Slashdot Mirror


Gamma Ray Mystery Reestablished By Fermi Telescope

eldavojohn writes "New observations from NASA's Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope reveal that our assumptions about the 'fog' of gamma rays in our universe are not entirely explained by black hole-powered jets emanating from active galaxies — as we previously hypothesized. For now, the researchers are representing the source of unaccounted gamma rays with a dragon (as in 'here be') symbol. A researcher explained that they are certain about this, given Fermi's observations: 'Active galaxies can explain less than 30 percent of the extragalactic gamma-ray background Fermi sees. That leaves a lot of room for scientific discovery as we puzzle out what else may be responsible.' And so we reopen the chapter on background gamma-rays in the science textbooks and hope this eventually sheds even more light on other mysteries of space — like star formation and dark matter."

95 comments

  1. The Cause of the Extra Gamma Radiation is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Cylons
    2. The Death Star
    3. Doomsday Machines
    4. Xeelee
    5. The Blight
    6. Lensmen
    7. Ancient slaver technology
    8. Jarts
    9. Something even worse

    1. Re:The Cause of the Extra Gamma Radiation is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's obviously just a bigger black hole...

    2. Re:The Cause of the Extra Gamma Radiation is... by damien_kane · · Score: 1

      9. Something even worse

      Daleks
      Nasty creatures, they are...

    3. Re:The Cause of the Extra Gamma Radiation is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those are all wrong. Judging by the fact that they named it "dragons", we can safely predict that the source really is from Dragons, as in the vast, malevolent, cosmic telepathic entities that exist in the dark gulf between the stars in Cordwainer Smith's Instrumentality of Mankind universe.

        In which case we need to start training teams of telepathic people and cats to send out in Pinlighter ships to blast those nasty things with bright lights, destroying them, and thus protecting our skip vessels' passengers from being psychically blasted to death by these vast, mindless evils.

        (As in Smith's classic short story, _A Game of Rat and Dragon_.)

    4. Re:The Cause of the Extra Gamma Radiation is... by dwye · · Score: 1
    5. Re:The Cause of the Extra Gamma Radiation is... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      "Page Not FoundSorry, but the page or book you tried to access is unavailable.

      We are gradually updating all eBooks older than #10.000, and in the process, moving them to a new filing system.

      Please use the site map to find what you are looking for. You can search for a book. We apologize for the inconvenience. Thanks for visiting Project Gutenberg, and happy reading!

      Web site copyright © 2003-2009 Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation -- All Rights Reserved."

    6. Re:The Cause of the Extra Gamma Radiation is... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      You do realize dragons, in reality, are far more formidable than the lame, stupid bags of hitpoints in various online games, don't you? A godlike genius combined with millenia to hone magical skills nobody this side of 22,000 year old Gandalf can dream of on top of a body that can rip a true ogre in half?

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    7. Re:The Cause of the Extra Gamma Radiation is... by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

        The Heechee, of course. Duh :)

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    8. Re:The Cause of the Extra Gamma Radiation is... by dwye · · Score: 1
      BUGGER!

      Well, Google "Cordwainer Smith" and cat and it came up on top. The URL that I gave WAS what I had in my browser window.

    9. Re:The Cause of the Extra Gamma Radiation is... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      moving them to a new filing system.

      Please use the site map to find what you are looking for

      rewrite_map, bitches.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    10. Re:The Cause of the Extra Gamma Radiation is... by AshtangiMan · · Score: 1

      It's Xenu's intergalactic war on volcanoes.

    11. Re:The Cause of the Extra Gamma Radiation is... by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 1

      You do realise dragons, in reality, don't exist.

      And neither does magic.

      Nor Gandalf.

      Nor ogres.

      --
      Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
      altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
    12. Re:The Cause of the Extra Gamma Radiation is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wat

      That has absolutely nothing to do with my post. Cordwainer Smith's "dragons" are, as I said, vast telepathic cloud entities that exist in the black void between the stars, mindless yet malevolent.

      I said nothing about froo-froo fantasy dragons, much less the dumbed-down world of MMORPGs.

      Please to be gaining of reading comprehension for happy fun success in future of slashdot for the reading!

  2. Why is it a mystery? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's the same explanation to the paradox why is the sky dark at night.

    1. Re:Why is it a mystery? by mrsquid0 · · Score: 3, Informative

      It is quite the opposite in fact. The problem is that there is more gamma-ray emission than can be explained by the sources that we know about. The dark sky paradox arises because there is not as much optical light as one would expect given an infinite universe.

