Slashdot Mirror


Universal Big Bang Lithium Deficit Confirmed

An anonymous reader writes New observations of the star cluster Messier 54 show that it is just as deficient in lithium as our own galaxy, furthering a mystery about the element's big bang origins. "Most of the light chemical element lithium now present in the Universe was produced during the Big Bang, along with hydrogen and helium, but in much smaller quantities. Astronomers can calculate quite accurately how much lithium they expect to find in the early Universe, and from this work out how much they should see in old stars. But the numbers don't match — there is about three times less lithium in stars than expected. This mystery remains unsolved, despite several decades of work."

101 of 171 comments (clear)

  1. Simple explanation. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 5, Funny

    Elon Musk has cornered the supply of lithium for his giga factory. That man thinks centuries ahead of rest of the world and pundits! Man! Morgan cornering silver is nothing compared to this heist.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Simple explanation. by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 5, Funny

      All of existence is bi-polar and has needed the lithium just to maintain it's current state...

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    2. Re:Simple explanation. by strikethree · · Score: 1

      All of existence is bi-polar and has needed the lithium just to maintain it's current state...

      You jest, but people are still trying to figure out why most of the universe appears to matter rather than anti-matter. It is the lithium!

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    3. Re: Simple explanation. by kyjellyfish · · Score: 1

      No, most people realize that the universe DOES matter... those trying to figure out why most of the universe appears to be matter rather than anti-matter are in need of lithium!!

  2. Mined by other civilizations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Civilizations more advanced than our own understood that electric vehicles were the way to go, and they mined it all.

  3. Depressing News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is really depressing news. :-(

    1. Re:Depressing News by geogob · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm sure there's two side to this story.

    2. Re:Depressing News by HuguesT · · Score: 5, Funny

      We should not be polarized about it.

    3. Re:Depressing News by MRe_nl · · Score: 1

      "And it came to pass that AC learned how to reverse the direction of entropy.
      But there was now no man to whom AC might give the answer of the last question. No matter. The answer -- by demonstration -- would take care of that, too.
      For another timeless interval, AC thought how best to do this. Carefully, AC organized the program.
      The consciousness of AC encompassed all of what had once been a Universe and brooded over what was now Chaos. Step by step, it must be done.
      And AC said, "LET THERE BE LITHIUM!"

      And there was lithium---- "

      --
      "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
    4. Re:Depressing News by drainbramage · · Score: 5, Funny

      Stop blaming obama for failures he clearly inherited from previous administrations.

      --
      No brain, no pain.
    5. Re:Depressing News by Charliemopps · · Score: 3, Funny

      This is really depressing news. :-(

      I'm so happy because today I've found my friends, They're in my head.

    6. Re:Depressing News by JustOK · · Score: 1

      Blame the British

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    7. Re:Depressing News by RatherBeAnonymous · · Score: 3, Funny

      All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

    8. Re:Depressing News by Talderas · · Score: 3, Funny

      Subjugate the gauls.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    9. Re:Depressing News by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      Don't ask me. Ask the star Asterix, the strong man Obelix, the fish monger Unhygenix, Cacaphonix the musician, Chief Vitalstatistics, Impedimenta his wife, Square Onthehypotenuse the architect, Memoranda the secretary...

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    10. Re:Depressing News by RatherBeAnonymous · · Score: 1

      Oh, peace... SHUT UP!

    11. Re:Depressing News by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      It's all right, I found it.

      It was down the back of the couch.

    12. Re:Depressing News by NotDrWho · · Score: 1

      Hey, say what you want about the Romans, but that Caligula really knew how to throw a party.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
  4. Lithium, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    No wonder the universe is so mentally unbalanced.

  5. Quite accurately? by The+Mysterious+Dr.+X · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "Astronomers can calculate quite accurately how much lithium they expect to find in the early Universe," can they? How do they know it's accurate? What control values are they using?

    It's not entirely semantic, either; it goes on to say, "But the numbers don't match."

