Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Hubble Survey Finds Half of the Missing Matter

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the hiding-in-plain-sight dept.

Space 189

esocid sends along the news that scientists believe they have found about half the missing matter in the universe. The matter we can see is only about 1/8 of the total baryonic matter believed to exist (and only 1/200 the mass-energy of the visible universe). This missing matter is not to be confused with "dark matter," which is thought to be non-baryonic. The missing stuff has been found in the intergalactic medium that extends essentially throughout all of space, from just outside our galaxy to the most distant regions of space. "'We think we are seeing the strands of a web-like structure that forms the backbone of the universe,' Mike Shull of the University of Colorado explained. 'What we are confirming in detail is that intergalactic space, which intuitively might seem to be empty, is in fact the reservoir for most of the normal, baryonic matter in the universe.'"

cancel ×

189 comments

Ether (4, Insightful)

teknopurge (199509) | more than 6 years ago | (#23482946)

Haven't we known this for some time?

Re:Ether (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23483028)

I knew someone was going to make an ether comment. The luminiferous ether was the hypothecial medium that electromagnetic waves (including light) traveled through. It was hypothesized because, at the time, there were no known waves that traveled without a medium. However, the ether was disproven, and it was shown that EM waves travel without a medium. What's mentioned in the article is not ether.

Re:Ether (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23483292)

Yup, Disproven.

Because Einstein got everything perfect (cosmological constant)
And light (which may or may not have mass) is bent by gravity (bending space time)

Wouldn't it make more sense to go with an aether theory?

You say light travels at the same speed regardless of direction or relative motion? I say bunk requiring some very sophisticated manipulations of time and space (Lorentz contractions) What's wrong with the 'entrained aether' theory? What, you never heard of frame-dragging?

Gravitational lensing? How about gravity increasing the optical density of the aether?

*puts away tin foil hat*

PRESIDENT MCCAIN PRESIDENT MCCAIN (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23483324)

(CNN) - The vast majority of Hillary Clinton supporters in Kentucky are not willing to support Barack Obama should he win the party's nomination, a sign of the continuing division in the Democratic Party as the primary race comes to a close.

According to the just released exit polls, only 33 percent of Clinton backers said they would vote for Obama should he be the party's nominee. That compares to 71 percent of Obama supporters who say they are willing to support Clinton if she wins the nomination.

Those numbers are even worse for Obama than in West Virginia one week ago, where 36 percent of Clinton voters said they would back Barack Obama in fall.

As for the Clinton backers in Kentucky, 41 percent of them say they will back McCain if Obama is the Democratic nominee, 23 percent said they won't vote at all, and 3 percent said they would vote for other candidates.

Among Obama supporters in Kentucky, 14 percent said they would back McCain, 11 percent said they would not vote in the general election, and 4 percent said they would vote for other candidates.

Re:PRESIDENT MCCAIN PRESIDENT MCCAIN (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23485810)

Yeah well, Kentucky and West Virginia are not exactly the least racist states in the union. Is this any surprise? A vote for any one of McCain, Clinton or Obama is a LOSS for the American people, no matter who wins. They are all tools of the globalists.

Re:Ether (4, Insightful)

Uncle Focker (1277658) | more than 6 years ago | (#23484396)

Because Einstein got everything perfect (cosmological constant) And light (which may or may not have mass) is bent by gravity (bending space time) Wouldn't it make more sense to go with an aether theory?
Not when it's wrong. I'm sorry if reality is too complicated for you, but that's your problem not ours.

You say light travels at the same speed regardless of direction or relative motion? I say bunk requiring some very sophisticated manipulations of time and space (Lorentz contractions) What's wrong with the 'entrained aether' theory? What, you never heard of frame-dragging?
No, light travels at a constant speed in a vacuum. It's speed can be different based on a whole variety of factors.

Gravitational lensing? How about gravity increasing the optical density of the aether?
Have any evidence to back this up?

