Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Student Finds Universe's Missing Mass

Posted by Roblimo on from the she's-a-star-who-looks-at-stars dept.

An anonymous reader writes "A 22-year-old Australian university student has solved a problem which has puzzled astrophysicists for decades, discovering part of the so-called 'missing mass' of the universe during her summer break."

210 comments

  1. found it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    what'd she do, look behind her?

    never gets old

    1. Re:found it by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      I left it in my other pants...

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    2. Re:found it by obergfellja · · Score: 1

      missing mass or missing "ASS"?

  2. Somewhere in the back of the student fridge... by Lemming+Mark · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...mouldy bit it'll probably still be tasty if you scrape it off a bit.

    1. Re:Somewhere in the back of the student fridge... by Amphetam1ne · · Score: 1

      Was going to suggest down the back of sofa while searching for loose change.

      --
      I only buy pepper spray that's been tested on anti-vivisectionists.
    2. Re:Somewhere in the back of the student fridge... by blind+monkey+3 · · Score: 1

      There was a cry of OMG! that is seriously HUGE! Coming from her astrophysics lecturer's office just before she announced the discovery.

      --
      BM3
    3. Re:Somewhere in the back of the student fridge... by obergfellja · · Score: 1

      OMG! that is seriously HUGE!

      that's what she said, last night... ;)

    4. Re:Somewhere in the back of the student fridge... by mpeskett · · Score: 1

      Yes, well done, you've noticed the joke and rendered it into the most obvious format. Congratulations, really.

    5. Re:Somewhere in the back of the student fridge... by JAlexoi · · Score: 1

      She was high, I take it then?

  3. i know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

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

    gotcha:)

  4. Late to University, then? by dmomo · · Score: -1

    That missing mass is called "the Freshman 15", Doll.

    1. Re:Late to University, then? by rednip · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Wow a young woman seems to figure out one of the greatest mysteries of our era, you make a snarky comment implying that she's fat. That must be why there are so few 'geek' women, as the boys apparently go strait for the gut when a lady seems smarter than they. Sadly there doesn't seem to be much discussion about this that isn't sophomoric banter.

      --
      The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
    2. Re:Late to University, then? by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      The guy who followed the instructions to lay the bricks didn't design the cathedral.

      Nor did Fraser-Mckenzie "discover" the missing mass.

      But for some reason this undergrad has got most of the popular credit when the usual process is to give the underlings who did some grunt work no credit at all.

      Why is that?

    3. Re:Late to University, then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well have you seen her pictures? Nothing against her personally but she is quite heavy.

      Stereotypes usually exist for a reason.

    4. Re:Late to University, then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you even see her picture? She's quite attractive.

    5. Re:Late to University, then? by Nutria · · Score: 1

      That must be why there are so few 'geek' women, as the boys apparently go strait for the gut when a lady seems smarter than they. Sadly there doesn't seem to be much discussion about this that isn't sophomoric banter.

      Guys insult guys on a regular and persistent basis, but they don't break down, cut their hair and transfer to Womyn's Studies. (Or whatever young women do who can't hack male-dominated domains.)

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    6. Re:Late to University, then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, yes I did.

      "Quite" attractive? LOL, whatever buddy. I wouldn't call her ugly, more like "neutral chunky."

    7. Re:Late to University, then? by FlyingGuy · · Score: 1

      Why perhaps because she is humble and hard working?

      She says the ‘Eureka’ moment came after Dr Lazendic-Galloway examined the data collected. “Using her expert knowledge in the X-ray astronomy field, Jasmina reanalysed our results to find that we had in fact detected the filaments in our data, where previously we believed we had not.” Ms Fraser-McKelvie said in the press release.

      This breakthrough discovery in determining the amount of mass contained in the filaments, as scientists have been making deductions based on numerical models until now.

      Although she is still a year away from undertaking Honours, Ms Fraser-McKelvie’s work has been published in the prestigious scientific journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, a terrific achievement for an undergraduate. “Being a published author is very exciting for me, and something I could never have achieved without the help of both Kevin and Jasmina.” she said.

      “Their passion and commitment for this project ensured the great result and I am very thankful to them for all the help they have given me and time they have invested.”

      From the original article as posted on Science Illustrated's website.

      Emphasis is mine but the quotes clearly point out her level of gratitude and humbleness or would you like to attach some other meaning to it?

      --
      Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!
    8. Re:Late to University, then? by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      Are you implying that the reason most assistants don't receive majority credit is because they don't have enough "gratitude and humbleness"? That the mountains of grad students who often make an intellectual contribution beyond mere grunt work are ignored because they would refuse to acknowledge the contribution of their supervisor? And that it is fine to mislead the public as long as the subject is humble about it? Present your argument, please. Because what I see are dozens of articles implying that F-M was at the centre of the discovery when in fact she only made a minor contribution.

      Look at most scientific discoveries described in the press. Notice how they try, no matter how challenging, to describe the discovery rather than the person. Something is wrong here. What do you think it is?

    9. Re:Late to University, then? by FlyingGuy · · Score: 1

      Not sure on this point, but something is missing, at least I think we are missing some data to really decide if there is something else going on or not.

      While I think your question is valid, to a point, I think a lot of professors do not give credit where credit is due, or at least "page one credit". My own experience is with two professors at UC Berkeley who do give "page one credit" if it is truly due, but YMMV.

      I can only postulate that the young woman's role is not explained completely in the various articles and that it can only be determined if and when the lead researchers detail it.

      But if the leads on this were willing to place the young lady under the very bright light that will be cast upon this particular bit of research AND she is willing to be there then I can only really draw two conclusions:

      1. She DID discover something critical that lead to a re/closer examination of the data and thus the resultant paper.

      2. All three of them are really stupid by setting the young lady up for an epic fail when it turns out that she did nothing of note.

      If my first conclusion ( the one that I prefer to be correct ) is correct then she has a very promising career going forward as she progresses and the leads recognize this and being established researchers want to give her career a big boost and open doors for her that would not be open for your basic undergrad.

      I cannot see my second conclusion being correct for any reason since the two professors have a lot at risk here if the story is truly BS. In the scientific community your reputation is everything since if it is tarnished, especially in the attribution of serious scientific work, then getting your next grant would be in serious peril and few people would be willing to work with you.

      The only other thing that I can possibly imagine would be that they wanted some really good press on this and so they put here on the cover as eye candy. Given the magnitude of this discovery, everyone and I do mean everyone, is going to be crawling all over this work, I do not see any reason why they would need to do so since the work could have profound impact on a lot of things.

      --
      Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!
  5. Let me guess... by quarkoid · · Score: 0

    It was found down the back of the sofa - it's the first place one should look for missing things.

    1. Re:Let me guess... by biometrizilla · · Score: 1

      Nope, she saw Kim Kardashian walking away from her.

  6. missing mass in my pants by slashpot · · Score: -1

    I have a missing mass in my pants.

    1. Re:missing mass in my pants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a missing mass in my pants.

      Crapped yourself again, I take it? Sucks to get old.

    2. Re:missing mass in my pants by obergfellja · · Score: 1

      I have a missing mass in my pants.

      OMG! HE is now a SHE! 0_0

  7. I was behind the couch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    With Bob the dinosaur!

  8. Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    What was his name, and was he just here to play skeeball?

  9. Different perspective needed. by zoloto · · Score: 1

    Telescope must have been upside-down.

    1. Re:Different perspective needed. by Dog-Cow · · Score: 4, Funny

      Of course it was. She's Australian!

    2. Re:Different perspective needed. by rvw · · Score: 1

      Of course it was. She's Australian!

      I wonder what would have happened if she was Chinese!

