Beta
×

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!

Possible Dark Matter Signs At the Core

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the quantum-two-hyperdrive dept.

Space 234

Scientific American has a piece on speculation that dark matter may be behind diffuse radiation in the galactic center. Beginning in 2003, researchers led by Douglas Finkbeiner noticed a curious excess of microwave radiation in the WMAP data, after all known sources of such radiation were accounted for. Data from NASA's Fermi Gamma-Ray Space Telescope resulted in a similar anomaly in gamma rays. "A paper posted to the physics preprint Web site arXiv.org on October 26 and submitted to the Astrophysical Journal points to a possible signature of dark matter in the Milky Way, although the study's authors are careful to keep their observations empirical and table such speculation... In the new paper [the researchers] describe the Fermi gamma-ray haze and make the claim that it confirms the synchrotron origin of the WMAP microwave haze. And as with the microwave haze, the authors argue that the electrons responsible for the gamma-ray haze appear to originate from an unknown astrophysical process. ... 'We are absolutely in the process of exploring the Fermi haze in the context of dark matter physics,' [one of them] says."

cancel ×

234 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

One word: (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29971478)

Foreskin Configuration. New in Meatloaf's next generation Linux scheduler.

Re:One word: (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29971618)

I'd post something about the Electric Universe as in what that theory says, but the people who are willing to take a hard look at gravity-only cosmology and the Electric Universe and apply a little Occam's Razor and common sense and refuse to allow the authority of establishment science or the naysaying and name-calling of people who just parrot what the mainstream says are already aware of it. Never before have I ever seen anyone declare that the Electric Universe is wrong who also knew the slightest thing about it. Usually they refer to claims that the EU theory never made and then use that to declare that it's utter bullshit. They don't know the history because they are so certain they are right that they can't be bothered to study it, so they don't realize that magnetohydrodynamics is fatally flawed and that the person who invented it was the first to say so. They don't know that ad-hoc revisions of a theory to fit newly discovered facts mean that it is not a scientific theory, because then it is never wrong and therefore can never be truly falsified. They don't know that EU accurately predicted the behavior of various comets while mainstream cosmologists were "amazed" at "startling discoveries." They really don't know that many millions of people who formed a mainstream belief and had all sorts of authority, credentials, and prestige have been dead wrong before and that this has happened numerous times throughout history, even in science. In short, they don't have questioning minds. They have minds that want answers. Silly narrow-minded bastards who speak about what they know nothing about are one of the biggest obstacles to progress. Them and institutional authority.

Re:One word: (2, Insightful)

Cassius Corodes (1084513) | more than 4 years ago | (#29971878)

I think humanity is at a pretty shit state when one hopes that a statement is a troll rather than sincere opinion

Re:One word: (2, Funny)

roguetrick (1147853) | more than 4 years ago | (#29972724)

Welcome to the internet, how long will you be staying?

It's a black hole! (4, Funny)

shentino (1139071) | more than 4 years ago | (#29971490)

Of course it's dark matter in the middle

Re:It's a black hole! (4, Informative)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#29971584)

Black hole and dark matter have very precise meanings in physics. In fact, black holes aren't strictly black due to Hawking radiation and dark matter is transparent, not dark.

Re:It's a black hole! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29971666)

Fermi Haze, all in my brain!

Re:It's a black hole! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29972866)

I suspect most Slashdotters are too young to get that Jimi Hendrix reference.

Re:It's a black hole! (1)

AndroidCat (229562) | more than 4 years ago | (#29973050)

Fermi haze all in my brain
Lately things just don't seem the same
Actin' funny, but I don't know why
'Scuse me while I kiss the sky

Yeah, sounds like Dark Matter alright.

Re:It's a black hole! (3, Interesting)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 4 years ago | (#29971826)

Close. Black holes emit hawking radiation in so far as physics is concerned however, the more massive a black hole is the less bright it is. A black hole with twice the mass of another black hoel will be 1/8th as bright as the smaller black hole. For blackholes largers than the sun, the hawking radiation is so miniscule that the lifetime of the black hole is on the order of 10^60+ years before it "evaporates." Dark matter O.T.O.H. is merely undetectable with current instrumentation outside of indirect gravitational effects.

Re:It's a black hole! (2, Insightful)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#29972114)

If dark matter is "undetectable", then why are they attributing microwave radiation to dark matter, instead of, say, the energy given off by normal matter falling into the black hole at the center of the galaxy? (What happens when dark matter falls into a black hole, anyway?)

Re:It's a black hole! (2, Insightful)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 4 years ago | (#29972292)

It looks like they're claiming that the radiation from these electrons indicates that a process of higher energy than a supernova caused the phenomena. I presume that the process they're talking about is the decay of WIMPs and other dark matter candidates. The dark matter its self hasn't been directly detected unless you're counting this paper as an example of the contrary. The problem is that this is a very new paper in arxiv and as such requires much more peer review before we can say with reasonable confidence that their claim is plausible or not.

Re:It's a black hole! (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 4 years ago | (#29973372)

If dark matter is "undetectable",

No. Dark matter is undetectable with current instrumentation. And actually they've already detected and imaged it with gravity lensing, so that's not entirely accurate either.

Re:It's a black hole! (1)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 4 years ago | (#29973456)

For blackholes largers than the sun,

Larger in what way - radius or mass? Don't stars need to be at least three solar masses before they can implode into a black hole? And if so, are you describing a special case?

Re:It's a black hole! (3, Funny)

CopaceticOpus (965603) | more than 4 years ago | (#29972548)

Black hole and dark matter have very precise meanings in physics.

Just like woosh has a very precise meaning on Slashdot.

Re:It's a black hole! (1)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#29972592)

Well, to continue the Slashdot tradition:

Just like whoosh has a very precise meaning on Slashdot.

Fixed.

Re:It's a black hole! (4, Funny)

causality (777677) | more than 4 years ago | (#29971632)

Of course it's dark matter in the middle

Dark matter is sort of like violence. If it doesn't work, just use more of it.

Re:It's a black hole! (2, Funny)

Zarf (5735) | more than 4 years ago | (#29972500)

You have a profound understanding of Physics. That's exactly what physicists do.

Of course it's dark matter in the middle

Dark matter is sort of like violence. If it doesn't work, just use more of it.

