×

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!

Spiraling Magnetic Signal Shows Up In the Cosmic Background

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the headline-can-only-hold-so-many-words dept.

Space 168

pln2bz writes "Astronomers looking for confirmation for emissions from early stellar formation in the cosmic microwave background radiation instead found a signal indicating large amounts of unaccounted-for spiraling magnetic fields in space, but without any accompanying infrared emissions. The discovery possibly dredges up the claims of plasma cosmologists like Eric Lerner, who claim that the intergalactic medium is a strong absorber of the CMB with the absorption occurring in a fog of narrow filaments. These filaments are the result of plasma's natural tendency, as observed within the plasma laboratory and in novelty plasma globes, to form braided, ropelike structures which are collimated by coiled magnetic fields."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

168 comments

Err..what? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26384149)

This news is too nerdy to understand. Can someone explain it in more detail?

Re:Err..what? (4, Informative)

Klootzak (824076) | more than 5 years ago | (#26384311)

I'll try as best as I can (this topic is beyond my level of understanding of Physics).

Essentially they've found something, they don't know what it is... a speculation is it could be caused by Black Holes which were formed by the first Stars to exist in the Universe Imploding [wikipedia.org] (as predicted by Einstein).

The other part of the submission leads on to say that if they are correct in their first speculation, it could possibly validate other theories like the one made by Eric Lerner, on how the Universe "works" in terms of the various structures of matter and energy in the space between large masses (like planets or stars).

I'm suspect as to the accuracy of the first link in the article, it quotes:

Dust grows over time as stars manufacture heavy elements called metals, like carbon, silicon and oxygen, that make up dust and then spit them out into space.

The reason I'm suspect, is because Oxygen [wikipedia.org] and Carbon [wikipedia.org] are both nonmetallic elements (or at least I understood they were - I checked Wikipedia to confirm).

I hope that helps you a bit, this stuff is a bit of a mindbender.

Re:Err..what? (5, Informative)

thePjunisher (858667) | more than 5 years ago | (#26384423)

Everything that's not hydrogen or helium, is a metal.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal#Astronomy [wikipedia.org]

Re:Err..what? (5, Informative)

mbone (558574) | more than 5 years ago | (#26384823)

To astronomers, Everything that's not hydrogen or helium, is a metal.

(Chemists have different viewpoints.)

Re:Err..what? (5, Funny)

BradHAWK (1346147) | more than 5 years ago | (#26385141)

Yes, to chemists everything that is not hydrogen or helium or a non-metal is a metal. Except hydrogen. Sometimes.

Re:Err..what? (4, Informative)

mbone (558574) | more than 5 years ago | (#26385233)

Well, the point is that in cosmology or extra-galactic astronomy, almost everything visible is almost entirely Hydrogen or Helium. The sloppy convention is to call the little bit left over "metals," although I know people who call it "dust," depending on the circumstances. Carbon (say) is definitely not a metal, but it would be called that in cosmology. It's just a convention.

Re:Err..what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26385843)

Well more exactly, everything that has an atomic number Z > 2 is metal to astronomers

Re:Err..what? (2, Funny)

mestar (121800) | more than 5 years ago | (#26388039)

Well, they can use any words that they want, but, fuck it, this is just stupid.

Re:Err..what? (2, Informative)

cyxxon (773198) | more than 5 years ago | (#26384517)

The difference here is that astronomers call a lot more elements "metals" than chemists do, it seems to be a convention for this specific field of work. So in that context that quote is not really wrong. At least that is what I have heard, I am neither ;)

Re:Err..what? (5, Informative)

Salamander_Pete (1377479) | more than 5 years ago | (#26384829)

I am a chemist, and as such I would say a metal is an element which favours losing electrons to form positive ions and electron 'clouds', rather than forming covalent bonds (electron-sharing between only a few atoms - normally 2). It seems that there is a specific definition of 'metal', which is used by the astrophysics guys, meaning any element heavier than helium. This says nothing about the ability/mechanism of the element to join with other elements, just its mass. As this is an astrophysics story, I'd have to go along with the 'heavier than helium' definition...

Re:Err..what? (1)

mbone (558574) | more than 5 years ago | (#26385259)

Really, it's the cosmologists. If it is not hydrogen or helium, it's a metal. I am not really sure why - maybe because there is a fair amount of lithium, and that is a metal.

This convention is not used by, say, the astronomers who deal with extra-solar system planets.