    3. Re:Different perspective needed. by Myopic · · Score: 2

      Well, it would be very strange indeed if she "was" Chinese, and now isn't; but it can be interesting to think about if she "were" Chinese. /iamagrammarwhoresorry

  10. age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why is it that the younger the person who does something, the more special people think it is? I call it the "America's Got Talent" effect.

    Maybe Slashdot should start including the age of everyone mentioned. ("CEO of Microsoft, age 55, throws chair ... ")

    1. Re:age by hackertourist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Perhaps more surprising is the prof's willingness to share credit for the discovery with his student.

    2. Re:age by Kjella · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why is it that the younger the person who does something, the more special people think it is? I call it the "America's Got Talent" effect.

      At least in science it seems the body of human knowledge continues to expand. Like many of the math theorems that requires years of field theory and calculus to even understand WTF the theorem is about. Try for example reading the proof of Fermat's last theorem without developing a brain aneurysm. It's like they talk Greek and Latin and ancient Hebrew and something you could swear is alien.

      That young people still discover things is proof there's still low hanging fruit or that exceptional talent matters more than a PhD and 20 years of working with the subject matter. Of course there's many cookie cutter professors too but usually there are some that are exceptional talents and PhDs and have worked on it 20 years who has picked clean any reasonably accessible discovery.

      Same with for example physics, unless you're at the Tevatron or CERN it's unlikely you'll find any new elementary particles, add any new entries to the periodic table, build carbon nanotubes, high-temperature superconductors or anything else that will make a huge impact, compared to the relatively simple lab equipment 100 years ago. That's why the young ones are news, because they're the exceptions.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    3. Re:age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah. Let me put it this way: What do summer students become? Answer: Grad students. Who does all the actual work in science? Answer: Grad students. You work it out.

    4. Re:age by eepok · · Score: 1

      Maybe because it's a genuine rarity. Older, more knowledge professionals make more scientific progress than young people. When young people, who are otherwise assumed to be worthless or even detrimental to society do something to progress academia or society, it's a notable event.

    5. Re:age by Hadlock · · Score: 2

      Is it? Einstein, Hawking, Nietzsche all did their greatest work before they got older. The man who invented the technology for the original mammogram was 27. It was my understanding that if you didn't do anything great by the time you turn 30, you're unlikely to achieve anything of note after that. Particularly in theoretical and academic realms.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    6. Re:age by Ogive17 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That young people still discover things is proof there's still low hanging fruit or that exceptional talent matters more than a PhD and 20 years of working with the subject matter. Of course there's many cookie cutter professors too but usually there are some that are exceptional talents and PhDs and have worked on it 20 years who has picked clean any reasonably accessible discovery.

      What I think it means is that when you've been working on something so long you tend to lose focus on something obvious. It takes a fresh pair of eyes without a vested interest to make the connection.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    7. Re:age by cowboy76Spain · · Score: 1

      The power of ignorance. Seriously. At least in part.

      Young people are usually less likely to rely in the previous generation dogmas, so they test everything. By pure statistics, some of them are intelligent enough and point at a direction right enough to find a new answer that would have been passed over by older scientifics. Also, they may be more blunt because they don't have a status to defend (non-euclidean geometry was several times discovered but people found it too 'weird' and chose not to publicite it).

      A more biological explanation that also would affect is that young people are more used to new technologies, theories. Older brains are less flexible and so, even if they learn item X, probably won't see its repercussions as easily. and so on.

      Finally, old eminencies are expected to make new discoveries, so when they find the next big thing it comes as less of a surprise.

      --
      Why can't /. have a rich-text editor? Editing your own HTML is so XXth century.
    8. Re:age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The man who invented the technology for the original mammogram was 27.

      he just wanted to look at boobs...it was just a fortunate accident that he later found something else the machine could do.

    9. Re:age by Paracelcus · · Score: 0

      Today's physics has become (IMHO) less of a science and more of a religion, complete with dogma, heresy and punishments for non-conformist thinking. For the elites with their billion dollar research grants from government and industry, it's more about pursuing the ends of your patrons and less about whats really important!

      --
      I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
    10. Re:age by Bemopolis · · Score: 1

      That thing you call "dogma" is called "learning enough to know what the fuck you're talking about". And often enough, "non-conformist thinking" is better known as "bullshit from basement-dwelling crackpots". The trick to telling the difference, you see, is learning enough to know what the fuck you're talking about. And not wasting limited time, energy, and resources on the dogma-free non-conformist thinkers like yourselves.

      And yes, physicists are well-known for their extravagant, research grant-fueled lifestyles. When they're not, you know, knee deep in pussy at their Illuminati meetings.

      Idiot.

      --
      "I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
    11. Re:age by treeves · · Score: 1

      Most guys want to look at the OUTSIDE of them. He wanted to look at the INSIDE of them. That's worth something, isn't it?

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    12. Re:age by MaxBooger · · Score: 1

      Is it? Einstein, Hawking, Nietzsche all did their greatest work before they got older. The man who invented the technology for the original mammogram was 27. It was my understanding that if you didn't do anything great by the time you turn 30, you're unlikely to achieve anything of note after that. Particularly in theoretical and academic realms.

      That's exactly right!

      Look at Dr. Richard Daystrom, invented duotronics at the age of 24! Then for a quarter of a century, nothing. That is, until at age 49 he demonstrated the M-5... and everyone remembers what happened with that thing, right? Right? </nerd>

    13. Re:age by Unkyjar · · Score: 2

      I'd say that's worth at least a few sessions with a psychiatrist.

    14. Re:age by eepok · · Score: 1

      And there you have your outliers that got famous because they did amazing work while young... now name all the people who did great things after the age of 30.

      Ya, you'll see that the "after-30" crowd blows away the "young" crowd. Young people doing great things surprises people because it's not expected of them.

    15. Re:age by cowboy76Spain · · Score: 1

      What I call dogma is dogma. It exists, even in science (or better, amongst scientifics). Just a few examples:

      Lord Kelvin rejected the idea of radioactivity.

      Darwinism was opposed not only by creationists, but also by evolutionists that felt that evolution had to have more sense than just a wild trial and error (v.g. lamarckists).

      "A few atoms will never be able to light a match"

      Quantum physics were opposed by scientifics who wanted a more "deterministic" model.

      Relativity

      Of course, I am not saying that just not being so influenced by the dogma makes young scientifics more successful. There is knowledge, work, intuition and maybe a decent share of luck. But young scientifics have the above mentioned advantages that allow them, when things go right, to make more spectacular discoveries.

      --
      Why can't /. have a rich-text editor? Editing your own HTML is so XXth century.
    16. Re:age by Xest · · Score: 1

      Maybe she's hot.

    17. Re:age by Paracelcus · · Score: 1

      Thank you, unlike the "Noble & Godlike" enlightened genius of the twelve year old intellect known only as Bemopolis, you have actually studied science!
      Bravo!

      --
      I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
  11. Missing mass eating server? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

    Did the missing mass form a black hole which then sucked the server in, it is it just the regular Slashdot effect?

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    1. Re:Missing mass eating server? by KDingo · · Score: 1

      It's just hosted on the other side of the universe. There might be some latency.

  12. They found something else, too... by damn_registrars · · Score: 5, Funny

    They managed to find a female astrophysics student. Anyone in physics can tell you that is a great discovery in and of itself.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:They found something else, too... by chemicaldave · · Score: 1

      But does she look like Jodie Foster?

    2. Re:They found something else, too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cute for an astrophysicts

      http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/technology/sci-tech/amelias-summer-job-finding-part-of-the-universe-20110526-1f6h5.html

    3. Re:They found something else, too... by dnormant · · Score: 0

      You could try to friend her?

      http://www.facebook.com/people/Amelia-Fraser-Mckelvie/682534821

    4. Re:They found something else, too... by souravzzz · · Score: 1

      Facebook is slashdotted!

