Slashdot Mirror


Milky Way Is Surrounded By Halo of Hot Gas

New submitter kelk1 writes "If the size and mass of this gas halo is confirmed, it also could be an explanation for what is known as the 'missing baryon' problem for the galaxy [...] a census of the baryons present in stars and gas in our galaxy and nearby galaxies shows at least half the baryons are unaccounted for [...] Although there are uncertainties, the work by Gupta and colleagues provides the best evidence yet that the galaxy's missing baryons have been hiding in a halo of million-kelvin gas that envelopes the galaxy."

74 of 121 comments (clear)

  1. 1,000,000 K ?!? by ackthpt · · Score: 1

    Iiiii'm the CAT!

    Seriously, we're not going to get out of this galaxy alive.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:1,000,000 K ?!? by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2, Funny

      These insignificant lumps came together to form the first union, our sun, the heating system. And about this glowing gas bag, rotated the Earth, a cat's eye among aggies, blinking in astonishment across the face of time.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    2. Re:1,000,000 K ?!? by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well, we were covered with a molten scum of rocks, bobbing on the surface like rats. Later, when there was less heat, these giant rock groups settled down among the land masses. During this extinct time, our Earth was like a steam room, and no one, not even man, could get in. However, the oceans and the sewers were simmering with a rich protein stew, and the mountains moved in to surround and protect them. They didn't know then that living as we know it was already taking over.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    3. Re:1,000,000 K ?!? by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2, Funny

      Animals without backbones hid from each other, or fell down. Clamosaurs and oysterettes appeared as appetizers. Then came the sponges, which sucked up about 10% of all life. Hundreds of years later, in the Late Devouring Period, fish became obnoxious. Trailerbites, chiggerbites, and muskquitoes collided aimlessly in the dense gas. Finally, tiny, edible plants sprang up in rows, giving birth to generations of insecticides and other small, dying creatures.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    4. Re:1,000,000 K ?!? by ackthpt · · Score: 3, Interesting

      here in the technical vastness of The Future, we can guess that surely, the past was very different. We know for certain, for instance, that for some reason, for some time in the beginning, there were hot lumps. Cold and lonely, they whirled noiselessly through the black holes of space.

      This is making me feel like there's a big game going on.

      You'll never escape gravity!

      OK, you escaped gravity, but you'll never survive the Van Allen Radiation Belt!

      OK, you passed through the Van Allen Radiation Belt, but you'll never make it through the Asteroid belt!

      OK, you successfully navigated the Asteroid belt, but you'll never make it through the Kuiper belt!

      Dang, you made it through the Kuiper belt, but you'll never, ever make it through the Baryon Halo! Muah ha ha ha haaaah!

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    5. Re:1,000,000 K ?!? by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 3, Funny

      Millions of months passed, and, 28 days later, the moon appeared. This small change was reflected best, perhaps, in the sand dollar, which shrank to almost nothing at the bottom of the pool, where even dumb amphibians like catfish laid their eggs in the boiling waters, only to be gobbled up every three minutes by the giant sea orphans and jungle bunnies, which scared everybody. And so, IN FEAR AND HOT WATER, MAN IS BORN!!!

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    6. Re:1,000,000 K ?!? by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2, Funny

      "No, Mr. Bond. I expect you to die."
      -- Auric Goldfinger

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    7. Re:1,000,000 K ?!? by jamesh · · Score: 5, Informative

      Depends on how dense it is. If you immerse yourself in water at 100C (boiling point for you imperial scumdogs :) you won't last long at all, but in dry air at 100C you can survive for substantially longer. If the gas was so sparse that you might only hit a molecule every few seconds or so then the temperature might not matter so much. The article hints that the density is low "The estimated density of this halo is so low that similar halos around other galaxies would have escaped detection." but that doesn't really help in absolute terms.

      (or maybe you're making a joke... i don't get the reference in the first line you posted)

    8. Re:1,000,000 K ?!? by kasperd · · Score: 1

      Seriously, we're not going to get out of this galaxy alive.

      We are not. But our descendants might. I think that gas is the least problem when leaving the galaxy. It might be hot, but if it isn't very dense, then that might not matter.