Re:Err..what? (1)

meringuoid (568297) | more than 5 years ago | (#26387255)

Really, it's the cosmologists. If it is not hydrogen or helium, it's a metal. I am not really sure why - maybe because there is a fair amount of lithium, and that is a metal.

Hydrogen and helium are primordial elements, formed in the Big Bang. Anything heavier than helium was made in stars - hence the cut-off there. Why the word 'metals' in particular came to be used to describe heavy elements I don't know.

Re:Err..what? (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 5 years ago | (#26384845)

Astronomers call anything heavier than hydrogen and helium "metal".

Re:Err..what? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26385149)

And my neighbor calls any man with slanted eyes Chinaman - astronomers are retards. Couldn't they at least coin a different term? Calling any element except two "metal" is about as good terminology as calling it "shit up there".

Re:Err..what? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26385243)

It was originally called "shit up there," but PBS made Carl Sagan clean it up for the children.

Re:Err..what? (4, Insightful)

Goaway (82658) | more than 5 years ago | (#26385767)

Well, that's pretty much exactly what it is. It accurately reflects how much the astronomers care about it. There's hydrogen, and helium, and that other shit up there.

Re:Err..what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26384873)

The reason I'm suspect, is because Oxygen [wikipedia.org] and Carbon [wikipedia.org] are both nonmetallic elements (or at least I understood they were - I checked Wikipedia to confirm).

No need to doubt the accuracy because of this. "Metal" is astronomers' jargon for all elements other than hydrogen and helium.

In stellar physics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26385819)

Anything other than Hydrogen and Helium is a metal.

Apart from the one-in-a-quadrillion chance of Oxygen and so on, all that was produced in the big bang was either Hydrogen or Helium. All other elements are produced in stellar fusion.

Re:Err..what? (1)

xonar (1069832) | more than 5 years ago | (#26387083)

it could be caused by Black Holes which were formed by the first Stars to exist in the Universe

I thought black holes were found to precede stars? [slashdot.org]

Re:Err..what? (2, Interesting)

Retric (704075) | more than 5 years ago | (#26389413)

Galaxies are not the only way to get stars. Back then your basicly collecting huge clumps of hydrogen and helium so while the star might become a black hole fairly quickly it still starts as a huge star.

Re:Err..what? (1)

Reziac (43301) | more than 5 years ago | (#26389523)

"Essentially they've found something, they don't know what it is..."

Well, I think it's obvious -- it's the Force! ;)

Re:Err..what? (5, Funny)

MRe_nl (306212) | more than 5 years ago | (#26384429)

"Spiraling Magnetic Signal, Cosmic Background emissions in the cosmic microwave background radiation, a signal indicating large amounts of unaccounted-for spiraling magnetic fields in space, but without any accompanying infrared emissions. The intergalactic medium is a strong absorber of a fog of narrow filaments. These filaments are the result of plasma's natural tendency, to form braided, ropelike structures which are collimated by coiled magnetic fields."

Jeez Dungeon Master, all I did was cast "Detect Magic", no need to go all cosmic on us...

Re:Err..what? (4, Insightful)

Aqua_boy17 (962670) | more than 5 years ago | (#26387799)

Spiraling signal? Filaments? Braided rope-like structures?

To me it sounds like they've finally found proof of FSM's existence.

Re:Err..what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26384743)

Tell me about it. This reads like output from one of those automatic science paper generators.

Compare it to this one:

"Many physicists would agree that, had it not been for congestion control, the evaluation of web browsers might never have occurred. In fact, few hackers worldwide would disagree with the essential unification of voice-over-IP and publicprivate key pair. In order to solve this riddle, we confirm that SMPs can be made stochastic, cacheable, and interposable."

Re:Err..what? (2, Insightful)

Rei (128717) | more than 5 years ago | (#26387707)

Slashdot summary summary:

"Scientists discover something and have theories for it, but they're wrong and a pseudoscience is true."

Re:Err..what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26387995)

Oh, good fucking job. You've just obviated the need for the ENTIRE science section of Slashdot for those few of us that were still blissfully unaware...

Re:Err..what? (1)

BradHAWK (1346147) | more than 5 years ago | (#26385207)

From the summary it sounds like they're saying that the universe is really a giant harddrive. The biggest harddrive ever. In fact, it really does hold all the porn ever made.

im drunk! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26384163)

red m,otha fuckjaaaaaa

Dredges? (-1, Offtopic)

kahizonaki (1226692) | more than 5 years ago | (#26384175)

Did the writer mean 'shores up'? I mean, I guess they're easy to get confused...they both (in at least one sense) have to do with water...though they sort of mean opposite things...

