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!

Gamma Ray Mystery Reestablished By Fermi Telescope

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the back-to-the-drawing-board dept.


eldavojohn writes "New observations from NASA's Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope reveal that our assumptions about the 'fog' of gamma rays in our universe are not entirely explained by black hole-powered jets emanating from active galaxies — as we previously hypothesized. For now, the researchers are representing the source of unaccounted gamma rays with a dragon (as in 'here be') symbol. A researcher explained that they are certain about this, given Fermi's observations: 'Active galaxies can explain less than 30 percent of the extragalactic gamma-ray background Fermi sees. That leaves a lot of room for scientific discovery as we puzzle out what else may be responsible.' And so we reopen the chapter on background gamma-rays in the science textbooks and hope this eventually sheds even more light on other mysteries of space — like star formation and dark matter."

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

It's Jesus! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31346804)

My prayer cloth proves it!

first? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31346900)


The Cause of the Extra Gamma Radiation is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31346914)

1. Cylons
2. The Death Star
3. Doomsday Machines
4. Xeelee
5. The Blight
6. Lensmen
7. Ancient slaver technology
8. Jarts
9. Something even worse

Re:The Cause of the Extra Gamma Radiation is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31347160)

No, it's obviously just a bigger black hole...

Re:The Cause of the Extra Gamma Radiation is... (1)

damien_kane (519267) | more than 4 years ago | (#31347224)

9. Something even worse

Nasty creatures, they are...

Re:The Cause of the Extra Gamma Radiation is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31348160)

Those are all wrong. Judging by the fact that they named it "dragons", we can safely predict that the source really is from Dragons, as in the vast, malevolent, cosmic telepathic entities that exist in the dark gulf between the stars in Cordwainer Smith's Instrumentality of Mankind universe.

  In which case we need to start training teams of telepathic people and cats to send out in Pinlighter ships to blast those nasty things with bright lights, destroying them, and thus protecting our skip vessels' passengers from being psychically blasted to death by these vast, mindless evils.

  (As in Smith's classic short story, _A Game of Rat and Dragon_.)

Re:The Cause of the Extra Gamma Radiation is... (1)

dwye (1127395) | more than 4 years ago | (#31348526)

To get a link to that story: []

Re:The Cause of the Extra Gamma Radiation is... (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#31348926)

"Page Not FoundSorry, but the page or book you tried to access is unavailable.

We are gradually updating all eBooks older than #10.000, and in the process, moving them to a new filing system.

Please use the site map to find what you are looking for. You can search for a book. We apologize for the inconvenience. Thanks for visiting Project Gutenberg, and happy reading!

Web site copyright © 2003-2009 Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation -- All Rights Reserved."

Re:The Cause of the Extra Gamma Radiation is... (1)

dwye (1127395) | more than 4 years ago | (#31349666)


Well, Google "Cordwainer Smith" and cat and it came up on top. The URL that I gave WAS what I had in my browser window.

Re:The Cause of the Extra Gamma Radiation is... (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 4 years ago | (#31349914)

moving them to a new filing system.

Please use the site map to find what you are looking for

rewrite_map, bitches.

Re:The Cause of the Extra Gamma Radiation is... (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | more than 4 years ago | (#31349218)

You do realize dragons, in reality, are far more formidable than the lame, stupid bags of hitpoints in various online games, don't you? A godlike genius combined with millenia to hone magical skills nobody this side of 22,000 year old Gandalf can dream of on top of a body that can rip a true ogre in half?

Re:The Cause of the Extra Gamma Radiation is... (1)

Kell Bengal (711123) | more than 4 years ago | (#31351282)

You do realise dragons, in reality, don't exist.

And neither does magic.

Nor Gandalf.

Nor ogres.

Re:The Cause of the Extra Gamma Radiation is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31355158)


That has absolutely nothing to do with my post. Cordwainer Smith's "dragons" are, as I said, vast telepathic cloud entities that exist in the black void between the stars, mindless yet malevolent.

I said nothing about froo-froo fantasy dragons, much less the dumbed-down world of MMORPGs.

Please to be gaining of reading comprehension for happy fun success in future of slashdot for the reading!

Re:The Cause of the Extra Gamma Radiation is... (1)

shadowbearer (554144) | more than 4 years ago | (#31349244)

  The Heechee, of course. Duh :)


Re:The Cause of the Extra Gamma Radiation is... (1)

AshtangiMan (684031) | more than 4 years ago | (#31350732)

It's Xenu's intergalactic war on volcanoes.

Why is it a mystery? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31346996)

It's the same explanation to the paradox why is the sky dark at night.

Re:Why is it a mystery? (3, Informative)

mrsquid0 (1335303) | more than 4 years ago | (#31348048)

It is quite the opposite in fact. The problem is that there is more gamma-ray emission than can be explained by the sources that we know about. The dark sky paradox arises because there is not as much optical light as one would expect given an infinite universe.

Re:Why is it a mystery? (1)

VoiceInTheDesert (1613565) | more than 4 years ago | (#31351322)

Isn't it also possible that there are more Black Holes than we are currently aware of? It seems just as likely as something completely different that we also don't know about.

Re:Why is it a mystery? (2, Informative)

mrsquid0 (1335303) | more than 4 years ago | (#31352856)

Yes, but accretion onto black holes gives of X-rays and radio signals. If there were significantly more supermassive black holes we should be detecting them. Now, Swift is finding a lot more active galactic nuclei (which are powered by black hole accretion) than we previously knew about, but still not enough to explain the gamma-ray excess.