      --

      Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
    9. Re:1,000,000 K ?!? by MyLongNickName · · Score: 3, Funny

      What are you talking about, Bozo?

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    10. Re:1,000,000 K ?!? by MyLongNickName · · Score: 2

      And if that doesn't work, at least we can keep you humans confined by the whole speed of light thing.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    11. Re:1,000,000 K ?!? by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      (shuts down)

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    12. Re:1,000,000 K ?!? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      "I think he broke the President!"

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    13. Re:1,000,000 K ?!? by canadian_right · · Score: 1

      mod up, this is very informative.

      --
      Anarchists never rule
    14. Re:1,000,000 K ?!? by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Great. This will be something else for our Congressmen to boast about as a "We worked hard to accomplish this."

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    15. Re:1,000,000 K ?!? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Even with the speed of light broken, the Galaxy is still very very very big.

      100,000 Light years Diameter. From my understanding the Theoretical model says we can probably go 10x the speed of light. Meaning that it will still take 10,000 years at 10x speed of light. Heck if you use the Speed of Plot that Star Trek and other Sci-Fi uses, it still takes about 100 years just to cross the galaxy.

      Just to give you an idea of size. Star Trek Seems Warp drive seems to have an average of 1000x the speed of light. that means it will take 36 hours to get from Earth to Alpha Proxima.

      That is still about 545 Are we there yets.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    16. Re:1,000,000 K ?!? by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      From my understanding the Theoretical model says we can probably go 10x the speed of light

      You piqued my curiosity. Where can I read more about this?

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    17. Re:1,000,000 K ?!? by X0563511 · · Score: 3, Funny

      but if it isn't very dense, then that might not matter.

      That was perhaps the best worst pun ever.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    18. Re:1,000,000 K ?!? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      From my understanding the Theoretical model says we can probably go 10x the speed of light

      You piqued my curiosity. Where can I read more about this?

      He could tell you, but then he'd have to kill you.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    19. Re:1,000,000 K ?!? by thereitis · · Score: 1

      Oh, you made it through the Bayon Halo?! You get to start over on Earth again, this time at a higher skill level.

    20. Re:1,000,000 K ?!? by jellomizer · · Score: 1
      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    21. Re:1,000,000 K ?!? by celtic_hackr · · Score: 1

      Alright. First off, go take a course in modern physics. Then you'll understand the concept of time-space better. As velocity of an object, let's say a spacecraft, increases time slows down for occupants of the object. This phenomenon has been tested and proven with the retired Blackbird spy plane. So, if you could travel at 10x the speed of light it wouldn't take 10,000 years to cross 100,000 LY of space, and I have doubts anything like that is possible, in this lifetime. I'm aware of the theories, and how it's quite possible Einstein was wr-wr-wr-wrong.

      Now for observers of the craft it *might* indeed take 10,000 years, assuming observers had a way to detect something moving faster than light.

      However, since we have no technology at present to push us to such speeds, it's all a wash. While we haven't built anything yet, we could technically build crafts to travel to nearby star systems at speeds of say .6C. At such speeds interstellar travel is possible in a single lifetime. Granted it's one way, and everyone you know would be old or dead by the time you made a round trip. I'm not going to do the math to say Barnard's star. As an example, given we plan on putting humans on board, we need to be concerend with acceleration and deceleration forces on the frail human body. So to travel at .6c we'd need ~6 months (as observed from Earth) of acceleration and ~6 months of deceleration (~323 d x2). Thus making a trip to Alpha Centauri (4.3LY) take ~8 years (as observed from Earth). The occupants would see it as under a year (being super lazy here, but comparable to the European Colonists travel times from Europe to North America)).

      So anyway there you have it a time-space travel intro, aka the fountain of youth. Lastly, theoretically, at light speed, time stops, So traveling 100,000 LY @ lightspeed would appear to the traveler to be an instantaneous trip. At anything greater than lightspeed, I haven't contemplated, nor read any others theories. Now of course, it is likely still a one way ticket @ LS. Again, not sure of the result of >LS.

  2. Hot gas by Ultra64 · · Score: 1

    Excuse me.

