Saturday, August 25, 2007

Huge void in the Universe

I really wanted to read the New Scientist article, but their site is down today.

So here's CNN:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Astronomers have stumbled upon a tremendous hole in the universe. That's got them scratching their heads about what's just not there.

The cosmic blank spot has no stray stars, no galaxies, no sucking black holes, not even mysterious dark matter. It is 1 billion light years across of nothing. That's an expanse of nearly 6 billion trillion miles of emptiness, a University of Minnesota team announced Thursday.

Astronomers have known for many years that there are patches in the universe where nobody's home. In fact, one such place is practically a neighbor, a mere 2 million light years away.

But what the Minnesota team discovered, using two different types of astronomical observations, is a void that's far bigger than scientists ever imagined.

"This is 1,000 times the volume of what we sort of expected to see in terms of a typical void," said Minnesota astronomy professor Lawrence Rudnick, author of the paper that will be published in Astrophysical Journal. "It's not clear that we have the right word yet ... This is too much of a surprise."

Rudnick was examining a sky survey from the National Radio Astronomy Observatory, which essentially takes radio pictures of a broad expanse of the universe.

But one area of the universe had radio pictures indicating there was up to 45 percent less matter in that region, Rudnick said. The rest of the matter in the radio pictures can be explained as stars and other cosmic structures between here and the void, which is about 5 to 10 billion light years away.

Rudnick then checked observations of cosmic microwave background radiation and found a cold spot. The only explanation, Rudnick said, is it's empty of matter.

It could also be a statistical freak of nature, but that's probably less likely than a giant void, said James Condon, an astronomer at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory. He wasn't part of Rudnick's team but is following up on the research.

"It looks like something to be taken seriously," said Brent Tully, a University of Hawaii astronomer who wasn't part of this research but studies the void closer to Earth.

Tully said astronomers may eventually find a few cosmic structures in the void, but it would still be nearly empty.

Holes in the universe probably occur when the gravity from areas with bigger mass pull matter from less dense areas, Tully said. After 13 billion years "they are losing out in the battle to where there are larger concentrations of matter," he said.

Retired NASA astronomer Steve Maran said of the discovery: "This is incredibly important for something where there is nothing to it." "
This is especially cool because there's no dark matter in the region. That has important implications on the debate about whether matter-distribution in the Universe follows a fractal pattern or not. If it's fractal, then, as you view the Universe on larger and larger scales, it will never become smooth. New patterns will continue to develop. Galaxy clusters become super clusters and super clusters form even larger patterns. Otherwise, everything should smooth out as you zoom out far enough.

Gefter, Amanda. "Don't mention the F word," New Scientist. March 10, 2007. Lexis:
Collisions between particles of ordinary matter help it clump together, but dark matter is thought not to behave in the same way. That suggests it could be spread out in space more evenly than ordinary matter, so cosmologists assume that the distribution of the matter we can see - galaxies, say - is not a true reflection of the distribution of all the matter that is out there. They believe the structure of the universe is really much "smoother" than it appears to be, because dark matter dominates. In the case of the Sloan survey, the bias is 2: the visible galaxies are clumped twice as densely as the predicted total distribution of matter in the universe.

Sylos Labini, however, sees the bias as a fudge that allows cosmologists to discount the observed clustering of galaxies and to assume that the gigantic clusters of superclusters are only half the problem they appear to be. "The bias is a way to hide the size of structures behind some ad hoc parameter," he says.

Mainstream cosmologists, however, feel the bias is justified, assuming that galaxies cluster in regions of space that are replete with excess dark matter. According to the standard model, dark matter is everywhere, but galaxies only shine in the rare regions where dark matter is densest. Dark matter also lingers in the voids where no light shines but here it is thinly spread out. In other words, while the luminous galaxies look very clustered, the underlying blanket of dark matter is far smoother, supporting the claim of homogeneity. "If the cold dark matter model is correct, then there should be dark matter in the voids," Hogg says.

The million-dollar question is: what is the real distribution of dark matter? Is dark matter smooth or fractal? Is it clustered like the galaxies, or does it spread out, unseen, into the great voids? If the voids are full of dark matter, then the apparent fractal distribution of luminous matter becomes rather insignificant. But if the voids are truly empty, the fractal claim requires a closer look.

Astronomers are now providing our first glimpse into the voids and our first look at the pattern of invisible matter. Richard Massey of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena and others in the Cosmic Evolution Survey project have just created the first 3D map of dark matter in the universe (New Scientist , 13 January, p 5). They were able to find the dark matter by observing its gravitational effect on any light streaming past it. Combining data from the Hubble Space Telescope, the Subaru telescope in Hawaii and the Very Large Telescope in Chile, they mapped the distribution of dark matter at scales ranging from 23 million to 200 million light years across.