      --
      Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
    2. Re:Why is it a mystery? by meerling · · Score: 0

      I know you are just trying to make a joke, but please try to hit above 2nd grade science.

      The sky is dark everywhere that doesn't have sufficient atmosphere and light to create the light scattering effect (don't remember proper name) that makes our daytime sky look blue. It's a similar effect to a prism splitting light into it's separate spectrum, but a little more complicate with nitrogen absorption and a few other things. You ever wonder why the daytime sky seems to change color when the sun gets to an extreme relative angle? (i.e. sunset)

    3. Re:Why is it a mystery? by Opyros · · Score: 1

      don't remember proper name

      Rayleigh scattering.

    4. Re:Why is it a mystery? by dwye · · Score: 1

      The Dark Sky Mystery to which OP refers is the question that why, if the Universe is infinite, is the night sky dark, since everywhere that one looks one should eventually run into a star, given a random distribution. It ignores the effect of dust absorbing light, that the Universe THAT WE CAN SEE is rather less than infinite (even if one assumes an infinite Universe), and that stars are not distributed randomly since most are in galaxies and galactic clusters (and thus end to clump together, instead of spread apart).

    5. Re:Why is it a mystery? by VoiceInTheDesert · · Score: 1

      Isn't it also possible that there are more Black Holes than we are currently aware of? It seems just as likely as something completely different that we also don't know about.

    6. Re:Why is it a mystery? by mrsquid0 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, but accretion onto black holes gives of X-rays and radio signals. If there were significantly more supermassive black holes we should be detecting them. Now, Swift is finding a lot more active galactic nuclei (which are powered by black hole accretion) than we previously knew about, but still not enough to explain the gamma-ray excess.

      --
      Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
    7. Re:Why is it a mystery? by VoiceInTheDesert · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It just seems to me that there could be black holes that we simply are unable to detect. In the end, it doesn't matter, because the end result is "we don't know." I just get picky when scientists say "we know this," because current science is just our best theory at the moment. Good theories? Absolutely. But I think saying things like "we know" discourage full exploration of a mystery because you're already eliminating one possibility without considering that your initial assumption about that fact may be wrong.

    8. Re:Why is it a mystery? by FTWinston · · Score: 1

      It just seems to me that there could be black holes that we simply are unable to detect.

      Indeed, but its only the active ones (I.E. ones emitting gamma rays as they munch stuff) that actually emit the gamma rays in question.
      And black holes that aren't emitting gamma rays aren't a terribly plausible source of gamma rays.

  3. Three words to explain it: by RabidMoose · · Score: 2, Funny

    Alien exhaust fumes.

    BAM! I just proved the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life. What do I win?

    1. Re:Three words to explain it: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A free 3 day stay alone in a padded rubber room?

    2. Re:Three words to explain it: by ijakings · · Score: 1

      I think its clear that you win the internet.

    3. Re:Three words to explain it: by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Alien exhaust fumes.

      You're blaming the Peruvians? I've heard that their environmental laws are a bit lax, but come on now!

    4. Re:Three words to explain it: by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Or, more accurately, he wins as many hours on the Internet as he wants.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    5. Re:Three words to explain it: by BraksDad · · Score: 1

      I thought it was ALF all along ALien Fumes.

      --
      Slowly waving my hand - "This is not the sig you are looking for."
  4. Black by florescent_beige · · Score: 4, Funny

    Caveat: I am not a cosmetologist. Not even a cosmologist although I dated one once. Cosmetologist I mean. So I think that my insights into outer space and whatnot, well, have a great deal of validity.

    To wit, wherein TFS claims "we previously hypothesized" etc etc actually no we didn't I went and read TF old article and I distinctly notice it talks about the galaxy and not the universe which to my understanding are different classifications of entities altogether.

    Having typed all that I have to concede that I forgot what I was going to say. So I'll say this: what's with all the black in outer space anyway. Black holes, black energy, black matter, even the nothing part is black. Black black black. It's depressing.

    --
    Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
    1. Re:Black by AndrewBC · · Score: 5, Funny

      I see a red dwarf and I want it painted black...

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

      Racist?

    3. Re:Black by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      So I'll say this: what's with all the black in outer space anyway. Black holes, black energy, black matter, even the nothing part is black. Black black black. It's depressing.

      Thus the old astrophysicist saying: "Always bet on black".

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    4. Re:Black by thomst · · Score: 1

      The "new black" is gamma.

      --
      Check out my novel.
    5. Re:Black by RealErmine · · Score: 1

      It's like, how much more black could it be? And the answer is none. None more black.