    So how is that "quite accurate"?

    1. Re:Quite accurately? by AikonMGB · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I believe they meant "precisely", not "accurately". Their theories make a prediction which has error bars on it; the measurements taken have error bars on them; the error bars do not overlap.

    2. Re:Quite accurately? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      No it wouldn't.

      "Astronomers can calculate how much lithium they expect to find in the early Universe".

      What part of the words "they expect" are you finding difficult to understand? Adding "believe they" is tautological. Their expectations are based not on "their experience with other elements" but on a model. If the expectations are wrong, as they seem to be, then the model is wrong. That model is more than just BBN, but all of it should be questioned. However, this implication is contained in "they expect". That expectation is based on some assumptions. Those assumptions seem to be incomplete or inaccurate.

    3. Re:Quite accurately? by Charliemopps · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Astronomers can calculate quite accurately how much lithium they expect to find in the early Universe," can they? How do they know it's accurate? What control values are they using?

      It's not entirely semantic, either; it goes on to say, "But the numbers don't match."

      So how is that "quite accurate"?

      You're being a pedant.

      Let me rephrase for you: Using our current model of the big bang, scientists come up with 3x as much lithium as is measured. Therefor the model likely needs adjusting or there is something about the post big-bang that we do not quite understand.

      By accurate they mean this measurement directly contradicts the model. There is no way for an error in the calculation to account for the difference.

    4. Re:Quite accurately? by PSXer · · Score: 1

      Since the answer of whatever calculation they're using results in the amount of Lithium they expect to find, the two always match exactly. See? Quite accurate!

    5. Re:Quite accurately? by geogob · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To say you can calculate quite accurately an expected value makes no sense a all. I can only understand that they estimate the value using models and believe these models to be accurate. Any other signification is senseless and it would be pointless to argue over it.

      Furthermore, you can't asses the accuracy of an estimation with a model. The model is, as you point it yourself out, what gives the estimated value. Only a measurement can validate the estimation and the model.
      Their models gave prediction for the other elements and observations showed that the model was pretty much spot on. Using the same approach for Li, they assumed (or hope for) a similar accuracy. Observation now show that it wasn't the case.

      But the point of the statement was that the believed it would be accurate (again, because any other interpretation of the sentence makes no sense at all). If it is not based on other results using the same model or technique, how do you believe they would have that confidence on the accuracy of their expectation?

    6. Re:Quite accurately? by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      There are two things that confuse me with this news.

      1. With a BA in physics (mid-90's), I was taught about the Big Bang and elements calculation multiple times. In every single instance I was shown the calculated and observed percentages, and they were always given as a good match, as part of the proof. I'm really confused that now it's been known for decades that they *don't* match. Were my books lying to me? Was this observation adjusted the year I graduated college, and I just missed the controversy?

      2. I'm also really curious to hear which elements have a *higher* concentration, to make up for the missing lithium. If we were just short a bunch of lithium, all of the other elements would be higher, percentage wise, and thus all of them would be off. Since the others are spot-on, I've got to think there's at least one element out there that's disproportionately high to balance it out.

    7. Re:Quite accurately? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      "Cosmologists can speculate with high confidence." Everything about that sentence is terrible.

    8. Re:Quite accurately? by geogob · · Score: 1

      No. If you have stable equations, you have stable equations. Period. It only means that the result will not strongly diverge with a small perturbation.

      How these equations represent the real world (ie. how accurate the results are) has nothing to do with their stability. And this is exactly what the point of the whole story is... the equations, regardless if stable or not, do not represent the observed reality.

    9. Re:Quite accurately? by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      ... If we were just short a bunch of lithium, all of the other elements would be higher, percentage wise ...

      Perhaps there was some mechanism that caused the 'missing' lithium to be created as anti-lithium that would've then been annihilated. No need to invoke additional regular matter.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    10. Re:Quite accurately? by LeadSongDog · · Score: 1

      ...or there is something about the post big-bang that we do not quite understand.