Re:It's a black hole! (0, Troll)

causality (777677) | more than 4 years ago | (#29972730)

You have a profound understanding of Physics. That's exactly what physicists do.

Of course it's dark matter in the middle

Dark matter is sort of like violence. If it doesn't work, just use more of it.

Well it is certainly convenient. Anytime your theory doesn't add up, or fails to predict the results of a new observation, why go through all the trouble of considering your theory falsified, questioning your premises, and coming up with new ideas? Just add dark matter to make the math work out. Don't let it concern you that it's the one and only scientifically accepted form of matter that has never once been observed in any laboratory, after all, we have equations to balance!

The more I see this kind of thing, the more I believe that mainstream science did not eliminate the priesthood. It merely replaced it with a more rational one to fit the changing needs of the people.

You're rather well-informed and stalwart yourself to be able to see this despite the chorus of screaming voices which would have you believe that you're some kind of moron for questioning something that really does need to be questioned. In other words, truth in your own terms is not for the faint of heart. Anyone who needs to have answers handed to them because they wouldn't dare to question an expert is a member of the faint of heart.

Re:It's a black hole! (1, Insightful)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 4 years ago | (#29973030)

Anytime your theory doesn't add up, or fails to predict the results of a new observation, why go through all the trouble of considering your theory falsified, questioning your premises, and coming up with new ideas?

Because every other scientist will laugh at you?

The more I see this kind of thing, the more I believe that mainstream science did not eliminate the priesthood. It merely replaced it with a more rational one to fit the changing needs of the people.

Yeah, creationists say the same thing. It seems to be amazingly common for dimwitted people to confuse their ignorance with "problems with science".

Re:It's a black hole! (-1, Troll)

causality (777677) | more than 4 years ago | (#29973118)

Anytime your theory doesn't add up, or fails to predict the results of a new observation, why go through all the trouble of considering your theory falsified, questioning your premises, and coming up with new ideas?

Because every other scientist will laugh at you?

The more I see this kind of thing, the more I believe that mainstream science did not eliminate the priesthood. It merely replaced it with a more rational one to fit the changing needs of the people.

Yeah, creationists say the same thing. It seems to be amazingly common for dimwitted people to confuse their ignorance with "problems with science".

I see your provocation and raise you one indifference.

Really though, I don't expect agreement when I say a thing like that. You, if anything, are conforming to my expectations. There is no shame in that, though it's not terribly interesting either.

Re:It's a black hole! (1)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 4 years ago | (#29973262)

So what you're saying is that you don't actually believe the nonsense you're spouting - you're simply trolling? Fun. Does that make you feel like a big man?

Re:It's a black hole! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29973454)

Just because you're too fucking stupid to understand something, doesn't mean it's "trolling".

Re:It's a black hole! (3, Interesting)

causality (777677) | more than 4 years ago | (#29973698)

So what you're saying is that you don't actually believe the nonsense you're spouting - you're simply trolling? Fun. Does that make you feel like a big man?

Far from it, good sir. It means I believe it whether or not others need to disagree or even ridicule me for it. I believe that this is one of those polarizing things where you either see it for yourself or you don't and bickering about it is infinitesimally unlikely to change anyone's mind. So I won't. The indifference means I am not bothered when things I believe don't find ready support, for that is a type of insecurity based on bandwagon appeal and I see the error in it. It also means I don't need to think ill of people, not even of those who can't disagree with my viewpoint without also judging me to be inferior in some way or inferring an ulterior motive such as trolling or egotism when my actions are mysterious to them. I am thankful to not carry that burden, for it's a heavy one.

If you would accept a suggestion from me, never confuse consensus agreement with truth. Not even when you find yourself on the side of the majority consensus.

Re:It's a black hole! (5, Insightful)

The_Wilschon (782534) | more than 4 years ago | (#29973416)

Well shoot. You got us all figured out. We're all just a bunch of charlatan priests. I guess we'll just give up and go home now.

You want scientists to consider their theories falsified, question their premises, and come up with new ideas, eh? OK, when I find that galactic rotation curves don't line up with what I've predicted, I'll consider my theories (standard model with, as best we can manage, general relativity) falsified. I'll question my premises (for instance, the premise that I know exactly what particles exist in the universe). I'll come up with some new ideas (for instance, that there might be some type of particle that I don't know about). Looks OK so far, right? At what point do you have an objection to this?

One objection that I can see is that you might think that no other avenues of investigation have been explored. However, they have. Instead of questioning the standard model (giving us dark matter), we could question general relativity. This gives us a theory called MOND. It doesn't really work very well, but a lot of very smart people spent a great deal of time and effort investigating it.

In the end, in order to be a good scientist, you've got to come full circle. You take all the new ideas (new theories) that you've come up with, and you make predictions with them. Turns out that dark matter predicts something different from, say, MOND for a collision between two galaxy clusters which contain gas, stars, and dark matter. Well, we found such a collision (Bullet Cluster), and dark matter made the correct prediction, whereas MOND made the wrong prediction.

But that's not all. When you start to enumerate all the properties that dark matter ought to have in order to fit what we've observed in galactic rotation curves, the bullet cluster, etc, it turns out that there are not too many different ways in which to fit dark matter onto the standard model. And those ways in general predict different things about what astroparticle experiments like Fermi, ICECUBE, etc should see. Give it a few (~10) years, and these experiments will either have indirectly observed dark matter (and the characteristics of that observation will narrow down the particular type of dark matter dramatically), or they will have ruled out a large number of the candidate dark matter models, leaving even fewer. Give it long enough, and we'll have either made the indirect observation or ruled out all the models.

If we rule out all the models, then it's back to the drawing board. We'd have a falsified theory, we'd question our premises, and we'd come up with some new ideas. But until then, dark matter is a very good avenue for investigation. You shouldn't "believe" in it until it's been observed, but neither should you claim it's bad science. It isn't.

FWIW, I don't really expect to convince you of this, as you seem to be quite firmly decided that it is bad science, even though it fits your apparent criteria for what science should be. But hopefully I can prevent others who read both of our comments from being infected by you.

