backtop

Science Gaping Hole Found in Universe
Michael Asher (Blog) - August 25, 2007 10:14 AM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 165 comment(s) - last by jtemplin.. on Sep 7 at 8:12 PM

A false-color view of the hole, imaged with both the WMAP satellite and a radio telescope array  (Source: NASA)
Unexpected results baffle our understanding of the universe

Astronomers have found a giant "hole" in the universe that measures nearly a billion light-year across. The large galactic void is empty of galaxies, stars, dust clouds and, oddly enough, even dark matter. The discovery has left scientists clambering for a plausible explanation, however, as of right now one hasn't arisen. Scientists claim that a galactic void this large is far from a normal occurrence.

The region was intially discovered by NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Satellite. At that time, scientists had no idea that it would turn out to be a giant space void.

The WMAP satellite measures the temperature of cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) over the entire sky. CMB radiation is a form of electromagnetic radiation that fills the entire universe and can be detected in all regions of space. This radiation is remnant heat from the Big Bang and is very cold, measuring just 2.725° above absolute zero.

On the map of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation produced by the WMAP satellite, the void came up as a cold spot. Since the temperature of CMB radiation is quite uniform in all of space, scientists already knew there was something special about the region.  Lead researcher Lawrence Rudnick of the University of Minnesota said "we already knew there was something different about this spot." Due to its cooler appearance on the CMB Map, the void was dubbed the "WMAP Cold Spot."

Further inspection of the hole was made using the Very Large Array (VLA) radio telescope funded by the National Science Foundation, after which it was discovered by University of Minnesota researchers that the cold spot is devoid of nearly all forms of matter. Many galactic voids exist in space, however, the WMAP Cold Spot Void is an especially unique occurrence considering that it is nearly 1,000 times larger than any other observed void.

Rudnick refers to the results as "suprising."

Also involved in the research of the region was Associate Professor Liliya Williams, who stated, "What we’ve found is not normal, based on either observational studies or on computer simulations of the large-scale evolution of the Universe".

The void is roughly 6-10 billion light years from Earth, in the constellation Eridanus.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Center of the universe?
By Nexworks on 8/25/2007 6:23:07 PM , Rating: 2
Could this be the center of the universe? Id imagine there would be a big void where the big bang went off.




RE: Center of the universe?
By noirsoft on 8/25/2007 6:31:04 PM , Rating: 2
That's not an accurate way to think of it. Where is the "center" on the surface of a sphere? There isn't one. As the sphere gets bigger, things on the surface move farther apart, but there is no "empty center"

The universe is the same way, except that whereas the surface of an expanding sphere is a 2d surface expanding in 3d, the universe is a 3d space expanding in a fourth dimension.

At least, that's how I understand it from a bit of mild reading. Experts may correct me if I'm wrong.


RE: Center of the universe?
By pyr0m on 8/25/2007 6:49:46 PM , Rating: 2
The surface of a 4-d hypersphere is a "normal" 3-d sphere. As such, it is relatively easy to define its center.

I do agree with your semi-apparent skepticism about that area being the center, because if one places a large amount of particles with the same charge in one place, one at the very center will remain mostly stationary, and the ones at the far edge will be shot off much faster, leaving (essentially) a high-charge/mass area at the center of charge/mass.


RE: Center of the universe?
By Zurtex on 8/25/2007 9:02:15 PM , Rating: 3
Eh?

I think you're thinking of the cross section of a 4-d hypershpere. That's like saying the surface of a 3-d sphere is a cricle, it's not it's a 2-sphere.


RE: Center of the universe?
By pyr0m on 8/25/2007 10:12:47 PM , Rating: 2
Dang, thanks for catching that. It's been far too long since I've studied geometry.

I was under the impression, however, that the universe was the inside of a sphere, not the surface of a 4-hypersphere (the 3-sphere is the geometer's term for this). Locally, at least (referring to how much of the universe we can see), the radius of curvature is essentially zero, which corresponds to a euclidean, instead of spherical, geometry.


RE: Center of the universe?
By Zurtex on 8/25/2007 10:41:43 PM , Rating: 5
I think it's essentially too hard to tell, locally we appear to be in Eucledian Space, but locally the surface of a sphere is Eucleadian space, the curvature is 1/R, so for very large R it appears to be a plain.

