Slashdot Mirror


BOSS: The Universe's Most Precise Measurement

Cazekiel writes "Observing the primordial sound waves created 30,000 years after the Big Bang, physicists on the Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey have determined our universe's most precise measurements: 13.5 billion years old. The article detailing the study reports: '"We've made precision measurements of the large-scale structure of the universe five to seven billion years ago — the best measure yet of the size of anything outside the Milky Way," says David Schlegel of the Physics Division at the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, BOSS's principal investigator. "We're pushing out to the distances when dark energy turned on, where we can start to do experiments to find out what's causing accelerating expansion."'"

70 of 128 comments (clear)

  1. Well by Shai-kun · · Score: 1, Funny

    ...like a boss.

    --
    ...or so I've been told.
    1. Re:Well by an+unsound+mind · · Score: 1

      Scientists: The universe's most productive pun machine.

  2. Setting a new standard. by pushing-robot · · Score: 1

    The scale of this survey is really quite incredible. It will serve as a benchmark for other accomplishments for years to come.

    For example, I just made a remarkably roundabout pop culture joke...

    --
    How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    1. Re:Setting a new standard. by Shai-kun · · Score: 1

      And using these new measurements, we can determine *exactly* how roundabout it is!

      --
      ...or so I've been told.
  3. Born in the Big Bang by tomhath · · Score: 2

    Isn't Slashdot supposed to be News For Nerds? Oh wait, it probably doesn't get any more nerdy than this. Good stuff.

  4. Unknown lamer: please re-read article by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 3, Informative

    It says the universe is precisely 13.75 billion years old, not 13.5 billion years old.

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    1. Re:Unknown lamer: please re-read article by Jason+Levine · · Score: 5, Funny

      The Universe may be 13.75 billion years old, but it doesn't look a day over 13.5 billion. I wonder if it's had work done. Maybe some cosmic surgery to reduce those time-space stretch marks.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    2. Re:Unknown lamer: please re-read article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It did say "precise" measurement afterall not "accurate." http://saturn.cis.rit.edu/~dxl1840/data/uploads/accuracyprecision.gif

    3. Re:Unknown lamer: please re-read article by pgn674 · · Score: 2

      It says the universe is precisely 13.75 billion years old, not 13.5 billion years old.

      Actually, you're both wrong. What you read is a link to a different, unrelated article that's 2 years and 2 months old. I looked at the articles and papers, and I don't think any claim about the age of the universe is ever made.

      I think this is instead the most accurate measurement of the distance between here and very far away galaxies, and of the distances between those galaxies. But I may be wrong on that. RTFA

  5. questionable units by mspring · · Score: 1

    I always try to get my head around the meaning of measuring something in units which didn't exist then.

    1. Re:questionable units by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      Why? Would you also say it's questionable to measure the pyramids of Egypt in meters?

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    2. Re:questionable units by mspring · · Score: 1

      No, that's different. The meter and the pyramids do exist simultaneously.

    3. Re:questionable units by superdave80 · · Score: 1

      The universe existed before the unit of time 'years' existed.

      The universe and years exist now.

      The pyramids existed before the unit of time 'meters' existed.

      The pyramids and meters exist not.

    4. Re:questionable units by Sneeka2 · · Score: 1

      If you mean to say that the sun and the earth didn't exist back then and that hence the "year" didn't exist, then that's nonsense. A "year" is a somewhat well defined length of time, which applies just as much now as it did then, regardless of when that length of time was first defined or when the ingredients for defining it came into existence.

      Now, if you'd be talking about whether the length of time we define as a "year" nowadays is the same now as it was back then, and whether time is a universal constant at all throughout the universe... you may be onto something.

      --
      Bitten Apples are still better than dirty Windows...
    5. Re:questionable units by dudpixel · · Score: 1

      huh? so I guess the pyramids that are still around are fake? you been watching too much "despicable me" lately?

      --
      This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
    6. Re:questionable units by BurningFeetMan · · Score: 1

      I'd mod you up, but my mod points currently don't exist. :(

    7. Re:questionable units by superdave80 · · Score: 1

      Doh. The last sentence should be 'now' instead of 'not'.