Re:It's a black hole! (1)

sleeponthemic (1253494) | more than 4 years ago | (#29972180)

It's not all doom and gloom. I've heard there is in-flight spaghetti and fiction.

Re:It's a black hole! (2, Insightful)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 4 years ago | (#29973440)

No, "dark matter" and "dark energy" are just discrepancies in two particular aspects of astrophysics. Empirical observations suggest that there's more matter out there than we can see. However, because they sound vague and they're active areas of research (that is, they're mentioned often and it's clear we don't know what they are), people who have no real understanding of physics jump to the conclusion that it's some general hand-waving. Perhaps this makes them reinforces their belief that they're so much smarter than those durned scientists -- who knows.

Voldemort (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29971506)

Am I the only one who read the title as 'Dark Master'?

Re:Voldemort (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29972614)

Yessssss.

Explanation Impossible (0, Flamebait)

verin (74429) | more than 4 years ago | (#29971562)

I swear Dark Matter is the 'God did it' of the physics world. Can't explain something, Dark Matter is the reason! Can't find a cause, Dark Matter is it! Can't explain Dark Matter, we got Dark Energy! Can't explain Dark Energy, its Dark Matter!

Re:Explanation Impossible (4, Insightful)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 4 years ago | (#29971748)

The difference is that dark matter and dark energy can be tested for in various ways; a deity can't be.
When physicists can't explain something they may use a place holder at times but there's no chance of just giving up like the "god did it" explanation does.

Re:Explanation Impossible (-1, Troll)

bertok (226922) | more than 4 years ago | (#29972088)

The difference is that dark matter and dark energy can be tested for in various ways; a deity can't be.
When physicists can't explain something they may use a place holder at times but there's no chance of just giving up like the "god did it" explanation does.

No, they can't test for it, that's the problem.

This is more along the lines of "our equations don't explain the observed motion of galaxies, therefore, there's matter there we can't see or touch."

That's just not a logical conclusion. It leaves out the much more likely answer that our understanding of the equations of motion is wrong.

The really stupid thing is that all of the predictions that disagree with observed reality (and are the cause for the dark matter/energy predictions) are approximations. Most galaxy motion simulations are based on either Newtonian mechanics or "modified Newtonian" mechanics, even though both are known to be wrong. Einstein showed them to be wrong over a hundred years ago! My second sentence actually should have been:

"Our known-wrong, simplified equations don't explain the observed motion of galaxies, therefore, there's some magical invisible stuff there we can't see or touch."

That's some good science, right there.

Disclaimer: I studied physics at University, and both me and a friend of mine noted during our studies that Physics seems to overuse simplified equations even in situations where it leads to substantial errors. The example that my friend noticed for example is the classic "double slit" interference experiment. Take a look at the equation used [wikipedia.org] . Those simple equations are the ones we learned about also. They're wrong. In many practical cases, the error can exceed 30%!

Re:Explanation Impossible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29972140)

The difference being, we didn't find all of this in a book 2000 years ago and continue to educate it, verbatim, in churches of science across the nation.

Re:Explanation Impossible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29972448)

Just change the date on the book, and churches to schools... if there is a difference, that really isn't it...

Re:Explanation Impossible (2, Insightful)

mcrbids (148650) | more than 4 years ago | (#29972370)

That's just not a logical conclusion. It leaves out the much more likely answer that our understanding of the equations of motion is wrong.

So, you take a WHOLE YEAR of Physics in school, and suddenly, you are ready to say with confidence that all the formulas of physics (which, coincidentally, are correct enough to land a robot on Mars and propel a satellite out past the Solar System) are wrong?!?!? Further, you even state that it's MORE LIKELY that they are wrong?

You and your friend were astute enough to notice that you were using overly simplified formulas in your (first year) physics class. You don't think that maybe it's (ahem) more likely that you were just being introduced to the basic concepts, and the formulas were simplified a bit so that students could grasp it? Oooh! ooh! I took a class in this once!

Try really explaining a firewall to somebody sometime - you know, the protocol number, the port number, the IP address, the Mac address - or maybe you don't know, either? Well, many people think they know what a firewall is because they managed to get one to work with the web-based router interface. But how much credence would you give an IT guy who says blithely that setting up firewalls is inherently broken and that we need to rebuild everything, because of flaws he saw in the simplified web-based router interface?

Personally, I think you should pursue physics some more! See what the real formulas are when they start talking about the higher level stuff.... Of course, if you just want to use your 1 year to say "aw, they are all idiots because I took a class!" then so be it.

Just don't expect me to think much of your opinion.

Re:Explanation Impossible (1)

PachmanP (881352) | more than 4 years ago | (#29973140)

...all the formulas of physics (which, coincidentally, are correct enough to land a robot on Mars and propel a satellite out past the Solar System) are wrong?!?!?

Hi! That's engineering; don't put us in the same boat as the string theory wankers. Thanks!


On a more serious note, the key point in your statement is "correct enough". The equations used for that kind of stuff is wrong, we know it's an approximation, but the error is small and we can account for it. That's before you try and linearize!

As for the GP, he's right. As the saying goes a physicist will approximate a horse as a sphere. He could have been far further than 2nd semester physics and still reached the same conclusion. He just missed that while a horse isn't a sphere, if you squint real hard, you can get some useful insights out of a round horse.

Re:Explanation Impossible (4, Informative)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 4 years ago | (#29972436)

Simulations of stars in galaxies are approximations because:
1) there isn't an equation for an exact solution to any gravitationally bound system containing more than 5 objects.
2) stars in a typical galaxy are not uniform so the simulations must take this into account as a best guess. br />3) newton's equations are indeed incorrect however, Einstein's equations only dominate to a significant degree under unusual conditions.

In so far as dark matter is concerned, you are incorrect. Experiments like the Cryogenic Dark Matter Search are attempting to detect dark matter particles directly, we've got neutrino detectors looking for evidence of annihilation events... Particle accelerator experiments attempting to actually synthesize dark matter candidates.. To claim that there isn't a way to test the dark matter hypothesis would be grossly inaccurate.
Disclaimer: Physics isn't my major but I did study quite a bit of it in high school and college.