      Should we ask Kaley to explain it to you???

      --
      Oh, I'm sorry sir, I thought you were referring to me, Mr. Wensleydale.
    11. Re:Quite accurately? by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      For explaining the lithium's disappearance, maybe, but we do need something to explain the relative proportions.

      My default assumption was as a light element Li would be one of the top numbers. If, say (and these numbers are way off), you were expecting the universe to be 50% hydrogen, 25% helium, 12% lithium, 13% other, and you only had 4% lithium, then that missing 8% would have to be reflected somewhere, and you'd be seeing 54% hydrogen in the universe, for instance.

      Except as I look it up, lithium is very rare to begin with, so maybe two thirds of a very small number isn't enough to throw off the calculations for the other elements. In reality it's 74% hydrogen, 24% helium, and less than 2% for everything else. Li is some exceptionally tiny fraction of a percent, so even if it is off, that's not going to shift the relative percentages of other elements enough to be noticeable, I don't think.

    12. Re:Quite accurately? by imikem · · Score: 1

      Only if she is naked. Hot grits optional.

      --
      Perscriptio in manibus tabellariorum est.
    13. Re:Quite accurately? by Zorpheus · · Score: 1

      The models we are talking about is the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis. It accurately calculates the abundance of the other light elements.

    14. Re:Quite accurately? by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      Clearly they are not using ECC with ZFS and got a data integrity problem... This is a geek site right?

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    15. Re:Quite accurately? by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      I guess what I was trying to get across was that matter doesn't have to 'show up' as other matter - it could also be converted to energy via matter/anti-matter annihilation. Probably not a likely scenario, just pointing that out.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    16. Re:Quite accurately? by Cabriel · · Score: 1

      It should have read

      "Astronomers can calculate quite precisely how much lithium they expect to find..." if they had to use an adjective at all.

    17. Re:Quite accurately? by Garfong · · Score: 1

      1. With a BA in physics (mid-90's), I was taught about the Big Bang and elements calculation multiple times. In every single instance I was shown the calculated and observed percentages, and they were always given as a good match, as part of the proof. I'm really confused that now it's been known for decades that they *don't* match. Were my books lying to me? Was this observation adjusted the year I graduated college, and I just missed the controversy?

      It's possible that for the version of the model you were given, order of magnitude was considered a "good match". I still remember my prof leading our class through a calculation of heat capacity of copper using quantum mechanics, and getting a value which was off by about this much, and it was considered a "good match" because given all the simplifications needed, even getting something in the right neighborhood seen as confirmation of the overall approach.

      Also, according to Wikipedia, measurements of the cosmic microwave background radiation within the last 15 years have fixed some of the parameters of Big Bang nucleosynthesis, so it's possible what was considered a minor discrepancy which may be explained by future research has become a discrepancy which has been highlighted by recent research.

      2. I'm also really curious to hear which elements have a *higher* concentration, to make up for the missing lithium. If we were just short a bunch of lithium, all of the other elements would be higher, percentage wise, and thus all of them would be off. Since the others are spot-on, I've got to think there's at least one element out there that's disproportionately high to balance it out.

      Not necessarily. From what I remember, Hydrogen and Helium are so much more abundant in the universe than Lithium, that a 3x difference in Lithium concentration could easily be 1% or less in H or He concentrations.

    18. Re:Quite accurately? by Garfong · · Score: 1

      Then it would show up as extra energy.

    19. Re:Quite accurately? by spitzak · · Score: 1

      The model can give a "quite accurate" expected value, even when wrong. Example (note numbers are completely made up):

      Say there is model A which predicts 2.5-2.6% lithium.

      Say there is another model B which predicts 2%-8% lithium.

      Say in reality there is 1% lithium.

      Both models are apprently wrong. But Model A is more "accurate" in making the wrong prediction. Therefore the text in the article is perfectly correct.

      Get it?