Massey's team found that the dark matter distribution is nearly identical to the luminous matter distribution. "The first thing that strikes me is the voids," Massey says. "Vast expanses of space are completely empty. The dark matter makes up a criss-crossing network of strings and sheets around these voids. And all the luminous matter lies within the densest regions of dark matter."

Although this distribution of dark matter seems to favour the idea that the universe is fractal, Hogg isn't convinced. "It is interesting," he says, "but measurements of dark matter are much less precise than measurements of galaxy distributions."

"The result is very new," Massey agrees. "It demonstrates a very exciting new way of looking directly at dark matter and will be vital in future work, but hasn't yet been subject to all the analysis that has been applied to galaxy surveys." When asked if the dark matter exhibits an explicitly fractal structure, Massey replies, "We don't know yet."

"The universe is not a fractal," Hogg insists, "and if it were a fractal it would create many more problems that we currently have." A universe patterned by fractals would throw all of cosmology out the window. Einstein's cosmic equations would be tossed first, with the big bang and the expansion of the universe following closely behind.

Tuesday, August 21, 2007

Brightest observed supernova could have created quark star

Seriously awesome.
Quarks are subatomic particles that normally only associate in groups of two – producing short-lived mesons, or three – producing the protons and neutrons that make up the bulk of normal matter.

But some physicists say that when matter is crushed to extreme densities, it settles into a soup of individual quarks. A cubic centimetre of this new type of matter – dubbed 'strange' after one of the six types of quark – would weigh as much as a billion tonnes and would have the unusual property of converting any ordinary matter that touches it into more strange matter, releasing energy in the process.
Light speed

The energy released by converting the core of a star into strange matter would cause an explosion called a quark nova, which Leahy and Ouyed argue has been observed for the first time in SN 2006gy.

In their picture, the event begins when a massive star blasts away its outer layers in an ordinary supernova explosion. In the process, the star's core collapses to become a dense object called a neutron star.

But the team argues that some neutron stars last only a short time because their magnetic properties cause their spin rates to drastically slow down. Because centrifugal force can no longer support the neutron star's core, it collapses even further, transforming into strange matter.

The transformation releases a tremendous amount of energy, blasting the neutron star's outer layers into space at close to light speed. The layers then slam into debris from the original supernova, creating an intense glow bright enough to explain the observations of SN 2006gy, Ouyed told New Scientist.

Monday, August 20, 2007

Back in school

I am so happy to be in the back of a classroom again instead of destroying the blood vessels in my eyes working for a company that's sole purpose is to generate profits by denying people health care.

Wednesday, August 15, 2007

Thursday, August 09, 2007

Ron Paul is a reactionary sack of shit.

I am sick of people acting like Ron Paul is some sort of maverick Republican who is out to save individual liberties and the US Constitution. I understand that he gets little coverage because he has no chance of winning the nomination, but it would be nice if his occasional appearances on programs like the Daily Show wouldn't gloss over how batshit insane he is. Yeah, opposing the occupation of Iraq and the Patriot Act is cool, but no one ever talks about some of his abhorrent political stances:

He voted against divesting federal funds from companies that directly contribute to the genocide in Darfur (there isn't even a good "free trade" defense of this action... it's the federal government's prerogative to determine who it trades with. Isn't that how the sacred "free market" is supposed to correct for things like genocide?)

He wants to prevent federal courts from hearing First Amendment cases.

He doesn't think the Bill of Rights applies to the states (awesome civil libertarian there).

He put out a newsletter featuring explicitly racist statements.

He claims that abortion is a states rights issue but voted in favor of a federal ban on the safest means of late-term abortions.

He supports replacing the military with mercenaries via letters of marque (oh, you thought there was too little oversight over American human rights abuses now? Wait until private firms with zero oversight are running the game).

He wants to abolish the federal reserve and revert to a gold standard.

He honestly thinks that secular society is out to destroy Christianity and that the War on Christmas is a legitimate concern.

He wants to limit the FDA, allowing private groups with profit-driven conflicts of interest to fill the void.

His votes regarding gay rights are disgusting: he has opposed gay adoption and marriage.

He thinks the Establishment Clause only prevents the formation of a federal church and has no problem with any other kind of establishment.

His approach to education would allow local school districts to teach pseudo-science like creationism.

He opposes federal funding for stem cell research (I guess forcing people to fund research on embryos is unethical but forcing them to fund the mass slaughter of Sudanese is cool).

He opposes state support for family planning and meaningful sex education.

It makes little sense for genuine libertarians to back Paul and it definitely makes no sense for leftists to be sympathetic to the guy. He's a reactionary religious fundamentalist who longs for Christian dominance of the nation, doesn't give a shit about abuses of civil liberties, and could care less about the feds funding genocide in Darfur. Fuck him.