    5. Re:They found something else, too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      About 50% of graduate students in astronomy/astrophysics are now female, at least at 'top' departments. Physics, not so much. It will be interesting to see in 10 years or so if that is reflected in new faculty hires.

    6. Re:They found something else, too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd hit her. With the missing mass.

    7. Re:They found something else, too... by ewoods · · Score: 2

      Samantha Carter (SG-1) is wayyyy hotter than Jodie Foster.

    8. Re:They found something else, too... by PastaLover · · Score: 5, Funny

      This is why we can't have nice things.

    9. Re:They found something else, too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But Foster's character was much more intoxicating with her stubborn SETI-awesomeness.

    10. Re:They found something else, too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > They managed to find a female astrophysics student. Anyone in physics can tell you that is a great discovery in and of itself.

      I'd be happy to find the page, since it seems the newsarticle is missing from internet space.

    11. Re:They found something else, too... by mangu · · Score: 0

      Cute for an astrophysicts

      http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/technology/sci-tech/amelias-summer-job-finding-part-of-the-universe-20110526-1f6h5.html

      Chubby, but cute.

    12. Re:They found something else, too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      I found a picture of her.

    13. Re:They found something else, too... by Java+Pimp · · Score: 1

      Cute, but not the hottest...

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

      --
      Ascalante: Your bride is over 3,000 years old.
      Kull: She told me she was 19!
    14. Re:They found something else, too... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Is that supposed to be a female goatse? I'm a little bit tempted to look on purpose...buuut I better not...

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    15. Re:They found something else, too... by captain_dope_pants · · Score: 1

      Nope, still not the hottest She is (IMHO anyway) Cute, rich, smart - good grief ! :-)

      --
      while (true != false) process_more_stupid_code();
    16. Re:They found something else, too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Well if it doesn't... I'm sure the feminazis encamped in the education system will demand that it does - regardless of merit.

    17. Re:They found something else, too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another shot.

    18. Re:They found something else, too... by bigsexyjoe · · Score: 1

      I'm personally disappointed the article doesn't have a picture of her!

      --
      Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
    19. Re:They found something else, too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From what I can find on Google image search, she's a fat butterface.

    20. Re:They found something else, too... by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Any nerd who doesn't know *that* name needs to turn in their card. And technically, she's been on all three shows for at least 2 or 3 episodes.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    21. Re:They found something else, too... by Unequivocal · · Score: 1

      2 seconds on google images: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/technology/sci-tech/amelias-summer-job-finding-part-of-the-universe-20110526-1f6h5.html

  13. Noteworthiness by Twinbee · · Score: 1

    Any astrophysicists (or at least postgrads) here to say how important or true this achievement really is?

    --
    Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    1. Re:Noteworthiness by Albanach · · Score: 1

      The server is located amongst the universe's missing mass, so it may take some time.

    2. Re:Noteworthiness by XiaoMing · · Score: 5, Informative

      Any astrophysicists (or at least postgrads) here to say how important or true this achievement really is?

      The article (got to it prior Newton's First Law of ./ effect) actually did quite a good job of addressing exactly that.

      Takeaways were:
      -Missing mass (not dark matter, but matter which was seen to exist during creation of universe but is now someplace different) turns out to have migrated to filaments that span across the universe.
      -Claimed that astrophysicists have long postulated (~2 decades) that the mass had moved there, but that the imaging capabilities weren't able to resolve it.
      -Then in a fit of bipolar impetus, also went on to say how exciting a discovery this was for the community.
      -Finally acknowledged that most likely nothing useful (to mankind) will come of this discovery.

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

      Finally acknowledged that most likely nothing useful (to mankind) will come of this discovery.

      Until someone develops the filament interstellar TSB (Time and Space Bending) Drive!

      I refuse to use the term "Warp"

    4. Re:Noteworthiness by radtea · · Score: 5, Informative

      Any astrophysicists (or at least postgrads) here to say how important or true this achievement really is?

      It's fairly significant. They have confirmed that some fraction of the missing baryonic matter (the ordinary stuff we are made of, like Galactic Dark Matter, not the exotic new-particle stuff) is in the filaments that exist on very large scales in the universe. If they had failed to find it the result would have been more interesting, but even so they've done a good bit of science by testing the idea that the missing baryonic matter is in these filaments by actually going and looking for it rather than taking it on faith that it must be there.

      We know there is missing baryonic matter because we know what the baryonic density in the universe is from the primordial helium/hydrogen ratio. Free neutrons only live about fifteen minutes, so as the Big Bang cooled and neutrons and protons condensed out of the primordial quark-gluon plasma there was a relatively short interval in which helium could form. We know the size of the universe at that time from the temperature, and we know the density because the denser it was the more neutrons would have been captured onto protons to form heavier isotopes, so by figuring out the primordial density of deuterium, helium and lithium we can put pretty strong constraints on the total baryonic mass of the universe.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    5. Re:Noteworthiness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Fairly significant" -_-

    6. Re:Noteworthiness by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      True dat. Web page was Slashdotted, not responding. Try again later. (11-05-27, 9:30 a.m. PDT)

    7. Re:Noteworthiness by butalearner · · Score: 1

      -Missing mass (not dark matter, but matter which was seen to exist during creation of universe but is now someplace different) turns out to have migrated to filaments that span across the universe.

      Sounds like physical philotic rays to me. Is that you, Jane?

    8. Re:Noteworthiness by SteveFoerster · · Score: 1

      Finally acknowledged that most likely nothing useful (to mankind) will come of this discovery.

      Wait... does that qualifier mean that it might be useful to our alien overlords or something?

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    9. Re:Noteworthiness by SilentStaid · · Score: 2

      And I learned something today. Thanks for your post (and the 15 or so wiki articles you sent me to.)

    10. Re:Noteworthiness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We know there is missing baryonic matter because we know what the baryonic density in the universe is from the primordial helium/hydrogen ratio. Free neutrons only live about fifteen minutes, so as the Big Bang cooled and neutrons and protons condensed out of the primordial quark-gluon plasma there was a relatively short interval in which helium could form. We know the size of the universe at that time from the temperature, and we know the density because the denser it was the more neutrons would have been captured onto protons to form heavier isotopes, so by figuring out the primordial density of deuterium, helium and lithium we can put pretty strong constraints on the total baryonic mass of the universe.

      As someone that has a physics degree, I would have to say you are using the word "know" quite often. ;) Perhaps, deduce, speculate, extrapolate, imply and assume would be better substitutes.

      To myself, "know" implies certainty, like we know the earth is a body with mass and is mostly round-ish with an atmosphere. We know that the center of the earth is hot. We know that Earth has a certain gravitational attractive force.

      But we don't know where the material for creating the solar system came from. We don't know how the moon was formed. Based on current data, we can extrapolate these things and these extrapolations make logical sense, but this does not imply that we know these events occurred in a fashion described.

      By extension, Big Bang model is a logical model. It allows us to explain certain observations like the cosmic background radiation. But there is a lot of unknowns in this model - what is dark energy and dark matter? Where is the anti-matter and why latest measurements seem to show later than predicted skew of matter-antimatter creation ratio (more than Standard Model)?

      There is A LOT of things that need to be nailed down about this universe before we can jump the gun and start saying "we know" Big Bang is The Model. And frankly, all the "knows" you have said hinge on the Big Bang model and extrapolations from Standard Model and other assumptions.