    20. Re:Quite accurately? by spitzak · · Score: 1

      You may have seen tables of various isotopes of Hydrogen and Helium, those seem to match predictions very well, and there are more than 2 of them, which may be why you are thinking it may go above 2 in the atomic table.

    21. Re:Quite accurately? by geogob · · Score: 1

      No I don't get it and you are wrong.

      Your example has as nothing to do with accuracy. I'll help you.

      According to Oxford :

      The degree to which the result of a measurement, calculation, or specification conforms to the correct value or a standard.

      In other word, the accuracy of a model results tells you how good it represents the real world. What you (and all others who so kindly replied to my original comment) are referring to is precision.

      So, following your example, both model A and B would be inaccurate, but model B would be more precise than model A. Using ISO terminology, model A and B would show a bad trueness, and A would be less precise than B.

  6. Expansion fuel by janap · · Score: 1

    So the accelerated expansion of the universe is fueled by Lithium. Thant's what I always figured. Shrunken minds => expanded space.

    1. Re:Expansion fuel by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      a few decades ago I had a couple of professors that had expanded the universe between their ears with lithium salts

  7. Just maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Maybe astronomers don't actually know as much as they think they know. I encourage them to watch the Distant Origins episode of ST:Voyager and pay close attention to just how badly the Saurians deduced human anatomy from the skeletal fragments they found.

  8. Trilithium by joelholdsworth · · Score: 1

    Simple! Trilithium is a nuclear inhibitor. Therefore any stars with excess trilithium would collapse at the moment of formation and we would never see them.

  9. 3 times less? by Snotnose · · Score: 1

    WTF does that even mean? Is there 1/3 of the expected lithium? Or something else?

    1. Re:3 times less? by drerwk · · Score: 1

      Yes, exactly.

    2. Re:3 times less? by jrumney · · Score: 1

      The lithium in the universe is all antimatter, and there is twice as much as we expected.

  10. Dilithium by The+Other+White+Meat · · Score: 1

    Maybe most of it is in a form that has a different spectral profile, maybe crystalline, and maybe it's "warpy"

    --

    --- Generation X: The first generation to have SIG lines inferior to their parents... ---
  11. I'm sure this is just poor wording... by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

    Astronomers can calculate quite accurately how much lithium they expect to find in the early Universe,

    It's not terribly difficult to compute a value that matches your... computations.

    Without being facetious, I'm not even sure what the author meant to say here.

    1. Re:I'm sure this is just poor wording... by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 3, Informative

      That the models predict an amount of lithium with narrow error bars.
      It's a really neat prediction, it just happens not to agree with the measurements.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    2. Re:I'm sure this is just poor wording... by invid · · Score: 1

      Astronomers expect a certain amount of lithium based on current theories of element formation in the early universe. Apparently they are wrong, bringing about, as Asimov observed, the most exciting phrase in science, "Hmm...that's odd,"

      --
      The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
  12. Do what I do by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Take lithium supplements. It also keeps me from getting...upset. You wouldn't like me when I get upset.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:Do what I do by Teresita · · Score: 1

      Lithium is no longer available on credit.

    2. Re:Do what I do by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      Laugh-a while you can, monkey-boy!

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
  13. As any Trekkie knows... by CeasedCaring · · Score: 1

    The missing quantity is bound up as Crystalline Dilithium, which doesn't show up in normal spectroscopic scans.

  14. Three times less = negative number! by KreAture · · Score: 2

    Stop saying three times less! It is wrong!
    You can find one thirds as much as you expected, but not three times less.

    Three times less means something has to be multiplied by 3 and subtracted.
    X - 3X = -2X!

    It is both gramatically and mathmatically incorrect.
    Stop it!

    1. Re:Three times less = negative number! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      You are wrong: saying "three times less" is perfectly acceptable English. If you have not come across this usage before, I assume you are not a native English speaker, in which case it is probably unwise to comment on what is correct English.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    2. Re:Three times less = negative number! by rHBa · · Score: 1

      As a native English speaker I disagree, it makes no sense and I certainly wasn't taught to use this language. Maybe it's an Americanism though...