Re:Explanation Impossible (1)

Imrik (148191) | more than 4 years ago | (#29973166)

In so far as dark matter is concerned, you are incorrect. Experiments like the Cryogenic Dark Matter Search are attempting to detect dark matter particles directly, we've got neutrino detectors looking for evidence of annihilation events... Particle accelerator experiments attempting to actually synthesize dark matter candidates.. To claim that there isn't a way to test the dark matter hypothesis would be grossly inaccurate.
Disclaimer: Physics isn't my major but I did study quite a bit of it in high school and college.

When you start getting successful results you can start using it to make your theories work when they otherwise wouldn't.

Re:Explanation Impossible (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 4 years ago | (#29973242)

How do you propose that we expand our knowledge without acquiring more evidence? How would you test a hypothesis or a theory without searching for more evidence for or against it?

Re:Explanation Impossible (5, Insightful)

yndrd1984 (730475) | more than 4 years ago | (#29972484)

This is more along the lines of "our equations don't explain the observed motion of galaxies, therefore, there's matter there we can't see or touch."

Wow! I never thought they would do things like that! I would have expected things to go like this:
"our equations don't explain the observed motion of galaxies, therefore, it's reasonable to hypothesize that there's matter there we can't see or touch, let's test it."
And then they'd go and look for evidence or something. Thanks for correcting me!

That's just not a logical conclusion. It leaves out the much more likely answer that our understanding of the equations of motion is wrong.

So all that stuff I heard about MOND [wikipedia.org] was just in my head? Thanks for grounding me in reality!

Most galaxy motion simulations are based on either Newtonian mechanics or "modified Newtonian" mechanics, even though both are known to be wrong. Einstein showed them to be wrong over a hundred years ago!

You're right! It's quite likely that thousands and thousands of astrophysicists have spent decades researching a problem that has such an obvious solution. You're a veritable font of wisdom!

I studied physics at University, and both me and a friend of mine noted during our studies that Physics seems to overuse simplified equations ... Those simple equations are the ones we learned about also. They're wrong. In many practical cases, the error can exceed 30%!

O M G ! - W T F ! Low level physics classes use lots of simplifications? That explains why I can't find massless ropes and frictionless pulleys on E-Bay!

Re:Explanation Impossible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29972986)

Wake me up when you can explain away the other 90% of the known mass of the universe.

Re:Explanation Impossible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29973466)

People can agree to disagree without being sardonically arrogant.
Oh wait... I forgot I was on /.
Never mind

Re:Explanation Impossible (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 4 years ago | (#29972688)

Dark matter explains several things that changing the laws of gravity does not. The rotation curve of galaxies is only one of those observations.

As a simple example, you can describe the rotation curves of galaxies by either including some dark matter or modifying gravity at large scales. You can also explain the configuration of large clusters by including some dark matter or modifying gravity... and including some dark matter. Now which is the more attractive solution?

Yes, when you start out learning physics you start with the basics. Sometimes those same basics are used to do real physics with because they're the only thing that's really practical in a given situation - and they either work very well in that domain or the errors are fairly well characterized. Newton's equations aren't really wrong, they're approximations that perform badly in certain extreme environments. In most of the universe they do just fine.

Nevertheless, there are physicists pursing all promising approaches, and lots of not so promising ones. Your assertion that you can't test for dark matter is ridiculous, and completely unsupported by anything in your post. To be taken seriously a dark matter hypothesis requires that the distribution be realistic and that the dark matter behave in a way that is consistent with other dark matter solutions. The possibilities for what dark matter actually is have been narrowed down considerably by theorists and there are several particle searches underway, using several different techniques. The likely decay modes of dark matter are also being investigated, and studies like this one could provide evidence for particular decay characteristics.

So what are you proposing anyway? That physicists shouldn't investigate a promising hypothesis because... it offends you personally? Because of what was not included in your physics class? Fortunately science doesn't work that way.

Re:Explanation Impossible (0, Troll)

gyrogeerloose (849181) | more than 4 years ago | (#29972894)

I studied physics at University, and both me and a friend of mine

It's pretty obvious that you didn't study English.

Re:Explanation Impossible (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 4 years ago | (#29972100)

The difference is that dark matter and dark energy can be tested for in various ways; a deity can't be. When physicists can't explain something they may use a place holder at times but there's no chance of just giving up like the "god did it" explanation does.

It's worth echoing that. Even the really iffy, amorphous parts of physics like superstring theory will eventually have empirical evidence shaping (and perhaps falsifying) it. OTOH, we have no idea whether it is even possible to test the theory of "God exists."

Re:Explanation Impossible (3, Funny)

shadowblaster (1565487) | more than 4 years ago | (#29972386)

GOD: I am defrosting my dinner.

Re:Explanation Impossible (5, Funny)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 4 years ago | (#29972638)

The difference is that dark matter and dark energy can be tested for in various ways; a deity can't be.

Well, technically you can test for existence of a deity.... you just can't come back to tell the rest of us about it afterwards.

Re:Explanation Impossible (1)

rthille (8526) | more than 4 years ago | (#29971768)

"god did it" is a little different from, "there seems to be a source of gravitational attraction, we're not sure what it is, but it seems distinct from 'regular' matter; let's call it 'dark matter' while we continue to investigate."

Re:Explanation Impossible (1)

dimeglio (456244) | more than 4 years ago | (#29972290)

Clearly, God lives in the FFth dimension. Dimensions numbers are designed to be two byte fields. God never though anyone could ever need to use more than four dimensions.

Re:Explanation Impossible (2)

Haxamanish (1564673) | more than 4 years ago | (#29972542)

I second that, I would even add that God must have F fingers.

Proof: if you want to know the n-th number of pi, you have to calculate all numbers up to n-1 to calculate n. However, in binary, octal, hexadecimal and any base 2^n you can calculate that number independently [maa.org] . So, to know the last "3" of "3.141592653" we need to calculate all numbers before. To know the last "0" of "3.243F6A8885A308D313198A2E0" we do not have to calculate all numbers before it. As we see here, God of course has his shortcuts to omnipotency. So, he has 2^n fingers. The actual number of his fingers must be close to ours, since we were created to his semblance. Having less fingers than us would make him less perfect (a god without thumbs would be plainly absurd), so he must have F.

Re:Explanation Impossible (2)

Haxamanish (1564673) | more than 4 years ago | (#29972596)

Please note I used the symbol "n" in 2 different meaning here. I should have written the "n-th position of pi" and "base 2^b" or something.