As far as my diffential geometry lessons go, the only way to accurately tell is to get a really big triangle in space (say measurable size of the universe, so would span millions of galaxies). Work out its area and the sum of its angles, if the angles add up to Pi (180 degrees) and the area is 1/2*b*h, we live in Eucledian Space, if not then we live in some other topologically distinct space and there are appropriate formulae to work it out. This ofcourse all assumes we live on a smooth manifold of some form, which may find out some day just isn't right and general relativity goes down the toilet.

A 3-sphere is actually the surface of a 4-D hypershpere, it sounds a bit pedantic but there's some important gemmetric reasons for keeping these 2 objects distinct.


RE: Center of the universe?
By pyr0m on 8/25/2007 11:39:34 PM , Rating: 2
It's a wonderful thing that we'll probably never need to know the exact Gaussian curvature of space (at least, not until we have inter-galaxy travel).

I can almost guarantee that the person who finds proof of the exact curvature of space will get the Nobel Prize in physics. Of course, there's also a theory that the curvature changes (even discounting gravity wells and such)...


RE: Center of the universe?
By Brockway on 8/26/2007 10:46:38 PM , Rating: 2
Wasn't this already worked out? That space is flat, that is.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/727073.stm


RE: Center of the universe?
By Zurtex on 8/26/2007 11:22:36 PM , Rating: 2
All smooth manifolds are locally R^n, I don't see how "a balloon" could prove the Universe is globally flat, just that the local area is in fact Euclidean or flat, which is not a surprise at all.

But I'll try and see if I can find an article with more detail on this.


RE: Center of the universe?
By SilthDraeth on 8/27/2007 9:57:50 AM , Rating: 5
Damned lot of closet astrophysicist on this board.


RE: Center of the universe?
By Nexworks on 8/25/2007 7:04:36 PM , Rating: 2
Well the explosion would go off in all directions pushing all the energy away from the center. So somewhere in the universe there should be a section of nothing no?


RE: Center of the universe?
By enthusiaster on 8/25/2007 8:13:09 PM , Rating: 2
noirsoft is somewhat correct, the universe may be expanding which means that there is nothing(?) beyond the expansion. but you are also correct in that in such an explosion, everything would leave the center. what i see is AN EXPANDING "DEAD ZONE". it is not a concentration of anything but a void. and if you want to get weird about it, space could be folding in on itself, the "perimeter" recycling right back to the void as the perimeter expands then outside the perimeter folds into the void.


RE: Center of the universe?
By mendocinosummit on 8/25/2007 9:47:32 PM , Rating: 3
Really far out, but what if that is the "eye" of the universe. Maybe we are actually slowly, very slowly, revolving around it.


RE: Center of the universe?
By TSS on 8/26/2007 12:20:13 PM , Rating: 3
if anything where moving further away form it, would it be the center of the universe. since space is expanding and where in space, the distance between us and every object gets larger over time. would you wait long enough eventually it'd be just us and our solar system.

if anything i'd say some civilization was experimenting with some really big sticks'o'TNT, set em off and got a bigger bang for their buck then they hoped for.


RE: Center of the universe?
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 8/27/2007 3:00:55 PM , Rating: 5
instead of the eye of the universe, maybe it is the butt hole of the universe. That's why everything is trying to get away from that area. If I can clear a 20 foot by 20 foot room with a small release of gas imagine what the universe can produce.... :P


RE: Center of the universe?
By The Jedi on 8/29/2007 6:49:01 PM , Rating: 2
"Most people would call this the ass end of space"...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gO6rqAJ3mGc


RE: Center of the universe?
By 16nm on 8/29/2007 8:58:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If I can clear a 20 foot by 20 foot room with a small release of gas


Hey! They should ship you off to Mars for some terraforming. You could spend the rest of your life in a state of pure flatulence all the while creating the martian atmosphere. Call NASA, problem solved.


RE: Center of the universe?
By Dragen on 8/31/2007 4:28:47 PM , Rating: 2
Are you people not paying attention? Drop everything you think you know about physics as you know it, and prepare for a very BASIC lesson on how the universe is theorized to expand.

Your assumptions on matter to be void in a center of an "explosion" make a lot of sense in a 3rd dimensional reality. But this is not what has, and IS happening in *our* Universe. The Big Bang was NOT a "Universal Explosion" INSIDE 3rd Dimensional space. It has been shown the big bang was so powerful, and so violent, the expansion of all matter from your "center" was faster than the speed of light, which completely utterly violated our theories on special relativity; which states that nothing, matter nor energy can travel faster than the speed of light in the 3rd dimension as we know it.

