What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
PS3 view!
bestbuygiftadvice.com - The Best Buy(R) Twelpforce(TM) Carolers sing about the impressive Blu-ray(TM) capabilities of the PS3.
85 Comments
- aurifex, on 10/12/2007, -14/+56I somehow doubt you found this story link, read the entire article, and had time to reply all in a 5 minute span, which is the time between the original post and your reply.
- Otto, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18It's an interesting notion, however the article is a bit misleading on some points.
For one thing, you'd never be able to actually see an object reach the event horizon. As it got closer, the relative time speeds between them an observer would slow down, so they would appear to a distant observer to be moving slower and slower the closer they got. However, they'd never actually get there, from that observer's point of view. So there's no real quantum mechanical violation there.
The other "violation" which states that information cannot disappear from the universe is also not really violated, because the information continues to exist inside the black hole, it simply can never escape the black hole. Although that is still debated, as some postulate that Hawking radiation does contain some information about the singularity.
They seem to be suggesting that inside the quantum shell, matter is converted into vacuum energy. However, if that's the case, then I'm not sure how they consider the shell to be a "two way street", as matter would be destroyed as it enters, and the only thing you're going to get out is radiation of one form or another, much like Hawking radiation. - Eaglefire, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Well as far as verifying that there are large, heavy gravitaty things out there which don't emit light like stars do, yes, practical astronomy has verified it.
What's contested in this article is that the large, heavy gravitaty things may not be made up of what we thought they were made up of. - daskatzsocrates, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10The only real way to verify something exists, is to go out there shoot it and drag it's dead carcass back.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8I know that it's a very bad idea to gate to a world that is close to a black hole (for example P3W-451) unless your gate iris is reinforced with a Trinium-Titanium alloy. It is extreamly handy however for forcing suns to go supernova.
- lasermike026, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8It must be nice working on something that only a handful of people can understand.
- deepsub, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7It's a Quantum Star... it's both there and not there...
- TheShrike, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6This doesn't seem to discredit the idea of black holes, so much as it proposes that most of what we think are black holes, aren't.
- kevincole, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Its not really a new theory. It is a Black Hole with a new name and a couple of property changes. So for everyone that says, "I never really believed in Black Holes, but I get this." Do you see how lame that sounds?
- Jozer99, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Cool alternative. Being a college student, and taking some more advanced physics, its interesting to see how absolutely no one has any idea of whats going on after Newton and Maxwell. We just come up with crazy hypothesis to fit the data we get, and eventually one of them is accepted as right, until someone finds more data disproving it.
- ichthus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4You hear statements like this every year, and yet physicists continue to speak of black holes as matter of fact.
- ViperDaimao, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2OK Im no expert my any means, but I think what you're talking about with the lube of subatomic matter is more like a neutron star. A black hole is so much more massive, that it actually "punches a hole" in the the fabric of space. (thats at least my oversimplified laymans understanding). All the huge mass condense down to a single point smaller than would allow for a "lube of subatomic particles".
- DarthTurducken, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Screw that - I need some Stimutacs! Marduk commands it!
- Snarfy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Actually, he did just get lazy ;) Well, not lazy, but he had to throw in a fudge factor to make it work:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant - existent, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I would say the same thing for dark matter.
The universe appears to be expanding. Therefore, our universe must be primarily full of matter we can't see! - WickedDrag0oN, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7We are a dieing breed BioMan, nobody has a sense of humor on digg anymore.
Carter: "Ok. 23 across, the atomic weight of boran. Answer is ten."
O'Neill: "Yes."
Carter: "You wrote the word fat." - Kitsune818, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3My thoughts were similar.. they seem to really be describing something identical to a black hole, they are just postulating a new reason for their existence.. If they can't tell the difference from these and the current idea of a black hole, what exactly has changed in terms of explaining dark matter? It doesn't refute the theory that something could become so dense as to prevent light from escaping/warp space-time.. Perhaps these two different objects coexist but their manifestations seem identical.
- Toshibi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3that's pretty old actualy....considering the edge of the universe to be similar to the event horizon....and because of that some people postulated that perhaps there is atleast one naked singularity in our universe. A naked singularity is a singularity that could be observed.
- TheShrike, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3This is the best science article I've seen on Digg yet.
The idea that we might be inside a super-massive dark star is intriguing, indeed. - g30ph, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6A universe sized dark star? Dude. Have you ever seen the stars....................on weeeeeed?
- g30ph, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5I'm gonna have to smoke a lot of weed an re-read this article.