Re:Ether (3, Interesting)

sir fer (1232128) | more than 6 years ago | (#23484876)

disclaimer: I am a physics graduate. EM waves consist of an oscillating electric field (along with its magnetic counterpart)...what was that electric field doing before it started oscillating? It was probably a static field. Think about this, if I have a magnet and I wiggle it around, the disturbance in the field of the magnet travels outward from the source at the speed of light, but the field was there but merely static initially. Same deal with gravity waves. So whether the local field is static or oscillating, it was always previously existent regardless of its state. While I don't believe in the luminiferous aether either I also don't see how a field disturbance (electric, magnetic or gravitational) can travel through something that isn't there. I hope people can see what I'm talking about because while relativity and the aether don't make sense on their own, there are aspects of both theories that accurately describe reality and as is often the case in modeling reality it is not often a case of either / or, eg wave-particle duality in describing the sub-atomic world.

Re:Ether (-1, Flamebait)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 6 years ago | (#23485654)

I assume by "physics graduate" you mean you majored in it in undergrad.

First, as a physics graduate, you should know better than to use the phrase "believe in" when talking science.

Second, I suppose you haven't had much field theory (can't fault you for that), so the behavior of electromagnetic fields may seem odd.

Re:Ether (4, Informative)

naasking (94116) | more than 6 years ago | (#23484500)

Wouldn't it make more sense to go with an aether theory? [...] How about gravity increasing the optical density of the aether?

The problem with ether theories is mainly the Michelson-Morley experiment. Are there ether theories which avoid the MM pitfall? Sort of. The Polarizable Vacuum [wikipedia.org] (PV) is a very interesting theory along the lines of what the the above poster suggested. Instead of matter bending some mysterious "ether", as in ether theories, or bending space-time, as in relativity, matter instead affects the electric and magnetic permeability of space, which causes light to behave as if it were passing through a medium with a higher dialectric constant. From that simple assumption, we can almost rederive full general relativity (GR) wherein electromagnetic equations produce gravitational effects. Gravity is electromagnetism! PV has since been disproven, but it's still a stunningly simple way to think about gravitation in terms of electromagnetism.

Re:Ether (1)

neomunk (913773) | more than 6 years ago | (#23485064)

I think the Michelson-Morley experiment fails due to it's assumption that the observation device isn't at the center of the universe. The way I look at it, the point of observation (measurement) very well COULD be considered the center of the universe. Pardon my non-university foolishness, but don't waveforms collapse outward from the point of measurement?

Not that I'm an outspoken advocate of aether theory or anything, I've just been bugged by that little thought since high school, and this seemed like a good time to bring it up and run it by people who might actually have a clue.

Re:Ether (1)

treeves (963993) | more than 6 years ago | (#23485808)

What's Einstein got to do with it? The ether theory was disproven by the Michelson-Morley experiment. Einstein was 8 years old at that time - still doing poorly in grade school.

Re:Ether (2, Insightful)

hardburn (141468) | more than 6 years ago | (#23483518)

Not disproven, really, but fell away due to Occam's Razor. The difference between ether and this "web-like structure" is that ether was never directly observed.

Re:Ether (1)

lgw (121541) | more than 6 years ago | (#23483780)

I've been amuzed for years that the actual experimental equipment being built to detect gravity waves is basically the same (though far more precise) as in the Michelson-Morley experiment, but we expect to see the opposite result. In other words, the result we're looking for would have looked a whole lot like ether if found 100 years ago.

Re:Ether (1)

Zelrak (1213628) | more than 6 years ago | (#23484100)

Except that there was a precise prediction of the effect caused by the aether and the measured effect was much, much smaller(within experimental errors of zero). So even if we detect gravity waves the effects are of a much smaller magnitude than the aether theory predicts or we would have already seen them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment#The_experiments [wikipedia.org]

Re:Ether (2)

scorp1us (235526) | more than 6 years ago | (#23483952)

How can you disprove EM travels without a medium, if our world is made of matter in that medium? You can of course remove the matter (create a vacuum), but that doesn't remove the medium.

I'm not trying to be antagonistic. I'm legitimately curious.

