No kidding. I read the summary on the /. front page and thought to myself, "Wow, how boring. Don't think I'll be hitting that article." Then shortly thereafter, "Wait, did they say wild speculation?!" Here I am...

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    10. Re:Modding system by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 4, Funny

      The funny's just filling the void that would otherwise be filled with the chirping of crickets.

      Please tell me more about these space crickets when you get a chance.

      --
      This guy's the limit!
    11. Re:Modding system by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The fact that a post explaining that it was impossible to post something insightful was moderated insightful reminds me why I love Slashdot.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    12. Re:Modding system by meiocyte · · Score: 5, Informative

      after work?

      --
      The thing in the box has no place in the language-game at all; not even as a something; for the box might even be empty.
    13. Re:Modding system by Lije+Baley · · Score: 5, Funny

      Slashdot is no place for manual-reading freaks like you!

      --
      Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K.
    14. Re:Modding system by Shag · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I could maybe mod you up, or I could just reply, and at least you, as one of the few people who's paying attention, might get something out of it. :)

      A few of the people in the authors list of that paper (maybe 4 or 5) are also in another research collaboration that's sort of a spinoff/descendant of the supernova cosmology project. I'm one of their collaborators in that other thing, and I asked one of them about 06F6.

      His "best guess" was a neutron star (and your comment here is the only one to mention neutron stars seriously) - possibly formed by a "failed" supernova - which has accreted some material, maybe just gas it was passing through, and flared up/fused that material/blew that material off, or something.

      Since SCP (like the collaboration that I'm in) is specifically interested in supernovae, it is likely this thing was found, and they weren't sure whether it might be a supernova, so they took a bunch of data on it, then ultimately decided it wasn't and wrote it up.

      Unfortunately, it appears even the collaboration that discovered it aren't sure enough to say what it is, which isn't really surprising; there's a lot of specialization in astronomy and cosmology these days, and even though survey projects give everyone a whole bunch of cool data to analyze, someone who's looking for supernovae wouldn't necessarily also be able to tell you that a set of exposures of a chunk of space also showed an asteroid, a kuiper-belt object, or a whatever-this-is, let alone give you much insight into those other non-supernova objects.

      The good news is that as the surveys really ramp up, with things like Pan-STARRS and the LSST coming, there will be a lot more data, and it will take less time to find the second, third, etc. examples of whatever weird new thing gets discovered. For example, the math for relating type Ia supernova (SN Ia) mass to light curve was worked out in 1993, it took ten years after that to find the first super-chandrasekhar-mass SN Ia, three years after that to find the second and one year after that to find the third (which is titled "a second example" because the second one found hadn't been formally written up and announced at the time, I think. :)

      So whatever 06F6 is, it's likely we'll be seeing more of them... first of a class, yeah.

      --
      Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
  18. Scooped! by LaminatorX · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm picturing a staff meeting at Engadget where the editor is yelling, "If Gizmodo beats us to press with a previously unknown class of celestial object one more time, heads are gonna roll around here!"

  19. Loop by halcyon1234 · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's the Universe's backup of itself. It would store it offsite, but it's kinda hard when everywhere is here.

  20. That's no Space Station, that's an LHC by CorporateSuit · · Score: 5, Funny

    a scientist at the LHC declared

    LHC scientists then assured the public that it was not an LHC being used on a different planet by an alien civilization, then being burned in a fierce flash of particle fusion before being enveloped within a subsequent black hole. "The chances would be like winning the lottery ten times in a row" they said. "Not that we would know about any alien civilizations, their freaky purple skin and glowing eyes, or whether they were using an LHC modelled after the one we made on Earth. Speaking of which, I'm not really qualified to talk about it, because this is astronomy and has NOTHING to do with LHCs... Ha ha right? No more questions."

    Next week, a new LHC song is promised from the CERN labs and should be another smash hit on Youtube. One of the scientists sung a few of the lines to us as a preview. "We didn't share our technology with a now-extinct alien race less than a few lightyears away. They were probably pretty dumb and annoying anyway. Let's turn this bugger on! Let's turn this bugger on! Smash some particles, yeah!"

    --
    I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
  21. Re:Logical conclusion by ogre7299 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Well, it was observed with multiple telescopes, so it's not an artifact. The full paper can be found here: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0809/0809.1648v1.pdf

  22. Sky and Telescope Article by Quantum+Jim · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Sky and Telescope article is much better than the Gizmodo blog. The article explains why it can't be closer than 130 ly due to no parallax, though IDK why they didn't use a more sensitive satellite for measuring parallax of objects up to 1600 ly away. Maybe it was only seen after the fact, or the other satellite was not sensitive enough? The thing could not be farther than 11 billion ly either, since otherwise the light would be distorted as it passed through interstellar hydrogen clouds (i.e. "cosmic hydrogen absorption in its spectrum"). The Sky and Telescope article even includes a reference to the original paper describing the phenomenon. I suggest you read that article instead. It is much more interesting!

    --
    It is impossible to enjoy idling thoroughly unless one has plenty of work to do.
    - Jerome Klapka Jerome
  23. Serious guess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Couldn't it be a new star forming? I don't think we've ever witnessed a star being born before, so its early days as it starts fusion and begins emitting light could look like nothing we've ever seen before. It might wink on and off like a baby taking its first steps.Just a college student's guess.