Re:Explanation Impossible (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 4 years ago | (#29971774)

I swear Dark Matter is the 'God did it' of the physics world. Can't explain something, Dark Matter is the reason!

All slashdot dupes come from the dark matter.
   

Re:Explanation Impossible (0, Troll)

ddxexex (1664191) | more than 4 years ago | (#29971784)

I swear Wave-Particle Duality is the 'God did it' of the physics world. Can't explain something, Wave-Particle Duality is the reason! Can't find a cause, A Wave is it! Can't explain it using a wave, we got particles! Can't explain particles, itsa wave!

Heck lot's of things in Physics were like that, I mean we still can't really explain gravity all that well either so gravitons are clearly "God did it". Quantum Mechanics? Clearly God is playing dice. Higgs-boson yep it's a God particle. Dark Matter may be tough to explain, but it's no more a Deus-Ex Machina than much of the rest science.

Re:Explanation Impossible (3, Informative)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 4 years ago | (#29971984)

Like "gravity", dark matter is the name given to a phenomenon or set of phenomena that appear related, not necessarily an actual thing or force. We don't know what gravity actually "is" under the hood; we only know what it does. Gravity is a model that explains observations nicely. But the actual workings behind it are still elusive. We've yet to successfully break it down into sub-mechanisms or sub-models, like knowing that cars move and the patterns of their movements, but not why they move.

Dark matter may actually be many different forces or causes, and perhaps in the future may be split up or re-assigned to other "forces" (models). At this point in time it's merely a guess that it's all one thing. Gravity may also turn out to be multiple things that only appear to be one in the same from our limited perspective and observations. We have to peel the onion one layer at a time, and may never reach the final center layer (if there is such a thing).
       

Re:Explanation Impossible (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29971852)

Dark Matter and Dark Energy are like the modern equivalent to Phlogiston. Either something is wrong with our model or missing from our equations so in order to make the math work we insert a known unknown. It makes the equations match up with the observations cleanly, but requires us to assume something about the nature of the Universe that just doesn't make sense. Phlogiston was exactly the same. We could not explain the bizarre eddies of the outer planets from the perspective of a geocentric system so we introduced unobservable eddies which made the math work because our model was wrong. Something tells me that we'll eventually work out a more accurate and more elegant model that doesn't include Dark Matter or Dark Energy in the future.

Explanation Very Possible (4, Informative)

Roger W Moore (538166) | more than 4 years ago | (#29972002)

Can't explain something, Dark Matter is the reason! Can't find a cause, Dark Matter is it!

This is completely incorrect. This work is the result of looking for Dark Matter. Dark Matter is the best explanation for galactic rotation curves and the cosmic microwave background. Depending on what the Dark Matter is it may annihilate with itself and produce, amongst other things, electron-positron pairs. In fact the paper is really a very beautiful and elegant bit of work since the first bit of evidence which lead to this comes from the background 'noise' of one of the major pieces of evidence for Dark Matter - the WMAP data! As such, far from noticing something and then attributing it to Dark Matter, this is actively looking for something that suggests evidence for Dark Matter. True the evidence does not show that it HAS to be Dark Matter but if you cannot attribute it to anything else which is known and you have models which suggest that Dark Matter might produce such a signal it is very interesting.

Arkani-Hamed et al have a model which may explain this and which, if correct, predicts jets of leptons (electrons or muons) at the LHC. This is actually one of the things which my colleagues and I are looking for on the ATLAS Experiment [atlas.ch] . If we do observe them then this will be further evidence for Dark Matter and not a "oh, something else we cannot explain and put down to Dark Matter". Until we have enough bits of evidence that, combined, show that Dark Matter is the only possible cause there will always be some doubt but that should not be construed as flailing around and using Dark Matter to explain every observation that is inexplicable. Indeed, the fact that we are using Dark Matter models to suggest observations and experiments to perform and then finding that these return "inexplicable" results is very, very interesting!

Re:Explanation Very Possible (0, Troll)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 4 years ago | (#29972536)

Dark Matter is the best explanation for galactic rotation curves and the cosmic microwave background.

And the sun circling the Earth is also the reason used once long long ago to explain things like day and night.

It was also wrong due to ignorance and based or observations that weren't understood, not real sure why this is supposed to be magically different.

Re:Explanation Very Possible (2, Insightful)

justthinkit (954982) | more than 4 years ago | (#29972718)

Try an engineer's perspective here, not just the pure science one. A geer would say:
"When we add the Dark Matter fudge factor, our equations tend to get better, and we haven't found many (if any) equations that break in major bad ways because of it so, we will build our next bridge using this fudge factor and be confident it will be the best inter-galactic bridge built in 2009."

To see what engineers have to deal with on a daily basis, have a look at any of the links off of this page: lmnoeng.com [lmnoeng.com] . All looks very civilized and mathematical until you look further down each sub-page and see how conditional & fractional & empirical it all is. But it is the best we have and we manage to build with it. It is very obvious to geers that these are not final exact equations. These are just answers that work, and we work 'em.

Re:Explanation Very Possible (1)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 4 years ago | (#29973150)

You seem as if you could benefit from a bit of Asimov [tufts.edu] .

Re:Explanation Very Possible (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 4 years ago | (#29973426)

not real sure why this is supposed to be magically different.

You already know the word, "ignorance". Both yours and the scientists. One doesn't magically come up with a theory that the Earth circles the Sun rather than the reverse. You needed evidence and a better model for that. We have some pretty good evidence that our models are wrong in a specific way. The corrections that work for us are called "dark matter" and "dark energy". Even if this is the old epicycle problem, it's worth noting that the original epicycles had all the information needed to find Newtonian mechanics. So it is with our current approach. We need first to accurately describe what is going on. Thew development of better, more parsimonious models will follow.

Re:Explanation Very Possible (1)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 4 years ago | (#29973460)

And the sun circling the Earth is also the reason used once long long ago to explain things like day and night. It was also wrong due to ignorance and based or observations that weren't understood, not real sure why this is supposed to be magically different.