Re:Why is it a mystery? (2, Interesting)

VoiceInTheDesert (1613565) | more than 4 years ago | (#31354524)

It just seems to me that there could be black holes that we simply are unable to detect. In the end, it doesn't matter, because the end result is "we don't know." I just get picky when scientists say "we know this," because current science is just our best theory at the moment. Good theories? Absolutely. But I think saying things like "we know" discourage full exploration of a mystery because you're already eliminating one possibility without considering that your initial assumption about that fact may be wrong.

Re:Why is it a mystery? (1)

FTWinston (1332785) | more than 4 years ago | (#31356904)

It just seems to me that there could be black holes that we simply are unable to detect.

Indeed, but its only the active ones (I.E. ones emitting gamma rays as they munch stuff) that actually emit the gamma rays in question.
And black holes that aren't emitting gamma rays aren't a terribly plausible source of gamma rays.

Re:Why is it a mystery? (0)

meerling (1487879) | more than 4 years ago | (#31348120)

I know you are just trying to make a joke, but please try to hit above 2nd grade science.

The sky is dark everywhere that doesn't have sufficient atmosphere and light to create the light scattering effect (don't remember proper name) that makes our daytime sky look blue. It's a similar effect to a prism splitting light into it's separate spectrum, but a little more complicate with nitrogen absorption and a few other things. You ever wonder why the daytime sky seems to change color when the sun gets to an extreme relative angle? (i.e. sunset)

Re:Why is it a mystery? (1)

Opyros (1153335) | more than 4 years ago | (#31348186)

don't remember proper name

Rayleigh scattering [] .

Re:Why is it a mystery? (1)

dwye (1127395) | more than 4 years ago | (#31348444)

The Dark Sky Mystery to which OP refers is the question that why, if the Universe is infinite, is the night sky dark, since everywhere that one looks one should eventually run into a star, given a random distribution. It ignores the effect of dust absorbing light, that the Universe THAT WE CAN SEE is rather less than infinite (even if one assumes an infinite Universe), and that stars are not distributed randomly since most are in galaxies and galactic clusters (and thus end to clump together, instead of spread apart).

I don't think that's really the answer, though (2, Interesting)

sean.peters (568334) | more than 4 years ago | (#31349026)

Let's run through these:

  • Absorption by dust: doesn't really solve the problem, as over an infinite period of time, the dust would heat up to the same temperature as the stars behind it, and begin radiating itself.
  • The universe "that we see" is not infinite: this seems to beg the question. Why don't we see all of it? (but with this one you're getting somewhere... see below)
  • Stars not evenly distributed. It's true that at distance scales of up to the size of galaxy superclusters, stars are not evenly distributed. But over larger scales, this lumpiness goes away. If you trace it out far enough, every point should still trace out to the surface of a star.

As usual, Wikipedia knows all [] , but in a nutshell, there are a couple of possible explanations for the "paradox". Among them: 1) star formation has not been in progress for an infinite period of time, so it would seem to be the case that in fact, not every point in the sky can be traced back to the surface of a star. And 2) the universe is expanding at an inflationary pace - that means some stars are receding beyond our ability to see them, because the space between us and them is expanding faster than the light can go through it. Another way to look at this is that the light has become so red-shifted that it's not detectable any more. Either way, the second bullet above hints at the answer - we really DON'T see the whole universe.

Re:I don't think that's really the answer, though (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31353282)

I prefer the fractal explanation, an analogy to Cantor dust. [] You can have an infinite perfect set that is nowhere dense, and seeing that the CMB and galaxy spin distributions seem to point to an ansiotropic universe the objection to a fractal universe in the Olbers' paradox entry is irrelevant.

While the fractal explanation... (1)

sean.peters (568334) | more than 4 years ago | (#31359360)

... would be a valid solution to the "paradox", the trouble is that there's no evidence that stars are distributed fractally at the largest distance scales. In fact, they seem to be uniformly distributed. While I'm not a cosmologist, I do make an effort to keep up with this stuff to the extent a layman can, and I haven't seen any results relating to either the CMB or galaxy spin distributions that show anisotropy in the universe. Got a reference?

Three words to explain it: (2, Funny)

RabidMoose (746680) | more than 4 years ago | (#31347210)

Alien exhaust fumes.

BAM! I just proved the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life. What do I win?

Re:Three words to explain it: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31347446)

A free 3 day stay alone in a padded rubber room?

Re:Three words to explain it: (1)

ijakings (982830) | more than 4 years ago | (#31347478)

I think its clear that you win the internet.

Re:Three words to explain it: (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | more than 4 years ago | (#31349272)

Or, more accurately, he wins as many hours on the Internet as he wants.

Ferengi Telescope? (1)

nacturation (646836) | more than 4 years ago | (#31347498)

I thought the title said "... By Ferengi Telescope", so I'll go with your alien story!

Re:Three words to explain it: (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#31347578)

Alien exhaust fumes.

You're blaming the Peruvians? [] I've heard that their environmental laws are a bit lax, but come on now!

Re:Three words to explain it: (1)

BraksDad (963908) | more than 4 years ago | (#31357634)

I thought it was ALF all along ALien Fumes.

Black (4, Funny)

florescent_beige (608235) | more than 4 years ago | (#31347222)

Caveat: I am not a cosmetologist. Not even a cosmologist although I dated one once. Cosmetologist I mean. So I think that my insights into outer space and whatnot, well, have a great deal of validity.