      PS. Regarding this observation, finding this missing mass is important. Then measuring it will be a goal that will strengthen our understanding of how the universe works. The measurements may or may not result in more fundamental understanding of the universe (this includes here on earth). But then this is science, not a marketable product :)

    11. Re:Noteworthiness by zzsmirkzz · · Score: 0
      I'm not going to even claim to have read or understand any of the theoretical physics used the make the claims you have made but I find it unnerving that people/scientists claim to know things when they only think they know them. I'm sure some of things you are saying have not been proven because, frankly, they can't be proven. It just comes off as very pompous to assume that we can know anything about the state of the Universe at the time of its creation (Big Bang). Especially, since the thing which exploded must have been somewhere outside/above of our Universe if the result of the explosion in our Universe. Here are some examples:

      We know the size of the universe at that time from the temperature

      And you know the temperature of the Universe at the moment of the big bang, how? You're not extrapolating anything or making assumptions about the nature of things before the things ever existed and that similar rules apply? I think you are. I think you'd be arrogant to assume you know anything about the nature of things when the Universe as we know it didn't yet exist.

      Free neutrons only live about fifteen minutes

      Where? In what environment and under what circumstances do we know this to be true. When? Define for me what a Minute is with no Milky Way, no Solar System, no Sun, and No Earth - the unit of measurement is meaningless. No to mention that it appears time/space/gravity/velocity are all inter-related and effect each other. 15 minutes at the speed of light is different than 15 minutes standing still.

      I just wish some astrophysicists (or the people who quote/repeat them, not sure who's at fault) would bring humility to their ideas and realize that even after a life-time of thinking and studying they are still no different than an 18 year old just getting out of high school that doesn't know shit about shit.

      As a side note, I find it interesting that every time we gaze into space, we are looking at the past. The things we observe today actually occurred a very long time ago. Which is to say, if we could see far enough in a certain direction, into the past, we might actually be able to witness the big bang occurring.

    12. Re:Noteworthiness by radtea · · Score: 2

      I find it unnerving that people/scientists claim to know things when they only think they know them

      I find it amusing that on the one hand you claim not to to know anything about physics (and clearly you don't, nor science in general) and then try to bolster your skeptical position based on claims that come directly from modern physics.

      Skepticism is not a self-consistent position: to motivate it skeptics have to claim that they know things, and that their knowledge of those things (from sensory illusions to radical meaning variance to the simple complexity of the universe) justifies their skepticism.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    13. Re:Noteworthiness by MasterPatricko · · Score: 1

      I just wish some astrophysicists (or the people who quote/repeat them, not sure who's at fault) would bring humility to their ideas and realize that even after a life-time of thinking and studying they are still no different than an 18 year old just getting out of high school that doesn't know shit about shit.

      I think it's more likely you don't know shit about shit. Yes, the word "know" is used loosely, but in general means "all the experimental evidence obtained so far points to this being true within some specified reasonable error margins". Whereas you don't appear even have a basic understanding of the theory being applied (by your own admission) or the experimental evidence available, and yet you feel qualified to comment on whether people "know" things or not.

      And you know the temperature of the Universe at the moment of the big bang, how? You're not extrapolating anything or making assumptions about the nature of things before the things ever existed and that similar rules apply? I think you are. I think you'd be arrogant to assume you know anything about the nature of things when the Universe as we know it didn't yet exist.

      I think you're being arrogant to presume you have any idea of how such a measurement or prediction is made. There are many theoretical models that describe the state of the early universe and have been verified by observations. It is not that difficult to measure the temperature of the early universe (up to a point), just look really far away. It doesn't involve any assumptions about what existed pre-Big Bang at all.

      Where? In what environment and under what circumstances do we know this to be true. When? Define for me what a Minute is with no Milky Way, no Solar System, no Sun, and No Earth - the unit of measurement is meaningless. No to mention that it appears time/space/gravity/velocity are all inter-related and effect each other. 15 minutes at the speed of light is different than 15 minutes standing still.

      The SI units have been defined in non-Earth centric ways for many many years now. A minute is 60 seconds where a second is defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom. Which is the same throughout the entire the universe and to the best of our knowledge the same for all time.
      As for your poorly worded invocation of relativity - you clearly have no idea of how relativity actually works (or any idea what the word effect means) - it is perfectly reasonable to quote average lifetimes of particles in their rest frames, and calculate the apparent lifetime for other observers from that. And average particle speeds would have reduced to sub-relativistic levels pretty fast anyway.

      As a side note, I find it interesting that every time we gaze into space, we are looking at the past. The things we observe today actually occurred a very long time ago. Which is to say, if we could see far enough in a certain direction, into the past, we might actually be able to witness the big bang occurring.

      Ever heard of the cosmic microwave background, genius?

      Anyway, here's the actual paper on arXiv.

      --
      I'd tell a UDP joke, but you may not get it. I'd tell a TCP joke, but I'd have to keep repeating it until you got it.
    14. Re:Noteworthiness by radtea · · Score: 1

      To myself, "know" implies certainty

      The only kind of people who equate knowledge with certainty are extreme rationalists and the uneducated (or unreflective) people who have never thought about how they use the word.

      In my view as an empiricist, knowledge is possible without certainty, and indeed the vast majority of things we know are not certain. I know where I parked my car, and would go so far as to say I know where my car is right now. I know my name. I know what colour of socks I'm wearing. I know THAT I'm wearing socks. All of these things could quite conceivably be wrong.

      These are perfectly ordinary uses of the word "know", and I mean "know" this way pretty much whenever I use it, including when discussing the early universe, properties of neutrons, and so on, because our methods of knowing about those things are no different from our methods of knowing about our socks.

      Empirical observation and Bayesian reasoning are universal in their application, and they are the only way of creating knowledge. That they do not produce certainty is something that extreme rationalists find upsetting, but that just means it sucks to be them.

      Certainty has no practical value over any reasonably high degree of plausibility, and people who value certainty over correct Bayesian inference--which merely produces knowledge--are at risk of hanging on to unjustified conclusions for the sake of the pragmatically useless feeling of certainty they have about them. So I would argue that the elevation of certainty as the goal of science is operationally useless at best, and positively dangerous at worst. Science produces knowledge, not certainty.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    15. Re:Noteworthiness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are right to question the details in that the big bang must have been a very different environment from anything we can observe today so it is not at all obvious that extrapolating our laws of physics all to way to the big bang is correct. On the other hand, we have good reason to believe that the laws of physics are constant.

      Where? In what environment and under what circumstances do we know this to be true. When? Define for me what a Minute is with no Milky Way, no Solar System, no Sun, and No Earth - the unit of measurement is meaningless.

      A minute is defined at 60 seconds. A second is defined as follows (from Wikipedia):

      the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom.

      No to mention that it appears time/space/gravity/velocity are all inter-related and effect each other. 15 minutes at the speed of light is different than 15 minutes standing still.

      You have a strange interpretation of relativity. I recommend reading up on it some more.

      As a side note, I find it interesting that every time we gaze into space, we are looking at the past. The things we observe today actually occurred a very long time ago. Which is to say, if we could see far enough in a certain direction, into the past, we might actually be able to witness the big bang occurring.

      The general assumption in cosmology is that on that scale, the big bang happened relatively close to Earth (due to the fact that we see objects moving away from us in every direction at about the same speed), so probably not. On the other hand, I do believe that galaxies further away tend to look younger, giving us hints into the earlier formation of galaxies.

    16. Re:Noteworthiness by 2short · · Score: 1

      "We know that the center of the earth is hot."

      Huh? We've never drilled deeper than a scratch; anything we "know" about the center of the earth is certainly something we deduce/extrapolate/theorize based on our model. Even without slipping into pure solipsism, surely what we "know" about the center of the earth is based on entirely the same sort of deduction you seem to reject for the Big Bang.

    17. Re:Noteworthiness by zzsmirkzz · · Score: 1

      I find it amusing that on the one hand you claim not to to know anything about physics (and clearly you don't, nor science in general) and then try to bolster your skeptical position based on claims that come directly from modern physics.