      --
      Dewey, you fool! Your decimal system has played right into my hands!
    6. Re:Black by OldSoldier · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So I'll say this: what's with all the black in outer space anyway. Black holes, black energy, black matter, even the nothing part is black. Black black black. It's depressing.

      I know you meant this in jest, but it's a surprising legitimate question. (or at least it was.)

    7. Re:Black by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Black black black. It's depressing.

      Black* is beautiful, baby! Maybe that's whay all the white kids annoying attempt to emulate black people. Black is the absense of light, without light you can't see the ugliness.

      Interestingly, in China white is the color of mourning.

      *Disclaimer -- I'm white

    8. Re:Black by evilviper · · Score: 1

      what's with all the black in outer space anyway. Black holes, black energy, black matter, even the nothing part is black. Black black black. It's depressing.

      "Dark" means we have no idea WTF it is.

      Dark matter means our equations don't work, and the movements we can observer show there's additional matter out there, but we can't see it.

      Dark energy means, notwithstanding the previous "dark" entity, our equations STILL DON'T WORK, so besides that extra mass, there's extra energy out there, too, which we also can't see.

      Black holes are the original "dark matter" but instead of being spread uniformly across the universe, they're impossible objects at specific points in space...

      Yes, how much we don't know is certainly depressing. Even more so when people go on and on about what we think we're sure of, and ignoring all of the above.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    9. Re:Black by dwarfsoft · · Score: 1

      Holly: Well, the thing about a black hole - its main distinguishing feature - is it's black. And the thing about space, the colour of space, your basic space colour, is black. So how are you supposed to see them?
      Rimmer: But five of them? . How can you manage to miss five black holes?
      Holly: It's always the way, isn't it? You wait three million years for one to come along, then all of a sudden five turn up at once.

      --
      Cheers, Chris
  5. Oh No! by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Funny

    This unexplained Gamma Ray Cloud is maki n_g___ M_ e____A_n__G__R___Y_____!

    Rarr!!!

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:Oh No! by ozbird · · Score: 1

      Gamma Ray Fog of War?

  6. Galactic Brownien Motion by CTalkobt · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's simple - it's brownian motion on a galactic scale...
    Mmmm .. Brownies... Me hungry.

    --
    There's a gorilla from Manilla whose a fella that stinks of vanilla and has salmonella.
    1. Re:Galactic Brownien Motion by jonadab · · Score: 1

      Brownies? All I want is a decent cup of tea.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
  7. Unexplained gamma rays are making me Curious!!!! by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

    Fermi Space Telescope deepens mystery of gamma rays. When Inquisitive Hulk get more curious, Hulk get stronger!

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  8. Heading for tomorrow by Cow+Jones · · Score: 3, Funny

    The interesting thing about space telescopes is that they allow you to look into the past. For example, here's what gamma rays looked like 20 years ago - they're near the bluish spectrum, heading towards our time, and they're wearing cheesy 80s style shades.

    --

    Ah, arrogance and stupidity, all in the same package. How efficient of you. -- Londo Mollari
    1. Re:Heading for tomorrow by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      All telescopes allow you to see in the past. If you look at our closest neighbor, you see it from four years ago. Actually, it is impossible to see the present even with the naked eye -- everything you see is light that was reflected off of something, and the spped of light id finite and measurable. Even the image of the screen you are looking at is a tiny fraction of a second old; it is from the past.

    2. Re:Heading for tomorrow by Entropy2016 · · Score: 1

      I take it you didn't bother clicking the image which your parent-post linked?

    3. Re:Heading for tomorrow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you look at our closest neighbor, you see it from four years ago ...

      Ok, then why does the restraining order have today's date? OH crap, you meant celestial neighbor.

    4. Re:Heading for tomorrow by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      No, but I thought I'd seen the image before, and besides it didn't matter to the point I was making.

    5. Re:Heading for tomorrow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your point was "I'm a pedantic asshat," you made it well.

  9. Ferengi Telescope? by nacturation · · Score: 1

    I thought the title said "... By Ferengi Telescope", so I'll go with your alien story!

    --
    Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
  10. Heliopause by saider · · Score: 1

    Perhaps it is a faint glow from the heliopause?

    --


    Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
    1. Re:Heliopause by forand · · Score: 1

      The article is rather bad about conflating observation of an isotropic intensity with something inherently extra-galactic. That being said emission due to cosmic ray interactions confined by the heliopause have been predicted and aside from being too faint it is also anisotropic.

    2. Re:Heliopause by Remus+Shepherd · · Score: 1

      It would probably be non-isotropic then, with a seasonal variation as the Earth orbits. I'm sure that would have been noticed.