To wit, wherein TFS claims "we previously hypothesized" etc etc actually no we didn't I went and read TF old article and I distinctly notice it talks about the galaxy and not the universe which to my understanding are different classifications of entities altogether.

Having typed all that I have to concede that I forgot what I was going to say. So I'll say this: what's with all the black in outer space anyway. Black holes, black energy, black matter, even the nothing part is black. Black black black. It's depressing.

Re:Black (5, Funny)

AndrewBC (1675992) | more than 4 years ago | (#31347332)

I see a red dwarf and I want it painted black...

Re:Black (1)

dwarfsoft (461760) | more than 4 years ago | (#31354270)

Holly: Well, the thing about a black hole - its main distinguishing feature - is it's black. And the thing about space, the colour of space, your basic space colour, is black. So how are you supposed to see them?
Rimmer: But five of them? . How can you manage to miss five black holes?
Holly: It's always the way, isn't it? You wait three million years for one to come along, then all of a sudden five turn up at once.

Re:Black (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31347334)


Re:Black (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 4 years ago | (#31347526)

So I'll say this: what's with all the black in outer space anyway. Black holes, black energy, black matter, even the nothing part is black. Black black black. It's depressing.

Thus the old astrophysicist saying: "Always bet on black".

Re:Black (1)

thomst (1640045) | more than 4 years ago | (#31347910)

The "new black" is gamma.

The Nothing (1)

vorlich (972710) | more than 4 years ago | (#31347960)

The Nothing, whilst dominated by sand and possibly beetles, is of course anything but black...

Re:The Nothing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31348262)

So we just need Bastian to go to a window and yell out something unintelligible? Historically, that's the only thing that's been able to stop The Nothing.

The real question though... Do I wish for Falcor to be a different color, or make him taste like he looks (like cotton candy)?

Re:Black (1)

RealErmine (621439) | more than 4 years ago | (#31348252)

It's like, how much more black could it be? And the answer is none. None more black.

Re:Black (2, Interesting)

OldSoldier (168889) | more than 4 years ago | (#31348406)

So I'll say this: what's with all the black in outer space anyway. Black holes, black energy, black matter, even the nothing part is black. Black black black. It's depressing.

I know you meant this in jest, but it's a surprising legitimate question [] . (or at least it was.)

Re:Black (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#31349058)

Black black black. It's depressing.

Black* is beautiful, baby! Maybe that's whay all the white kids annoying attempt to emulate black people. Black is the absense of light, without light you can't see the ugliness.

Interestingly, in China white is the color of mourning.

*Disclaimer -- I'm white

Re:Black (1)

evilviper (135110) | more than 4 years ago | (#31350420)

what's with all the black in outer space anyway. Black holes, black energy, black matter, even the nothing part is black. Black black black. It's depressing.

"Dark" means we have no idea WTF it is.

Dark matter means our equations don't work, and the movements we can observer show there's additional matter out there, but we can't see it.

Dark energy means, notwithstanding the previous "dark" entity, our equations STILL DON'T WORK, so besides that extra mass, there's extra energy out there, too, which we also can't see.

Black holes are the original "dark matter" but instead of being spread uniformly across the universe, they're impossible objects at specific points in space...

Yes, how much we don't know is certainly depressing. Even more so when people go on and on about what we think we're sure of, and ignoring all of the above.

Oh No! (3, Funny)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 4 years ago | (#31347274)

This unexplained Gamma Ray Cloud is maki n_g___ M_ e____A_n__G__R___Y_____!


Unexplained gamma rays are making me Curious!!!! (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 4 years ago | (#31347420)

Fermi Space Telescope deepens mystery of gamma rays. When Inquisitive Hulk get more curious, Hulk get stronger [] !

The Gamma Rays, are making me thirsty!! (1)

Zen_Sorcere (1303425) | more than 4 years ago | (#31347926)

That's all I got, sorry.

Re:Oh No! (1)

ozbird (127571) | more than 4 years ago | (#31347542)

Gamma Ray Fog of War?

Galactic Brownien Motion (3, Funny)

CTalkobt (81900) | more than 4 years ago | (#31347384)

It's simple - it's brownian motion on a galactic scale...
Mmmm .. Brownies... Me hungry.

Re:Galactic Brownien Motion (1)

jonadab (583620) | more than 4 years ago | (#31353524)

Brownies? All I want is a decent cup of tea.

Heading for tomorrow (3, Funny)

Cow Jones (615566) | more than 4 years ago | (#31347430)

The interesting thing about space telescopes is that they allow you to look into the past. For example, here's what gamma rays looked like 20 years ago [] - they're near the bluish spectrum, heading towards our time, and they're wearing cheesy 80s style shades.

Re:Heading for tomorrow (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#31348254)

All telescopes allow you to see in the past. If you look at our closest neighbor, you see it from four years ago. Actually, it is impossible to see the present even with the naked eye -- everything you see is light that was reflected off of something, and the spped of light id finite and measurable. Even the image of the screen you are looking at is a tiny fraction of a second old; it is from the past.

Re:Heading for tomorrow (1)

Entropy2016 (751922) | more than 4 years ago | (#31348452)

I take it you didn't bother clicking the image which your parent-post linked?

Re:Heading for tomorrow (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#31348950)

No, but I thought I'd seen the image before, and besides it didn't matter to the point I was making.

Re:Heading for tomorrow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31353126)

If your point was "I'm a pedantic asshat," you made it well.