Dredge up...wow what a great phrase. Does it mean like, 'reminds us of' or 'recalls'?

I DEMAND A REFUND!

Re:Dredges? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26385629)

Dredge up...wow what a great phrase. Does it mean like, 'reminds us of' or 'recalls'?

Sort, of. Dredge up (both literally and figuratively) means to bring back to the surface something that was formerly "sunk".

Ropelike structures? Or tubes? (-1, Offtopic)

pines225 (1413303) | more than 5 years ago | (#26384199)

"... to form braided, ropelike structures which are collimated by coiled magnetic fields." An unnamed Senator suggested that these ropelike filament structures were "rather like a series of tubes", causing the RIAA to sue each of the world's plasma laboratories on the grounds that "there could be something illegal going on in all that plasma".

Calling Electric Universe in 3 ... 2 ... 1... (3, Informative)

gardyloo (512791) | more than 5 years ago | (#26384243)

Had to go look at the Electric Universe's webpage (won't link to it now; the curious can drive traffic). I see no mention of anything like this structure predicted on any sort of scale like this, though they post-hoc claim that galactic-sized spiraly bits can be explained with their theory. Probably their page is in need of revision, though, with these new findings...

Re:Calling Electric Universe in 3 ... 2 ... 1... (2, Informative)

plasmana (984377) | more than 5 years ago | (#26384469)

Re:Calling Electric Universe in 3 ... 2 ... 1... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26385083)

we said the cosmic background radiation is most likely from our own galaxy for quite a while, but you just never noticed i guess.

Re:Calling Electric Universe in 3 ... 2 ... 1... (1)

Kartoffel (30238) | more than 5 years ago | (#26386927)

Who is we? Got any peer-reviewed articles?

Please don't confuse the Thunderbolts of the Gods crap with proper science.

Re:Calling Electric Universe in 3 ... 2 ... 1... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26388071)

Who the heck said that? Most of the galaxy's mass lies in an ecliptic plane, and the MBR is almost entirely isotropic.

Re:Calling Electric Universe in 3 ... 2 ... 1... (1)

Kartoffel (30238) | more than 5 years ago | (#26386905)

I'd like to give Electric Universe proponents a fair chance, but their theories seem to attract a disproportionate of pseudoscientists and kooks. It's a shame, because this has tainted the entire subject to the point that few will risk their reputation to publish on it.

Maybe this radio background discovery will help (a) discredit the crackpots and (b) give proper science a valid platform from which to investigate EM fields on very large scales.

pln2bz is a strong proponent of EU theory (3, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 5 years ago | (#26387177)

He has a history of posting any story that can possibly be interpreted as supporting the electric universe theory, along with his speculations as to why the story proves EU correct. Just saying...

Re:Calling Electric Universe in 3 ... 2 ... 1... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26388175)

Plasma cosmology and the Electric Universe 'theory ' are not the same. The electric universe folks use plasma cosmology to try to support their claims, but the reverse is not true.

Holy Crap, Gurren Lagann was right! (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26384325)

The universe really is made out of spiral energy!

Re:Holy Crap, Gurren Lagann was right! (1)

game kid (805301) | more than 5 years ago | (#26389097)

Don't worry, nothing a giant super robot and a redhead with a massive rack^Wsniper rifle can't fix!

Foil hats at the ready (2, Funny)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 5 years ago | (#26384355)

Maybe it's the explanation for the problem these hippies' [slashdot.org] are having? No, on second thoughts, the problem is that they're hippies.

Re:Foil hats at the ready (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26384435)

Humor FAIL

Furry (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26385663)

You remind me of a furry, and therefore you must be a furry. Die, furry!

Re:Foil hats at the ready (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26387649)

Please never again post a link to idle.slashdot.org

Thank you.

Here are the 4 papers (5, Informative)

mbone (558574) | more than 5 years ago | (#26384453)

Interpretation of the extragalactic results (the real source of the OP) :
  http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.0559 [arxiv.org]

Note that the above paper does not mention the "wildly speculative" spiraling magnetic fields idea.