The geocentric view of things did a better job of explaining the world than heliocentric views. The Ptolemic system (well variants of it; there were multiple floating around by the mid 1500s) worked really well to predict positions of the moon and planets. The heliocentric system was satisfying at a qualitative level but didn't predict things well. When Copernicus proposed a heliocentric system, the main appeal was that it required fewer major epicycles and didn't use any equants http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equant [wikipedia.org] . However, to get predictions that were as good as Ptolemy's Copernicus needed as many total epicycles. Moreover, Copernicus failed to actually explain some data that Ptolemy could explain. For example, if the Earth is moving, then one should expect to see parallax of stars. It wasn't until Kepler realized that the orbits were actually ellipses rather than interlocked circles that the system actually became simpler. Then people rapidly adopted the system. The problem of parallax was still an issue because it forced stars to be unbelievably far away. It wasn't until 1838 that stellar parallax was actually detected. So in that regard, we still had data that didn't quite fit for some time after the heliocentric system had been accepted. To some extent, it was accepted because the Keplerian system was much simpler than the Ptolemic one (that Newton actually was able to give a deeper explanation also helped).

There are two excellent books on this subject which everyone should read. They are Thomas Kuhn's "The Copernican Revolution" and Alan Hirschfeld's "Parallax:The Race to Measure the Cosmos." The two give very good accounts of the relevant history. But simply dismissing it as being due to ignorance or poorly understood observations is inaccurate.

Re:Explanation Very Possible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29973758)

Sorry, we can't just magically make you smarter and able to understand.

Maybe in your next life

Re:Explanation Impossible (0)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 4 years ago | (#29972004)

This is what I thought too. Dark matter is by definition this extra mass we can't explain. If you explain part of it, then the part you explained isn't dark matter.

Re:Explanation Impossible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29972032)

I swear Dark Matter is the 'God did it' of the physics world. Can't explain something, Dark Matter is the reason! Can't find a cause, Dark Matter is it!

Dark matter stole my girlfriend and made my dog leave me and Excel print funny!
         

Re:Explanation Impossible (2, Insightful)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#29972054)

There appears to be something out there that interacts gravitationally with normal matter but does not glow or reflect light. Doesn't glow:-> dark. Has gravity: -> matter. Therefor we call it "dark matter", for now.

Re:Explanation Impossible (4, Funny)

sleeponthemic (1253494) | more than 4 years ago | (#29972214)

You're absolutely right. I therefore suggest we call it "Colorless Jesus Powder", in accordance with our new invisible overlord.

Re:Explanation Impossible (2, Interesting)

Korin43 (881732) | more than 4 years ago | (#29972558)

That's actually not such a bad idea. Maybe we could refocus all of those creation "scientists" on something worthwhile. You know, take their argument and turn it around: "Well, if you proved Colorless Jesus Powder exists then we'd have to believe in God" and then once they do we can switch to "Oh come on, only crazy people didn't believe in Colorless Jesus Powder, to really prove science wrong, you'd need to show exactly how the Jesus Explosion occurred". And so on..

Re:Explanation Impossible (1)

sleeponthemic (1253494) | more than 4 years ago | (#29973064)

I love it. Especially the inevitable acronymicalisation (yep) down to CJP.

Re:Explanation Impossible (2)

dimeglio (456244) | more than 4 years ago | (#29972244)

Actually, they try to avoid the subject of dark matter. It is simply an unknown astrophysical phenomenon. Since they ran out of other possibilities, one could say that what ever remains, however unlikely is surely the truth (hence said a wise man). However, there are probably other researchers who will be able to further this discovery, determine the cause of the phenomenon and provide a non-darkmatterish explanation...just for your satisfaction of course.

Re:Explanation Impossible (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 4 years ago | (#29972438)

Since they ran out of other possibilities, one could say that what ever remains, however unlikely is surely the truth (hence said a wise man).

First, he was a fictional character. One who would not characterize himself as wise, I think, based on the stories I've read.

Second, that's not actually what he said.

Re:Explanation Impossible (1)

Imrik (148191) | more than 4 years ago | (#29973194)

The problem is proving that nothing else remains possible.

Re:Explanation Impossible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29972322)

My guess is that you have no formal and very little informal training in modern physics. Am I right?

Re:Explanation Impossible (0)

glitch23 (557124) | more than 4 years ago | (#29972344)

On the other end of that cause/effect spectrum is evolution. Why do we have 2 legs? Evolution! Why do we have a liver? Evolution! Why do we require water to survive? Evolution! Evolution is the answer to everything and the answer to nothing at the same time.

Re:Explanation Impossible (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#29972586)

> Evolution is the answer to everything and the answer to nothing at the same
> time.

What is your answer?

Re:Explanation Impossible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29972654)

On the other end of that cause/effect spectrum is $Deity. Why do we have 2 legs? $Deity! Why do we have a liver? $Deity! Why do we require water to survive? $Deity! $Deity is the answer to everything and the answer to nothing at the same time.

Does that sound familiar? There's tons of evidence for evolution. There's none for $Deity as it's a matter of faith.

Your official guide to the Jigaboo presidency (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29971646)

Congratulations on your purchase of a brand new nigger! If handled properly, your apeman will give years of valuable, if reluctant, service.

INSTALLING YOUR NIGGER.
You should install your nigger differently according to whether you have purchased the field or house model. Field niggers work best in a serial configuration, i.e. chained together. Chain your nigger to another nigger immediately after unpacking it, and don't even think about taking that chain off, ever. Many niggers start singing as soon as you put a chain on them. This habit can usually be thrashed out of them if nipped in the bud. House niggers work best as standalone units, but should be hobbled or hamstrung to prevent attempts at escape. At this stage, your nigger can also be given a name. Most owners use the same names over and over, since niggers become confused by too much data. Rufus, Rastus, Remus, Toby, Carslisle, Carlton, Hey-You!-Yes-you!, Yeller, Blackstar, and Sambo are all effective names for your new buck nigger. If your nigger is a ho, it should be called Latrelle, L'Tanya, or Jemima. Some owners call their nigger hoes Latrine for a joke. Pearl, Blossom, and Ivory are also righteous names for nigger hoes. These names go straight over your nigger's head, by the way.