      A) I said I claimed not have read/understood any of the physics that was used to make your claims - not that I haven't read or grasped any physics.
      B) The modern-physics I did reference, I used uncertain terms when referencing it - "It appears that ..." - not - "It is a fact that ...." - a distinction that is what my whole post was about. Stating things in certain terms when they are only known in uncertain terms - the best evidence we have, the best theory we have - are not definitively true and it bothers me when people talk as though they are. It puts mental limits on everyone else who does not realize this and precludes the possibility of the truth being something else.

      As far as being a skeptic, yeah I am. I want proof if someone says it is absolutely true - I want a well-reasoned argument if someone says their theory may be true. When a theory reaches a point where continuing to follow it in an extreme case (i.e. Velocity = C) makes your result irrational, inconceivable, or implausible/impossible, I want the original assumption re-evaluated as it seems likely that it does not apply in all cases - and not a zealot-like attachment to your assumption/hypothesis.

    18. Re:Noteworthiness by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      A minute is 60 seconds where a second is defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom. Which is the same throughout the entire the universe and to the best of our knowledge the same for all time.

      I love quotes like these, as they prove the religious nature of modern science. Hidden for the most part, but still dependent upon "faith". A belief in things unseen.

      You don't know that the period of the transition is the same throughout the entire universe, or the same for all time. You assume it because you don't have any reason to think it will be different. That's still an assumption.

      Of course, you could be saying that the number 9+ billion is the same throughout the universe and not that the actual length of the second is, in which case you'd be right. The difference is that the number system is a representation of the universe as defined by man; the period of a transition is a physical thing irrespective of man's existance.

      Now, I don't know if there is any known physical process that changes the period of that transition, but I do know that there are processes that change the energy levels of atoms. The Zeeman Effect is just one. If the energy levels change, the periods for transitions ought to change, as well, shouldn't they?

    19. Re:Noteworthiness by zzsmirkzz · · Score: 1

      and yet you feel qualified to comment on whether people "know" things or not.

      Yes, I do. If it is called a theory, then no one knows it is true, they may think it is true, they may believe it is true - but they do not know it to be true. My entire post was about how people sound and choose their words to make their statements appear more authoritative than they really are. I'm am not saying the parent's claims are wrong or are incorrect - I was only pointing out that they are not absolutely 100% correct which is how he chose to state it. I am aware of what scientists mean when they say "know", I know the disclaimer that comes with that statement but most lay-people do not. They hear "know", "is" and equate them to indisputable fact and that is a disservice to them. Not to mention the arrogance it takes to assume to know what happened a "bagillion" years ago, the circumstances of the environment at that time, and the infinite amount of unknowable other possibilities that could have had an effect. Yes, you can theorize, you can model, you can be proud that your model fits in the limited places you've been able to check and verify - but have some damn humility that one cannot know, test, fathom, or even conceive of even a small percentage of that's involved in this Universe and present your findings humbly with an acknowledgement that this is the best we have and could still very well be wrong and would be glad to be shown a better way if it exists. That is science.

      It doesn't involve any assumptions about what existed pre-Big Bang at all.

      No, but do you think that what existed pre-Big Bang could of had an effect that cannot be calculated or determined this far post-Big Bang. I am well aware that it could, and that the model could be wrong (even if its close). Which is my whole point.

    20. Re:Noteworthiness by zzsmirkzz · · Score: 1
      One more point, I left out.

      The SI units have been defined in non-Earth centric ways for many many years now. A minute is 60 seconds where a second is defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom. Which is the same throughout the entire the universe and to the best of our knowledge the same for all time.

      This measurement suffers from the same problem. Define a second at a point in time when a caesium-133 atom had never existed. We base our units of time on things that exist today and still don't even really have a solid grasp of what we are even measuring. At least, I have never heard of anyone claim to have a complete understanding of time, what it is, whether it exists naturally or is purely a construct of (human) consciousness and exactly how we all travel through it. Personally, I think it is a by-product of distance - since everything is moving, time is just another way to measure how far we moved without really realizing it.

    21. Re:Noteworthiness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ^^^What he said^^^

    22. Re:Noteworthiness by steve_bryan · · Score: 1

      15 minutes at the speed of light is different than 15 minutes standing still.

      If you had bothered to learn any relativity theory (over a century old, not exactly hot off the presses), you would be less completely confused. Sorry, you have to pay to play. As Euclid remarked, there is no "royal road to geometry", you actually have to learn some math and physical theories or your opinions really don't matter (in fact they are not even wrong). On the other hand none of the relevant knowledge is inaccessible (unlike when scholarly texts were all in Latin which was only taught to the very few privileged members of society). You can't acquire it by having sophomoric debates on slashdot, but that internet you are using does provide access to wikipedia which is much more instructive and knowledgable than anything that was available when I was young (and had to walk uphill both ways, in the snow...)

    23. Re:Noteworthiness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I though it had migrated to the back of my ... I mean, some single guy's ... refrigerator. I'm afraid there's still a lot of unidentified matter in the Universe.

    24. Re:Noteworthiness by stevelinton · · Score: 1

      One more point, I left out.

      The SI units have been defined in non-Earth centric ways for many many years now. A minute is 60 seconds where a second is defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom. Which is the same throughout the entire the universe and to the best of our knowledge the same for all time.

      This measurement suffers from the same problem. Define a second at a point in time when a caesium-133 atom had never existed. We base our units of time on things that exist today and still don't even really have a solid grasp of what we are even measuring. At least, I have never heard of anyone claim to have a complete understanding of time, what it is, whether it exists naturally or is purely a construct of (human) consciousness and exactly how we all travel through it. .

      I don't know about complete, but Stephen Hawkings "A Brief History of Time" (and the real physics textbooks underlying the popularisation) show a pretty good degree of understanding.

      As for measuring time. We rely on our (extensive) observation that lots of other processes in the universe correlate very well with the oscillation of the radiation ...caesium-133 atom. So if the half life of a neutron is roughly 9 trillion cycles of that radiation one day, it seems to be the same the next day and in the next lab and (via slightly more indirect measurements) on distant stars and so on. That fact that all these experiments correlate is what leads us to believe that time is a measurable well-behaved quantity that might be intersting. So we can use (for example) neutron decay as a "secondary time standard".

    25. Re:Noteworthiness by jamesh · · Score: 1

      -Finally acknowledged that most likely nothing useful (to mankind) will come of this discovery.

      Well... if it fulfills some predictions then it possibly validates some theories. If nothing else, maybe the scientists who were collectively looking for this missing mass can now go on to something useful :)

    26. Re:Noteworthiness by styrotech · · Score: 1

      Well said!

    27. Re:Noteworthiness by styrotech · · Score: 1

      I find it unnerving that people/scientists claim to know things when they only think they know them.

      There is no meaningful difference. If you want to be pedantic about it, anyone who knows something only thinks they know that something.

      Because complete and total certainty isn't possible, saying 'I know something' is just convenient shorthand for 'I think I know something'.

  14. Dead server is dead! by Chas · · Score: 1

    Way to go Slashdot!

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  15. Yeah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    It was your mom.

  16. Another source for the story by Billy+the+Mountain · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://www.timescolonist.com/technology/Aussie+student+finds+universe+missing+mass/4851185/story.html

    --
    That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
    1. Re:Another source for the story by Billy+the+Mountain · · Score: 1

      BTW, this discovery has nothing whatever to do with dark matter.

      --
      That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
    2. Re:Another source for the story by boristhespider · · Score: 1

      you wouldn't believe it reading the drivel that the popular press have been writing about it. you'd have thought the words "electron density" would have given it away that we're not talking dark matter here, but no. STUDENT FINDS MISSING MATTER scream the headlines. "ok, fair enough," you think. then the article is filled with things about dark matter. pah.