    1. Re:Serious guess by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Informative

      Couldn't it be a new star forming?

      This is probably ruled out for two reasons. First, there's no detectable nebula in the area. Stars usually form out of dust or plasma clouds. The brightness magnitude at its max suggests that its near our galaxy if its a star, meaning its mother nebula should be detectable if it had one.

      Second the spectrum does not match any known object, according to the Sky and Telescope article somebody linked to. They've studied birthing stars such as those in Orion, so the spectrum of such would be an approximate match.
           

  24. I bet... by javilon · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... its dimensions are 1 by 4 by 9

    --


    When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon Johansen trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."
  25. Well, Good by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Since there are now about 100 idiotic "joke" comments on this thread, perhaps I can put in a serious note. Hubble finding something presently unidentifiable is fantastic. One of the best things you can hear in scientific circles is something along the lines of "What the hell is that?"

    1. Re:Well, Good by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "The most exciting phrase in science, the one that heralds a new discovery, is rarely "Eureka!" and more often "That's funny. It's not supposed to do that..."."

  26. Gamma rays and other frequencies by In+hydraulis · · Score: 5, Informative

    This object supposedly faded into existence over 100 days or so, and then took just as long to fade. I'm curious to know what frequency was the most intense during this time.

    Did we observe anything with our other space telescopes? Gamma ray burst?

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

    There are astronomical phenomena we've theorised to exist, but so far have had little if any observations of such. Take this little beauty:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark-nova

    Okay, so our astrophysicists are throwing that one out there. Perhaps we have seen a few - SN2006gy, SN2005gj, SN2005ap - but maybe we're kidding ourselves, and this is the Real Thing.

    What do we call it when a quasar effectively goes supernova? (Not hypernova, that is reserved for very large stars.) Could a quasar even do this?

    Perhaps what we've witnessed is the formation - or destruction - of a truly exotic object. And no, we don't have to resort to Dark Matter.

  27. Re:Is this for real??? by Gordo_1 · · Score: 5, Informative
  28. Hey! by Peet42 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Where did CERN go???

  29. Re:It's been there all along. by MozeeToby · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Except that the source couldn't have been more than 11 billion light years away (No distortion from intergalactic hydrogen) and the particle horizon is 13.6-13.9 billion light years away. Plus the fact that it faded away after about 100 days would seem to indicate it was some kind of event, not just an object.

  30. Probably not antimatter based on measured spectra by IdahoEv · · Score: 5, Informative

    IANAP, but my understanding is that the spectra emitted by matter/antimatter annihilation is fairly well-understood, and that most of the energy is carried in very high frequencies, like gamma rays.

    Meanwhile, if you scan through the paper itself (arXiv link is downthread), they discuss spectra and absorption bands that are roughly similar to other stellar events in overall energy profile; a lot of it was in the visible spectrum.

    My admittedly very poor understanding is that an M/AM event would look roughly like a gamma-ray burst, whereas this looked a lot more like a nova, albeit a very unusual one that didn't match any known profile.

    The authors' best suggestion was a stellar merger event of unknown type.

    Corrections from people who know astrophysics better than I would be quite appreciated...

    --
    I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
  31. Quasi-space portal by Junta · · Score: 4, Funny

    It happens pretty regularly, go through and we should be able to ask the Arilou what the hell they have been doing to Earth all this time.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  32. Re:Probably not antimatter based on measured spect by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm shocked that it took this many posts for a reasonable response to pop up. Yowza. Slashdot is losing its touch.

    Meanwhile, if you scan through the paper itself (arXiv link is downthread), they discuss spectra and absorption bands that are roughly similar to other stellar events in overall energy profile; a lot of it was in the visible spectrum.

    You're right, it appears that the energy peaked in the infrared spectrum. Which is not at all consistent with antimatter annihilation.

    My next best guess would be a failed star birth. If there was enough hydrogen collecting to ignite, but nothing that lit it from where we could see, the star would appear to simply come into existence. Of course, that raises all kinds of questions about how a star could ignite without sufficient fuel to sustain it. Unless the trigger was some other event. e.g. If we poured enough energy into Jupiter (say, terrawatt lasers), would it be possible to briefly ignite the gas giant?

    Hmm... it's tough to come up with ideas without venturing out into the land of "maybes". Which is all idle speculation unless one is willing to test the theory in some manner. (Either crunch the numbers or run an experiment to determine the viability of such concepts.)

  33. It's a dyson beacon by 0xABADC0DA · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How insightful can a comment be when even the NASA astronomers don't know what it is? It's a post of ignorance, i.e. there's nothing more to be said unless someone has more data.

    When the experts have no clue that's when they need a shot of imagination from some laymen -- enough crazy hairbrained ideas and something might stick.

    Personally, I think it's a dyson sphere composed of satellites that is set to 'shutter' over a long period (by rotating flat sattelites to allow light to pass). It's probably counting primes from 1 to 101 over the course of a few years by blinking on/off.

    Think about it, if you want to get the attention of very distant aliens you need massive power of a sun, and you need a signal that changes gradually so that aliens studying that particular star see the change if actively studying it, or that see the change over a long time when doing sweeps of the area (present in this image, but not in the images a year later, etc). Tweak the spectrum using the material of your dyson sphere itself to add interest by making it not look like anything else.