Re:Ether (1)

General Wesc (59919) | more than 6 years ago | (#23485586)

It was hypothesized because, at the time, there were no known waves that traveled without a medium.

Except the one for which they were trying to find a medium. :-)

Re:Ether (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 6 years ago | (#23483102)

Who modded this up? The ether isn't what the article is talking about. The ods are doing an even more horrible job than normal.

Re:Ether (5, Funny)

CowboyNealOption (1262194) | more than 6 years ago | (#23483258)

The ods would do better if they remembered to take their eds every orning.

Re:Ether (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23484136)

hy s hat unny?

Re:Ether (1)

Lorkki (863577) | more than 6 years ago | (#23484884)

Maybe it just went o'er their 'eds.

Re:Ether (2, Funny)

nomorecwrd (1193329) | more than 6 years ago | (#23483398)

Off course!

Isn't this the matter that strikes the shields at Warp speeds?

Re:Ether (1)

actionbastard (1206160) | more than 6 years ago | (#23485086)

In order for it to be considered in the astronomical sense, it's spelled æther.

Re:Ether (1)

AmigaMMC (1103025) | more than 6 years ago | (#23486070)

I wouldn't call it ether in the strict historical/philosophical or metaphysical sense but I always knew that the "empty space" was holding matter. Why did it take so long for them to catch up?

Ok, fess up (5, Funny)

pauljuno (998497) | more than 6 years ago | (#23482966)

Come on, which one of you took it?

Re:Ok, fess up (5, Funny)

somersault (912633) | more than 6 years ago | (#23483044)

It was like that when I got here.

Re:Ok, fess up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23485394)

I'm going to turn around and if its not there when I turn back around there is going to be big trouble.

Re:Ok, fess up (1)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 6 years ago | (#23483798)

It was behind the couch all this time.

With Jesus.

Dark Matter??? (3, Insightful)

omnichad (1198475) | more than 6 years ago | (#23483040)

Always wondered why a simple explanation like dust never took hold, and everyone started talking about invisible matter to explain what should be there.

Re:Dark Matter??? (4, Informative)

CheshireCatCO (185193) | more than 6 years ago | (#23483072)

This isn't dark matter. Dark matter shows evidence (based on its measured distribution) which is not consistent with ordinary baryonic matter.

Re:Dark Matter??? (4, Funny)

pilgrim23 (716938) | more than 6 years ago | (#23483210)

old mother Hubble,
looked through the rubble,
to find all the matter was gone.
Till 'tween galaxies bright,
to their delight,
they found the brayons

Re:Dark Matter??? (3, Funny)

QuantumFlux (228693) | more than 6 years ago | (#23483548)

"brayons"?

Are those like crayons for donkeys?

Re:Dark Matter??? (4, Informative)

Btarlinian (922732) | more than 6 years ago | (#23483114)

Always wondered why a simple explanation like dust never took hold, and everyone started talking about invisible matter to explain what should be there.

We know that there is some sort of matter missing due to weird graviational interactions. We also know that according our measurements of the cosmic microwave background, this matter doesn't exist, i.e., this matter doesn't interact with electromagnetic fields. That's why it's not normal baryonic matter.

Therefore, we say that there must be dark matter. Plain old dust would have showed up in our readings of the CMB.

Re:Dark Matter??? (0)

omnichad (1198475) | more than 6 years ago | (#23483156)

Except the article just says that we've been missing out on some of the dust for quite some time...

Re:Dark Matter??? (2, Informative)

JebusIsLord (566856) | more than 6 years ago | (#23483288)

No, it says we've been missing ionized hydrogen and helium within a certain temperature range. How about reading the article before posting next time?

Re:Dark Matter??? (1)

omnichad (1198475) | more than 6 years ago | (#23483422)

i.e. dust. Sparse particles of some kind. I didn't say it was "solid" dust.

Re:Dark Matter??? (3, Informative)

Tenebrousedge (1226584) | more than 6 years ago | (#23483476)

Well, dust is not dark matter. There's other matter besides baryonic matter. There's a great picture on wikipedia that 'shows' dark matter. The debate on dark matter is how much it exists and its exact nature, not whether it exists.