    3. Re:Another source for the story by dubbreak · · Score: 1

      Anyone who modded you up obviously isn't from Victoria. You would have been modded funny or troll. The timescolonist is trash and it's just them reposting an AFP newswire.

      Also of note (for those who didn't notice): the news paper is from the city Victoria, in British Columbia (Canada) NOT the state in Australia.

      --
      "If you are going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill
  17. Slashdotted in 3... 2... 1... by RussellSHarris · · Score: 1

    Since the submitter cleverly decided to force people to visit TFA if they want to know what the missing mass actually was, where it is, or how she found it, imagine my disappointment when I couldn't due to a slashdotting.

    1. Re:Slashdotted in 3... 2... 1... by mustPushCart · · Score: 1

      I would blame a lot of the slashdotters for wanting to see if tfa had a picture of the oz math 22 year old genius. Facebook says shes alright ;)

    2. Re:Slashdotted in 3... 2... 1... by youn · · Score: 1

      This is slashdot, no one reads TFA :)... we just make up opinions using car analogies (it's like if the student realized by accident where some of the missing mass of the universe was by opening the trunk of the car).

      bonus points if you can use fancy mathematical equations and complicated terms to explain every day things :)

      --
      Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that :p
  18. Just Google by nwf · · Score: 2

    One could just google for copies of the story. I found tons, e.g.here or a summary here.

    Basically, he located the mystery material within vast structures called "filaments of galaxies".

    Now why /. can auto-parse some URLs and not others is anyone's guess.

    --
    I don't know, but it works for me.
  19. You might have found me by Missing.Matter · · Score: 2, Funny

    But you'll never catch me!

    1. Re:You might have found me by Kamiza+Ikioi · · Score: 1

      In space, no one can hear a Greased Up Deaf Guy scream.

      --
      I8-D
  20. Ok, interestingish by jd · · Score: 5, Informative

    A student has found that if you observe in the x-ray range you discover ordinary matter between the galaxies that was clearly evident in the early universe and isn't visible in other parts of the spectrum.

    I'm not sure that it's altogether news that different frequencies let you see different things - to me, by far the biggest news is that despite having x-ray telescopes for a very long time and computers quite capable of crunching that data to detect potentially interesting observations, the astronomers have been opting for cheap student labor instead.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:Ok, interestingish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      This is definitely an article in favor of student labor - it appears they are using her to claim a theory held by the research team is correct by having her assert the same thing the team did in suggesting that is where the missing matter is to begin with. In other words: the guy said "the missing mass is probably in those filaments", the girl said "I can see the filaments" - I fail to see how this proves anything one way or another that wasn't already known (ie: that there are filaments) - but I wouldn't be surprised if they're fucking.

    2. Re:Ok, interestingish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the student had won a competition to take part in a camp over the holidays.

      read this story a couple of days ago but iirc it was all paid for.

    3. Re:Ok, interestingish by jd · · Score: 1

      Sure it was paid for, but which costs more? A 1024-node supercomputer or an intern?

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    4. Re:Ok, interestingish by fph+il+quozientatore · · Score: 1

      Good point. I think we should name "students" the official SI unit for menial work in academia.

      --
      My first program:

      Hell Segmentation fault

    5. Re:Ok, interestingish by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      Wow. You really are a patronizing prick, aren't you?

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    6. Re:Ok, interestingish by Xerxes314 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Here's the paper: An estimate of the electron density in filaments of galaxies at z~0.1.

      The student got listed as first author, which is cool for her. The paper itself is a follow-up to Pimbblet's (the actual prof with the actual grant) 2004 study of filaments. The major finding seems to be that the press is gullible enough to print anything if you say an undergrad did the work. In this case, the press manages to avoid looking like total idiots, since the study is pretty cool and interesting. Nonetheless, the hype is vastly out of proportion to the significance.

    7. Re:Ok, interestingish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be great for the total amount of menial work. As an addition, to describe the level of menial-ness, modifiers such as undergrad intern, rotation grad, pre-candidacy, etc...

    8. Re:Ok, interestingish by jd · · Score: 0

      If I recall correctly, authors are listed in the reverse order of importance. Thus, to be listed first is to be described as of least significance. Which, if I'm right, won't do her much credit in academia.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    9. Re:Ok, interestingish by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      Actually "students" are what separate the research professors from the hazardous substances. Didn't you read the safety guidelines? :P

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    10. Re:Ok, interestingish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      true, but it's just as much a discovery as an archeologist could make; i.e. "look what i found"

    11. Re:Ok, interestingish by TeethWhitener · · Score: 1

      You're wrong. To be listed first author is generally an indication that you did the bulk of the work for the paper. Middle authors are usually minor contributors to some extent, and the last few names are usually the professors who employ the students/postdocs.

    12. Re:Ok, interestingish by jd · · Score: 1

      Well, no. I don't agree. An archaeologist in the field can't be replaced by a computer down the hallway. It is quite impossible for a computer to tell you what you will find if you dig 7 feet at position X. On the other hand, a computer and a human eye can equally spot abnormalities in an x-ray image of intergalactic space. (Computers cannot be better, as to prevent false positives and false negatives, the algorithm must be calibrated by eye and the positives then validated by eye. What they CAN do better is sort through reams of useless junk to spot potential gems of data that can then be analyzed by experts.)

      This doesn't mean that she didn't discover something significant. I'm happy to accept that she may well have done. That's not the issue. The issue is why, given the enormous amount of time the means of computerizing this sort of study has existed, students are doing the menial work. If students should be involved at all, they should be getting the results from the computer doing the menial work and then doing something REAL.

      Far from a criticism of the student, who did a fine job with the dismally pathetic material available, my criticism is of those making inefficient use of student time.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    13. Re:Ok, interestingish by jd · · Score: 1

      Fine, I acknowledged I could be wrong, no need for the biting.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    14. Re:Ok, interestingish by jpapon · · Score: 1

      It is quite impossible for a computer to tell you what you will find if you dig 7 feet at position X. On the other hand, a computer and a human eye can equally spot abnormalities in an x-ray image of intergalactic space.

      That's the dumbest thing I've read in the past week on /. The only difference between your two scenarios is that you don't know of a sensor that can image what is 7 feet under at position X. Obviously you haven't seen Jurassic Park =p.

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
  21. predictable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was your mom!

  22. TFA sucks by guybrush3pwood · · Score: -1, Troll

    TFA sucks bigtime... does the student?

    --
    Perhaps I'm trolling, perhaps I'm not.
  23. Missing mass but not "dark matter" by JoshuaZ · · Score: 3, Informative

    If I'm reading TFA correctly, this material is mass we already knew had to be around but didn't know where it had gone to. According to TFA, the student in question, Amelia Fraser-McKelvie, the mass in question is essentially conventional mass that is in so called "filaments" between galaxies.

  24. skillz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a poorly written article. Plus once I see PC words used like diverse used in anything, I just can't take it seriously. The article sucked.

  25. /.ed by Blackajack · · Score: 1

    Any other sources? Looks like slashdot syndrome claims another victim..

    1. Re:/.ed by geekoid · · Score: 2

      no, there are no other source. Also, there is no way to search for them~

      Sheesh.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:/.ed by Blackajack · · Score: 1

      That was helpful, thank you.

    3. Re:/.ed by Abstrackt · · Score: 1

      CoralCache has a mirror of the original. If you're one of the people who regularly Rs TFA and runs Firefox with Greasemonkey I recommend downloading a script that automatically rewrites /. links to use CC.

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
  26. Kinda OT - black holes by beschra · · Score: 1

    The closing line about justifying funding for pure physics research 'Do you use a mobile phone? Some of that technology came about by black hole research'."

    To what bit of mobile phone technology is he referring?

