Hubble Survey Finds Half of the Missing Matter 189
esocid sends along the news that scientists believe they have found about half the missing matter in the universe. The matter we can see is only about 1/8 of the total baryonic matter believed to exist (and only 1/200 the mass-energy of the visible universe). This missing matter is not to be confused with "dark matter," which is thought to be non-baryonic. The missing stuff has been found in the intergalactic medium that extends essentially throughout all of space, from just outside our galaxy to the most distant regions of space. "'We think we are seeing the strands of a web-like structure that forms the backbone of the universe,' Mike Shull of the University of Colorado explained. 'What we are confirming in detail is that intergalactic space, which intuitively might seem to be empty, is in fact the reservoir for most of the normal, baryonic matter in the universe.'"
Re:Ether (Score:2, Interesting)
Because Einstein got everything perfect (cosmological constant)
And light (which may or may not have mass) is bent by gravity (bending space time)
Wouldn't it make more sense to go with an aether theory?
You say light travels at the same speed regardless of direction or relative motion? I say bunk requiring some very sophisticated manipulations of time and space (Lorentz contractions) What's wrong with the 'entrained aether' theory? What, you never heard of frame-dragging?
Gravitational lensing? How about gravity increasing the optical density of the aether?
*puts away tin foil hat*
Intersteller Travel Ho! (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Oxygen and Hydrogen? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Ether (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Ether (Score:3, Interesting)
I've got a question for a physics graduate or anybody who can answer it. After reading for the thousandth time about all the ionized gasses in space, I suddenly began to wonder how many electrons were created in the Big Bang? Like - are there enough electrons for every atomic nucleus to fill it's shells - if they weren't ionized? Now, that seems improbable, because an enormous amount of matter was created after the Big Bang - created in stars and super novae. Then this matter that was created - were electrons created at the same time in proportion? ...and in the balance of things - how many electrons are there in the Universe and how many protons are there? ...and how much do all these electrons weigh? ...and all these electrons that were striped from interstellar matter to leave behind ionized gasses - where did they go? Well I would guess they are zinging along some magnetic field lines someplace, quite happy to be alive, but is there some place where they collect in huge clouds? I don't suppose that is too likely, because electrons are antisocial among themselves and stay as far apart as possible, but on the other hand, protons are like that too among their own kind, yet somehow manage to form clouds. So then you think about these huge clouds of hydrogen and helium nuclei, all longing for the company of electrons, but there are none to be found in the region - such huge imbalances must exist. Makes you wonder when matter finally conglomerates into planets and such that somehow there is suddenly just the right number of electrons available so that every single atom can fill is orbital shells. How does this come about?
Re:Dark Matter??? (Score:3, Interesting)
The Schwarzschild "diameter" (circumference over pi) is 4 G M / c^2, or 2.969 * 10^27 m/kg.
The mass of the (observable) universe is about 10^53 kg.
The Schwarzschild diameter of the (observable) universe is therefore about 3*10^10 light years, within an order of magnitude of the probable diameter of the observable universe.
The universe as a whole is probably many orders of magnitude bigger than the observable universe, so it seems quite likely that we're all still inside that event horizon.
Re:Ether (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Ether (Score:5, Interesting)
Back to the topic at hand, the interesting thing with special relativity is that while it was created based on the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment, it doesn't actually "explain" that experiment.
Maxwell's equations (see sig) predict that light will propagate with a speed c independent of frame. Einstein had a choice, Newton was wrong or Maxwell was wrong. A non-null result from the MM experiment would invalidate Maxwell's equations.
So, if you like, Maxwell's equations "explain" the null MM result.
Tim.