Re:Dark Matter??? (1)

omnichad (1198475) | more than 6 years ago | (#23483570)

Exactly what I was saying. More things that were supposed to be dark matter that turned out to be pretty ordinary matter. Maybe I'm crazy, but the universe would make a lot more sense if we can explain away dark matter entirely.

Re:Dark Matter??? (2, Insightful)

Tenebrousedge (1226584) | more than 6 years ago | (#23483820)

Fine, find some sort of matter interacts gravitationally with the observable universe but not electromagnetically, and call it whatever you want when you do. We'll be over here calling it non-baryonic matter, or dark matter.

Re:Dark Matter??? (1)

Steve Max (1235710) | more than 6 years ago | (#23483890)

Unfortunately, we (still) can't. What we have now is basically conclusive proof that the particles that are known to exist (meaning everything that is part of the standard model) can only account for a few percent of the total energy of the universe.

What we need now is to prove one of the theories that go beyond the standard model and include more particles. Some (like supersymmetry, technicolour and Kaluza-Klein type models) include naturally particles that can explain the "dark matter".

Note that this article is totally unrelated to dark matter. It shows identification of "where is the baryonic matter", or "what happened to all the hydrogen we know existed at the reionization epoch". Nothing to do with new physics.

Re:Dark Matter??? (4, Informative)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 6 years ago | (#23483978)

More things that were supposed to be dark matter that turned out to be pretty ordinary matter.

No, that's not true. We already knew there was "ordinary" matter we hadn't found, we knew it wasn't "dark" matter, we just didn't know where it was. Now we found a bunch of it.

Re:Dark Matter??? (1)

slashtivus (1162793) | more than 6 years ago | (#23485914)

This is not quite true. The MOND hypothesis (they are both hypothesis, since neither gives a true method of testing) suggests that our understanding of gravity may be wrong. It doesn't matter if you or I agree with it, there certainly is a lively debate about whether 'dark matter' exists.

Re:Dark Matter??? (1)

2short (466733) | more than 6 years ago | (#23483620)

You did say: "Dark Matter???"

To which the answer is: NO, this is not the dark matter. This does not explain the dark matter. This is unrelated to dark matter.

Which is perfectly clear if you RTFA before posting. Or even payed close attention when reading the summary. I realize this are a bit much to ask. But when you post in ignorance, and someone says, "No, RTFA" ... At that point, before you argue with them, for the love of God, RTFA!

Re:Dark Matter??? (1)

omnichad (1198475) | more than 6 years ago | (#23483692)

Ok, sure I did. But I think you missed the point. I wasn't saying anything was dark matter. I'm saying we found more real matter. Those generous question marks were my pokes against people who want dark matter to explain everything away when perfectly normal matter will suffice.

Re:Dark Matter??? (2, Insightful)

Btarlinian (922732) | more than 6 years ago | (#23485560)

Ok, sure I did. But I think you missed the point. I wasn't saying anything was dark matter. I'm saying we found more real matter. Those generous question marks were my pokes against people who want dark matter to explain everything away when perfectly normal matter will suffice.

Except there aren't people like that. We knew this normal matter existed, we just didn't know where it was.

Every time we talk about something new being found in the universe, someone likes to say, "Oh look at those stupid astronomers, making up stuff no one can prove. There never was any dark matter." I know that's not what you specifically said, but by bringing it into the conversation and conflating this observation with theories of dark matter, you essentially did the same thing. Your basically attempted to make other people look stupid by making an ill-informed, seemingly insightful comment. I'm rather disappointed to see that it that the mods fell for it.

Re:Dark Matter??? (3, Insightful)

CheshireCatCO (185193) | more than 6 years ago | (#23483830)

Hydrogen and helium are not dust by any definition of "dust" I've ever known an astronomer to use. Dust is, by definition, solid matter which is microscopic, but much larger than atoms. To broaden the term to include plasmas and gases would pretty much make it so broad as to be useless.