- simpleid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The article speculates that what could exist are balls of dark matter/dark energy, which IS negative energy right? They only say this as it would heppen describe what they see. Einstein predicted there may be "dark matter," which has the effect of anti-gravity. Also dark matter in the universe apparantly has been mapped according to this: ($20 says someone will take this link and submit it as a new digg.)
http://www.space.com/news/cosmic_shear_000512.html
Which would effectly prove the existance of anti-gravity as a result. Would this not be logical to assume? - Kitsune818, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Right before I threw up.
- Kniggit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2This is definitely the most cogent theory on what "black holes" really are. The amazing part is how they link the parameters together to come to the (potential) conclusion that we're inside a massive dark star.
Maybe that's why the sky looks black at night.
Imagine what's on the outside.
And, even more intriguing, link this with the fact that, when the maximum state of entropy exists (can't remember the name of the state of that energy), maybe this will cause the collapse of this massive dark star called our universe. Maybe that's what will cause the eventual collapse of these "black hole" stars we see.
Maybe I need to take a nap. - Tr176, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1foolish scientists!
SG-1 does exist! - hammerattack, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Dark Matter, Dark Energy. You know, the other day, I tried to solve a simple integration problem involving revolutions of solids, and the only way I could get the math to work was to throw in a mysterious coefficient. I called it my "Dark Pi Over Two". It's nice to see that kind of stupidity will still work in mainstream physics, because I sure as hell didn't feel like going back, checking my math, and all that jazz.
- FlyboyP, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I like this:
"There is, of course, no explanation yet for how a universe-sized star could come into being." - Toshibi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think he means the Quantum Foam.
- muikano, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7This is really interesting. In fact. This theory is almost inspired by Vernor Vinge's novel that different areas of the universe have different laws of relativity. So you can have faster than Light travel or other relativistic effects depending on what part of the universe you're in.
Slow Zones near dark energy stars. And if we are hinted to be inside a quantum crystal transition, is there anyway to mod it? This is ***** interesting as hell.
Vernor Vinge's A Fire Upon the Deep is the book i'm referring to. - harrisbradley, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Yes, but what about white holes. That always been more interesting to me.
Okay... that doesn't sound right. - wilho, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2no one has seen black holes. They are maybe true or maybe false made up explanation for observed strange of movement stars.
- SoccerBoy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Good read and a very interesting idea. I have ready something along these lines before, and have never totally agreed with the black hole idea... it seems to hokey poky to me.
- scott1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I don't have a degree in physics(yet)but I do know alot about it.
"DARK energy and dark matter, two of the greatest mysteries confronting physicists, may be two sides of the same coin. A new and as yet undiscovered kind of star could explain both phenomena and, in turn, remove black holes from the lexicon of cosmology."
Didn't Einstien say that matter was a from of energy and energy has math withe E=mc^2
"suggested that the objects that till now have been thought of as black holes could in fact be dead stars that form as a result of an obscure quantum phenomenon. These stars could explain both dark energy and dark matter."
That sounds like a black hole to me.But I think it might possible that they could both dark energy and dark matter
" One such problem arises from the idea that once matter crosses a black hole's event horizon - the point beyond which not even light can escape - it will be destroyed by the space-time "singularity" at the centre of the black hole. Because information about the matter is lost forever, this conflicts with the laws of quantum mechanics, which state that information can never disappear from the universe."
conflicts with laws of quantum mechanics(QM)?It might be but physicst have seen this since Genral revility(GR) and the possiblity of black existence.The problem is that if that black holes have gravity so strong and are small that to do they apply the laws of GR because they have strong gravitonal force or the Laws QM because there so samll.Physicst have been working on this for a while what is know as the "Grand unifed feiled theory" that explains both QM felid foces with Gravity(GR),which is only force hasn't been unifed with the other's.If they can find the Grand unifed feild theory then we would have a better understanding of black holes and pretty much(if not all)of everthing.
"Though this anti-gravity effect might be expected to blow the star's shell apart, calculations by Francisco Lobo of the University of Lisbon in Portugal have shown that stable dark energy stars can exist for a number of different models of vacuum energy. What's more, these stable stars would have shells that lie near the region where a black hole's event horizon would form"
Note: Anti-gravity existnece is still debated.Einstien model of gravity is based on the geomartry of the unviserse it works as slope and your not being pulled by gravity it's simpely just a shortest distance between today and tommorw.Under this model gravity is in a univerese containtiang only postive mater.Anti-gravity requires negtive-mass which I do think exist (at least natuarrly) in the universe.
+digg. - simpleid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Anything that has to do with gravity does! lol I'd say this has some obvious roots, but considering the effects were looking at are large-scale there's not point in bringing this up. :p
- simpleid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1No basis? You should really not speak out of ignorance. If you don't know, then don't assume to know.