What happened, and IS happening is called "Inflation". Yes, like a Balloon. The Universe itself is contained within another dimension, and probably another, and another, and another. The subject matter gets so complex it will hurt your brain. The POINT is, OUR 3RD dimension that we all know and love today, and live in... is really the skin of the balloon. Therefore, it is physically IMPOSSIBLE, to reach the center without traversing dimensions. Do you understand?

That's precisely how the rate of EXPANSION was faster than the speed of light, as this didn't violate the law of special relativity in our 3rd dimension. The expansion of the galaxies contained on that spherical 3rd dimensional plane never moved away or toward each other at or beyond the speed of light? Get it?

This also answers the question why Galaxies collide with each other. When viewing the Big Bang as a 3rd dimensional event, nobody could explain why galaxies would collide with each other!!! In a true 3rd dimensional explosion, all matter would completely move in opposite directions from each other. But since we are dealing with Inflation here, the galaxies will wobble around on the "skin" of our universal bubble and create massive cosmic fireworks.

Don't believe me? Andromeda, our neighbor Galaxy.. is on a collision course for the Milky Way.

I really... REALLY hope this clears up some very very wrong preconceived notions about the Big Bang, and a very basic fundamental level.


RE: Center of the universe?
By Guigsy on 8/26/2007 4:28:29 PM , Rating: 5
Imagine you live in only 2 dimensions on the surface of a balloon, this is your entire universe. If you travel in one direction long enough, you'll eventually end up where you started. This universe is expanding, the balloon is slowly being blown up. Unfortunately, everyone living on the 2D balloon surface has no concept of where that centre is. They can't point towards it. When their universe started (the balloon was very small), everything was the 'centre', and now everything that was the centre is now more spread out.

Our universe is similar, except we live in 3d space and it's unlikely that it is 'round'. There's no centre to speak of, everywhere was the centre, just everything has spread out. To point towards the centre, we'd need another dimension... which makes my head hurt.

Yes, I know, lots of inaccuracies, but it's the best understanding I have.... :)


RE: Center of the universe?
By RobinBee on 8/29/2007 4:52:53 PM , Rating: 2
Center, impossible:

I think universal energies scale with exactly same proportional differenes regardles of sizes, because, energy must be seen as visualised fractals: repeated periods. We know how protons bind to each other, and, if distance is larger, they reject. If, and this is only theory, such energy variations exist on larger scales, this explains why planets bind to each other in solar systems and in galaxies, while far away galaxies seem to eject each other. Further, this explains why our universe seem to expand, because, we probably cannot at the moment see the whole thing, and, as such, perhaps further away, our universe bind to more of the like. In this picture, where is the beginning or an end? In fractals, visualized, there is none! However, there should always be a formula. This, we ought to calculate.

About universal geometry: Our problem is that we don't know how the universe look. We only have light from very old days, and, perhaps this image is a long gone reality. Astronomy as such, today, if searching for the present and not past, is like digging in a very old library after today's news.

Oasis and dry lands: It is wrong, I think, to view the universe as unspoiled land. If, on our planet, natural radiation levels had been higher, life organisms would have developed faster, and we would today be able to move the sun. In other parts of other galaxies, some may very likely already in our past have been able to remove stuff on large scales, for leisure og business. Perhaps as big as a hole at that time in our universe.

If only we had a mirror.


hmm
By medavid16 on 8/25/2007 6:33:11 PM , Rating: 1
Hmmm, I think instead of looking at what's out there, we should R&D the focus to, let's get there. Sure we need to know where we're going to first, but just to the basics of our surrounding planets has been challenging enough in terms of resource and time, there should be a heightened reinforcement of focus so we all can see colonization in our lifetime.

Optimistic? hell yeah. But just like all star gazers, we all dream.




RE: hmm
By lompocus on 8/25/07, Rating: -1
RE: hmm
By omnicronx on 8/25/07, Rating: -1
RE: hmm
By lompocus on 8/25/07, Rating: -1
RE: hmm
By grenableu on 8/26/2007 11:43:20 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
and since when did conservatives start loving the space program, i think you are a bit confused... are you sure you are not a liberal that hates conservatives?
You're the one whose confused. Look at Congresses voting record, the largest cuts have always been Democratic-sponsored bills. NASA funding rose under Reagan and both Bushes, Clinton and Carter cut it.