So no, not dust.

Re:Dark Matter??? (1)

Wandering Wombat (531833) | more than 6 years ago | (#23483456)

Isn't ionized hydrogen (hydrogen missing it's electron) just.... a proton? A proton, floating in space? Can't we just say that protons are nothing more than ionized hydrogen?

Re:Dark Matter??? (2, Informative)

omnichad (1198475) | more than 6 years ago | (#23483530)

Poor neutron...

Re:Dark Matter??? (1)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 6 years ago | (#23485736)

Close. A free proton and ionized hydrogen are the same. (A proton in the nucleus of a non-hydrogen atom is different.) There seem to be different standards for when which term is used, but I usually see free protons referred to as hydrogen ions. (Obviously if you ionize hydrogen, you should call the result hydrogen ions.)

Re:Dark Matter??? (1)

Koiu Lpoi (632570) | more than 6 years ago | (#23483874)

You must be new here. Expecting people to read before posting is kinda like expecting YouTube comments to be insightful. Ain't gonna happen.

Re:Dark Matter??? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23483294)

We know that there is some sort of matter missing due to weird graviational interactions. We also know that according our measurements of the cosmic microwave background, this matter doesn't exist, i.e., this matter doesn't interact with electromagnetic fields. That's why it's not normal baryonic matter.
That would be one theory. Another would be that maybe, one in a billion chance, just possibly our confidence in our marvelous understanding of gravitational interactions and/or CMB is hopelessly misplaced. Hey, it could happen.

Re:Dark Matter??? (1)

sir fer (1232128) | more than 6 years ago | (#23485382)

Yes. There is a not oft-heard hypothesis that what we see from the CMB is nothing more than the radiation from the expanding planetary nebula from a star that died nearby, thereby supplying all the heavy elements that are found in the solar system. And then there's the quantized red-shift poking holes in the big-bang theory...although how the universe's biggest ever black hole could have expanded past its own event horizon is beyond me. But then I'm only a physics grad.

Why invisible matter? (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 6 years ago | (#23483290)

Because invisible matter makes for better LOLCAT captions:

CEILIN CAT MADE MATTR BOTH VISIBLE AN INVISABLE

TEH INVISABLE MATTR KEEPS TEH UNIVERS FRUM FLYIN APART

Lowercase fodder for the lameness detector.
More lowercase fodder for the lameness detector.

Exactly! (1)

ady1 (873490) | more than 6 years ago | (#23485352)

Moreover I propose making a giant space vacuum and swiping it across the universe to end this missing matter mumbo jumbo once and for all.

Re:Dark Matter??? (1)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 6 years ago | (#23485620)

This has zero to do with dark (non-baryonic) matter. They just accounted for half of the missing 'normal' (baryonic) matter that was thought to exist. It's still a small fraction of the total mass-energy sum of the Universe at large.

This proves the existance of God! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23483052)

We think we are seeing the strands of a web-like structure that forms the backbone of the universe

It is a noodle like structure. FSM 1 ID 0

Re:This proves the existance of God! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23483122)

It is a noodle like structure
Rah-men.

Re:This proves the existance of God! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23483132)

It is a noodle like structure. FSM 1 ID 0
I'm totally building a FSM church now.

Jumps off couch.

Re:This proves the existance of God! (1)

Digitus1337 (671442) | more than 6 years ago | (#23483608)

It's actually a series of tubes.

Re:This proves the existance of God! (1)

zienth (890583) | more than 6 years ago | (#23484912)

Rigatoni-net!

Re:This proves the existance of God! (1)

AragornSonOfArathorn (454526) | more than 6 years ago | (#23484364)

We think we are seeing the strands of a web-like structure that forms the backbone of the universe

It is a noodle like structure. FSM 1 ID 0
Of course! When touched by His Noodly Appendage, a chunk of dark matter becomes a new galaxy.