- Kitsune818, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So your implying that Einstein just got lazy when he got to the end of his theory and had this unaccounted for mass?
"ehh.. Screw it, it's, um, dark matter..that's it... it'll take you whippersnappers 100 years to understand this anyway. Dumb bastards."
Heh. - Kitsune818, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I hate the term "no other possible explanation".
I can come up with lots of "possible explanations". There is a Denny's in the center and light likes to hang out there so it's heading towards it, not towards us. That's a "possible explanation".. just not very possible.
200 years ago they might have said "Bob is walking around in Santa Fe and having a conversation through thin air with Jill in Galvaston. The only possible explanation is that they are psychic." Or it's possible they have cell phones.
It's just a bad phrase.. pet peave, sorry. - Threephaserebel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1One problem just leads to another, eh?
All in all, I thought it was an interesting article. I've read articles where they theorized a black hole might just be a singularity surrounded by dark energy and now this were it is both dark energy and dark matter. The only problem is that we're not even sure if either actually exists. Sometimes the concepts only seem to be patches to fix holes in current theories. I wouldn't be surprised if something radically different is introduced soon too. Eventually it'll be sorted out and hopefully we'll have a more concrete idea of the universe than we do now. It is good to know that scientists still question theories and ideas that have long since gained wide acceptance. These are the kinds of ideas that push science further! - Toshibi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2really, a white hole is just a time reversed black hole. Pure speculation and conjecture...no one seriously considers them to exist.
- ViperDaimao, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Anyone have any idea about how this new theory might or might not fit in with M theory?
- secretdiffusion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1how can an undiscovered kind of star be proof of anything if they have no basis upon which to study said star?
- rebrad, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4I'd like to thank Apple and iDigg for allowing me to say that Steve has saved humanity again and expelled the evil Black Holes. No longer do we need to fear because Apple will save us.
- RobotCitizen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1OK, it's an interesting read, but I have to say something. It seems everytime I read a NewScientist article it's about some lone scientist contradicting conventional wisdom with some out-of-left-field finding or hypothesis. I'm getting a little sick and tired of these popular science mags bypassing the peer review process just to stir up excitement. This is not how science should be reported, and these mags do a disservice to the public by not waiting for verification and re-verification of radical claims.
This is why Luddite Q. Public says "those scientist types are always changing their minds about stuff anyways," and "It's just a theory!" - dielawn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1intersting to say the least
- 3rdragon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0this is an interesting article, but i find slowing of time improbable whether it's from a "dark star or black hole." I've read quite a few books on physics and think that due to our relative position in the universe we can't accurately define these objects. this is coming from left field but i thought I'd pass a thought i had along for the rest of you to chew on a bit. For instance say there is a Massive "dead star" out there isn't it possible the the gravity or super gravity is so great the it just pulls in so many passing objects that over time it could have a gravity so strong that it could bend light and make our observations of what is actually happening completely off base? Light is a tricky thing and can be bent by crystals. Who's to say that billions of miles combined with atmospheres and particles floating through space couldn't make our observations complete garbage. I find speculating on space interesting but we' aren't even close enough to things like "dark stars' to make any accurate observations about them. Light could just be bending enough that we don't see it and there fore conclude that it was absorbed or slowed or whatever. And before you go berating me I just want you all to know it's just a thought i had and that I'm not an expert on physics, I just have a interest in it.
- mage1129, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3I think the term Dark star is cooler then black hole, but I will miss the term and idea of a singularity if this is ever proven correct
- Toshibi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1It's really the quality of the information that goes. You can still make some predictions about how much matter and energy is in there, just not what type or kind or what it's doing. Also, some of the information may be revealed through the area of the horizon, since surface area and information can go hand in hand.
- Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Uh, yeah...they still can't explain the inexplicably collimated axial jets, even. They say that only a "black hole" can account for the situation, but what they really mean is that some mass comparable to a black hole is required in that location, and that the mass would have to be a black hole by current theory. This new hypothesis simply substitutes a new type of supermassive compact mass, but without the singularity/event horizon stuff.
- wilho, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1That's exactly how it is. Most of astrophysics theories seems just wild guessing at least for layman like I am. If something fits to perceptions and is mathematically true somehow becomes truth after a while if someone can't disprove it.
- Toshibi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1WIMPS and MACHOS....it's all the same thing just in a new package. These were opposing theories for dark matter for a while.
WIMPS are Weakly Interacting Massive ParticleS(Neutrinos and such)
MACHOS are MAssive Compact Halo ObjectS.
Looks like a MACHO theory....so, nothing really changes there with the discovery of a new star....what matters is if the masses are right. -
Show 51 - 85 of 85 discussions