Re:Heading for tomorrow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31348618)

If you look at our closest neighbor, you see it from four years ago ...

Ok, then why does the restraining order have today's date? OH crap, you meant celestial neighbor.

Heliopause (1)

saider (177166) | more than 4 years ago | (#31347774)

Perhaps it is a faint glow from the heliopause?

Re:Heliopause (1)

forand (530402) | more than 4 years ago | (#31348014)

The article is rather bad about conflating observation of an isotropic intensity with something inherently extra-galactic. That being said emission due to cosmic ray interactions confined by the heliopause have been predicted and aside from being too faint it is also anisotropic.

Re:Heliopause (1)

Remus Shepherd (32833) | more than 4 years ago | (#31348024)

It would probably be non-isotropic then, with a seasonal variation as the Earth orbits. I'm sure that would have been noticed.

Re:Heliopause (1)

matang (731781) | more than 4 years ago | (#31348356)

the universe is awful old to be going through heliopause. it would explain the hot flashes though.

Re:Heliopause (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#31348370)

Maybe the universe is in menopause? No, that would only explain its heat and crabbiness. Maybe it's pregnant? That would explain its glow!

You PFail It.. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31348118)

Are you 5GAY

"Bubble" Universes (3, Funny)

Vitriol+Angst (458300) | more than 4 years ago | (#31348778)

I've always had a theory that the Extra Gamma ray bursts are the creation of Universes. This is a continuous processes.

About 30 years ago, I figured the "Hubble Constant" would be found to be increasing, because the Universe, would be attracted to these "outer Universes" through Gravity (but it doesn't work at all how it is presented in Physics) -- but ALSO, that Space/Time was growing itself, and this would change the laws of Physics over time. The extra gravity of galaxies, that APPEARS to be explained by Dark Matter, is really a bleed-through of gravity from these other Universes. It is non-localized and cannot be explained by counting particles, but the existence of so many particles, creates a zone where the Gravity is more likely to bleed through. Thus, more cumulative mass than the actual mass in the system.

There are cases where you can get a "shadow" a blank area of space, that has gravity, but no particles. It has to do with a "superposition" of other Galaxies with ours. They don't exist in the same space, but they would have an AFFINITY, for a position in space. Such loosely bound but massive forces of gravity, might be used to MOVE massive objects like stars. I've got a lot of VERY simple theories that are only difficult to understand because they are completely alien to anything I've heard. The Multiverse Theory of Quantum Mechanics where all states are possible -- is the REAL CLUE to how General Relativity is not a contradiction. We DO NOT have spontaneously spawned Multiverses, because they all RESOLVE to only one, that satisfies equal and opposite forces. Existence, is merely the convergence of all possible states with the ONLY ONE, that satisfies the conditions. Physics itself -- is NOT a law that controls ANYTHING, it's the byproduct. There is only ONE thing -- space/time, and it's interference with itself creates discrete and opposite 4 Dimensional ripples. This interference with each other and we see as the 4 dimensions we exist in -- but they are a "matrix of oscillations." The in-and out flow of Space/Time into this Universe is through discrete "holes" in the oscillating boundaries that we call particles and all the forces in physics can easily be explained by this one interaction.

So when there is a "big bang" for a created Universe or an "inverting one" -- we get a Gamma Ray burst. You can't LOCATE the new Universe, because distance and location OUTSIDE of a Universe is meaningless -- thus, they have no relative location with each other, but they do have AFFINITY, with influences on Light and Gravity, since Space/Time are a property "in-between" all Universes and what we call Particles the movement of this space/time is what creates the phenomena that we think of as light and gravity.

Re:"Bubble" Universes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31348850)

Hey, nice post. And I really like your awesome website [] .

Re:"Bubble" Universes (1)

Vitriol+Angst (458300) | more than 4 years ago | (#31353370)

That is the most pleasant way to say "bullshit" I've yet come across. Thanks, I suppose, for at least being gentle.

Re:"Bubble" Universes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31349016)

Whoa, that's deep dude. Pass the bong.

Re:"Bubble" Universes (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#31349460)

I've always had a theory that the Extra Gamma ray bursts are the creation of Universes.

It's not testable, so it's not a theory. It's a hypothesis. </pedant>

but ALSO, that Space/Time was growing itself, and this would change the laws of Physics over time.

If they are growing at the same rate, how aould that change the laws of physics?

At any rate, it was an interesting comment and should have been modded as such.

Re:"Bubble" Universes (1)

tqk (413719) | more than 4 years ago | (#31352448)

I've always had a theory that the Extra Gamma ray bursts are the creation of Universes

It's not testable, so it's not a theory. It's a hypothesis.

"String Theory" ring any bells (ignoring its controversy ftm)? This is English. We steal from everyone else, mangle to taste, appall those we it stole from, then carry on. What do Giovanni Caboto, Jean Cabot, and John Cabot have in common?

We also plow vast piles of cash at planck scale potentialities (string theory), but that's a human condition.

Re:"Bubble" Universes (1)

Vitriol+Angst (458300) | more than 4 years ago | (#31353354)

I have the distinct feeling you've said something witty, but I think I'd have to google a lot of Cabots to know for sure.

You might be saying; "Lots of money has gone to String Theory, and it doesn't really have a Proof yet." So thanks, I think.