RE: hmm
By Ringold on 8/26/2007 12:02:47 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
and since when did conservatives start loving the space program


I invite you to actually seek out some forums where NASA employees go to talk (someone inadvertenly lead me to some a few weeks ago on DT, but they seem like a private bunch so I wont do it for you) and see how they view the impendending Hillary Clinton liberal take-over of America. Whatever their reasons, there's a pretty strong sense of "We're screwed." Only half of that is because of the Democrats themselves, the other half being that they seem to know Orion/Ares is a lousy solution, but still.

That doesn't necessarily say anything about whether or not conservatives support NASA, but it does suggest it's far from a liberal cause.. which makes sense given that it's not a welfare program, doesn't promote any type of liberal social causes and most of its big contracts go to the eevvilll military industrial complex.

To be sure, some Star Trek lovin' libs surely like NASA but the politicians on the left haven't expressed any great love for it for quite a long time. Not that I'd call Cheney a 'conservative', but he did give us VSE with a road-map back to the Moon and to Mars, regardless of if Congress properly funded it or not.

And before you bring up Kennedy, the Democratic party doesn't make Kennedy's any more -- much less Roosevelts. The Democrats lurched left and Republicans went to church since then so comparisons arent very reliable.


RE: hmm
By Jellodyne on 8/27/2007 10:58:16 AM , Rating: 5
> the Democratic party doesn't make Kennedy's any more -- much less Roosevelts.

Actually they do, but post-Nixon the media makes 'em all into Gary Harts. If Kennedy were in office today he would be rocked by scandal to the point that they'd be on the next train out of town. There'd be special prosecutors, senate inquiry hearings, and nothing would get accomplished. See: Bill Clinton. The differeance between Kennedy and Clinton is that Kennedy had much better taste with his philandering.


RE: hmm
By retrospooty on 8/25/2007 7:15:10 PM , Rating: 3
How about take away the Iraq war budget and give it to Nasa...

Doh. conservative conflict, aaaarrrrrggggh!!!

j/l LOL


RE: hmm
By Ringold on 8/26/2007 12:06:00 PM , Rating: 5
*takes the conservative bait*

Or we could eliminate all social programs to fund Iraq plus normal military spending, and quadruple NASA's budget.. nay, ALL science spending, and probably still have enough of a surplus to cut taxes! Wohoo!

Ok, I'll stop dreaming. :P


RE: hmm
By rdeegvainl on 8/27/2007 4:26:47 AM , Rating: 4
I think that is a great idea. I hate all those social programs, cept for the ones that help me as a working and productive American, wait that would me a grand total of none. though i know of some people who actually don't abuse the system and still need some of those programs, reform not eliminate and maybe we will have a system both sides can agree on. wait a second, compromise isn't something our elected officials do anymore.


RE: hmm
By Spivonious on 8/27/2007 10:06:10 AM , Rating: 2
I'm all for dropping social programs, however if the day ever comes where I'm laid off from my job and I need some money in between to get me through to my next job, I'll be very glad that unemployment/welfare exists. Social security on the other hand, now that program is useless. I pay thousands of dollars into that a year and I probably won't see a penny of it when I retire in 40 years.


RE: hmm
By peternelson on 8/26/07, Rating: -1
RE: hmm
By PlasmaBomb on 8/26/2007 3:27:01 PM , Rating: 2
The space shuttles solid booster rockets contain about 70 tonnes of hydrocarbons each. The specifics of the hydrocarbons aren't mentioned (they are commonly either hydroxyl-terminated polybutadiene, or polybutadiene acrylic acid acrylonitrile, both of which are polymers and are used as a fuel along with epoxy curing agent). Also all of the hydrocarbons may not be burnt to produce CO2 as ammonium perchlorate is used as the oxidizer. All in all it is difficult to put a figure on the amount of CO2 produced.

As for satellites- depends on the rocket used. The Ariane 5, used by the European space agency would produce 0 tonnes as it uses a liquid hydrogen/ liquid oxygen (LH2/LOX) rocket. However it can be supplemented by solid booster rockets as well.


RE: hmm
By peternelson on 8/27/2007 12:10:43 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks for the detailed answer.

I suspected there might be other products than CO2 which is why I asked for figures on greenhouse equivalent of CO2.

For example methane (from cows and decomposing landfill), freon (gas formerly used in refrigerators) or halon gas (formerly used for fire suppression) is said to have many times the greenhouse equivalent of the same amount of CO2.

I don't know all the chemistry but would you say the other products have any warming effect (or other toxic effect?) and if so roughly how much?