      --
      Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
    3. Re:Heliopause by matang · · Score: 1

      the universe is awful old to be going through heliopause. it would explain the hot flashes though.

    4. Re:Heliopause by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Maybe the universe is in menopause? No, that would only explain its heat and crabbiness. Maybe it's pregnant? That would explain its glow!

  11. The Gamma Rays, are making me thirsty!! by Zen_Sorcere · · Score: 1

    That's all I got, sorry.

  12. The Nothing by vorlich · · Score: 1

    The Nothing, whilst dominated by sand and possibly beetles, is of course anything but black...

    --
    Posts, MyBio or Sig, may contain satire, sarcasm, bolded nouns be sardonic or even witty & be Church of SD
    1. Re:The Nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So we just need Bastian to go to a window and yell out something unintelligible? Historically, that's the only thing that's been able to stop The Nothing.

      The real question though... Do I wish for Falcor to be a different color, or make him taste like he looks (like cotton candy)?

  13. "Bubble" Universes by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 3, Funny

    I've always had a theory that the Extra Gamma ray bursts are the creation of Universes. This is a continuous processes.

    About 30 years ago, I figured the "Hubble Constant" would be found to be increasing, because the Universe, would be attracted to these "outer Universes" through Gravity (but it doesn't work at all how it is presented in Physics) -- but ALSO, that Space/Time was growing itself, and this would change the laws of Physics over time. The extra gravity of galaxies, that APPEARS to be explained by Dark Matter, is really a bleed-through of gravity from these other Universes. It is non-localized and cannot be explained by counting particles, but the existence of so many particles, creates a zone where the Gravity is more likely to bleed through. Thus, more cumulative mass than the actual mass in the system.

    There are cases where you can get a "shadow" a blank area of space, that has gravity, but no particles. It has to do with a "superposition" of other Galaxies with ours. They don't exist in the same space, but they would have an AFFINITY, for a position in space. Such loosely bound but massive forces of gravity, might be used to MOVE massive objects like stars. I've got a lot of VERY simple theories that are only difficult to understand because they are completely alien to anything I've heard. The Multiverse Theory of Quantum Mechanics where all states are possible -- is the REAL CLUE to how General Relativity is not a contradiction. We DO NOT have spontaneously spawned Multiverses, because they all RESOLVE to only one, that satisfies equal and opposite forces. Existence, is merely the convergence of all possible states with the ONLY ONE, that satisfies the conditions. Physics itself -- is NOT a law that controls ANYTHING, it's the byproduct. There is only ONE thing -- space/time, and it's interference with itself creates discrete and opposite 4 Dimensional ripples. This interference with each other and we see as the 4 dimensions we exist in -- but they are a "matrix of oscillations." The in-and out flow of Space/Time into this Universe is through discrete "holes" in the oscillating boundaries that we call particles and all the forces in physics can easily be explained by this one interaction.

    So when there is a "big bang" for a created Universe or an "inverting one" -- we get a Gamma Ray burst. You can't LOCATE the new Universe, because distance and location OUTSIDE of a Universe is meaningless -- thus, they have no relative location with each other, but they do have AFFINITY, with influences on Light and Gravity, since Space/Time are a property "in-between" all Universes and what we call Particles the movement of this space/time is what creates the phenomena that we think of as light and gravity.

    --
    >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    1. Re:"Bubble" Universes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, nice post. And I really like your awesome website.

    2. Re:"Bubble" Universes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoa, that's deep dude. Pass the bong.

    3. Re:"Bubble" Universes by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I've always had a theory that the Extra Gamma ray bursts are the creation of Universes.

      It's not testable, so it's not a theory. It's a hypothesis. </pedant>

      but ALSO, that Space/Time was growing itself, and this would change the laws of Physics over time.

      If they are growing at the same rate, how aould that change the laws of physics?

      At any rate, it was an interesting comment and should have been modded as such.

    4. Re:"Bubble" Universes by CTalkobt · · Score: 2, Funny
      Dude - I still don't understand what you just said.
      Since this might be in code I took all the capitalized words to mean something and got :

      ALSO APPEARS AFFINITY.

      MOVE!

      VERY REAL CLUE!

      DO NOT RESOLVE!

      ONLY ONE NOT ANYTHING.

      ONE LOCATE OUTSIDE AFFINITY.

      I added punctuation for my clarity ... so other than telling me to move, get a clue and that there's 1 affinity I'm still not sure what you're saying...

      --
      There's a gorilla from Manilla whose a fella that stinks of vanilla and has salmonella.
    5. Re:"Bubble" Universes by tqk · · Score: 1

      I've always had a theory that the Extra Gamma ray bursts are the creation of Universes

      It's not testable, so it's not a theory. It's a hypothesis.