    8. Re:questionable units by Sique · · Score: 2

      A year with him is like a day... :)

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    9. Re:questionable units by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      The logical way to measure the pyramids is in toilet paper wrapped Smoots.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    10. Re:questionable units by dudpixel · · Score: 1

      my apologies - makes sense now. I was a bit on the attack that day lol :)

      --
      This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
  6. Another "It answers everything" report... by s.petry · · Score: 1, Interesting

    While this project may yield a lot of data it still won't be able to answer most of the fundamental questions. I know they have to advertise that way in order to receive sponsorship and grants, but dang it I'm tired of hearing it.

    We still won't have a clue about what Dark matter is, or even if it exists. It's still a hypothesis that makes big bang models work and gives us the idea that we understand gravity.

    We still won't know what the Universe was just before the big bang, or what caused it.

    Cool, but I'll ignore the hype.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:Another "It answers everything" report... by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      In other news, the Universe still doesn't owe you an accounting of itself. Ric has more at 11.

    2. Re:Another "It answers everything" report... by Bengie · · Score: 1

      Dark Matter is the mysterious gravity, but Dark Energy is the repulsive force that they speculate is causing us to drift apart. From what I understand and read, Dark Matter is about 100% certain, but Dark Energy is closer still to a hypothesis.

    3. Re:Another "It answers everything" report... by Rei · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Personally, I like to view the expansion of the universe as simply a reduction in the Planck length/time relative to C. This would create the perception of a force pushing everything apart (light taking increasingly long, in terms of Planck units, to travel from one point to another). Ultimately, it's just a different perspective on the same thing, but I like it because it doesn't require the conception of some sort of mysterious "dark energy" -- just an explanation of why the Planck length would slowly shift.

      And I find that, too, rather simple to envision, in a number of ways. For example, one that I've been thinking about recently is that if you view the universe in terms of information processing, the distance-limited interactions like the strong force decline in frequency as the universe ages. So if there's a fixed "processing power" of the whole universe but a decreasing number of "calculations" per "unit" time, then the number of steps per "unit" time increases, which could be expressed in any number of ways toward the universe's physical constants.

      --
      Virgin birth, water into wine; it's like Harry Potter, but it causes genocide and bad folk music.
    4. Re:Another "It answers everything" report... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If the Planck length were changing with respect to c, such that Planck's constant was changing with respect to c, you would be seeing the effects of changes to things like the fine structure constant and Rydberg constant, which would easily be visible spectroscopically over great distances.

    5. Re:Another "It answers everything" report... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Wait, you're complaining that this project is overhyped because it doesn't claim it will answer questions like what is dark matter or what happened before the big bang?

    6. Re:Another "It answers everything" report... by Spinalcold · · Score: 1

      interesting way of wrapping your head around it. I think of vacuum energy and its probably just as wrong (not to say you are wrong conceptually, when it comes to far out physics it gets harder and harder to conceptualize what it is). I can make myself more comfortable with vacuum energy than changing planks constant. Though that's a little bias since that's my favorite of all physics discoveries.

    7. Re:Another "It answers everything" report... by oreaq · · Score: 1

      Dark Energy is the repulsive force that they speculate is causing us to drift apart

      While technically true, that's kind of a wag the dog view of the universe. We observe that all the other galaxys are not only flying away from us, they are getting faster. According to our current understanding of nature this acceleration must be caused by some kind of force and this force must be "fed" by some kind of energy. We call this energy "dark energy". It's not a speculation that dark energy causes the acceleration, it is the definition of the phrase "dark energy".

      Dark Matter is about 100% certain, but Dark Energy is closer still to a hypothesis.

      The situations for dark matter and dark energy are practically the same. The visible matter doesn't cause enough gravity to hold galaxys together. Again, according to our current understanding of nature there must be another source of gravity other than visible matter. We call this source of gravity "dark matter".

      Both, dark matter and dark energy are "speculative" in the same way. Both start with relativity as our current model of gravity. We know that relativity is wrong, i. .e. it's predicition contradict observations but it's the best model we got so far. If somebody comes up with a better model for gravity than relativity and that new model doesn't require dark energy or dark matter to make correct predicitions then we can remove both from our models.