    1. Re:Hot gas by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Woah... I can't believe you had the exact same thought as me... crazy.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  3. Wha? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    that envelopes the galaxy

    Surely you meant to use the verb, i.e. "envelops".

    1. Re:Wha? by Sulphur · · Score: 5, Funny

      that envelopes the galaxy

      Surely you meant to use the verb, i.e. "envelops".

      Forming a letter of galactic proportions without a stamp.

    2. Re:Wha? by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      I'm loathe to pointe out you're being too rationale about this, and the mounting criticism is bad for moral.

  4. How does something so un-dense... by Nutria · · Score: 1

    retain it's 1,000,000K for 14,000,000 years?

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    1. Re:How does something so un-dense... by radtea · · Score: 5, Informative

      retain it's 1,000,000K for 14,000,000 years?

      First, that's 14,000,000,000, not 14 million.

      The key is how undense it is. When a physicist talks about "temperature" in this context it's just short-hand for "average velocity"... it doesn't necessarily imply thermal equilibrium, even. So 1e6K means a high average velocity. Now, if it were a dense gas there might be collisions that would do things like excite electrons into higher states, which would then decay by emitting photons (light), and so the gas would lose thermal-kinetic energy over time.

      In a sufficiently diffuse gas, loss processes like this are very slow because the chances of collision are very slow, so it can stay "hot" (that is, have a high average velocity) for a long, long time.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    2. Re:How does something so un-dense... by Nutria · · Score: 1

      First, that's 14,000,000,000, not 14 million.

      I realized that afterwards...

      When a physicist talks about "temperature" in this context it's just short-hand for "average velocity"... it doesn't necessarily imply thermal equilibrium, even.

      Huh? "Temperature" isn't that much easier to write, say or think about than "average velocity".

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    3. Re:How does something so un-dense... by PvtVoid · · Score: 2

      When a physicist talks about "temperature" in this context it's just short-hand for "average velocity"... it doesn't necessarily imply thermal equilibrium, even. So 1e6K means a high average velocity. Now, if it were a dense gas there might be collisions that would do things like excite electrons into higher states, which would then decay by emitting photons (light), and so the gas would lose thermal-kinetic energy over time. In a sufficiently diffuse gas, loss processes like this are very slow because the chances of collision are very slow, so it can stay "hot" (that is, have a high average velocity) for a long, long time.

      Uh, no. If the collision rate weren't high enough to excite electrons into higher states, it wouldn't be radiating X-rays, which is how Chandra detects the gas. Not a whole lot is known about gas in halos like the Milky Way's, but clusters have been extensively studied, and the gas is pretty close to thermal equilibrium, but not exactly. Hot cluster halos are ubiquitous, and it's not terribly surprising that more isolated galaxies have hot halos as well. The gas heats from loss of gravitational potential when it falls into the halo, and it stays hot because there are few cooling mechanisms, and because subsequent infall repleneshes it.

    4. Re:How does something so un-dense... by bughunter · · Score: 5, Informative

      Temperature (in Kelvin) is actually more useful in astrophysics and thermodynamics of plasmas. It wraps up a bunch of messy real world constants into one number, and also neatly describes the behavior of the volume of gas as a whole, rather than forcing the analyst to perform a lot of messy integrating and averaging of distributions of actual velocities in three dimensions.

      Think about it this way. No one is really interested in how fast a specific particle is moving. They're more interested in how the Thermal Energy of the gas couples with other systems.

      A galactic halo would be coupled very, very, (very^18) poorly with other systems, at least conductively. And probably even worse convectively, given the scales involved. Radiatively, I don't know near enough about the behavior of these particles to talk about why, but if it's stayed that hot for the life of the universe, effectivelt, then apparently its either not coupled to another system, coupled far more strongly to itself than anything else, or somehow not stimulated to emit blackbody radiation... or all three of the above.

      --
      I can see the fnords!
    5. Re:How does something so un-dense... by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Temperatures of near vacuum gasses are not the same as temperatures of gasses at higher pressures. You can't just stick a thermometer in and see what it reads. What you do is measure the kinetic energy of individual gas particles, and back-calculate to find out what temperature a regular gas would have in order that its average molecule would have the same kinetic energy. In the vacuum of intergalactic space, the individual gas particles can have tremendous kinetic energy, and they are likely to keep that energy because there is nothing to bounce off of.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    6. Re:How does something so un-dense... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      If the collision rate weren't high enough to excite electrons into higher states, it wouldn't be radiating X-rays, which is how Chandra detects the gas.