      "String Theory" ring any bells (ignoring its controversy ftm)? This is English. We steal from everyone else, mangle to taste, appall those we it stole from, then carry on. What do Giovanni Caboto, Jean Cabot, and John Cabot have in common?

      We also plow vast piles of cash at planck scale potentialities (string theory), but that's a human condition.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    6. Re:"Bubble" Universes by Naedst · · Score: 1

      Dude - I still don't understand what you just said.

      About 3/4 of the way through I was sure it was going to be a Yo Mumma's so Fat joke... maybe it was and he just forgot the punchline?

    7. Re:"Bubble" Universes by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      I'm only looking for ONE person to get what I'm saying -- because I realize that I'm out there on the edge, and people well versed in science are also afraid of looking like an idiot -- I am not however, because I've been right about more ideas than I care to count. Later, when I explain that I was in 6th grade trying to get someone to understand my idea of using fiber optics to do surgery in the body, or how right-angled inverse sound waves could muffle sound -- well, I was ignored then, and mentioning it now sounds like a person talking out of their ass. Laugh at the fool if you must - only, try to entertain another point of view you might not have come across.

      "Universe creation resulting in Gamma Ray bursts is not testable." Sure it is -- you don't know how, nor the concepts, so you assume that it isn't. A UNIVERSE, is only a dimensional system where forces balance to create something that exists. There a Universes inside of ours -- but they don't interact directly. But we can manipulate forces that manipulate other forces -- and that's a long conversation.

      "All particles in the Universe are shrinking and this will change physics." Well, that's what's going on with the Hubble Constant. There were very discrete changes in physics if you look at "A Timeline of the Big Bang." When the Universe was too hot to have light or electrons -- it also had different rules for physics. You can explain it by saying "it was too hot for atoms" or you an say the Universe did not yet support a state of matter. But you had periods of stability, where all this "stuff" that filled every point in this Universe, behaved one way, and then in an instant, everything behaves differently.

      I have made a lot of predictions on why this is important, and what will happen as the Universe Ages. I'm sorry if my "vocabulary" seems to be stealing from String Theory. I've read a bit of that, but decided to stay away, because it was too dependent on gobbledy-gook words, and complicated math, that distracted me from JUST THINKING how things work. The problem is; if anyone spends 12 years breaking their brains on someone else's theories -- they might become pretty ossified as to what is and isn't possible.

      I'd say for example, in my experience; Most Doctors, don't want to listen to their "stupid" patients -- but the GOOD ONES, know that everything they know could be wrong, and stick to the best way while searching for a better one.

      >> My capitalizations, are to indicate "BOLD LETTERS" because I've gotten too used to blogs without any HTML formatting.

      >> As String theory talks about "Branes" -- I just talk about a Top and Bottom group of 4 dimensions. The Universe is kind of binary -- like an Hourglass, and space/time is what powers it -- so as the sand flows DOWN in the hourglass, MORE SAND (space) fills up the lower chamber. Eventually, the sand is all used up, and its time to flip the hourglass -- it INVERTS, and all particles become "coherent" or at the same sub-space frequency.

      I wrote a heck of a lot more than this, and paired it down -- a LOT. But, for most theories I'm proposing, I can construct simple pass-fail tests of them. I think I could BLOCK gravity, with the right setup with coherent light interfering with itself. And yeah, I think I've got a few tricks for getting to those sub-planck-length distances. The "final coherent state" of the Universe, has a lot to do with what I call "Coherent Matter" -- much as a laser is at the same frequency, you can create COLDER matter, not by removing all vibration (heat), but by "tuning" the matter to a coherent "dimensional frequency." Though, admittedly, current scientists ARE making things colder by damping them with Lasers -- however, I figured that out years before they did (probably they did as well -- it's TOUGH to make things actually work in the real world), but I know that there is another phase of matter, that has new properties. When I say "AFFINITY" I'm talking about matter that has the same sub-space frequency. You can teleport obje

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    8. Re:"Bubble" Universes by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      I have the distinct feeling you've said something witty, but I think I'd have to google a lot of Cabots to know for sure.

      You might be saying; "Lots of money has gone to String Theory, and it doesn't really have a Proof yet." So thanks, I think.