    8. Re:Another "It answers everything" report... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      No it doesn't because if you work with standard cosmology -- and if you've an alternative, please present it at a level of rigour that means people could actually work with it -- that's already ruled out. The universe is constrained to have 5% of the critical density in baryons, otherwise we get entirely the wrong abundances of heavier elements out of the models. So we've got 5% of the critical density in baryons. Excellent, that fazes no-one, we just have a very light, open universe, right? No, to get the clusters to form the way they do, we need another 25% of the critical density in *something*. We don't know what it is, just that it has to cluster, and has to act pressureless -- it's slow moving and doesn't interact with *anything* on a cosmologically appreciable level except through gravity, not with us ("baryons"), not with electromagnetism, nothing. If it's not there, we can't get clusters of galaxies to form right. This happens to tie very neatly in with a separate issue, that of the orbits of stars within galaxies, and of galaxies within clusters. Neither galaxies nor clusters can hold together (assuming standard gravity -- and if you've an alternative, please present it blah blah) without a lot of matter we don't see. Sure, some of that matter will be in "regular" matter that's hard to measure. Neutrinos are an immediate candidate, given that they're both numerous and have a small, but non-vanishing, mass. But neutrinos aren't enough. (Also they're extremely problematic; if you try and make neutrinos 25% of the critical density universe you wash out the clusters as they're forming. Neutrinos simply don't cluster enough to do what we need dark matter to do.)

      So we're lead at least to the conclusion that the universe is at least 30% of the critical density, 25% of which *cannot* be matter that we normally understand. It absolutely cannot be. If we then match up angular scales that we can measure -- such as the angular scale that BOSS measured -- we're lead to the conclusion that the universe is basically at the critical density, but only 30% is in clustering matter. The discrepency is "dark energy", a non-clustering quantity that has a strongly negative pressure. It's inescapable. If you use the standard model, these exist.

      This is based on assuming that general relativity is an accurate theory of gravity, and that we can base cosmology on a particular, highly-symmetric solution. Both of those assumptions can be, and intensively are, queried and tested. But the problem is that changing the model of gravity, for instance, introduces enormous problems. It's extremely hard to change gravity without breaking the solar system, and thus far almost every attempt is driven back to behaving like standard relativity in the presence of a cosmological constant -- and very often at least a certain amount of dark matter is necessary.

    9. Re:Another "It answers everything" report... by CarlDenny · · Score: 1

      I'm not a physicist, but from what I understand, it's still an open question whether Dark Matter "exists." At least according to Wikipedia, one prominent explanation is that it points to a flaw/correction needed in the current model of gravity. Whether that's additional relativity corrections over large scales, or some sort of quantum effects is still an open question.

    10. Re:Another "It answers everything" report... by Rei · · Score: 1

      I find the concept of a shifting concept much easier to picture than some unexplained force pushing everything apart over cosmological distances (very different from all known forces). The analogy would be that we're all points in a balloon and are slowly "shrinking" down into ourselves. We see each other point as being pushed apart, and our "universe" (the balloon from each other.) being driven outward at an increasing expansion rate, while really it's just us that are shrinking away from each other.

      --
      Virgin birth, water into wine; it's like Harry Potter, but it causes genocide and bad folk music.
    11. Re:Another "It answers everything" report... by Rei · · Score: 1

      Not really, because the coulomb constant in the numerator of the fine structure constant is relative to the length of a meter, which would obviously be likewise shifting if the Planck length is shifting. What you'd find is that everything would constantly -- albeit incredilbly slowly -- be moving into a higher energy state due to the "greater distances" between objects, which would then be radiated back down. So there would be a signature, but it'd be an incredibly weak one, and one that should be expected from dark energy as well. It's just a different perspective on the same phenomenon -- that is, objects in the universe are shrinking down into themselves rather than being pushed outward.

      --
      Virgin birth, water into wine; it's like Harry Potter, but it causes genocide and bad folk music.
  7. Title backwards and such by FrootLoops · · Score: 2

    The title meant to say "BOSS: The Most Precise Measurement of the Universe". The other way round can mean these measurements are the most precise ever, which isn't even remotely true. For instance, the article says, "BOSS gives that distance to within 1.7 percent", whereas (to pick something out of a hat) the fine-structure constant has been measured to a precision of less than one part in a billion or within less than 0.0000001%.

    Maybe a physicist can chime in here--how is the red shift actually measured in an experiment like this? You could of course measure the wavelength of incoming light, but how do you know what the wavelength "should" be? Are there some common spectral lines one can look for?

    Also, is there any practical use to this experiment? I'm fine with pure research, but I was curious if maybe some of the techniques find application elsewhere. The article didn't mention any.