Re:This proves the existance of God! (1)

rrohbeck (944847) | more than 6 years ago | (#23484804)

But how do they handle TCP on the Intergalactic Web?
Do the noodles transmit data FTL? Maybe they're tachyon fibers.

Wow (4, Insightful)

digitrev (989335) | more than 6 years ago | (#23483096)

That's actually pretty cool. I mean, the fact that matter was missing was a bit of a problem. The fact that it's in between galaxies even explains why it was missing. When it's that spread out, it's damn near impossible to see the gravitational effects of it.

Re:Wow (2, Insightful)

Tenebrousedge (1226584) | more than 6 years ago | (#23483506)

Great, except the problem is that we're trying to figure out what we can measure by its gravitational effects but doesn't interact in any other way with normal matter. This is the solution to a different problem.

Re:Wow (2, Informative)

ChrisA90278 (905188) | more than 6 years ago | (#23485390)

What was found here was missing __baryonic matter__ the bigger question is still unanswered. Bryonic matter is the normal stuff we are made of but most of the "stuff" in the universe is non-baryonic and still "missing".

Transcript of Hubble Survey Team Findings (4, Funny)

RealErmine (621439) | more than 6 years ago | (#23483110)

"Oh, there it is."

I'm still waiting for them to find all the missing socks.

Missing socks... (2, Funny)

msauve (701917) | more than 6 years ago | (#23483226)

find the missing socks, and you've found God. They're all in Heaven, you get them back when you die. All the Bic lighters, too.

Re:Missing socks... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23483528)

You get the lids for your biros back too.

Re:Transcript of Hubble Survey Team Findings (1)

ozbird (127571) | more than 6 years ago | (#23483982)

I'm still waiting for them to find all the missing socks.

I bet it's those damn "??? Profit" gnomes again.

Wrong half (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23484186)

> I'm still waiting for them to find all the missing socks.

They're in the other half, along with Ren & Stimpy.

Obligitory (1)

Cillian (1003268) | more than 6 years ago | (#23483126)

Was it behind the sofa

Re:Obligitory (2, Funny)

xaxa (988988) | more than 6 years ago | (#23483414)

No, but it was in the last place they looked.

Re:Obligitory (1)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | more than 6 years ago | (#23484822)

Was it behind the sofa
No, it was in my wife's purse... *ducks as a massive bag swings over his head*

Was it under the sofa? (1)

Capt.DrumkenBum (1173011) | more than 6 years ago | (#23483158)

Because every time something of mine is missing it is usually under the sofa.

Re:Was it under the sofa? (1)

kiwilake (1279808) | more than 6 years ago | (#23483370)

i looked under my sofa. i found a pencil, 20p, a sock and a tangled web of string... hmmm a tangled web - you may be on to something

Heh (-1)

Uncle Focker (1277658) | more than 6 years ago | (#23483216)

So that's where all those chairs that Steve Ballmer threw went.

Re:Heh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23485842)

I don't know what it's called, but I'm sure your sentence suffers from some grammatical error.

The universe has a backbone? (3, Funny)

davidwr (791652) | more than 6 years ago | (#23483230)

Damn and all this time I thought it was an invertebrate.

Oxygen and Hydrogen? (1)

mikael (484) | more than 6 years ago | (#23483278)

If there is ionised oxygen and hydrogen in this space, could these combine to form water?

Re:Oxygen and Hydrogen? (1)

xaxa (988988) | more than 6 years ago | (#23483520)

Presumably, but it's probably not hot enough.

If you put them together in a balloon nothing happens until you put a match to it, and it's probably a lot colder out in this part of space than my school's science lab was.

Re:Oxygen and Hydrogen? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23484380)

It's actually that the atoms are way TOO hot. The oxygens are ionized 5 times. That means that whatever pushed them out there was very violent and hot, and the atoms, even if they were to collide, would never stick.

Better explanation (1)

xaxa (988988) | more than 6 years ago | (#23484772)

It's actually that the atoms are way TOO hot. The oxygens are ionized 5 times. That means that whatever pushed them out there was very violent and hot, and the atoms, even if they were to collide, would never stick.
I'm quoting you so that your explanation is +2 like my incorrect assumption above.