      Chandra isn't seeing X-ray emissions from the gas, it's seeing X-rays being absorbed by the gas. Specifically, observing 8 X-ray sources hundreds of millions of light-years beyond the gas, it was discovered that some of the X-rays from those sources were being absorbed, and it was possible to deduce the temperature of the absorbing gas.

    7. Re:How does something so un-dense... by PvtVoid · · Score: 2

      Chandra isn't seeing X-ray emissions from the gas, it's seeing X-rays being absorbed by the gas. Specifically, observing 8 X-ray sources hundreds of millions of light-years beyond the gas, it was discovered that some of the X-rays from those sources were being absorbed, and it was possible to deduce the temperature of the absorbing gas.

      Whoops. My bad, But my point still stands: the light is being absorbed by oxygen ions at a temperature of a million Kelvin: what do you think is ionizing them?

      When people refer to temperatures in a galactic halo, they absolutely mean to imply that the halo is somewhere close to thermal equilibrium.

    8. Re:How does something so un-dense... by Nutria · · Score: 1

      What you do is measure the kinetic energy of individual gas particles, and back-calculate to find out what temperature a regular gas would have in order that its average molecule would have the same kinetic energy.

      That's an indirection too far to pass the smell test.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    9. Re:How does something so un-dense... by slew · · Score: 2

      On the other hand Temperature (e.g., in Kelvin) is only marginally useful in describing the distribution of a phenomena that isn't in thermal equilibrium (say non-blackbody radiation)...

      For example, people used to grade lightbulbs by their color Temperature, but that didn't say much about the quality of illumination from said lightbulb. Now they use CRI (color rendering index) for lightbulbs which give some information about the actual distribution instead of the really poor assumption that the illumination was comparable to black-body radiation distribution.

      It's not clear (to me) that a galactic halo would necessarily be in thermal equilibrium, except only approximatly over a long time horizon. The real interesting observable phenomena is likely a result of this not being true (e.g. http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.4816 )

    10. Re:How does something so un-dense... by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1
      Let's see. At the average thermal velocity of

      v = sqrt(3 kT/m) ; where m = 1.66E-27 k = 1.38E-23 T = 1E6 so v = 158 km/sec?

      What's the escape velocity of a particle in this halo?

    11. Re:How does something so un-dense... by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      By being "un-dense". How do you propose for the kinetic energy to be removed?

    12. Re:How does something so un-dense... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      I don't think it has been this hot for the entire life of the universe - it actually hot hotter with time most likely. This was likely gas found in intergalactic space that fell gravitationally towards the milky way. After falling for billions of years it is moving really fast. However, the gas is so sparse that there really aren't any collisions to speak of. Sure, if a particle hits a star or planet or something that will stop it, but chances are this stuff is hitting our atmosphere all the time, but for every particle that hits the earth trillions pass all around us flying through the solar system and the space beyond at incredible velocity.

    13. Re:How does something so un-dense... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      It likely only got hotter with time - as it fell towards the galaxy and picked up speed. In order to lose temperature the gas molecules have to actually interact with something. There isn't anything for them to interact with - these things are flying through intergalactic space basically flying around the galaxy.

      Put hot water in a thermos and it stays hot for a while. Put hot water in intergalactic space and it stays hot for much longer. However, the water molecules still interact and release photons out into space radiatively. Ionized hydrogen is just loose protons flying through space - they don't just emit photons, and neither do free electrons as far as I'm aware. When they occasionally collide then you get photons released as x rays, which is what gets imaged.

      I think most of the mass of the universe actually exists as these clouds of gas surrounding superclusters.