    --
    It is unwise to ascribe motive
    1. Re:Kinda OT - black holes by kehren77 · · Score: 5, Funny

      The closing line about justifying funding for pure physics research 'Do you use a mobile phone? Some of that technology came about by black hole research'."

      To what bit of mobile phone technology is he referring?

      AT&T's network.

    2. Re:Kinda OT - black holes by robot256 · · Score: 1

      The only common ground I can think of microwave antenna technology, which is not a trivial development.

  27. YOUR MOM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A 22-year-old Australian university student has found your mom. Seriously, she's that huge.

  28. Next up... by chill · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Yes, but did she find Jesus?

    I keep getting that question from random people. "Have you found Jesus?" That guy must be seriously lost. I mean worse than Charlie Sheen's television career, or Donald Trump's political ambitions. Totally gone.

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    1. Re:Next up... by boristdog · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, the missing mass was being held by the Space Pope...

    2. Re:Next up... by kehren77 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but did she find Jesus?

      I keep getting that question from random people. "Have you found Jesus?" That guy must be seriously lost. I mean worse than Charlie Sheen's television career, or Donald Trump's political ambitions. Totally gone.

      You too? I really wish someone would find that guys so people would stop asking me where he is.

      Is anyone out there good at finding Waldo and Carmen Sandiego? Maybe we could recruit those people to to find him. Or, I bet Seal Team 6 could find him.

    3. Re:Next up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't find Jesus. Jesus finds you.

      Hmm, there's probably a Soviet Russia joke in there somewhere... :P

    4. Re:Next up... by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      Go to Mexico. Lots of people called Jesus live there, and by random luck at least one of them might be lost..

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    5. Re:Next up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, he was between my couch cushions.

  29. okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lets go ahead and get all the "your mama" jokes out.

  30. Horrible article/summary by forand · · Score: 4, Informative

    The summary and article are making a mountain out of a mole hill. The student did good work but did not 'find the missing mass' in the universe. Here is a link to the publicly accessible article on arXiv:
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.0711
    The abstract does not make any grandiose claims of finding the missing mass of the universe but instead states how the article presents properties of mass in filaments.

    1. Re:Horrible article/summary by cinderellamanson · · Score: -1

      "The paper has been accepted for publication in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society."

      --
      Hey buddy, can i bum a karma? ~}CinderellaManson{~
    2. Re:Horrible article/summary by forand · · Score: 1

      Do you mean to imply that I belittled the article by providing the arXiv link? If so that was not my intent. arXiv provides the community with a repository of works from all journals in one convient (and free to access) location. That being said, the fact that it was accepted for publication is irrelevant to the discussion. The scientific article is fine and make reasonable claims, the popular article makes it sound like they solved a major mystery instead of confirming expectations with new data.

  31. Probably stupid question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...but does it mean that there's no dark matter afterall?

    1. Re:Probably stupid question... by boristhespider · · Score: 1

      no. this is not about dark matter. this is about "missing" normal matter.

    2. Re:Probably stupid question... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      ...but does it mean that there's no dark matter afterall?

      No. It just means that there's as much ordinary matter now as there was after the big bang, and we now know where it is.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  32. Miss Universe? by DarkLensman · · Score: 1

    I misread that as "finding Miss Universe's mass" and wondered about the method used.

    1. Re:Miss Universe? by ArAgost · · Score: 1

      a scale[*] could work, if you're ok with ignoring Archimede's principle and relativistic effects.

      [*] knowledge of local value of g may give more accurate results.

  33. must be the heat by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Funny

    i read

    "Student Finds Miss Universe's Mass"

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:must be the heat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Student Finds Miss Universe's Mass"

      Turns out Tyler Durden had it.

      P.S. Anyone need soap?

  34. Black Hole Research by JRHelgeson · · Score: 1

    From TFA:
    "Whenever I speak to people who have influence, politicians and so on, they sometimes ask me 'Why should I invest in physics pure research?'. And I sometimes say to them: 'Do you use a mobile phone? Some of that technology came about by black hole research'."

    So that explains why I can never retrieve the information that gets entered into my phone!

    --
    Good security is based upon reality and common sense. Common sense is a function of having common knowledge.
    1. Re:Black Hole Research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Whenever I speak to people who have influence, politicians and so on, they sometimes ask me 'Why should I invest in physics pure research?'. And I sometimes say to them: 'Do you use a mobile phone? Some of that technology came about by black hole research'."

      so we should have invested in "mobile phone research" instead.

  35. Its alway... by wisnoskij · · Score: 0

    In the last place you look.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    1. Re:Its alway... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sometimes, after I find something, I keep looking, just so it wasn't in the last place I looked.

  36. I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... if this is the explanation for the "freshman fifteen".

  37. I thought it was at fast food restaurants by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

    Have you seen the excess of mass at McDonalds? And don't get me started on "Kentucky Fried Chicken!"

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  38. I already knew.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was in Uranus all along.

  39. Epic mass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The universe was hiding its massive girth inside its corset.

  40. Go into astrophysics for the babes: by Hartree · · Score: 1

    There were several very cute female astrophysics grad students at UNM when I went there in 1993. Likely even more of them now.

  41. Damn I knew I forgot something... by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

    while packing those crates to leave Australia.

    --
    These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
  42. She. Not a "he". by denzacar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Amelia Fraser-McKelvie

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:She. Not a "he". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That makes it even more impressive---like a dog that can stand upright.

    2. Re:She. Not a "he". by IrquiM · · Score: 1

      Do you have the link to her facebook page as well?

      --
      This is blinging
    3. Re:She. Not a "he". by denzacar · · Score: 1

      No, but I've seen someone else post it around here somewhere.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  43. DRAT!!! by jmd_akbar · · Score: 1

    I thought I had hidden it well..

    Well, looks like i'll have to delete the evidence again....


    CLEANUP TIME A-HOY!!

    --
    Nothing here... So... SHOOO!!!
  44. Don't Worry by b4upoo · · Score: 1, Funny

    If the missing mass of the universe is identified it will only take a few minutes for Microsoft to try to patent it.

    1. Re:Don't Worry by grasshoppa · · Score: 2, Funny

      You misspelled "Disney".

      --
      Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    2. Re:Don't Worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah but apple would have already patented it 10 years ago

    3. Re:Don't Worry by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      posting to undo mod

      --
      Time to offend someone
  45. Ahhh - the prof is a beauty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps even more surprising is the prof's willingness to share her beauty with the Slashdot crowd: http://www.physics.monash.edu.au/people/research/lazendic.html

    1. Re:Ahhh - the prof is a beauty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps even more surprising is the prof's willingness to share her beauty with the Slashdot crowd: http://www.physics.monash.edu.au/people/research/lazendic.html

      Your standards for beauty aren't particularly high.

    2. Re:Ahhh - the prof is a beauty by Caerdwyn · · Score: 2

      Or the standards of beauty include knowledge that the person in question is intelligent; some folks find intelligence to be attractive and desirable. Of course, for some people (impotent men, Slashdot ACs), "intelligent" = "ugly".

      --
      Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
    3. Re:Ahhh - the prof is a beauty by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Aw come on she doesn't look bad.

      At least average looks + well above-average smarts * geek perception + geek desperation = smokin' hot!

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    4. Re:Ahhh - the prof is a beauty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And likely she's got a neat accent also -- that could help close the deal (although, given her hyphenated last name, it seems likely the deal may already be closed).

    5. Re:Ahhh - the prof is a beauty by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Or the standards of beauty include knowledge that the person in question is intelligent

      That's a crock of shit.

      What a female's intelligence does is make you (the guy) want to be with her longer than the time it takes to go a few rolls in the hay.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    6. Re:Ahhh - the prof is a beauty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm guessing you're a virgin.