Extragalactic results in general :
http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.0555 [arxiv.org]

Galactic results
http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.0562 [arxiv.org]

A description of the instrument :
http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.0546 [arxiv.org]

Re:Here are the 4 papers (2, Informative)

mbone (558574) | more than 5 years ago | (#26384507)

In fact, if you read the New York Times article, these guys are experimentalists, and they are just trying to get theorists involved.

Dr. Kogut and his colleagues stressed that they do not really know where the signal comes from and they hope that theorists will take up the quest."

I would not put too much weight on their theoretical musings.

Re:Here are the 4 papers (4, Informative)

radtea (464814) | more than 5 years ago | (#26385271)

Note that the above paper does not mention the "wildly speculative" spiraling magnetic fields idea.

But this is /., where no one cares about science unless it is wildly speculative.

Good critique of Lerner: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/lerner_errors.html [ucla.edu] Dunno why the summary mentions him at all.

Re:Here are the 4 papers (1)

drerwk (695572) | more than 5 years ago | (#26387305)

Good critique of Lerner: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/lerner_errors.html [ucla.edu] Dunno why the summary mentions him at all.

Thanks for the link - nice to see a collection against the nuttiness. I'm waiting for my favorite reply, "But the sun is charged, it emits charged particles, what do you think the solar wind is?". I want to help those people....

Yeah yeah, now answer the important question.. (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26384477)

...which is "what are the implications of this discovery with regards to the development of FTL travel and subsequent discovery of green alien chicks in bikinis?"

Re:Yeah yeah, now answer the important question.. (1)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 5 years ago | (#26389491)

It's all fun and games till you discover that green aliens bear a striking resemblance to Roseanne.

Spiral power? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26384519)

Tengen Toppa Gurren-Lagann joke/reference goes here :)

Hi Simon!!

Re:Spiral power? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26386641)

'My heart is the filament of plasma that will permeate the universe?'

no, it just doesn't have the same ring does it.

Importance of the Cosmic Microwave Background (4, Informative)

syousef (465911) | more than 5 years ago | (#26384527)

I suspect that there are a lot of slashdotters who aren't strong on Cosmology and won't be bothered looking up the significance of the CMB on Wikipedia (I must say the Wikipedia article is particularly dense and won't be the easiest for non-specialists to digest).

So in a nutshell, the CMB is the the radiation we see in every direction of the sky. It's a little more complicated but you can think of it as the afterglow of the big bang. (Note: That is an over-simplication. To understand it better you have to look at a timeline of what happened after the big bang, especially hyper-inflation and recombination).

The reason it's so important is that it is the result of and thus put limits on the conditions at the time of the Big Bang. Since we don't have time machines and can't observe the universe from the outside, it is a critical piece of observational data against which we test our theories.

It is a particularly important piece of the puzzle when trying to work out what's going on with regards to dark matter because the amount of dark matter and the way in which it formed must be consistent with conditions that produced the CMB we observe.

Re:Importance of the Cosmic Microwave Background (1)

gardyloo (512791) | more than 5 years ago | (#26386125)

you can think of it as the afterglow of the big bang.

Oh, as though slashdotters know what "afterglow" is.

Re:Importance of the Cosmic Microwave Background (2, Funny)

memristance (1285036) | more than 5 years ago | (#26388173)

It's that image burned into our retinas when the power to our monitors dies, right? Right?

Re:Importance of the Cosmic Microwave Background (1)

Kartoffel (30238) | more than 5 years ago | (#26387075)

Yep! Based on observations of CMB / high-Z supernovae / galaxy cluster lensing, the universe appears to be nearly flat, finite, with accelerating expansion.

If you discredit the CMB portion of the data, it may invalidate that model of the universe, or at the very least introduce more uncertainty.

If what we think of as "CMB" is affected by galactic EM fields, the ratio of dark energy and dark matter to baryonic matter could be way off.

This is a very interesting time to be doing astronomy.

Them spiraling aren't magnetic fields! (1, Funny)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 5 years ago | (#26384587)

They are just the spending by USGovernment!

The spending is spiraling out of control, out of this world and is astronomical, as every one knows.

Ingnoring the electric field (0, Offtopic)

Eukariote (881204) | more than 5 years ago | (#26384645)

The many unexpected and anomalous astronomical observations are not really that surprising given that the astrophysical theories used to predict/interpret them are limited and likely mostly wrong. One big omission is the ignored role of the electric field. For a good overview of what should be (but is not) taken into account, see this site: http://www.electric-cosmos.org/indexOLD.htm [electric-cosmos.org]

Re:Ingnoring the electric field (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26386937)

Funny, it was my impression that the "electric cosmos" viewpoint consisted largely of pseudoscience...