    3. Re:Three times less = negative number! by Njovich · · Score: 2

      In English, this is one of the terms used for division. Deal with it.

    4. Re:Three times less = negative number! by WalksOnDirt · · Score: 1

      No, it's an idiotism. But dictionaries are happy to reflect that usage nowadays.

      --
      a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
    5. Re:Three times less = negative number! by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      3X Less is equivalent to 1 / 3X. It's like saying 33.333% !

      As far as questionable English goes, this can't be better than not any Double Negatives.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    6. Re:Three times less = negative number! by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      This is part of spoken English.

      That horrible stuff the teach in English class in school is not spoken or read outside of Pedants and English Teacher forums.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    7. Re:Three times less = negative number! by BenSchuarmer · · Score: 1

      I'm a native English speaker, and I also think it's wrong. If you think it's OK, what do "one times less" and "two times less" mean?

    8. Re:Three times less = negative number! by rHBa · · Score: 1

      You mean like the way the word hacker only means someone who cracks security, DRM etc? That's what it means to most people but it doesn't mean they are right or that we shouldn't try to educate them.

    9. Re:Three times less = negative number! by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      So, how much is 2/3 less?

    10. Re:Three times less = negative number! by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      Wait, what?

    11. Re:Three times less = negative number! by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive.

      At least until you pick one up and bludgeon some half-wit to death with it.

    12. Re:Three times less = negative number! by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that two-thirds less is actually more descriptive and accurate and since two-thirds != three, there has to be some kind of exclusion principle in place.

    13. Re:Three times less = negative number! by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      The "times" implies the multiplication, the more or less implies addition or subtraction respectively.

    14. Re:Three times less = negative number! by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      How much is two thirds less?

    15. Re:Three times less = negative number! by allonoak · · Score: 1

      While technically correct in a literal sense, the phrase is colloquially understood to also mean reduced (fractionally) by a factor of 3. When they say three times less, they are in fact trying to communicate a third, and it's generally understood.

      You might as well argue the semi-anually vs bi-annually case. the semi and bi prefixes have lost meaning because of continued colloquial use.

      Even one textbook I teach from defines semi-monthly as twice a month and semi-weekly as once every two weeks. The terms have less of a literal meaning and more of a context-specific meaning.

    16. Re:Three times less = negative number! by WalksOnDirt · · Score: 1

      idiotism

      Heh. I had no idea that was a real word when I wrote it.

      --
      a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
  15. another one of these, huh? by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    "Astronomers can calculate quite accurately how much lithium they expect to find in the early Universe"
    This is getting old. Even on Star Trek they can't detect things that far away. How the hell do we know how much lithium is under a planet's crust with no light bouncing off of it and it's millions of lightyears away? In fact, their used their magical light frequency technique on one of the moons in our own solar system and then found out a few months ago they were drastically wrong about its chemical composition. But I'm sure they can count lithium atoms from a million lightyears in a billion star systems perfectly accurately.

    1. Re:another one of these, huh? by ChromaticDragon · · Score: 2

      You have to keep in mind that planets are pretty much negligible from a mass balance sheet of anything larger than a stellar system. In our solar system, the Sun makes up between 99.8% and 99.9% of the mass in our solar system.

      I imagine you could pretty much presume all planets to be solid lithium and it wouldn't change much with regards to a 3-fold discrepancy.

  16. I thought this was solved by Korn et al. by Prune · · Score: 4, Interesting

    http://www.nature.com/nature/j... Can any astro-types chime in on this?

    --
    "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    1. Re:I thought this was solved by Korn et al. by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      So you're saying the Lithium is "running silent, running deep"?

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    2. Re:I thought this was solved by Korn et al. by Pausanias · · Score: 1

      Sounds reasonable to me. The article says that a lot of the Lithium settled into the core of the star via diffusion. The reason the deuterium abundance measurements are not affected by this is that they are not done in stars, but in distant absorbing systems.