    1. Re:Title backwards and such by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1

      Even discounting the title, I can't parse the first sentence of the summary in any way that makes sense. I suspect that the summary was trying to say that they've precisely measured the age of the universe as 13.5 billion years (which isn't even right, according to the linked article).

      Maybe Unknown Lamer is CmdrTaco coming back in disguise!

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    2. Re:Title backwards and such by FrootLoops · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's a lame sentence. I forgot to criticize it in my haste to read the article and figure out what it might mean. I'm pretty sure the submitter just misunderstood the Discovery article. It uses the phrase "most precise measurements ever made" in the first paragraph and has a link to "ANALYSIS: The Universe is Precisely 13.75 Billion Years Old". Both say "precise", and a careless person might shove them together with a badly written sentence and a typo (13.5 instead of 13.75) to get the last half of the summary's first sentence. The 13.75 number isn't even from this study; the link was to a story from 2010 about a NASA study.

  8. Re:there's no such thing as a simultenaity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    it's einstein's relativity 101. no event "appears" simultaneous to two observers moving at different speeds.

    there fixed that up for you...

    That would be like saying 'since I cant see it it didnt happen'...

  9. Re:Slashdot brings you another unparseable summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Obviously it's saying that no-one in the entire universe has ever measured anything to more than three significant figures.

  10. Re:there's no such thing as a simultenaity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    No it isn't, you're making a common mistake that people who pretend they know about physics make. Put it this way: leave the physics to the people who know anything about it and go back to masturbating over furry porn.

    Cosmology is based on the Robertson-Walker metric. The Robertson-Walker metric contains an unambiguous time coordinate. Put an observer in that metric and, yes, they will observe a different time -- but if they're not to violate the symmetries of the metric, the differences will be at a perturbative level, which is to say unimportant. When they say "the universe is 13.7bn years old" they don't mean to say "the time measured along every worldline would give 13.7bn years", because to say such would be nonsense. What they mean that "the time measured in a frame comoving with the metric is 13.7bn years and to an approximation good up to redshifts of approximately z=1 and quite possibly significantly less this is an estimate that holds for all observers who haven't gone dallying with black holes".

    Seriously, learn what the fuck you're talking about before you make yourself look stupid.

  11. Re:there's no such thing as a simultenaity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm sure that people who have studied cosmology, both theoretical and observational, in extreme depth, for a period of upwards of 20 years, are going to be devestated that "Proudrooster" and "decora" on Slashdot have shattered their entire field with a few brief sentences. Such a waste of man-hours! I'm sure the two of you will be quick to provide us with alternative models of cosmology and interpret them properly for the layman, causing no ambiguities in those who don't fully comprehend the fruits of your genius.

    Seriously, "a headline grab"? This is the ninth data release of a massive project that's been going for more than twenty years since it was first planned in detail, it's been studied by hundreds of extremely well qualified physicists, astronomers and engineers, and is providing data for all of us in the field to use to test models which we construct, from which we extract observable parameters, and test against observation... and you think it's a fucking headline grab? You think it's arrogant? The mind fucking boggles.

  12. Primordial sound waves? by PPH · · Score: 2

    Thought this was going to be about a Stones concert tour.

    Never mind.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Primordial sound waves? by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 2

      considering they have Nosferatu on guitar, I wouldn't be surprised...

      --
      Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    2. Re:Primordial sound waves? by seandiggity · · Score: 1

      Thought this was going to be about a *Springsteen* concert tour.

      TFTFY. The headline was "BOSS" :P

      --
      Geeks like to think that they can ignore politics, you can leave politics alone, but politics won't leave you alone.-rms
  13. Years? by Smiddi · · Score: 2

    Why do we use years as time measurement for events that happen in the universe? Years are an Earth measurement that have no bearing on anything else in the universe.

    1. Re:Years? by quenda · · Score: 1

      Why do we use years as time measurement for events that happen in the universe? Years are an Earth measurement that have no bearing on anything else in the universe.

      For the same reason you asked that question in English instead of a dialect from Flartibartfast IV.

    2. Re:Years? by guspasho · · Score: 1

      I was thinking the same thing. If you ask that sort of question, isn't it incumbent upon you to explain what terms we should be using instead, and also preferably why? Otherwise, you're just trolling.

  14. you mad bro? by decora · · Score: 1

    with the universe full of 'dark matter', how do any of us know that our bits havent been dallying with black holes?