Re:Ingnoring the electric field (2, Informative)

Kartoffel (30238) | more than 5 years ago | (#26387121)

Please take those claims with a healthy grain of salt. For whatever reason, the Electric Universe movement is heavily laden with kooky pseudoscience.

I'm not saying you should discredit it completely. Just treat it with a skeptical eye and separate the reasonable EM phenomena from the ridiculous claims.

Re:Ingnoring the electric field (2, Interesting)

Eukariote (881204) | more than 5 years ago | (#26388077)

Electric Universe movement is heavily laden with kooky pseudoscience.

The whole of astrophysics and cosmology is laden with kooky psuedoscience. The large number of observations that just won't fit and out-there patches to rescue models that should really be considered as having been falsified should tell you as much.

If you doubt that, consider the following observations: the over 1M Kelvin hot solar corona (where is that energy coming from?), the dark centers of solar spots (should the inside of the sun not be hotter instead of cooler?), the angular clustering of high-redshift quasars with "foreground" galaxies (less than one-in-a-million chance of emerging from the isotropic distribution dictated by Big Bang cosmology).

Re:Ingnoring the electric field (1)

Bemopolis (698691) | more than 5 years ago | (#26388593)

If you doubt that, consider the following observations: the over 1M Kelvin hot solar corona (where is that energy coming from?)

Magnetoacoustic waves due to convection cells cresting at the photosphere the dark centers of solar spots (should the inside of the sun not be hotter instead of cooler?)

In general yes, but the chromosphere is slightly (well, 1000-2000K hotter) than the underlying photosphere, due to the vagaries of radiative transfer and (wait for it) magnetoacoustic waves

the angular clustering of high-redshift quasars with "foreground" galaxies (less than one-in-a-million chance of emerging from the isotropic distribution dictated by Big Bang cosmology).

Yeah, I've heard Geoffrey Burbidge talk about five times now, and he and Arp are off their nut. In light of their theory of ejection from the central black holes, which is frankly bizarre even compared to the rest of the field of cosmology (I'm looking at you, Jayant Narlikar), I will stick with my original operating hyposthesis, that it is a combination of lensing (which occurs near massive objects like galaxies) and selection effects (more pictures are taken of galaxies than empty voids, and are scrutinized far more deeply.) Whereof one does not know, thereof one should not speak.

Re:Ingnoring the electric field (1)

Kartoffel (30238) | more than 5 years ago | (#26388683)

EM phenomena in the sun are well understood. Please don't stir up a fake aura of mystery around solar EM. "Electric Universe" theories are junk science. If you want those theories to be taken seriously, get rid of the junk.

Re:Ingnoring the electric field (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26388691)

Oh puhleeze....

Solar coronae are extremely hot, but also EXTREMELY DIFFUSE. The energy density in the corona is lower than at the sun's surface. No problem there. The energy comes from the sun....

Sunspots are understood reasonably well in terms of magnetic fields. There is very high field density at sunspots and the solar surface is ionized. So, you AREN'T looking at the center of the sun. You're looking at a plasma effect -- DIRECTIONAL temperature -- that focuses the energy along the magnetic field lines.

And Harp's "surveys" have long been known to be statistically invalid. They suffer from selection effects. And there are also some real physical effects that correlate distant objects with foreground objects, such as gravitational lensing.

Re:Ingnoring the electric field (1)

drerwk (695572) | more than 5 years ago | (#26388293)

Ok, I'll bite. What do you get when you separate the reasonable from the ridiculous claims of Electric Universe? All I get is the nul set.

So this means... (2, Funny)

gerald626 (197224) | more than 5 years ago | (#26384771)

That the universe is a big giant plasma ball that hasn't been played with in a while... so what happens when someone plugs us back in and touches the glass again?

mo3 up (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26384775)

for the project. You need t0 succeed

Wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey...stuff. (1, Offtopic)

ciderVisor (1318765) | more than 5 years ago | (#26384885)

A man conceived a moments answers to the dream, Staying the flowers daily, sensing all the themes. As a foundation left to create the spiral aim, A movement regained and regarded both the same, All complete in the sight of seeds of life with you. Changed only for a sight of sound, the space agreed. Between the picture of time behind the face of need, Coming quickly to terms of all expression laid, Emotion revealed as the ocean maid, All complete in the sight of seeds of life with you.