    14. Re:How does something so un-dense... by rgbatduke · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'm having a few problems with the idea. Temperature actually implies thermal equilibrium, which in turn requires interaction. However, those atoms/molecules are, shall we say cosmicly non-interacting, being so dispersed that they basically form a hard vacuum. There are then a number of problems with the picture. One, why do the molecules not simply fall back into the galaxy (or if you like, why were they pushed out of the galaxy in the first place)? Several billion years accumulation of solar wind and outflow from supernovae? Second, why don't they "cool" to equilibrium with the background blackbody radiation? That one at least is answerable -- they basically never collide (as you say). The third question is -- how can one detect the gas? The molecules are cold, non-interacting, and enormously diffuse. To the extent that they interact with photons, they would relatively quickly slow down to equilibrium, so they are almost by definition invisible. Furthermore, photons are photons, and being a gas detecting the origin of a photon approaching the Earth from any given direction (that is, the distance of the source) is quite impossible, ditto for absorption lines from distant stars. I mean, parallax won't work. Neither will red shift. Alterations of gravity (as in the way one infers "Dark Matter") might work, but won't give you the speed or "temperature" or ensure that the matter that is altering orbits is a gas of baryons as opposed to darkonium.

      Indeed, the title is horribly misleading. It would be better to say that the galaxy may be surrounded by a very diffuse gas of particles at a very low temperature in a reference frame that has a very high velocity relative to the galactic core, and we infer this compared to all competing explanations by sacrificing a chicken with a black-handled knife on the keyboard of a computer.

      rgb

      --
      Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
    15. Re:How does something so un-dense... by monkeykoder · · Score: 1

      Temperature is in a way a measure of the energy in the system to be used to excite particles into higher energy states. In that way it incorporates several different forms of energy that are distributed "randomly" meaning they don't have a general direction of travel but none the less will provoke particles on the scale of atoms to move outside of their current stable equilibrium.

  5. Galactic Barrier by wonderboss · · Score: 5, Interesting
    --
    more cowbell
    1. Re:Galactic Barrier by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 1

      http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Galactic_barrier

      Oddly enough, I had the same thought.

      Could be the Continuum, for that matter.

      Or, where you Ascend to...

       

  6. Personally... by Tarlus · · Score: 1

    ...I think you guys just like saying the word "baryon".

    --
    /* No Comment */
  7. Re:Warm Gas by ackthpt · · Score: 1

    "... a few hundred times hotter than the surface of the sun." That's very warm.

    It's relative warmth in the 100,000 K and up club it's rather difficult to keep track because once you've boiled away Tungsten, there's not much meaning in additional units of heat.

    It does give me the impression the galaxy is actually protecting us from all this hot matter, it gets too close and gets blown away by a star or attacted to cooler matter. I imagine, however, this halo should be generating some serious amounts of IR. Need that ol' James Webb telescope to explain more about it.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  8. Wait by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

    Hold on a second... so they just discovered the Galaxy is surrounded by gas that's the same temperature as the surface of the sun, and is 300,000 lightyears across... possibly extending far into other galaxies... I'm going to take a wild stab here and say that, if that's true it probably pervades the entire universe... Isn't this the biggest scientific discovery in the past decade? What effect does this have on Dark Matter, Dark Energy, etc... etc...

    1. Re:Wait by PvtVoid · · Score: 4, Informative

      Hold on a second... so they just discovered the Galaxy is surrounded by gas that's the same temperature as the surface of the sun, and is 300,000 lightyears across... possibly extending far into other galaxies... I'm going to take a wild stab here and say that, if that's true it probably pervades the entire universe... Isn't this the biggest scientific discovery in the past decade? What effect does this have on Dark Matter, Dark Energy, etc... etc...

      It has been known for a long time that the intergalactic medium is hot enough to be ionized. That part is not news. The thing that's news is that the hot gas makes it possible to account for the baryons in the Milky Way halo, which were previously undetected.

    2. Re:Wait by waveclaw · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The thing that's news is that the hot gas makes it possible to account for the baryons in the Milky Way halo, which were previously undetected.

      The thought that we're just the 0.1% of the dirty precipitate at the bottom of the gravity well is a tad humbling. Not that much isn't when you look up from the T.V. to a clear night sky.