  15. According to my own calculation ... by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

    It says the universe is precisely 13.75 billion years old, not 13.5 billion years old.

    ... the universe is actually 13.74892103652974083 billion years old, and counting ...

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:According to my own calculation ... by mikael · · Score: 1

      I imagine there is a cloud of interstellar gas sonewhere which displays the current capacity of the universe like one of those online data storage companies.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    2. Re:According to my own calculation ... by WhiteDragon · · Score: 1

      I imagine there is a cloud of interstellar gas sonewhere which displays the current capacity of the universe like one of those online data storage companies.

      yes, it's online data storage in the cloud... /me ducks in shame

      --
      Did you mount a military-grade, variable-focus MASER on an unlicensed artificial intelligence?
  16. more detailed info by bcrowell · · Score: 1

    The press releases linked to from the /. summary are pretty thin. The Wikipedia article is a lot better. Here are the two papers: [1], [2].

  17. Re:there's no such thing as a simultenaity by jon3k · · Score: 1

    I assume that when the universe started there was only one reference point, the origin.

  18. Re:there's no such thing as a simultenaity by dissy · · Score: 1

    it's einstein's relativity 101. no event appears "simultaneous" to two observers moving at different speeds.

    Ok, but we are discussing 10^87 observers that are all moving at the same speed (C)

    therefore there is no such thing as the 'beginning of the universe' common to all reference frames.

    Therefore if you start with proven incorrect assumptions, you will only get proven incorrect answers.

  19. Re:Worst by quenda · · Score: 1

    Worst summary ever.

    Welcome to slashdot. I hope you stay a while.

  20. What's causing accelerated expansion? by KlomDark · · Score: 1, Interesting

    It's pretty obvious, just people aren't thinking about it from the right mindset:

    It has to do with the expansion of outer shell of the edge the remnants of the original big bang explosion; It's really a type of a 'less resistance' problem, like as if something like air resistance gets less as the perimeter of the expanding explosion moves out, yet the mass of the universe remains the same. [Although that explanation ignores the fact that there's not a whole lot of air in space, but bear with me.]

    Although it's not a normal resistance issue like the basic effect of wind resistance, it is different but similar enough to make the full point of view as follows:

    Sort of easy to describe using an analogy of a balloon inside of a large bell jar. Normally, when you blow up a balloon, the air pressure increases as the balloon expands, since it's the increasing air pressure inside the balloon which is causing the expansion.

    But in this case, blow the balloon up halfway, tie it, and seal it inside of the bell jar. Now you sharply/quickly reduce the air pressure in the bell jar by somehow removing a volume of air that is just less than it will take to pop the balloon by over-expansion as the air pressure drops. (Not sure of the math to determine that amount, just would have to experiment with a few balloons to get it right. It's not important to get it at the edge of popping, it's really what goes on inside the balloon while it's being inflated so quickly, yet this time with air pressure decreasing rapidly as it expands rapidly.

      With the impetus coming this time from the outside of the balloon with the bell jar causing a sudden 'vacuum' (Violent loss of pressure actually, not a true vacuum.) implosion around the balloon instead of increasing the pressure on the inside of the the balloon. With the sudden change in outside air pressure, due to the elasticity of the air inside the balloon it would cause a donut-shaped compression wave to (Is there a word for three-dimensional equivalent of the act of traveling from the outer to inner rings of a set of two-dimensional concentric circles?) intensify as it shrank to a more and more compact size, then impacting itself as it reached the absolute center of the balloon, causing it to violently bounce as a shock wave radiating outward to the edge of the balloon, where it's energy would suddenly press against the edge (Yet the force of the sudden re-expansion will cause a 'vacuum ball' of lower pressure in the center of the balloon caused by the bounce causing a lot of air particles in the center to bounce out with the shock wave as they attempt to reclaim the natural equilibrium between air particles), causing it to expand a bit as the rubber/latex gives way a bit (Yet still not popping) and then de-expanding (starting to shrink) as the energy of the shock wave is spent fighting the elasticity of the balloon's edge and then loses.

    Next we get it in reverse, and over and over until all the energy from that initial shock of 'vacuum' has been converted to friction/heat. But that entire process of bouncing is still not the part we are focusing on, but we're nearly to the end of this long explanation:

    Now think of the particles of air inside the balloon, and how they would react as to their average distance between particles, both expanding and compressing. During the phase where the shock wave is expanding back out after it's first collision with the center, about halfway between the center and the edge of the balloon - the energy of the shock wave has already caused some of the inner air particles to begin traveling outward and gaining some inertia. While at the same time, the edge of the balloon is still rapidly receding as it expands due to the 'outer vacuum' of the bell jar still loosing pressure and 'sucking' the balloon larger.