Re:Wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey...stuff. (0, Offtopic)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#26386131)

Juffo-Wup acknowledges the existence of un-Voidable Non

when we are faced with such, we join, absorb and wait for our opportunity

to learn the weakness that will allow us to Void the Non.

Another theory (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26384903)

Or this could just be the transmissions of some aliens.

Yes, I'm a Troll under the local galactic arm. (1)

cborg (197926) | more than 5 years ago | (#26385071)

Shall we bend over with our upturned hinds towards the morning sun now? Is the Universe smaller than we thought because a black hole bigger than our own galaxy keeps us from seeing a lot?

Re:Yes, I'm a Troll under the local galactic arm. (-1, Troll)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 5 years ago | (#26385597)

Shall we bend over with our upturned hinds towards the morning sun now?

Point goatse at the sun? Do you want to cause an ice age or something?

Is the Universe smaller than we thought because a black hole bigger than our own galaxy keeps us from seeing a lot?

What.. a goatse bigger than a galaxy? Eeewww! I do not want to follow that thought...

DNA (2, Insightful)

el_jake (22335) | more than 5 years ago | (#26385081)

Three letters spring into mind - DNA

Re:DNA (1)

zooblethorpe (686757) | more than 5 years ago | (#26387595)

Fascinating idea -- recursive mirroring on such a scale as this... :D

Some descriptions of the universe talk about how, if you go in one direction far enough, you'll wind up back where you started. Maybe it's the same for size as well? I.e., if you get big enough, you wind up back at the small, and vice-versa. Fun thought.

Cheers,

Re:DNA (1)

Man On Pink Corner (1089867) | more than 5 years ago | (#26388191)

Anyone who's seen photomicrographs of IC chips has probably had a similar unsettling thought, looking down on a city from an airplane window. Self-similarity is practically everywhere you look, even in our own creations.

If they found large-scale double-helix structures in space, I'd pretty much shit my drawers. Then I'd start a religion around it and make big bucks.

SciFicPhy-101: Multi-verses and a levity field.... (1)

OldHawk777 (19923) | more than 5 years ago | (#26385387)

If each universe (as discussed in previous post) has some thing in common, maybe, like a gravity-field and each of the universes were in a Mega-verse levity-field (you can laugh now) floating around like galaxies in our own small universe, then maybe ....

A gravity field universe passing through a levity-field mega-verse would generate a background energy halo. The mechanics much like magnets generation of electricity..., but gravity is not magnetism and levity is not electricity (laugh again, please).

What if; a black-hole not only causes a gravitational distortion, but collapse of so much mass/particles in one singularity causes the space-time of our (Newton, Einstein, Bohr, Shrodinger, Heisenberg, Hawking...) universal physics no longer exist at the center of the singularity (which is based on levity-field physics).

Can a black-hole-levity-well be (much/sorta) like a universe-gravity-well in a levity-field? ... maybe...almost... self sustaining ...

ELECTRIC UNIVERSE!!! (5, Informative)

frankie (91710) | more than 5 years ago | (#26385603)

Please recall that Mr pln2bz [slashdot.org] is an Electric Universe fanatic, pretending to be an objective outsider who was swayed by the Thunderbolts' persuasive arguments.

Re:ELECTRIC UNIVERSE!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26385859)

Have you gone to Hollywood yet?

Re:ELECTRIC UNIVERSE!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26387173)

"who was swayed by the Thunderbolts' persuasive arguments."

Norman Osborn, Venom, Bullseye et al can indeed be extremely persuasive.

Interesting thing about the Electric Universe... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26389219)

Theory, is that the electric fields and plasma phenomenon it's rooted in can be directly observed in laboratories around the world and in space in our own solar system and around numerous planets.

But the phenomenon modern astronomy accepts as true? Black holes? Still theoretical and they've never been directly observed. Dark matter and dark energy? They never been directly observed either. Astronomers might as well be looking for unicorns and leprechauns.

In fact most of modern astronomy depends on largely theoretical and in some cases "invisible matter." But you can't say the same about the Electric Universe model of the Universe which is rooted in testable and observable phenomenon. Yet oddly enough some wish to criticize the model rooted in reality versus the one rooted in fantasy.

Interesting...

New and Exciting! (1)

ShinyBrowncoat (692095) | more than 5 years ago | (#26389555)

"It's exciting new evidence of something new and exciting going on in the universe."

This guy must be from the dept-of-redundancy-dept

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...