(Sorry for being wrong everyone. That's what happens when you stop studying chemistry at 18 and then forget stuff...)

Re:Oxygen and Hydrogen? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23484556)

So you are saying that because of the cool temperature, the rate of reaction will be slow.

What if you let the balloon sit around for, oh, 14 billion years or so...

Re:Oxygen and Hydrogen? (1)

Tenebrousedge (1226584) | more than 6 years ago | (#23483524)

Yes. All of the water on the planet formed in deep space. Neat, huh?

Re:Oxygen and Hydrogen? (1)

Tenebrousedge (1226584) | more than 6 years ago | (#23483604)

Let me correct that. Water *can* form in very low temperatures but I read that most of it comes from supernovae.

Re:Oxygen and Hydrogen? (1)

yoris (776276) | more than 6 years ago | (#23483610)

Short answer: no.

Re:Oxygen and Hydrogen? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23484088)

If there's oxygen, that means we can breath! -- Dan Quayle

startrek s01e02 (1)

buttle2000 (1041826) | more than 6 years ago | (#23483566)

They dove though some of that stuff on the edge of the galaxy.

very good for your ESP.

Douglas Adams's theory of missing matter (4, Funny)

speculatrix (678524) | more than 6 years ago | (#23483586)

Douglas Adams had a theory about missing matter...

For a long period of time there was much speculation and controversy about where the so-called "missing matter" of the Universe had got to. All over the Galaxy the science departments of all the major universities were acquiring more and more elaborate equipment to probe and search the hearts of distant galaxies, and then the very centre and the very edges of the whole Universe, but when eventually it was tracked down it turned out in fact to be all the stuff which the equipment had been packed in.

Universe Half Empty/Half Full? (2, Funny)

ireallylovelinux (589360) | more than 6 years ago | (#23483720)

Is your universe half empty or half full?

I knew it... (1)

hyperz69 (1226464) | more than 6 years ago | (#23484040)

Always the last place you look. In the fridge next to the Milk...


y way.

Gene Ray was right after all! (3, Funny)

Fortran IV (737299) | more than 6 years ago | (#23484076)

No—it can't be true! The Hubble has managed to photograph [hubblesite.org] the Time Cube! [timecube.com] The joke really is on us...

Re:Gene Ray was right after all! (1)

Anti_Climax (447121) | more than 6 years ago | (#23484746)

Christ on a cracker! Trying to read that timecube site gave me a migrane before I even had to scroll down.

like mama always said (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 6 years ago | (#23484152)

When you lose something, it'll always turn up in the last place you look.

Re:like mama always said (1)

zienth (890583) | more than 6 years ago | (#23484994)

When you lose something, it'll always turn up in the last place you look.
Sometimes I keep looking for a little while after I find what I was looking for, just to disprove that theory.

Re:like mama always said (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23485346)

That's similar to my reason for shaking -at least- 3 times after I take a piss.

Now if we just... (1)

beemishboy (781239) | more than 6 years ago | (#23484192)

Now if we just find half of the remaining matter every day, it will only take like . . . oh wait. Dang.

Intersteller Travel Ho! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23484324)

So now Bussard ramjet's are much more feasible because of all the extra fuel. Right?

Those aren't strands of Web like (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23485276)

Those aren't strands of Web like structures, they're neurons! It's a brain!!

Had it been a snake... (1)

glitch23 (557124) | more than 6 years ago | (#23486060)

it would have bit us.

The presence of highly ionized oxygen (and other elements) between the galaxies is believed to trace large quantities of invisible, hot, ionized hydrogen in the universe. These vast reservoirs of hydrogen have largely escaped detection because they are too hot to be seen in visible light, yet too cool to be seen in X-rays.

Um, why wasn't the entire EM spectrum scanned across the heavens instead of "discrete" well-known segments like radio, x-ray, visible, IR, UV, etc.? Is it a money and time issue? Otherwise it seems that this should have been found decades ago.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...