      At some point, there is Authoritative Wild Ass Speculation, mine is merely Arm-Chair Scientist Wild Ass Speculation. In a Universe of possibility -- I think we stand on the same firm ground that exists and does not exist unless observed. ;-)

      My BIG difference with String Theory, has got to be that I see these fundamental particles, not as STRINGS, but infinite sized sheets that have a vortex in the middle. It's like space-time pulling itself inside-out. Space spews out of one "pole" and gets sucked back in the other. It is constantly flipping back and forth, but the BOUNDARY it encompasses, has no dimension of size -- so it oscillates "OUTSIDE" this Universe. So I borrow the term "sub-space" to talk about this internal interference.

      From the outside, it MIGHT appear as a particle -- but it's a folded chunk of space/time -- and internal ECHO of the Big Bang -- which makes a hell of a lot of sense on why particles appear finite -- the ALL have the same common boundary -- our UNIVERSE outside, is likely the same as these particles sub-space on the "inside." And because these dimensions are only bound by AFFINITY and POSITION, which are only properties from the Interface of the fundamental particle (folded space-time field) then all particles in the Universe could very possibly be the SAME particle, and it could actually be the OUTSIDE of the Universe itself. So I'm talking about "inverse vacuums" and String Theory has worm-holes and wiggling strings. But other than that, there are a lot of similarities in function.

      Anyway, I don't like the aesthetics of a "wiry and hair Universe." Our Universe is comprised of soft, fuzzy spinning pin-wheels going down the rabbit hole.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    9. Re:"Bubble" Universes by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      That is the most pleasant way to say "bullshit" I've yet come across. Thanks, I suppose, for at least being gentle.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    10. Re:"Bubble" Universes by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      If I merely inspired someone to waste the time to pull out THINGS IN CAPITAL LETTERS.

      Meh.

      I could try explaining something I see visually better -- but would anyone bother holding out that long? So I keep it brief hoping that there is enough interest to see more.

      I really am NOT trying to push an idea of an "Electric Universe." Einstein was elegant and didn't pull ideas out of rabbit-holes. Relativity is sublime but it also stops at explaining how objects aren't constantly gaining mass as they accelerate in one vector or another.

      Again, this sounds like nonsense until you really stop and think; from the background radiation -- we ASSUME what is our general motion relative to the Universe -- because there are no fixed points. Acceleration, is the same thing to mass "relatively" as is a large gravity field. However -- is it the NET motion in the system -- or only acceleration RELATIVE to other objects?

      Einstein crushed the concept of the "Aether" but then again -- by NOT having particles exchanging relative velocities or two particle moving apart having more acceleration that two objects moving in parallel -- it kind of begs for an "Aether" or a substrate to be RELATIVE to. What is moving, in a gravity field, to ACT like acceleration? And why is there still MASS increase, if you accelerate INTO a Gravity Field?

      There seems to be a clue in "critical velocity." In Earth's gravity field, it;s something like 9.8 M/S/S (long time since College physics I'm afraid). Above that speed -- an object does NOT increase it's speed. If you added rocket power to that object, it would have acceleration and increase mass. When I imagine the distortion the gravity makes on space/time it is NOT just in that two-dimensional sheet, it's better to imagine it as "water pressure." The trap of our well-known physics models is that we keep treading over the same ground.

      So, the THEORY I propose, is that Acceleration is irrespective of the system the object is moving in -- it is intrinsically, a force created by the object being accelerated with it's own internal sub-space. Mass, in a gravity field, is the SYSTEM surrounding an object, causing PRESSURE, on the forces of sub-space emanating from the object it is acting upon. You can compute each separately, and then the vectors.

      For instance, our galaxy is moving at something like 640,000 Miles per second -- something astronomical - I forget the exact rate, against the Background standard. Under General Relativity, it SHOULD mean, that a rocket heading from dead space (without a close gravity field) is going to use more fuel going a the same distance in one direction (with the galactic vector) as going the opposite direction due to the effects of relativity (approaching the SPEED LIMIT of light). Even though that influence is going to be small -- as the object approaches the speed of light, the very small difference between .99999 the speed of light and 1.0 the speed of light becomes increasingly larger.

      My theory, also would support, Mass-less acceleration, if you could redirect the sub-space pressure or stop it from interacting with other masses. Anyway, that's a longer conversation and I have to get going.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    11. Re:"Bubble" Universes by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > It's not testable, so it's not a theory. It's a hypothesis.

      If you're going to be pedantic, at least get it right.

      A theory is something that has already *been* tested, repeatedly. A hypothesis still has to be testable. An assertion that is neither is simply called "an idea".

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    12. Re:"Bubble" Universes by w0mprat · · Score: 1

      It's not testable, so it's not a theory. It's a hypothesis.

      A hypothesis is testable or it's not really a valid hypothesis.

      A theory is an explaination that best fits the observed facts.