    3. Re:I thought this was solved by Korn et al. by radtea · · Score: 1

      "Solved" isn't a term properly used in the sciences, and your quite legitimate confusion here is a nice example of why.

      Science is the discipline of publicly testing ideas by systematic observation, controlled experiment, and Bayesian inference. It does not produce certainty, but rather knowledge. Unfortunately, because science is still a very young discipline (only three hundred years old) we have yet to really update our language to accommodate it, so we still talk in terms of "solution" and "proof" and the like, as if we were philosophers seeking after some chimeral goal like "certainty" or the ability to turn base metals into gold.

      The questions scientists are interested in here are:

      1) "Which is more plausible given the evidence we have: that we are computing something wrong in our Big Bang nucleo-synthesis calculations using existing physics; that our measurements of lithium abundance are wrong; that there is new physics that affects lithium production in the Big Bang; that our chemical evolution calculations are wrong for some reason; or that something else entirely is going on that we are missing?"

      and:

      2) "What new evidence might we gather to clarify the situation given we currently don't have a stand-out idea that is sufficiently more plausible than the rest that no one can be bothered to do further investigations?"

      Science is a human discipline, and as such is never "settled" except insofar as no on can be arsed to look at some question more deeply because the plausibility of the currently-best answer is so high (for example, while I think it very likely the Earth is heating up, I support further research like better satellite measurements of albedo: http://www.washington.edu/alum...)

      With regard to lithium, we have a pretty good handle on Big Bang production assuming there is no new physics, but lithium has a number of characteristics that make it more strongly subject to the forces of what cosmologists call "chemical evolution"--the way the chemical composition of the universe changes through time due to stellar and other processes. The Korn et al work points to one particular way primoridal lithium could be hidden away. In the '90's there was similar work being done to show that various other processes could actually break lithium nuclei up over the course of the history of the universe.

      Then there is also the problem that the whole "missing lithium" thing could be a result of a local anomaly in lithium abundance: after all, we have only sampled a small part of the universe. The work this /. post is about focuses on extending the reach of measurements to other galaxies, which is a start, although one could also imagine large-scale enrichment processes in the early universe that put us in a lithium-poor bubble, so no-doubt "additional work is required" to reach a sufficiently strong consensus that the missing lithium has been explained well enough to be not worth bothering with any more.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
  17. Half-life by wulfhere · · Score: 1

    Perhaps Lithium is radioactive, but with a 2 billion year half-life? Perhaps all the elements are, but with much longer half-lifes, and everything will end up as hydrogen again before the ultimate heat death of the universe.

    --
    -- Sent from a computer.
    1. Re:Half-life by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Considering that the highest half-life so far determined is 790 quintillion years, I'd guess that we'd know if Lithium was that unstable.

      Wouldn't there also then have to be an over-abundance of H and He?

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  18. Blame the Klingons by byteherder · · Score: 1

    I think the Klingons have been taking all the lithium from the galaxy in the form of dilithium crystals.

  19. Re:Are these guys dumb or something? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

    Must have been Sony batteries or otherwise the big bang would never have happened.

  20. What if? by flayzernax · · Score: 1

    The big bang happened but on a much smaller scale, and there was already stuff here before the big bang.

    We assume there was no stuff before our known universe expanded and that our known universe expanded at XYZ to account for the amount of energy and matter we have now.

    But we are making a lot of assumptions still.

  21. Poor Math Skills by mrjimorg · · Score: 1

    "there is about three times less lithium in stars than expected"
    It's my pet peeve that people speak like this- it just shows that they don't understand basic math. If the researchers expect 1 trillion tons of lithium, then "Three times less" would be 3*(1 trillion tons). "Three times less" would be 1trillion - 3*(1trillion) = -2 trillion tons of lithium. OMG, this explains all that dark matter that we've heard about- there's anti-lithium everywhere!
    The correct phrasing would be "A third as much as expected". I can't take articles like this seriously when it presented by someone who fails to understand basic math!