At some point, there is Authoritative Wild Ass Speculation, mine is merely Arm-Chair Scientist Wild Ass Speculation. In a Universe of possibility -- I think we stand on the same firm ground that exists and does not exist unless observed. ;-)

My BIG difference with String Theory, has got to be that I see these fundamental particles, not as STRINGS, but infinite sized sheets that have a vortex in the middle. It's like space-time pulling itself inside-out. Space spews out of one "pole" and gets sucked back in the other. It is constantly flipping back and forth, but the BOUNDARY it encompasses, has no dimension of size -- so it oscillates "OUTSIDE" this Universe. So I borrow the term "sub-space" to talk about this internal interference.

From the outside, it MIGHT appear as a particle -- but it's a folded chunk of space/time -- and internal ECHO of the Big Bang -- which makes a hell of a lot of sense on why particles appear finite -- the ALL have the same common boundary -- our UNIVERSE outside, is likely the same as these particles sub-space on the "inside." And because these dimensions are only bound by AFFINITY and POSITION, which are only properties from the Interface of the fundamental particle (folded space-time field) then all particles in the Universe could very possibly be the SAME particle, and it could actually be the OUTSIDE of the Universe itself. So I'm talking about "inverse vacuums" and String Theory has worm-holes and wiggling strings. But other than that, there are a lot of similarities in function.

Anyway, I don't like the aesthetics of a "wiry and hair Universe." Our Universe is comprised of soft, fuzzy spinning pin-wheels going down the rabbit hole.

Re:"Bubble" Universes (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#31358032)

"String Theory" ring any bells (ignoring its controversy ftm)? This is English.

"String theory" always struck a raw nerve with me. When you're talking to someone in a redneck bar (as I often do), saying "my theory is she's [whatever]) is perfectly valid, but in a technical forum like slashdot or worse, in a scientific paper, saying "theory" when you mean "hypothesis" (as in "string throry", AARG!) is bad bad bad.

We also plow vast piles of cash at planck scale potentialities

I see nothing wrong with that. Maybe some day the hypothesis will become testable, and become a true theory.

Re:"Bubble" Universes (1)

Vitriol+Angst (458300) | more than 4 years ago | (#31361970)

Forgive me,

I've been corrupted by blogging on Digg so I speak "ID10T" quite fluently.

Of course I KNOW what "Hypothesis" and "Theory" are -- but it's pretty ridiculous in normal every day speech to say; "My Hypothesis." It's kind of a given if someone is saying "My Theory is" it is a caveat, and this is not considered a publicly accepted theory. I have some Proof only for myself.

And you understood as much -- but I didn't guess that was the issue with some others, because they knew enough to NOT say; "What is this 'My Theory' you speak of?"

I'll try the grammar checkers and convert to geek speak whenever possible -- but I can't promise anything.

>> By the way, is; We also plow vast piles of cash at planck scale potentialities something to do with my mentioning Planck-lengths or is that a common slogan you use because it's one of the smaller things you can try and squeeze hundred dollar bills into?

-- thanks for the conversation,

Re:"Bubble" Universes (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#31362200)


Re:"Bubble" Universes (1)

jonadab (583620) | more than 4 years ago | (#31353714)

> It's not testable, so it's not a theory. It's a hypothesis. </pedant>

If you're going to be pedantic, at least get it right.

A theory is something that has already *been* tested, repeatedly. A hypothesis still has to be testable. An assertion that is neither is simply called "an idea".

Re:"Bubble" Universes (1)

w0mprat (1317953) | more than 4 years ago | (#31353984)

It's not testable, so it's not a theory. It's a hypothesis.

A hypothesis is testable or it's not really a valid hypothesis.

A theory is an explaination that best fits the observed facts.

Conjecture is anything plausible given known facts, but not necessarily testable.

Meh, definitions vary, but thats how I like it.

Re:"Bubble" Universes (2, Funny)

CTalkobt (81900) | more than 4 years ago | (#31349474)

Dude - I still don't understand what you just said.
Since this might be in code I took all the capitalized words to mean something and got :







I added punctuation for my clarity ... so other than telling me to move, get a clue and that there's 1 affinity I'm still not sure what you're saying...

Re:"Bubble" Universes (1)

Naedst (1313869) | more than 4 years ago | (#31352842)

Dude - I still don't understand what you just said.

About 3/4 of the way through I was sure it was going to be a Yo Mumma's so Fat joke... maybe it was and he just forgot the punchline?

Re:"Bubble" Universes (1)

Vitriol+Angst (458300) | more than 4 years ago | (#31353562)

If I merely inspired someone to waste the time to pull out THINGS IN CAPITAL LETTERS.


I could try explaining something I see visually better -- but would anyone bother holding out that long? So I keep it brief hoping that there is enough interest to see more.

I really am NOT trying to push an idea of an "Electric Universe." Einstein was elegant and didn't pull ideas out of rabbit-holes. Relativity is sublime but it also stops at explaining how objects aren't constantly gaining mass as they accelerate in one vector or another.

Again, this sounds like nonsense until you really stop and think; from the background radiation -- we ASSUME what is our general motion relative to the Universe -- because there are no fixed points. Acceleration, is the same thing to mass "relatively" as is a large gravity field. However -- is it the NET motion in the system -- or only acceleration RELATIVE to other objects?

Einstein crushed the concept of the "Aether" but then again -- by NOT having particles exchanging relative velocities or two particle moving apart having more acceleration that two objects moving in parallel -- it kind of begs for an "Aether" or a substrate to be RELATIVE to. What is moving, in a gravity field, to ACT like acceleration? And why is there still MASS increase, if you accelerate INTO a Gravity Field?