      Conjecture is anything plausible given known facts, but not necessarily testable.

      Meh, definitions vary, but thats how I like it.

      --
      After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
    13. Re:"Bubble" Universes by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      "String Theory" ring any bells (ignoring its controversy ftm)? This is English.

      "String theory" always struck a raw nerve with me. When you're talking to someone in a redneck bar (as I often do), saying "my theory is she's [whatever]) is perfectly valid, but in a technical forum like slashdot or worse, in a scientific paper, saying "theory" when you mean "hypothesis" (as in "string throry", AARG!) is bad bad bad.

      We also plow vast piles of cash at planck scale potentialities

      I see nothing wrong with that. Maybe some day the hypothesis will become testable, and become a true theory.

    14. Re:"Bubble" Universes by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      Forgive me,

      I've been corrupted by blogging on Digg so I speak "ID10T" quite fluently.

      Of course I KNOW what "Hypothesis" and "Theory" are -- but it's pretty ridiculous in normal every day speech to say; "My Hypothesis." It's kind of a given if someone is saying "My Theory is" it is a caveat, and this is not considered a publicly accepted theory. I have some Proof only for myself.

      And you understood as much -- but I didn't guess that was the issue with some others, because they knew enough to NOT say; "What is this 'My Theory' you speak of?"

      I'll try the grammar checkers and convert to geek speak whenever possible -- but I can't promise anything.

      >> By the way, is; We also plow vast piles of cash at planck scale potentialities something to do with my mentioning Planck-lengths or is that a common slogan you use because it's one of the smaller things you can try and squeeze hundred dollar bills into?

      -- thanks for the conversation,
      Mark

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    15. Re:"Bubble" Universes by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      ;)

  14. Annihalating Dark Matter by physburn · · Score: 1
    If not black hole jets then the astrophysicists next bet will be annilihating Dark matter. The symmetric LSP light symmetric particle has been a dark matter candiate for some twenty year. This gamma ray job could be LSP's annilhating but only if the have the gamma rays match with the galactic halos.

    ---

    Dark Matter Feed @ Feed Distiller

    1. Re:Annihalating Dark Matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Annihalating AntiMatter is more like it. Since we don't know experimentally how antimatter reacts gravitationally to itself or regular matter, I propose that antimatter repels antimatter and regular matter. Regular matter may repel or attract antimatter - not sure which. Anyway, this leads to an intergalactic cloud of antimatter - probably anti-hydrogen thereby explaining the assumed imbalance of matter/antimatter. It also explains the gamma ray background, as annihilation primarily at the edge of the galaxy. The repulsive gravitational force also explains the phenomena usually attributed to "dark energy". So there you go, the solution to a number of cosmic mysteries. Too bad I'm not logged in to take the credit.

    2. Re:Annihalating Dark Matter by FTWinston · · Score: 1

      Question: Do you know what makes antimatter different from "normal" matter? Or are you proposing (entirely without evidence) that there is some other difference, apart than the difference in electric charge?

      You'd need negative (actual) mass for gravity to be attractive - and that's an impossibility pretty much by definition, by my understanding.

  15. Obviously... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... farts from the FSM!

  16. I don't think that's really the answer, though by sean.peters · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Let's run through these:

    • Absorption by dust: doesn't really solve the problem, as over an infinite period of time, the dust would heat up to the same temperature as the stars behind it, and begin radiating itself.
    • The universe "that we see" is not infinite: this seems to beg the question. Why don't we see all of it? (but with this one you're getting somewhere... see below)
    • Stars not evenly distributed. It's true that at distance scales of up to the size of galaxy superclusters, stars are not evenly distributed. But over larger scales, this lumpiness goes away. If you trace it out far enough, every point should still trace out to the surface of a star.

    As usual, Wikipedia knows all, but in a nutshell, there are a couple of possible explanations for the "paradox". Among them: 1) star formation has not been in progress for an infinite period of time, so it would seem to be the case that in fact, not every point in the sky can be traced back to the surface of a star. And 2) the universe is expanding at an inflationary pace - that means some stars are receding beyond our ability to see them, because the space between us and them is expanding faster than the light can go through it. Another way to look at this is that the light has become so red-shifted that it's not detectable any more. Either way, the second bullet above hints at the answer - we really DON'T see the whole universe.

    1. Re:I don't think that's really the answer, though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I prefer the fractal explanation, an analogy to Cantor dust. You can have an infinite perfect set that is nowhere dense, and seeing that the CMB and galaxy spin distributions seem to point to an ansiotropic universe the objection to a fractal universe in the Olbers' paradox entry is irrelevant.