    1. Re:Poor Math Skills by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

      So "100% more" and "2 times more" both mean "double"? My understanding when I was learning word problems many, many moons ago was that "N times more" means (N+1)*original value. On the other hand "N times as much/many" meant N*original value. Are they teaching it differently these days? Not trying to be cheeky, just concerned that the language has changed without me knowing it.

      The phrase "three times less" is frequently used to mean "one third of," but it is ambiguous. I don't think there's much consensus anymore on whether it's acceptable practice or not. I personally hate it, but I've even seen it on word problems from major test makers.

      But really in general reporting, there are much more egregious math/science mistakes, like "exponential," where using the wrong phrase leads to a misrepresentation of the facts, not just a misunderstanding of semantics. Another common problem is when talking about probability things. I have heard respectable people say "most people ..." when referring to, say, 40%. Let's focus on these blatant errors first, then we can move on to bad units like "volts of energy." These are all things I'm sure everybody on /. can agree to hate.

    2. Re:Poor Math Skills by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Yes, "more" is the addition operator, "times" is the multiplication operator. Combining the two is idiomatic but generally read as just meaning multiplication.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  22. Poor Math Skills by Sockatume · · Score: 1

    It's not a maths issue, it's an issue of idiomatic versus literal English. "N times more" doesn't mean "Add N times the original value", it just means "N times the original value". Similarly "N times less" doesn't mean "Subtract N times the original value", it means "reciprocal N times the original value".

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  23. Manic by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    Big Bang as a universal manic phase. Needs more lithium.

  24. Several decades of work disproved by Dissenter · · Score: 1

    If you spend several decades of your life simply trying to compute the amount of lithium in another galaxy, I am sorry for you, but to have all of that useless work proven wrong just makes me laugh a little. I am very interested to know what, if anything, this would have proved. Pretty sure this calculation isn't going to convert muslims to science and frankly it seems the only practical application.

    All sarcasm aside, does anyone know what the hypothesis was designed to support or prove in the grander scheme?

    --

    Dissenter
    "There is no knowledge that is not power."

  25. The Elder Races got to it first. by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 1

    The civilizations that evolved earlier than us harvested it all to power their plugin-hybrid starships. What are you going to do about that, Elon?

  26. Batteries not included by gmuslera · · Score: 1

    I suppose that it explain all the buzz around dark energy.

  27. Wrong by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Man tries to apply logic of maths to languages! Watch at 11 when we point and laugh.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10...

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  28. So no warp drive? by LocutusOfBorg1 · · Score: 1

    How can we have warp drive without dilithium crystals?

  29. Re:Three times less? by istartedi · · Score: 1

    I take it to mean 1/3.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  30. Re:!Big Bang by jpvlsmv · · Score: 1

    I guess that disproves the Big Bang Theory! Now what show am I going to watch?

    Maybe try something with a little less scientific rigor... How about COSMOS: A Spacetime Odyssey

  31. Precision vs. accuracy by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1

    Another journalist misuses the word "accurately."

    Astronomers can calculate quite accurately how much lithium they expect to find in the early Universe

    They can calculate it quite precisely; but if the number doesn't match observations, the model is not accurate.

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.
  32. Re:Three times less? by Zordak · · Score: 1

    WTF does that even mean?

    It means whoever wrote this doesn't know what "times" means.

    --

    Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
  33. ARRRRGH by hurfy · · Score: 1

    " there is about three times less lithium in stars than expected "

    God I hate this style of description. We expected to find 100 units but we found -200 instead?

    pet peeve of the day completed.

  34. Unless... by niftymitch · · Score: 1

    OK, "there is about three times less lithium in stars than expected."

    Unless....

    Unless the start of it all was coordinated by a gazilion elves
    all co-ordinating things with cell phones (Li batteries).

    --
    Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
  35. Re:Three times less? by ballpoint · · Score: 1

    Three times less?

    WTF does that even mean?

    Minus 2 times ?

    --
    Flourescent (adj): smelling like ground wheat.