      Galaxies are apparently quite dynamic things: a rain of in-falling gas to make new stars, pressure from new stars pushing back, dust build up from all this nucleosynthesis, blackhole cores that cycle on and off. One paper I read even claims this is the beginning of the 'green' period for the Milky Way. The conditions for life will be come more abundant: the number of long-burning dwarf stars like the sun continue to rise as a fraction of the stellar population while the dust percentage (you know, planets) rises at the same time a lot of the big super- and hyper- novae are over with.

      However, longer term prospects seem bleak if the dynamic gas is all consumed or blown away. Eventually stellar production would grind to a halt. The green galaxy would give way to white and red dwarfs floating amid other stellar corpses and thinned gas.

      I have to wonder if the temperature and environmental coupling of this gas is enough to become a future raw star material resource? I mean, we're talking about 99.9% of the matter here and it's already gravitationally bound. Could someone model long-term in-fall of this ionized matter? Could it cool fast enough or even at all to beat the predicted 'big rip' from dark energy and give the galaxy a 2nd, 3rd, etc. childhood?

      --

      "You cannot have a General Will unless you have shared experiences. You cannot be fair to people you don't know."
    3. Re:Wait by Tom · · Score: 2

      and is 300,000 lightyears across... possibly extending far into other galaxies...

      You are vastly underestimating galactic distances. Our closest neighbor, Andromeda, is over 2 million light years away.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    4. Re:Wait by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      and is 300,000 lightyears across... possibly extending far into other galaxies...

      You are vastly underestimating galactic distances. Our closest neighbor, Andromeda, is over 2 million light years away.

      Yeah, and we don't even get on that well.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  9. halo of hot gas? by DJCouchyCouch · · Score: 2

    Sorry, that was me. BIG burrito last night.

  10. So Star Trek had it right? by Bomarc · · Score: 3, Interesting
    1. Re:So Star Trek had it right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No. The Galactic Barrier is a (fictional) force field around our galaxy, preventing matter to get out or in (supposedly placed there by some higher intelligence).

      The real thing is a very sparse cloud of ionized gas. It doesn't work like a barrier at all.

    2. Re:So Star Trek had it right? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      No. The Galactic Barrier is a (fictional) force field around our galaxy, preventing matter to get out or in (supposedly placed there by some higher intelligence). The real thing is a very sparse cloud of ionized gas. It doesn't work like a barrier at all.

      You really are a bundle of fucking laughs aren't you?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  11. Re:Hot gas is a plasma, but nobody here seems to c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As a plasma physicist, I'm not bothered or concerned about them calling it gas. When interacting with the general public to discuss plasma related research, sometimes you find yourself having to make a choice between trying to teach a person what a plasma is, or teaching them what you are doing with it. Attention spans, and time/space are sometimes limited with such interactions and you have to choose your priorities.

  12. Not dark matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Of course every time a story comes up about missing matter being found, people want to know the impact on the need for dark matter. There is evidence that suggest how much matter in the universe is made out of baryonic matter (protons and neutrons... essentially anything made of atoms), and how much is made out of non-baryonic matter. The latter category is dark matter. In addition to the missing non-baryonic matter, there is also a bunch of missing baryonic matter, which what is being found by studies like this. That wasn't counted as part of dark matter in the first place. It is not like every bit of new baryonic matter we find cuts into the dark matter slice of the pie, they are still trying to fill up the normal matter slice,

  13. Nothing to do with Dark Matter by mbone · · Score: 2

    This just accounting for regular own (baryonic) matter. The Halo is still mostly "Dark" matter, which is non-interacting. (It may be WIMPs, i.e., non-baryonic, or it may be quark nuggets, i.e., baryonic, but either way it is non-interacting.)

  14. Wow... by luckymutt · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...has Rush Limbaugh really gotten that big?

  15. Re:Hang on... by mbone · · Score: 1

    No, no more than the incredibly hot solar corona / wind bothered the Apollo astronauts. The energy density is just way too low.

  16. Re:Hot gas is a plasma, but nobody here seems to c by tragedy · · Score: 1

    Aren't we all supposed to have learned about solid, liquid, gas and plasma back in grade school? I seem to recall having the concept explained over and over again from before high school and right through it. I can see the people who pass through school without learning to read having trouble with it, but it's a depressing thought that the ones who managed to become journalists missed the entire concept.