  17. A WHAT symbol?! by aussersterne · · Score: 1

    Okay, maybe this is where I inadvertently let on that I'm not a physicist, but what is a "dragon here be" symbol?!

    --
    STOP . AMERICA . NOW
    1. Re:A WHAT symbol?! by deltharius · · Score: 1

      That's OK. You want to be a medieval cartographer, not a physicist. Old maps would have things like "here be dragons" on them in unknown, unexplored regions. So, they are just marking the unknown, unexplained gamma rays as the 'dragons' on the map.

    2. Re:A WHAT symbol?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    3. Re:A WHAT symbol?! by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > Okay, maybe this is where I inadvertently let on that I'm
      > not a physicist, but what is a "dragon here be" symbol?!

      Actually, what you just let on is that you're not a computer geek. (You can turn in your card and Slashdot ID later.)

      "Here be dragons", from the symbols on ancient maps, is what computer geeks say when they don't understand why a given section of source code is doing what it's doing. Just as ancient peoples found it dangerous to stray beyond the edge of their maps, any programmer worth his salt knows that it's dangerous to change code when you don't understand why it is the way it is, and for much the same reason: you're going beyond the edges of your knowledge, and you don't know what you'll find. Making changes to such code can end up breaking things you had no idea your change would impact at all.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
  18. It's the ether by Tzinger · · Score: 1

    See, Maxwell was right. Space contains ether. We just never figured out how to measure it. :)

    --
    "If all the American people want is security, let them live in prisons." Eisenhower
  19. I have a *hic* theory by Nazlfrag · · Score: 1

    My theory is that the matter:antimatter ratio in the universe is only violated on small solar-system sized scales and the interstellar medium is in a 1:1 ratio. The CMB and excess gamma rays are just remenants of matter:antimatter collisions at the bow shock of our solar system. We gain matter as fast as antimatter so there is no net loss, and we continue in our bubble of matter unmolested save for cosmic rays.

    What kicked this off for me is a few things. Seeing that photons are their own antiparticle and all of our observations about the universe outside our system are photon based, how could we know if we are looking at matter or antimatter? Wouldn't an antimatter system isolated by the interstellar medium behave identically to a matter one? Why is the CMB so uneven? Do we really need symmetry violation at the big bang to explain the universe?

    So guys, seeing as I came up with all this last night when I was rather drunk and am too hungover to work through it, how can I falsify this and sleep well again at night?

  20. Dark Matter Annihilation by MightyDrunken · · Score: 1

    The favoured particle for dark matter is currently the neutralino as it is likely to be the lightest supersymetric particle. It is believed that interactions with other neutralinos would cause annihilation of itself and create gamma rays. Of course you would expect the gamma rays to originate where the dark matter is concentrated which is currently thought to be the Galatic halo around a galaxy.

    Hopefully the LHC will uncover evidence for/against supersymmetry and answer many outstanding questions in physics.

  21. let's sing along... by mauhiz · · Score: 0

    I'm trapped in a castle of illusions out in space - No more illusions! Out in a journey, on a mission for the human race...

  22. While the fractal explanation... by sean.peters · · Score: 1

    ... would be a valid solution to the "paradox", the trouble is that there's no evidence that stars are distributed fractally at the largest distance scales. In fact, they seem to be uniformly distributed. While I'm not a cosmologist, I do make an effort to keep up with this stuff to the extent a layman can, and I haven't seen any results relating to either the CMB or galaxy spin distributions that show anisotropy in the universe. Got a reference?

    1. Re:While the fractal explanation... by sean.peters · · Score: 1

      Replying to myself, bad form. But for what it's worth, Wikipedia thinks the universe is isotropic.

  23. ITs SOOO simple I can NOT EXPLAIN it ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... pOOOOOf ... ... so NASA observes UNEVEN expansion of the universe, AND its expanding MUCH faster than the speed of light, which is TOTALLY baffling !?!?!?!

    Well, unless there is a shell of debris at the edge being pushed outwards which include many LARGE black holes as singularities, thus they actually feed on each other and accelerate the expansion, spew out massive amounts of Gama rays and generally carve up to dust any Starship Enterprises that try to enter that region of space !?!?!?!?!?
    Time is the key once AGAIN

      TIME is NOT a constant, it runs FASTER at the center of the universe and slower at the edges thus our INSISTENCE that it is constant makes the expansion APPEAR to be accelerating, IT IS NOT !!!
    It is the MEANING OF LIFE which confirms the GAME

      GOD is a cornucopia

      INTROSPECTION is the GAME, when the tail touches the brim ALL HELL BREAKS LOOSE !!!