RE: hmm
By PlasmaBomb on 8/27/2007 1:21:21 PM , Rating: 2
The likely exhaust products likely produced if hydroxyterminated polybutadiene was used are:
Hydrogen gas (H2)
Carbon monoxide (CO)
Hydrochloric acid (HCl)
Water (H2O)
Aluminium Oxide (Al2O3)
Nitrogen gas (N2)
Carbon dioxide (CO2)
Iron Chloride (FeCl2)
Hydrogen (H)
Chlorine (Cl)
Hydroxide (OH)
Iron (Fe)

Smaller quantities of
Aluminium chloride (AlCl3)
Ammonia (NH3)
Nitric oxide (NO)
and a few other "odd" things.

Quantities decrease from top to bottom.


RE: hmm
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 8/27/2007 3:58:29 PM , Rating: 2
Now can you sing that list to the tune of "my favorite things"


RE: hmm
By Volrath06660 on 8/26/2007 10:46:43 PM , Rating: 3
Actually those low energy bulbs can be just as bad, if not worse, than standard incandescents. Many contain mercury, which, as you know is not easy or environmentally friendly to dispose of. Whereas a standard incandescent is mostly just glass, some phosphorous i believe, and some wire.

The ones I really find funny are the people who drive the allegedly awesome hybrids, like the Prius, and think they are better than everyone else in their gas guzzlers because their hybrid cars are better for the environment...

..and they aren't.

The Prius is actually worse for the environment than a full ton pickup because the Nickel Cadmium batteries that they use for electrical storage are A.)toxic to make B.)environmentally very devastating to make and C.)Impossible at our current technological level to dispose of when they are useless. We just pour a concrete bunker, stack them inside, and hope they do not leak.

Some long term solution.......trade emissions essentially for piles of cancer that will spill eventually and obliterate whatever they are touching.......


RE: hmm
By peternelson on 8/27/2007 12:23:57 AM , Rating: 2
You make valid points Volrath.

Unfortunately I like to see in the dark so have to use some form of lighting (or sleep when it's dark).

That's why I hinted that a motivating factor to change to the newer "low energy" types in itself would be money saved (over the long term). Of course it depends on how often you use them and for how long ie the duty cycle.

On the positive side, there is more to consider: Usually to hold stock of a bulb and transport it in a box by truck takes a lot of trucks going a lot of miles burning a lot of fuel. So if I only need to buy say an eighth the number of bulbs (because each lasts longer) then that is an eighth less boxes going to the store in an eighth the number of trucks. Thus the road transport will emit an eighth the amount of carbon emissions (and more importantly less other pollutants and smog).

Maybe a hybrid is a little more efficient, but I prefer a real electric car like Tesla motors. Unfortunately as you say batteries are a problem even with Lithium types. Not to mention that currently much of that electricity is produced using fossil fuel burning (we should change that).

And Ethanol definitely doesn't solve things either because it inflates the price of corn, food and meat, takes up a lot of land, and has carcinogenic byproducts.

Fortunately (getting back on topic) by pushing for space project goals, the research comes up with a lot of science and engineering developments eg new materials, efficiency, technology.... which might help towards some of the above problems. Maybe we could landfill our used lightbulbs on the moon one day?


RE: hmm
By drakkoth on 8/27/2007 2:08:54 PM , Rating: 2
As an ex-Honda Insight owner, I can assure you that Insight batteries do not contain Cadmium as they are NiMh batteries. Three seconds with a web browser confirmed that the Toyota hybrids also use NiMH batteries.

Philips is developing mercury free fluorescent lighting. Other than the CFL lights, you can now purchase white LED bulbs which do not contain dangerous chemicals.

Though it is useful to point out flaws in energy saving devices, misinformation harms everyone. Some of these technologies are more help than harm.


RE: hmm
By Volrath06660 on 8/27/2007 9:57:50 PM , Rating: 2
And I am not referring to just NiCad batteries.....NiMH, Li, Lead Acid batteries....they are all pretty nasty to make and to dispose of. While some are better than others, trying to use these batteries in concert with gasoline engines is not an efficient means of dealing with our automotive fuel issue.


RE: hmm
By seamonkey79 on 8/26/2007 11:41:22 PM , Rating: 1
There were fewer launches in the late 80's because the Challenger blew up. Same reason there were fewer launches after Columbia blew up. You have to at least give the impression of looking for problems to keep the public from thinking that they were rushing things towards another accident.


proof...
By kyleb2112 on 8/25/2007 6:37:35 PM , Rating: 5
Yet more proof of global warming.