CONFIGURING YOUR NIGGER
Owing to a design error, your nigger comes equipped with a tongue and vocal chords. Most niggers can master only a few basic human phrases with this apparatus - "muh dick" being the most popular. However, others make barking, yelping, yapping noises and appear to be in some pain, so you should probably call a vet and have him remove your nigger's tongue. Once de-tongued your nigger will be a lot happier - at least, you won't hear it complaining anywhere near as much. Niggers have nothing interesting to say, anyway. Many owners also castrate their niggers for health reasons (yours, mine, and that of women, not the nigger's). This is strongly recommended, and frankly, it's a mystery why this is not done on the boat

HOUSING YOUR NIGGER.
Your nigger can be accommodated in cages with stout iron bars. Make sure, however, that the bars are wide enough to push pieces of nigger food through. The rule of thumb is, four niggers per square yard of cage. So a fifteen foot by thirty foot nigger cage can accommodate two hundred niggers. You can site a nigger cage anywhere, even on soft ground. Don't worry about your nigger fashioning makeshift shovels out of odd pieces of wood and digging an escape tunnel under the bars of the cage. Niggers never invented the shovel before and they're not about to now. In any case, your nigger is certainly too lazy to attempt escape. As long as the free food holds out, your nigger is living better than it did in Africa, so it will stay put. Buck niggers and hoe niggers can be safely accommodated in the same cage, as bucks never attempt sex with black hoes.

FEEDING YOUR NIGGER.
Your Nigger likes fried chicken, corn bread, and watermelon. You should therefore give it none of these things because its lazy ass almost certainly doesn't deserve it. Instead, feed it on porridge with salt, and creek water. Your nigger will supplement its diet with whatever it finds in the fields, other niggers, etc. Experienced nigger owners sometimes push watermelon slices through the bars of the nigger cage at the end of the day as a treat, but only if all niggers have worked well and nothing has been stolen that day. Mike of the Old Ranch Plantation reports that this last one is a killer, since all niggers steal something almost every single day of their lives. He reports he doesn't have to spend much on free watermelon for his niggers as a result. You should never allow your nigger meal breaks while at work, since if it stops work for more than ten minutes it will need to be retrained. You would be surprised how long it takes to teach a nigger to pick cotton. You really would. Coffee beans? Don't ask. You have no idea.

MAKING YOUR NIGGER WORK.
Niggers are very, very averse to work of any kind. The nigger's most prominent anatomical feature, after all, its oversized buttocks, which have evolved to make it more comfortable for your nigger to sit around all day doing nothing for its entire life. Niggers are often good runners, too, to enable them to sprint quickly in the opposite direction if they see work heading their way. The solution to this is to *dupe* your nigger into working. After installation, encourage it towards the cotton field with blows of a wooden club, fence post, baseball bat, etc., and then tell it that all that cotton belongs to a white man, who won't be back until tomorrow. Your nigger will then frantically compete with the other field niggers to steal as much of that cotton as it can before the white man returns. At the end of the day, return your nigger to its cage and laugh at its stupidity, then repeat the same trick every day indefinitely. Your nigger comes equipped with the standard nigger IQ of 75 and a memory to match, so it will forget this trick overnight. Niggers can start work at around 5am. You should then return to bed and come back at around 10am. Your niggers can then work through until around 10pm or whenever the light fades.

ENTERTAINING YOUR NIGGER.
Your nigger enjoys play, like most animals, so you should play with it regularly. A happy smiling nigger works best. Games niggers enjoy include: 1) A good thrashing: every few days, take your nigger's pants down, hang it up by its heels, and have some of your other niggers thrash it with a club or whip. Your nigger will signal its intense enjoyment by shrieking and sobbing. 2) Lynch the nigger: niggers are cheap and there are millions more where yours came from. So every now and then, push the boat out a bit and lynch a nigger.

Lynchings are best done with a rope over the branch of a tree, and niggers just love to be lynched. It makes them feel special. Make your other niggers watch. They'll be so grateful, they'll work harder for a day or two (and then you can lynch another one). 3) Nigger dragging: Tie your nigger by one wrist to the tow bar on the back of suitable vehicle, then drive away at approximately 50mph. Your nigger's shrieks of enjoyment will be heard for miles. It will shriek until it falls apart. To prolong the fun for the nigger, do *NOT* drag him by his feet, as his head comes off too soon. This is painless for the nigger, but spoils the fun. Always wear a seatbelt and never exceed the speed limit. 4) Playing on the PNL: a variation on (2), except you can lynch your nigger out in the fields, thus saving work time. Niggers enjoy this game best if the PNL is operated by a man in a tall white hood. 5) Hunt the nigger: a variation of Hunt the Slipper, but played outdoors, with Dobermans. WARNING: do not let your Dobermans bite a nigger, as they are highly toxic.

DISPOSAL OF DEAD NIGGERS.
Niggers die on average at around 40, which some might say is 40 years too late, but there you go. Most people prefer their niggers dead, in fact. When yours dies, report the license number of the car that did the drive-by shooting of your nigger. The police will collect the nigger and dispose of it for you.

COMMON PROBLEMS WITH NIGGERS - MY NIGGER IS VERY AGGRESIVE
Have it put down, for god's sake. Who needs an uppity nigger? What are we, short of niggers or something?

MY NIGGER KEEPS RAPING WHITE WOMEN
They all do this. Shorten your nigger's chain so it can't reach any white women, and arm heavily any white women who might go near it.

WILL MY NIGGER ATTACK ME?
Not unless it outnumbers you 20 to 1, and even then, it's not likely. If niggers successfully overthrew their owners, they'd have to sort out their own food. This is probably why nigger uprisings were nonexistent (until some fool gave them rights).

MY NIGGER BITCHES ABOUT ITS "RIGHTS" AND "RACISM".
Yeah, well, it would. Tell it to shut the fuck up.

MY NIGGER'S HIDE IS A FUNNY COLOR. - WHAT IS THE CORRECT SHADE FOR A NIGGER?
A nigger's skin is actually more or less transparent. That brown color you can see is the shit your nigger is full of. This is why some models of nigger are sold as "The Shitskin".

MY NIGGER ACTS LIKE A NIGGER, BUT IS WHITE.
What you have there is a "wigger". Rough crowd. WOW!