There seems to be a clue in "critical velocity." In Earth's gravity field, it;s something like 9.8 M/S/S (long time since College physics I'm afraid). Above that speed -- an object does NOT increase it's speed. If you added rocket power to that object, it would have acceleration and increase mass. When I imagine the distortion the gravity makes on space/time it is NOT just in that two-dimensional sheet, it's better to imagine it as "water pressure." The trap of our well-known physics models is that we keep treading over the same ground.

So, the THEORY I propose, is that Acceleration is irrespective of the system the object is moving in -- it is intrinsically, a force created by the object being accelerated with it's own internal sub-space. Mass, in a gravity field, is the SYSTEM surrounding an object, causing PRESSURE, on the forces of sub-space emanating from the object it is acting upon. You can compute each separately, and then the vectors.

For instance, our galaxy is moving at something like 640,000 Miles per second -- something astronomical - I forget the exact rate, against the Background standard. Under General Relativity, it SHOULD mean, that a rocket heading from dead space (without a close gravity field) is going to use more fuel going a the same distance in one direction (with the galactic vector) as going the opposite direction due to the effects of relativity (approaching the SPEED LIMIT of light). Even though that influence is going to be small -- as the object approaches the speed of light, the very small difference between .99999 the speed of light and 1.0 the speed of light becomes increasingly larger.

My theory, also would support, Mass-less acceleration, if you could redirect the sub-space pressure or stop it from interacting with other masses. Anyway, that's a longer conversation and I have to get going.

Re:"Bubble" Universes (1)

Vitriol+Angst (458300) | more than 4 years ago | (#31353262)

I'm only looking for ONE person to get what I'm saying -- because I realize that I'm out there on the edge, and people well versed in science are also afraid of looking like an idiot -- I am not however, because I've been right about more ideas than I care to count. Later, when I explain that I was in 6th grade trying to get someone to understand my idea of using fiber optics to do surgery in the body, or how right-angled inverse sound waves could muffle sound -- well, I was ignored then, and mentioning it now sounds like a person talking out of their ass. Laugh at the fool if you must - only, try to entertain another point of view you might not have come across.

"Universe creation resulting in Gamma Ray bursts is not testable." Sure it is -- you don't know how, nor the concepts, so you assume that it isn't. A UNIVERSE, is only a dimensional system where forces balance to create something that exists. There a Universes inside of ours -- but they don't interact directly. But we can manipulate forces that manipulate other forces -- and that's a long conversation.

"All particles in the Universe are shrinking and this will change physics." Well, that's what's going on with the Hubble Constant. There were very discrete changes in physics if you look at "A Timeline of the Big Bang." When the Universe was too hot to have light or electrons -- it also had different rules for physics. You can explain it by saying "it was too hot for atoms" or you an say the Universe did not yet support a state of matter. But you had periods of stability, where all this "stuff" that filled every point in this Universe, behaved one way, and then in an instant, everything behaves differently.

I have made a lot of predictions on why this is important, and what will happen as the Universe Ages. I'm sorry if my "vocabulary" seems to be stealing from String Theory. I've read a bit of that, but decided to stay away, because it was too dependent on gobbledy-gook words, and complicated math, that distracted me from JUST THINKING how things work. The problem is; if anyone spends 12 years breaking their brains on someone else's theories -- they might become pretty ossified as to what is and isn't possible.

I'd say for example, in my experience; Most Doctors, don't want to listen to their "stupid" patients -- but the GOOD ONES, know that everything they know could be wrong, and stick to the best way while searching for a better one.

>> My capitalizations, are to indicate "BOLD LETTERS" because I've gotten too used to blogs without any HTML formatting.

>> As String theory talks about "Branes" -- I just talk about a Top and Bottom group of 4 dimensions. The Universe is kind of binary -- like an Hourglass, and space/time is what powers it -- so as the sand flows DOWN in the hourglass, MORE SAND (space) fills up the lower chamber. Eventually, the sand is all used up, and its time to flip the hourglass -- it INVERTS, and all particles become "coherent" or at the same sub-space frequency.

I wrote a heck of a lot more than this, and paired it down -- a LOT. But, for most theories I'm proposing, I can construct simple pass-fail tests of them. I think I could BLOCK gravity, with the right setup with coherent light interfering with itself. And yeah, I think I've got a few tricks for getting to those sub-planck-length distances. The "final coherent state" of the Universe, has a lot to do with what I call "Coherent Matter" -- much as a laser is at the same frequency, you can create COLDER matter, not by removing all vibration (heat), but by "tuning" the matter to a coherent "dimensional frequency." Though, admittedly, current scientists ARE making things colder by damping them with Lasers -- however, I figured that out years before they did (probably they did as well -- it's TOUGH to make things actually work in the real world), but I know that there is another phase of matter, that has new properties. When I say "AFFINITY" I'm talking about matter that has the same sub-space frequency. You can teleport objects, if you can TRICK the lower dimensions by exchanging mass of the same affinity, as the sub-space frequency has to constantly EXCHANGE location data to the lower dimensions. Of course, we do not witness this sub-space vibration of the branes or the dimensional groups, because it happens in the MIDDLE dimensional group we think of as "space/time."