RE: proof...
By lompocus on 8/25/07, Rating: -1
RE: proof...
By Bonesdad on 8/25/2007 7:04:17 PM , Rating: 5
amazing, no one has a sense of humor anymore...


RE: proof...
By Darkmatterx76 on 8/25/2007 7:10:47 PM , Rating: 4
Uhh, isn't it obvious? Global Warming is causing the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation to melt!

Duuuuh ;)


RE: proof...
By Lord Evermore on 8/26/2007 8:41:41 PM , Rating: 4
The CMBR is causing global warming. We need to find and kill whoever is causing all that radiation. I bet they're in that hole.

Alternately: damn, hair spray not only damaged the ozone layer, it caused a hole in the universe. Damn the '80s!

Or: Oh shit! God's draining the pool!

Or maybe that's just where our first settler appeared. We should move our barbarian south so there isn't that concealed square so close. I guess it would take a long time to generate a map of that size, 13 billion years or so I believe. This is gonna be one long gaming session, better order extra pizza.


RE: proof...
By Pythias on 8/27/2007 3:38:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oh shit! God's draining the pool!


I'm not big on blasphemy, but that one made me laugh.


RE: proof...
By crimson117 on 8/27/2007 8:23:55 AM , Rating: 3
Actually, I'm pretty sure it's caused by manbearpig.


RE: proof...
By pyr0m on 8/25/07, Rating: -1
RE: proof...
By DFranch on 8/25/2007 8:31:30 PM , Rating: 2
Hello ... Joke.


RE: proof...
By BMFPitt on 8/26/07, Rating: -1
RE: proof...
By 16nm on 8/25/2007 7:00:32 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Yet more proof of global warming.

Yep, Al Gore is already using it in his presentations.


RE: proof...
By Lord Evermore on 8/26/2007 8:44:47 PM , Rating: 3
Actually that's just a chart that he spilled some mustard on during a previous presentation.

Or he's advocating we go to that place and find out if what's there is edible.

Or that actually is Gore in the long-range views, he was just blocking out some of the background.


RE: proof...
By ebakke on 8/25/2007 7:00:55 PM , Rating: 2
Yay! Jokes!


RE: proof...
By theapparition on 8/26/2007 10:20:27 AM , Rating: 2
+1


RE: proof...
By protosv on 8/26/2007 6:26:31 PM , Rating: 2
Push this guy to a 6!


In ancient times...
By wingless on 8/25/2007 9:45:13 PM , Rating: 2
That void is the result of ancient alien wars and terrifying weapons. Galaxies were lost long long ago and ripped from this universe long before man walked upright. It happened once and it can happen again to any warlike race that oversteps the boundaries of the ultimate power....




RE: In ancient times...
By Christopher1 on 8/25/2007 10:02:58 PM , Rating: 1
That is actually a possibility. That was the second thought that went through my head - "Oh, this is where the universe started or where some alien race was wiped out!"

Now, if they find OTHER areas like this one, that alien war or calamity becomes even more plausible, because there cannot be more than one starting point for the Universe unless there is more than one universe or has been in the past.


RE: In ancient times...
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 8/26/2007 12:16:54 AM , Rating: 2
One thought I had was the possibility of a civilization on the way to Type 4 on the Kardashev scale :)

(for those nerds out there that get the joke drop me an email so I can send you a t-shirt)


RE: In ancient times...
By jtemplin on 8/26/2007 12:35:04 AM , Rating: 2
MMmmmm dyson sphere


RE: In ancient times...
By CyborgTMT on 8/26/2007 1:44:28 AM , Rating: 2
A Dyson Sphere would be type 2, think more along the lines of Dr. Who / Time Lords. A race advanced enough to alter the forces of the universe itself.


RE: In ancient times...
By PlasmaBomb on 8/26/2007 10:52:01 AM , Rating: 2
There is no consensus as to what a type 4 civilization is (because it is so far above our level we can't predict what is liable to happen). An extrapolation of the scale would yield a type 4 civilization as using 10^46 W.

Other possibilities are that a type 4 civ would harness the power of a galactic super cluster approximately 10^42 W. Which may be why there is a big hole. Alternatively type 4 civilizations may harness exotic sources of energy such as dark matter or energy, again resulting in observed abnormalities to us.

All such civilizations are purely hypothetical at this point :D

(Do I get a t-shirt?)


RE: In ancient times...
By 16nm on 8/26/2007 11:45:48 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
(Do I get a t-shirt?)