    So this sets the particles moving outwards, and if you do the math - all particles are moving away from each other at an increasing speed, just like the particles/energy of the universe are doing as it expands outwards from the core of the big bang explosion.

    1. Re:What's causing accelerated expansion? by KlomDark · · Score: 1

      I see I didn't make myself clear enough, and was being distracted while I wrote that.

      The point I was trying to make was simply the fact that the universe is expanding constantly, but the amount of the mass in the universe stays the same. I spent too much time on creating the balloon analogy and not enough on the the thing I was trying to focus on: everything's moving outwards from a center point; the mass remains the same yet the volume continues to increase. (Nothing to do with a secondary collision in the center, I kind of got carried away with the details of the analogy and ended up confusing the point.)

    2. Re:What's causing accelerated expansion? by KlomDark · · Score: 1

      No, although with my bungled explanation of the balloon analogy I can see why you thought that. :)

      There's apparently nothing outside the edge of the universe, so while it's not 'sucking the universe bigger', it's also not resisting:

      All particles trying to reach an equilibrium as the average density of the universe constantly lessening (increasing universal volume, yet a static amount of mass.) seem to have something to do with the acceleration.

      I have a hole in my understanding of why particles seek an equilibrium, whether air particles in a balloon or particles in the universe, but it definitely happens, so that's the base of my theory.

    3. Re:What's causing accelerated expansion? by KlomDark · · Score: 1

      In the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded... :)

      (Who said that? Douglas Adams?)

  21. Re:there's no such thing as a simultenaity by FrootLoops · · Score: 1

    Ok.. I just updated Wikipedia. The Universe is now 13.5 billion years, it was at 13.7.

    Hah, that's extra funny considering the summary's 13.5 billion number came from misquoting the Discovery article's link to an older article (by another group even) titled The Universe is Precisely 13.75 Billion Years Old. You and the submitter might hit it off nicely--you'd at least be able to talk about your remarkable lack of attention to detail.

    I'm pretty sure you're joking about editing Wikipedia, but really you have no idea what you're talking about. Being confused by time dilation is for undergraduate physics majors. The world is unintuitive. You get over it after a while; all that matters is that you can make accurate predictions about it, and time dilation does not violate that ability no matter how much cognitive dissonance it causes you.

  22. I find it hard to care by gweihir · · Score: 1

    About something that was 8 orders of magnitude longer in the past than my own life expectancy. Well, I do not begrudge these people their intellectual exercise, I just hope they did not spend a lot of money on this irrelevant result.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  23. Old news by guspasho · · Score: 1

    "We've made precision measurements of the large-scale structure of the universe five to seven billion years ago"...

    And they're just now getting around to telling us about it?

  24. Re:there's no such thing as a simultenaity by guspasho · · Score: 1

    You make it sound like it would be a noteworthy feat if someone attempted the task and had some measure of success.

  25. So? by dutchwhizzman · · Score: 1

    If they don't exist, do your mod points really matter at this time?

    --
    I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
    1. Re:So? by webnut77 · · Score: 2

      If a mod point falls in the forrest, does anyone get karma?

  26. Nosferatu? by dutchwhizzman · · Score: 1

    One does not simply play guitar in the Rolling Stones?

    --
    I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
  27. Precision Measurements by mikecornelison.com · · Score: 1

    "We've made precision measurements of the large-scale structure of the universe five to seven billion years ago" - Sure took you long enough to get the news out.

  28. The primordial sound was ....? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    Was the primordial sound aum? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Om

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  29. Re:Recursion by Spiflicator · · Score: 1

    I believe this is where one says "Wooooosh"

  30. how do you know? by decora · · Score: 1

    there could be black holes in the dark matter. that's the whole point - we don't know whats in it?

  31. how do you know all those observers by decora · · Score: 1

    are moving at c? that seems like a big assumption to me.

    1. Re:how do you know all those observers by dissy · · Score: 1

      how do you know all those observers ... are moving at c? that seems like a big assumption to me.

      That's the only speed photons CAN move at. At least according to the Relativity 101 quoted by the parent poster...