  17. Re:Hang on... by tragedy · · Score: 1

    It's hot, but it's also a hard vacuum. For a spacecraft travelling through it, it's probably better to just think of it as radiation.

  18. What is this Stellar Hot Air Day? by Pyrus.mg · · Score: 1

    The previous story is the Romney-Ryan Space Policy.

  19. Gene Roddenberry was right by greg_barton · · Score: 1

    There is a barrier surrounding the galaxy!

  20. Re:Hot gas is a plasma, but nobody here seems to c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Same AC you replied to...

    Although many people do learn that in school, they either don't remember it or never learned anything about what a plasma actually is other than it is some mysterious hot stuff, and can't see how it is pretty similar to gas in a lot of situations.

    If anything, I've run into more trouble with people who paid attention to such things in school and not much else. They get stuck with this notion that everything has to be pigeon-holed into one of those categories (which makes it even worse if they were taught only three states). There seems to be a bit of lack of sense of how the different states relate to each other, and that the boundary between them can be fuzzy in many cases. This is especially so with plasma, since in some cases the electrical properties don't matter much and it acts just like a gas. Other times you can have partially ionized plasmas where the electrical effects are there, but not dominant (or even see such effects in things like semiconductors or conducting liquids, which sometimes get referred to as plasmas when speaking analogously, but are also different).

    For stories like this though, the difference probably doesn't matter much. I think they could have easily called it plasma, and the number of people it would have confused would have been minimal, although I don't know if it would have added anything.

  21. Re:Warm Gas by mister_playboy · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's relative warmth in the 100,000 K and up club it's rather difficult to keep track because once you've boiled away Rhenium, there's not much meaning in additional units of heat.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhenium
    The more you know... :)

    --
    Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
  22. That's just stupid. by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

    Everyone knows a Milky Way is surrounded by a halo of milk chocolate.

  23. Re:Warm Gas by hvm2hvm · · Score: 1

    I spent 30min on Wikipedia because of you...

    --
    ics
  24. Escape velocity by maroberts · · Score: 1

    Let's see. At the average thermal velocity of

    v = sqrt(3 kT/m) ;
        where m = 1.66E-27
        k = 1.38E-23
        T = 1E6
        so
                v = 158 km/sec?

    What's the escape velocity of a particle in this halo?

    Somewhere close to the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow (European)

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

    1. Re:Escape velocity by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      Let's see. At the average thermal velocity of

      v = sqrt(3 kT/m) ; where m = 1.66E-27 k = 1.38E-23 T = 1E6 so v = 158 km/sec?

      What's the escape velocity of a particle in this halo?

      Somewhere close to the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow (European)

      Yeah, that's my point. A really hot gas can't be gravitationally bound to the galaxy. It would all fly off into intergalactic space and then you wouldn't have a halo any more. I think what they're doing is regarding "temperature" as a stand-in for DENSITY. It's THIN not HOT.

  25. Name two things... by Genda · · Score: 1

    Surrounded by a halo of hot gas... The Milky Way Galaxy and Washington D.C.

  26. Re:Hot gas is a plasma, but nobody here seems to c by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    Aren't we all supposed to have learned about solid, liquid, gas and plasma back in grade school?

    Considering how many comments ON A NERD SITE say "loose" instead of "lose", aliterate things like "there cars are over their" and "The tomato's are in season", I think the fact that they don't know what a plasma is is pretty understandable.

  27. Re:Calculate the acceleration at that distance. by Rich0 · · Score: 1

    I'll take you at your word (I'm a chemist, not a particle physicist, though I do know enough about Boltzman distributions that I could probably work it out).

    Agreed that the velocity distribution might not be right - initially this stuff all started out as a mostly uniform cloud of gas with particles falling towards the nearest clump of mass, with particles that are farther picking up more speed - should be possible with some assumptions and calculus to work out what the distribution is assuming no collisions at all, and then it would move from that to a Boltzman distribution as collisions happen. That said, I'm sure there is SOME interaction among particles. The mean free path could be rather long though - and all of the particles are moving fast so collisions will shoot off some X-Rays and then everything is still moving along.

    Again, I'm not a physicist, though I might be if I had the time. :) One lifetime just isn't enough.