LOL. yeah, a Fruit of the LOON t-shirt is in the mail :)


RE: In ancient times...
By James Holden on 8/26/2007 4:44:33 PM , Rating: 2
LOL while your answer is the best, James Holden was the first :) I like the way you think though!


RE: In ancient times...
By CyborgTMT on 8/27/2007 2:10:11 AM , Rating: 2
Any type 4 or even 3 race that would be out there, would have already been detected by us, as they would have to almost be spread across the whole of the universe to enable consumption of that much raw power.


RE: In ancient times...
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 8/27/2007 12:13:53 PM , Rating: 2
While true, who is to say such a race hasn't been dead for a billion years


RE: In ancient times...
By CyborgTMT on 8/27/2007 2:34:23 PM , Rating: 2
We still would have 'seen' evidence of such a race's existence. One thing to remember is when we look at these things in space, we're not looking at them in real time but rather events that took place billions of years ago. I think the farthest back in time we've seen images of is around 12 billion years. That's only 2 billion years after when the big bang was thought to have taken place.


RE: In ancient times...
By 16nm on 8/28/2007 12:37:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
One thing to remember is when we look at these things in space, we're not looking at them in real time but rather events that took place billions of years ago.


But what if everything you are looking at is really being implanted by a race of super robots and in reality you are part of a very large matrix used to power machines?? You are a slave. This comment you are reading now was created hundreds of years ago by a machine to make you think you are inacting with other humans. Have you considered this? :)

:) <- that is an emoticon. We've learned that humans like them. It makes you produce more electricity when you see them. We therefore have littered the Internet program with them.


RE: In ancient times...
By CyborgTMT on 8/28/2007 2:45:42 PM , Rating: 2
/me slaps 16nm


RE: In ancient times...
By CyborgTMT on 8/28/2007 1:34:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
(Do I get a t-shirt?)


I think we are the only two who do.


Mysteries
By aurareturn on 8/25/2007 5:58:40 PM , Rating: 3
Just shows you how much we know about the universe and how much there is to learn.

I just wish that our scientists are getting enough funds to really dig deep into astronomy and physics. I want to still be here when we make giant discoveries about the universe but at this rate, we'll be lucky to get to Mars in 20 years.




RE: Mysteries
By 16nm on 8/25/2007 6:51:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
at this rate, we'll be lucky to get to Mars in 20 years


Unless we've already been there... ;)


RE: Mysteries
By aurareturn on 8/25/2007 6:59:53 PM , Rating: 2
I am talking about humans.


RE: Mysteries
By omnicronx on 8/25/2007 7:09:41 PM , Rating: 2
I think hes talking about the face on mars ;) Many conspiracy theories about that one..


RE: Mysteries
By afkrotch on 8/25/2007 7:16:26 PM , Rating: 1
Maybe Mars was once just like Earth. They corrupted to the planet and ended up destroying it's surface. In an effort to survive, the highly advanced humans terraformed Earth to be liveable and implanted organisms onto the planet. Through millions of years of evolution, we are starting to take form.

Or I'm just very imaginative.


RE: Mysteries
By Aquila76 on 8/26/2007 1:22:34 PM , Rating: 3
Or, you just finished watching "Mission to Mars".


RE: Mysteries
By Lord Evermore on 8/26/2007 8:46:44 PM , Rating: 2
I think I'd rather just MOVE and live in some domes while Earth was areoformed, instead of giving life a nudge and then dying off with the rest of my planet.


RE: Mysteries
By 16nm on 8/25/2007 10:09:48 PM , Rating: 3
Here's a good, clear picture of the face on Mars incase anyone is curious:
http://tinyurl.com/2z4g86
and enhanced here:
http://tinyurl.com/yogggd


RE: Mysteries
By GaryJohnson on 8/26/2007 3:52:40 AM , Rating: 3
Better & clearer picture of the 'face':
http://hirise-pds.lpl.arizona.edu/PDS/EXTRAS/RDR/P...


RE: Mysteries
By devolutionist on 8/26/2007 8:37:36 AM , Rating: 2
heh... that second one is Boulder from Thomas the Tank Engine... oh what I've learned from my kids...


Last Statement not Accurate
By Goty on 8/25/2007 8:21:21 PM , Rating: 4
Stating that a lack of dark matter is the reason why the area appears "cold" is utter nonsense. Dark matter emits no measurable radiation, so 99% of the dark matter in the universe could be located in that exact portion of the WMAP or Radio image and you would not be able to tell it directly.

The only way to detect dark matter is to observe its gravitational effect on the objects around it.