You have to get at sub-planck length oscillations to build the TOOLS to work with this sub-space dimension. Coherent Matter with this new technology can help you create Anti-Matter. And I predict Anti-Matter will REPELL Gravity. In it's TOP dimension group, it stores position, and in it's BOTTOM dimension group it has AFFINITY. Consequently, Space-Time moves in reverse and thus, the PRESSURE of gravity is reduced around it, and this reacts like Anti-Gravity. Though gravity really is the PRESSURE of space/time, and the flow of it creates the phenomena known as electromagnetism. I don't think I've got any inconsistencies in my model, and every bit of it "flows" logically into what can and cannot happen. There is nothing magical, and everything relates in a Geometric way -- however, the 3 sets of 4 dimensions, does make it a big tricky to visualize all at once. But folding space, and "feeling" mental images inside and out -- seems to be easier for me than changing the oil in my car. I just think very differently -- and hope that one day, I can meet someone who can help me "translate" this visual model into mathematics.

Instantaneous Communication can be made with Coherent Matter. Again, that "quantum tunneling" phenomena, is merely a by-product of "confused affinity." Think of it as the basis for WHY we have radioactive Decay in very big molecules. As all these particles oscillate in the real world, somewhat guided by a sub-space frequency. Occasionally, a particle will "LOSE" it's position to SWAP that data with another similar particle, that has the same AFFINITY -- subspace frequency. Subspace is not trivial and there is a huge range of potential energy and speed -- it's impossible to tell HOW far apart the TOP and BOTTOM dimensional groups (branes) are. It's likely that a single particle, can have more potential energy in it's sub-space than an entire star.

So, you've got this tremendous energy -- far more than it wold take to TRAVEL the distance to the other side of the Universe when compared to the mass of the particle. And it's at the same frequency as another particle, then as this very fast interference occurs, it can transmit its location to another similar particle at the same frequency, because the MIDDLE dimension, has no Distance -- it has three dimensions of FORCE and one of TIME.

I'm theorizing that you could have two plates of Coherent Matter, and pass an object through from one to the other -- IF, you could totally obliterate it and impart its energy to the first plate. It doesn't necessarily require an explosion - you can achieve this with anti-matter, that is CLOSER to the plate than of course, that critical Planck-length. And yes, I can see how this could be built -- but it would be far more difficult than a Gravity Lens. But I'm pretty sure, you can use interference of light, to oscillate gravity -- echoing the interference patterns that are created by INTERFEROMETRY combs. You can then resonate sub-space, and let IT create boundary layers.

>> OK another way to say this is; in a strong magnetic field, like an MRI machine, you can momentarily align atoms along their magnetic poles. When the snap back, depending upon how much they were pulled out of their accustomed molecular alignment, that creates a charge you can measure. Well, if you could do the INVERSE of the MRI machine -- meaning, if the atoms line up with their magnetic poles it requires MORE energy -- then they will NOT occupy that space. Moving the damping field with space-time is much like bouncing light waves at a certain frequency and only letting a certain frequency out through a crystal - like a laser. So you create an interference pattern, of space/time that requires MORE energy, tune the matter to it's lowest energy state (COLDER THAN COLD), then you can create sheets of matter that flow like a "sheet in the wind" -- very dense, but now it is TRANSPARENT to non-tuned matter -- not so, to other coherent matter.

So, basically, you can line up two sheets of coherent matter, and while "tuned" have the gap between the sheets be closer than the molecules are comprising the sheets. At this point, you've got something that can pull energy out of sub-space. Converting it to electricity -- well, I'm THINKING that you might be able to knock particles off with a laser, but it would have to be timed by the sub-space oscillations themselves -- which make nano-time seem ancient. One sheet at any one time and point is going to be predominantly the "down Dimension group" and that's going to give you Negative electricity (the opposite side, of course, Positive). I don't want to get into the relationship to time and electricity right now -- but it's the EASIEST to prove/disprove. It's kind of how you get an anti-proton when smashing a highly accelerated proton in a collider -- negative charges are about time dilation, and positive charges are about increasing the rate of flow of the MIDDLE dimensions (space/time). There is also a difference I theorize, between Acceleration and a Gravity Field -- which helps to prove sub-space or the MIDDLE dimensions. But everything is relative except Relativity.

Yes, you can create solid matter than you could walk through. Just as glass allows light through -- you should also be able to randomize subspace and make something transparent that was not. That's kind of the phenomena that they are discovering is bending light with "nano-wires." So, Invisibility, is also a CLUE to the technology we would need to create anti-gravity, transparent, coherent and other states of matter.

But I may be totally full of crap -- I just know that occasionally, I read some modern Physics, and some new breakthrough or concept is saying what I've been saying using other words. A LOT of string theory seems to overlap -- though, but that's not because I'm following String Theory.

And I think that Quantum Physics describes things well, but is totally wrong with what is really going on. A new particle to explain every force? It's much easier to explain what is going on with NO particles, and only "pin pricks" allowing the flow of space-time to explain all forces (all of them are byproducts of how space/time flows) -- I suppose that string theory is hinting at that. But more and more, I'm just trying to see with my minds eye, and I see a very coherent picture of how the Universe exists, and that the "secret" to resolving General Relativity with Quantum Physics has to do with the "many universes" theory of Quantum Probability. Things are equal and opposite and seem to follow some law of physics, ONLY because that is the only quantum probability that creates the Universe. Reality as we know it, is constantly in a state of NOT-existing, and resolving to a new state that resolves existence -- which happens to follow the rules of General Relativity.

However, as long as you can find the loop-holes, anything is possible -- except time travel, since the TIME the Universe exists is infinitesimally small. It's better not to worry about Time at all.