IS THAT LIKE AN ALBINO? ARE THEY RARE?
They're as common as dog shit and about as valuable. In fact, one of them was President between 1992 and 2000. Put your wigger in a cage with a few hundred genuine niggers and you'll soon find it stops acting like a nigger. However, leave it in the cage and let the niggers dispose of it. The best thing for any wigger is a dose of TNB.

MY NIGGER SMELLS REALLY BAD
And you were expecting what?

SHOULD I STORE MY DEAD NIGGER?
When you came in here, did you see a sign that said "Dead nigger storage"? .That's because there ain't no goddamn sign.

Totally ignorant of the whole shebang (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29971754)

but I think we oughtta shed some light on this subject, and soon.

Ba-da-ching.

And it went a little something like this: (4, Funny)

Gizzmonic (412910) | more than 4 years ago | (#29971816)

CAPTAIN KIRK: Spock, come in here, can you make sense of these readings?

SPOCK: Captain, it appears that dark matter may be behind diffuse radiation in the galactic center.

CAPTAIN KIRK: It's the most magnificent thing I've ever seen!

SPOCK: It is...fascinating.

CAPTAIN KIRK: But why would diffuse radiation need a starship?

DR. MCCOY: Come on over here, boys! This galactic dick ain't gonna suck itself!

Thanks for reading and supporting fan fiction.

Re:And it went a little something like this: (1)

crazyjimmy (927974) | more than 4 years ago | (#29972512)

WHOSE RESPONSIBLE THIS?

Re:And it went a little something like this: (1)

mathx314 (1365325) | more than 4 years ago | (#29973574)

Oh, sorry, that's my responsible this. I'll keep a better watch on it next time.

Purple Haze (1)

ISoldat53 (977164) | more than 4 years ago | (#29971846)

Purple haze all in my eyes Don't know if it's day or night You've got me blowin, blowin my mind Is it tomorrow or just the end of time? - Jimi Hendrix

Outside of the box thinking (0)

bradbury (33372) | more than 4 years ago | (#29972064)

Now of course the problem with discussing articles by "conventional" astronomers is that they want to limit everything to a "conventional" physical process (i.e. determined by the natural laws of physics).That approach fades once one begins to integrate (a) the age of the universe; (b) the probable evolution timescale for intelligent life; (c) the evolution of intelligent species. If one simply uses the data from the Lineweaver group -- the probability of intelligent technological civilizations older than ours goes up significantly (most of the potential civilization evolving stars are older than "we" are). Could not such civilizations choose to communicate with each other using relativistic electrons? Some of which will not make it but can easily be corrected by ECC.

Is not the dark matter simply evidence of the existence of Kardshev Type II level civilizations?
It is useful to note that physicists still want to insist on explanations that are based in intrinsic laws of physics (read: "I'll invent laws if they do not already exist") rather than the evolution of universe as a whole (one which incorporates physics with chemistry and biology)..

Re:Outside of the box thinking (1)

Samah (729132) | more than 4 years ago | (#29972664)

...rather than the evolution of universe as a whole (one which incorporates physics with chemistry and biology)

Obligatory xkcd: http://www.xkcd.com/435/ [xkcd.com]

Call me an astrophysics noob, but (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#29972080)

Why do we keep invoking "dark matter" to explain that which is adequately explained by the massive black hole at the center of this and almost every other galaxy?

Re:Call me an astrophysics noob, but (1)

mindstrm (20013) | more than 4 years ago | (#29972432)

Because the big black hole in the center of the galaxy doesn't explain it....

Re:Call me an astrophysics noob, but (2, Informative)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 4 years ago | (#29972522)

Why do we keep invoking "dark matter" to explain that which is adequately explained by the massive black hole at the center of this and almost every other galaxy?

Because the massive black holes don't adequately explain things.

Rotation speeds of stars about the center of the galaxy don't behave as they should in the case where the massive black hole is the only thing acting on them other than nearby bits of galaxy.

Re:Call me an astrophysics noob, but (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#29972532)

Because it isn't.

Re:Call me an astrophysics noob, but (2, Insightful)

hldn (1085833) | more than 4 years ago | (#29972534)

because you're an astrophysics noob and don't realize that blackholes do not explain it at all.

data resulted in something? (-1, Flamebait)

gumbi west (610122) | more than 4 years ago | (#29972082)

I'd like to see that happen. Seriously, that is even worse than anything I've seen from taco.

I like my coffee... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29972098)

...like I like my cosmological hypotheses. Dark, with a nice distribution of heat.

Re:I like my coffee... (1)

armyofone (594988) | more than 4 years ago | (#29972430)

While I prefer my coffee like I like my women... cold, and bitter.

Re:I like my coffee... (1)

PachmanP (881352) | more than 4 years ago | (#29973214)

While I prefer my coffee like I like my women... cold, and bitter.

I prefer my coffee like I like my women...with my dick in it!

I'm not a racist... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29972104)

but I prefer white matter

Submitted for your, um, *approval* (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29972340)

Thomas K. Landauer.

Dark matter physics? (0)

Tibia1 (1615959) | more than 4 years ago | (#29972442)

'We are absolutely in the process of exploring the Fermi haze in the context of dark matter physics,'

Quite a shady subject...
Random mass we don't know the origin of and can't identify? Lets call it dark, and assume we have physics about it. Ok, now we've found some radiation we can't find the origin of. Well, looks to be the same physics we're dealing with...
.... right guys?

Re:Dark matter physics? (1)

Torodung (31985) | more than 4 years ago | (#29973226)

Right. So long as we can make the math work, and keep slagging each other off in the popular press, we can keep ourselves on the gravy train for life. How does that sound? ;^)

--
Toro

(Apologies to the late Adams Douglas Adams)

Can we please just call it by its traditional name (4, Funny)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 4 years ago | (#29972520)

Magic?

Re:Can we please just call it by its traditional n (1)

LockeOnLogic (723968) | more than 4 years ago | (#29973398)

Black magic

It just won't cut it (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29973204)

Your "Fermi Haze" has rusted my "Occam's Razor," and now I can't cut my "Coulombian Cocaine."

Could be worse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29973290)

Better dark matter than all the stars blowing up in a supernova chain reaction explosion that will flood our neighborhood with lethal radiation.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?