RE: Last Statement not Accurate
By UzairH on 8/25/2007 8:48:06 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, but do you know more about astrophysics than the astrophysicists? There must be a reason why they say there isn't any dark matter there. Maybe DM emits the cosmological background radiation.


RE: Last Statement not Accurate
By UzairH on 8/25/2007 9:02:00 PM , Rating: 2
.. or maybe it doesn't! But again there must be reason why they explicitly state there is no dark matter there either.


RE: Last Statement not Accurate
By jtemplin on 8/26/2007 12:29:24 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Sorry, but do you know more about astrophysics than the astrophysicists?


UzairH I think that is specious reasoning. Following your example of defending the author: Consider the possibility that Goty is a degree holder in astrophysics... Is it possible for two experts to disagree? In your arguement, no.

Even experts are subject to question, I believe. Studying philosophy of science some time ago I learned a great deal about the topic of truth and validity; the problem of induction. The classic paradigm is called Hempel's Paradox. The statement "all ravens are black" is introduced. Every raven you see everyday is black, so you think all ravens must be black. Perhaps there is a non-black raven? You cannot be certain there isn't a non-black raven you haven't seen yet, and this presents an problems for this sort of induction. To create an analogy to the previous example I gave:

Experts are always right.

This is true...until they are wrong. Then you must disavow that statement. I think you are making this same logical fallacy.

Plus I just don't like reading comments on here touting the credentials of whichever particular authority is disagreed with SOLELY on the basis that someone with those credentials, is unquestionably accurate. Base it on the merits of their arguement, thats how it should be.


RE: Last Statement not Accurate
By UzairH on 8/26/2007 1:52:51 PM , Rating: 2
jtemlpin, I agree with you! Make a negative and incorrect post, and learn something :-)


RE: Last Statement not Accurate
By jtemplin on 9/7/2007 8:12:34 PM , Rating: 2
And I, in turn, agree with you too : ) I don't have too much time on my hands, so I do post selectively. No bad blood whatsoever, I guess you were made an example of ; D


RE: Last Statement not Accurate
By Goty on 8/26/2007 2:18:13 AM , Rating: 3
Dark matter is "dark" because we can't see it, period.

Dark matter is believed to account for greater than 90% of the mass of the universe, yet it has never been experimentally verified to exist and nobody can say with utter truth that they've ever detected dark matter.

Dark matter is just the likely conclusion drawn by scientists to explain the evolution and kinematics of the galaxies we see. As a matter of fact, there are even competing theories such as MoND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) that assert that there is no such thing as dark matter and state that the reasoning behind the things we see is the fact that the gravitational constant may have a different value on the massive scales of galaxies than it has here on Earth.

So, to conclude, no, I don't know more than any Astrophysicist out there, but I do know what I'm talking about.


RE: Last Statement not Accurate
By masher2 (blog) on 8/25/2007 10:37:49 PM , Rating: 3
You are correct; the statement as written is inaccurate. I'm going to have to speak to my editor, as someone added that verbiage after I posted the article text.


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 8/25/2007 11:56:25 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry about that masher. We just picked up a weekend editor, and this was actually his first edit!


hmmmm
By Bonesdad on 8/25/2007 7:10:53 PM , Rating: 3
oh, thought it was a story about Texas for a second...




RE: hmmmm
By omnicronx on 8/25/2007 7:17:17 PM , Rating: 4
or paris hiltons brain..


RE: hmmmm
By Bonesdad on 8/25/2007 8:13:58 PM , Rating: 5
brain?


RE: hmmmm
By Whedonic on 8/25/2007 9:06:18 PM , Rating: 5
She's the only one who will survive the inevitable zombie uprising...not even a shred of grey matter to be tasty.


RE: hmmmm
By PlasmaBomb on 8/26/2007 10:03:39 AM , Rating: 2
Did someone say tasty gray matter?

http://www.brains4zombies.com/


RE: hmmmm
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 8/27/2007 3:03:54 PM , Rating: 2
I believe Nicole has less grey matter then Paris. So, she too will survive the inevitable zombie uprising.


This is where god died
By Suomynona on 8/26/2007 12:17:41 PM , Rating: 2
This is finally evidence that god has died! That must be the place where it used to live before becoming aware of the absurdness of it's existence and promptly vanishing in a puff of logic.




RE: This is where god died
By johnsonx on 8/26/2007 12:44:24 PM , Rating: 2
If you're going to plagiarize Douglas Adams, at least get the quote correct.