    7. Re:Ahhh - the prof is a beauty by arashi+no+garou · · Score: 1

      What a female's intelligence does is make you (the guy) want to be with her longer than the time it takes to go a few rolls in the hay.

      Yeah, because every single man on earth is a shallow pig who values that roll in the hay more than a meaningful, long lasting relationship with an intellectual equal.

      No wait, that's just you.

      And yes, I do have an intelligent girlfriend who also happens to be attractive (not a goddess by most men's standards, but few would call her plain or ugly) AND has a positive, friendly personality. They do exist, but they are usually all taken. Fate smiled upon me for once in my life.

    8. Re:Ahhh - the prof is a beauty by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because every single man on earth is a shallow pig who values that roll in the hay more than a meaningful, long lasting relationship with an intellectual equal.

      Read my comment again. Focus on make you (the guy) want to be with her longer.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  46. The Universe's Little Black Dress by Kamiza+Ikioi · · Score: 1

    She discovered it upon reflecting that women lie about their weight. The missing mass is discovered by asking the husband when he is too drunk to know better than to be honest.

    Yes, universe, that dress DOES make you look fat.

    --
    I8-D
  47. SC/AT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure you'd "tap" her http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanda_Tapping

  48. Where they found this missing mass.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    scientists finally found the "missing mass"; it was the packing materials of their scientific instruments!

    1. Re:Where they found this missing mass.... by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      scientists finally found the "missing mass"; it was the packing materials of their scientific instruments!

      How sad that the only posted reference to Douglas Adams's solution sits alone, uncommented upon, and posted AC.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  49. Order of importance by Xerxes314 · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's not that you're wrong, you're just using different metrics. In physics (and astronomy, I think), the authors are usually listed in decreasing order of work done, starting with the person who did the most. The people at the end of the list have done so little work, why are they even on the paper? Because, as you say, they are listed in increasing order of importance (read: amount of grant money received). If you have enough people, sometimes they just throw them all into alphabetical order and pretend that everybody reading the CVs of the people who actually did the work will somehow know that they did.

    This guide may also be helpful: PHD's Guide to the Author List

    1. Re:Order of importance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In physics (and astronomy, I think), the authors are usually listed in decreasing order of work done, starting with the person who did the most.

      Except for the last author. He or she is the one who supervised the work (and whose grant paid the students' salaries). It's also not unheard of for an established [tenured] faculty member to list his or her students first, even if they didn't make such a large contribution, on the theory that it will be more beneficial to their future careers than the professor's at that point.

      Alphabetical by last name will also show up if its a large group and there's no clear lead — this is becoming more and more common in astronomy too.

  50. she didn't find anything by iamhassi · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually it seems she didn't find anything:
    "Ms Fraser-McKelvie said the ‘Eureka moment’ came when Dr Lazendic-Galloway closely examined the data they had collected. “Using her expert knowledge in the X-ray astronomy field, Jasmina (Dr Lazendic-Galloway) re-analyzed our results to find that we had in fact detected the filaments in the results, where previously we believed we had not.”"

    So the student found nothing, it wasn't until an expert looked at it and actually found the mass.

    So I guess it depends on your perspective as to if the student found it or not. If you're throwing out a bunch of "junk" and an expert goes through it and discovers a priceless artifact does that mean you discovered it or did the expert?

    --
    my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    1. Re:she didn't find anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I smelled the stench as soon as I saw the title.
      Without reading any of TFA, it's probably one of those periodic feel good (with a sprinkling of bullshit) stories about young ingenuity.
      OK, she's studying aerospace engineering (typically a bit light on physics and higher math beyond the practical aspects), in a few weeks over the summer she's mastered computational astrodynamics (umm ...I guessing no).

      I could be wrong about this, but I have an excellent track record :)

  51. OH no! "The Universe's missing mass"?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh my GOSH! Really? The Universe's missing mass?? I bet it only shows up on Christmas and Easter! The Universe will certain go to hell for that!!

  52. problems by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

    No to mention that it appears time/space/gravity/velocity are all inter-related and effect each other. 15 minutes at the speed of light is different than 15 minutes standing still.

    Only from the frame of a outside observer. And if the universe is in an stage where it is expanding at 50% of the speed of light, how are you going to observe from an outside frame of reference? Also, 'standing still' is kind of tricky. Standing still compared to what? The expanding universe?

    Which is to say, if we could see far enough in a certain direction, into the past, we might actually be able to witness the big bang occurring.

    Since the big bang is modeled as a point source of energy expanding outward, wouldn't that require the photons being emitted from it to strike the eye of an observer that is outside the universe? (which is by definition of the universe pretty much impossible.) You can see galaxies 14 billion years away/ in the past because they formed after the big bang and then started emitting light. The only way you are going to 'see' the big bang is if the universe is closed (curves back on itself). You can 'see' the background temperature in the microwave spectrum though, which was once of the more spectacular theories proven in the 20th century.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
  53. I think I speak for all of us... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...when I ask "Is she hot?" ...followed by "Does she want to join my D&D campaign?"

  54. so really being ugly is prerequisite for smart by chronoss2010 · · Score: -1

    hahahahaha

  55. She by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    God told me that women are on earth to be fucked, but in her case, he can make an exception

  56. She should win a Nobel Prize. I'm not sure what in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But definitely not for being immune to neurotoxin.

  57. Space Pope? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't see him in the Internet Pope Database...

  58. That's why this is getting so much attention. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The student is female and Australian.

    The Australian press will drop everything else the moment they find a story which they think may be of interest to the rest of the world.

    Australians have a deeply ingrained inferiority complex, compounded by a desperate yearning to be American (something which comes from being ashamed and embarrassed about being Australian).

    So they will do anything they can to bring themselves to the world's attention, or, better still, the attention of the USA.

    It's why they try so hard to infiltrate outfits such as Slashdot: http://slashdot.org/index2.pl?fhfilter=australia

    1. Re:That's why this is getting so much attention. by FirephoxRising · · Score: 1

      The student is female and Australian. The Australian press will drop everything else the moment they find a story which they think may be of interest to the rest of the world. Australians have a deeply ingrained inferiority complex, Somewhat still true, but fading... compounded by a desperate yearning to be American Hardly (something which comes from being ashamed and embarrassed about being Australian). Not at all true any more. So they will do anything they can to bring themselves to the world's attention, or, better still, the attention of the USA. It's why they try so hard to infiltrate outfits such as Slashdot: http://slashdot.org/index2.pl?fhfilter=australia

  59. Actually it was found in 1991 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In 1991 it was found that the Logopolitans were using block transfer computations to model Charged Vacuum Emboitments (CVEs) as a means of excising off excess entropy from this universe into others as to stave off the imminent heat death of the universe. Matter could pass through these CVE's into other universes (such as E-Space). See LOGOPOLIS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logopolis

  60. I know what you did last summer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not that those movies were works of art, but this sounds like the plot to a pretty horrible sequel ...

  61. That's nothing by Snaller · · Score: 1

    If she can find my missing ballpoint pens - that would be something!

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  62. But they got her last name wrong by Snaller · · Score: 1

    Couldn't spell to Pond ;-)

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  63. Hey, has anyone seen the... by gottabeme · · Score: 1

    ...oh, there it is.

    --
    "Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
  64. Re: by raystoneseniors · · Score: 1

    Hidden treasures are there that can explore great things, it needs to be checked out the calucalations

  65. Because she's a woman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope she found it in the kitchen since that's where she should have been.

  66. What I said... by brindafella · · Score: 1

    Ah, well.... We're told not to be too upset if our submission is not accepted. But, I had a "prior art" submission on this. :-)

    --
    Looking at space, radio, science and computing from a 'down-under' amateur enthusiast perspective.