Annihalating Dark Matter (1)

physburn (1095481) | more than 4 years ago | (#31348794)

If not black hole jets then the astrophysicists next bet will be annilihating Dark matter. The symmetric LSP light symmetric particle has been a dark matter candiate for some twenty year. This gamma ray job could be LSP's annilhating but only if the have the gamma rays match with the galactic halos.


Dark Matter [] Feed @ Feed Distiller []

Re:Annihalating Dark Matter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31349766)

Annihalating AntiMatter is more like it. Since we don't know experimentally how antimatter reacts gravitationally to itself or regular matter, I propose that antimatter repels antimatter and regular matter. Regular matter may repel or attract antimatter - not sure which. Anyway, this leads to an intergalactic cloud of antimatter - probably anti-hydrogen thereby explaining the assumed imbalance of matter/antimatter. It also explains the gamma ray background, as annihilation primarily at the edge of the galaxy. The repulsive gravitational force also explains the phenomena usually attributed to "dark energy". So there you go, the solution to a number of cosmic mysteries. Too bad I'm not logged in to take the credit.

Re:Annihalating Dark Matter (1)

FTWinston (1332785) | more than 4 years ago | (#31356954)

Question: Do you know what makes antimatter different from "normal" matter? Or are you proposing (entirely without evidence) that there is some other difference, apart than the difference in electric charge?

You'd need negative (actual) mass for gravity to be attractive - and that's an impossibility pretty much by definition, by my understanding.

Obviously... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31348956)

... farts from the FSM!

A WHAT symbol?! (1)

aussersterne (212916) | more than 4 years ago | (#31350474)

Okay, maybe this is where I inadvertently let on that I'm not a physicist, but what is a "dragon here be" symbol?!

Re:A WHAT symbol?! (1)

deltharius (1451283) | more than 4 years ago | (#31351076)

That's OK. You want to be a medieval cartographer, not a physicist. Old maps would have things like "here be dragons" on them in unknown, unexplored regions. So, they are just marking the unknown, unexplained gamma rays as the 'dragons' on the map.

Re:A WHAT symbol?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31351084)

Re:A WHAT symbol?! (1)

jonadab (583620) | more than 4 years ago | (#31353678)

> Okay, maybe this is where I inadvertently let on that I'm
> not a physicist, but what is a "dragon here be" symbol?!

Actually, what you just let on is that you're not a computer geek. (You can turn in your card and Slashdot ID later.)

"Here be dragons", from the symbols on ancient maps, is what computer geeks say when they don't understand why a given section of source code is doing what it's doing. Just as ancient peoples found it dangerous to stray beyond the edge of their maps, any programmer worth his salt knows that it's dangerous to change code when you don't understand why it is the way it is, and for much the same reason: you're going beyond the edges of your knowledge, and you don't know what you'll find. Making changes to such code can end up breaking things you had no idea your change would impact at all.

It's the ether (1)

Tzinger (550448) | more than 4 years ago | (#31350552)

See, Maxwell was right. Space contains ether. We just never figured out how to measure it. :)

I have a *hic* theory (1)

Nazlfrag (1035012) | more than 4 years ago | (#31353378)

My theory is that the matter:antimatter ratio in the universe is only violated on small solar-system sized scales and the interstellar medium is in a 1:1 ratio. The CMB and excess gamma rays are just remenants of matter:antimatter collisions at the bow shock of our solar system. We gain matter as fast as antimatter so there is no net loss, and we continue in our bubble of matter unmolested save for cosmic rays.

What kicked this off for me is a few things. Seeing that photons are their own antiparticle and all of our observations about the universe outside our system are photon based, how could we know if we are looking at matter or antimatter? Wouldn't an antimatter system isolated by the interstellar medium behave identically to a matter one? Why is the CMB so uneven? Do we really need symmetry violation at the big bang to explain the universe?

So guys, seeing as I came up with all this last night when I was rather drunk and am too hungover to work through it, how can I falsify this and sleep well again at night?

Dark Matter Annihilation (1)

MightyDrunken (1171335) | more than 4 years ago | (#31356326)

The favoured particle for dark matter is currently the neutralino as it is likely to be the lightest supersymetric particle. It is believed that interactions with other neutralinos would cause annihilation of itself and create gamma rays. Of course you would expect the gamma rays to originate where the dark matter is concentrated which is currently thought to be the Galatic halo around a galaxy.

Hopefully the LHC will uncover evidence for/against supersymmetry and answer many outstanding questions in physics.

let's sing along... (1)

mauhiz (1751522) | more than 4 years ago | (#31356690)

I'm trapped in a castle of illusions out in space - No more illusions! Out in a journey, on a mission for the human race...

ITs SOOO simple I can NOT EXPLAIN it ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31360738)

... pOOOOOf ... ... so NASA observes UNEVEN expansion of the universe, AND its expanding MUCH faster than the speed of light, which is TOTALLY baffling !?!?!?!

Well, unless there is a shell of debris at the edge being pushed outwards which include many LARGE black holes as singularities, thus they actually feed on each other and accelerate the expansion, spew out massive amounts of Gama rays and generally carve up to dust any Starship Enterprises that try to enter that region of space !?!?!?!?!?
Time is the key once AGAIN

  TIME is NOT a constant, it runs FASTER at the center of the universe and slower at the edges thus our INSISTENCE that it is constant makes the expansion APPEAR to be accelerating, IT IS NOT !!!
It is the MEANING OF LIFE which confirms the GAME

  GOD is a cornucopia

  INTROSPECTION is the GAME, when the tail touches the brim ALL HELL BREAKS LOOSE !!!

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?