Dinosaurs Done In By... Dark Matter? 135
bmahersciwriter writes "Theoretical physicists propose that the Sun periodically crosses into a dense layer of dark matter sandwiching the Milky Way. The gravitational push and pull that this creates disturbs debris in the Oort cloud sending deadly comets and asteroids ricocheting around the solar system. This passage happens, their admittedly speculative model suggests, every 35 million years, which jibes somewhat with evidence on impact craters. Take it with a dino-sized grain of salt."
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Remember folks:
Dark Mater is a THEORETICAL stuff that weighs a lot or is all over the place to explain why entire solar systems don't fly out of the Galaxy as they spin.
What if there was no Dark matter and Gravity could distorts time in a way that would explain it all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Remember folks:
Dark Mater is a THEORETICAL stuff that weighs a lot or is all over the place to explain why entire solar systems don't fly out of the Galaxy as they spin.
Yes, we know. Who said it wasn't theoretical? In case you missed the first three words of the summary: "Theoretical physicists propose..."
What if there was no Dark matter and Gravity could distorts time in a way that would explain it all.
Aaand what if gravity doesn't do that?
Re:magic (Score:5, Funny)
My understanding of the English language isn't complete, but I understood "theoretical physicists" to mean that the physicists themselves were only theoretical -- in much the same way that "garden gnome" is a gnome that lives in a garden.
Re:magic (Score:4, Funny)
I darn well stubbed my toe on *something* when I staggered home last night, so I'm pretty sure the garden gnome is not theoretical.
Re:magic (Score:4, Funny)
In all fairness to mythosaz, he called it a "garden gnome," not a "theoretical garden gnome."
Re: (Score:2)
Reminds me of a cheesy pickup line I heard:
You remind me of my big toe, because I'm going to bang you on my couch soon.
Re:magic (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
This would explain why the room spins too... Like a galaxy!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:magic (Score:5, Funny)
...in case you missed the first three words of the summary: "Theoretical physicists propose..."
I prefer to get my physics from physicists that actually exist, thanks.
Re:magic (Score:5, Insightful)
Everything is science is "theoretical", that doesn't mean it's unlikely to be true.
Dark matter explains both galaxy rotation and the behavior of the early universe quite well. Until the CMBR data, dark matter was just one hypothesis among many for galaxy rotation, but only dark matter explained the observed pattern of mass distribution when the universe cooled enough to become transparent for the first time. And the numbers matched to a couple of significant digits, not in some hand-wavey way.
What dark matter is made of is still an open question, but it's pretty clear that about 4/5ths of the matter in the universe is dark.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Rubbish.
There is considerable observational evidence for both.
Re: (Score:2)
Again, rubbish.
There is evidence for dark matter from many areas of astronomy. Others have listed observational evidence and provided links to details. Follow them. I am not going to do your homework for you. Simply saying that something does not exist because you do not understand it, or because you do not want it to exist, or because you have a grudge against science is magical thinking.
Re: (Score:2)
Once again, rubbish.
There are decades of observational evidence that support the existence of dark matter. If you have any evidence that those observations are wrong, or have been interpreted incorrectly then feel free to present that evidence. You are making an extraordinary claim, that many years of research is wrong. You now need to provide evidence to back up your claim.
Re: (Score:2)
On the contrary. The only evidence we have is that it cannot yet be observed. Thus the moniker of being dark.
We can observe that there must be something there (from the gravitational effects) but we can't actually see it (though there's been a few hints of annihilations that might be consistent with something like a sterile neutrino). It's like looking for a black cat in a coal cellar: we might not see the cat, but we can feel the mice it has killed and (maybe) hear the meow.
If there is a sterile neutrino out there, directly observing it is going to be absurdly hard.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:magic (Score:5, Informative)
Dark matter is not THEORETICAL. There is direct evidence for it. Quoting from the relevant wiki:
In other words, gravitational lensing of light waves - which is 100% direct evidence of matter - shows a region where there is matter that is clearly non-baryonic (i.e. does not interact with the electromagnetic field, a.k.a. "dark"). This is not subject to dispute. The question of what, exactly, is dark matter - is indeed still a subject of scientific research. There are, however, a number of super-symmetric theories which posit super-partners for well known particles, the most stable of which turn out to have the exact characteristics we're noting observationally. It is important to note that these theories were not tailored to account for the dark matter, but seem to fit the observational evidence quite well so far. As with all science however, theories are subject to falsification at any times as soon as new evidence comes on the scene.
Re: (Score:1)
gravitational lensing of light waves - which is 100% direct evidence of warped space
FTFY
This is not subject to dispute
It damn well is!
Re: (Score:1)
It isn't obvious that what we are seeing is matter, dark or otherwise, but only that we see an effect that causes lensing as per our theoretical models and methods of observation. Maybe it's some other force field, maybe conditions are different in the part of the universe we observed -- this is far out but not so much compared to something called "dark matter."
Re: magic (Score:2)
Hmm. And the SUSY model that is consistent with .... The null hypothesis
I think I will submit a story
SUSY is chopped up. Wait for it.
Re: (Score:1)
Those heathen dinosaurs didn't worship Jeebus hard enough and GOD smote them for their insolence.
Re: (Score:1)
One cloaca is as good as any other.
Re: (Score:1)
Personally, I was gonna blame the Big Bang. If you're going to make an absurd connection, take. it. all. the. way.
Queue End of the world articles in 3,2,1 (Score:5, Funny)
GO!
seriously how long until someone claims that this happens every 35 million years and the clock is ticking down to Nov 10, 2016.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
HalfLife 3 Confirmed!
Re: (Score:2)
It's actually Sept, 8, 2014, but that's a simple enough mistake for an amateur.
Re: Queue End of the world articles in 3,2,1 (Score:4)
Just wait and see.
Re: (Score:2)
None of this will matter. Planet X will have reached us long before then.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm pretty sure it was Jan 20 2009.
Re: Queue End of the world articles in 3,2,1 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Crap. Now I'm embarrassed to say that was my first thought on reading the article. I actually looked up the wiki for galactic year.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have any peculiar friends named for cars?
Make sure you have a good towel ready.
Statistical analysis of craters (Score:5, Interesting)
I understand why they're getting a weak signal here on Earth, where most craters will have long since been erased by erosion and surface remodeling. But I'll bet we could get a much stronger signal from the Moon, particularly the far side. Do we have the ability to get dates for craters there from orbiting probes, or is that something we'd have to collect physical samples to do?
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC you can estimate crater age by counting the # of smaller craters/area and using statistics.
Re: (Score:3)
Okay, makes sense. So we probably already have the data available to do a pretty good analysis of impact periodicity.
Re:Statistical analysis of craters (Score:4, Informative)
Of course, if their hypothesis is correct all the statistical data will have to be re-calibrated to account for the occasional rain of meteors.
Also note: Age estimates for larger impacts will have smaller error bars.
Re: (Score:2)
Urgh. Good point.
I'll bet there's a model that could take all stuff this into account, and sufficient data to estimate the parameters. But trying to figure out what that would be feels too much like work.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember Richard Muller (Berkeley physicist) writing something about that in Nemesis: The Death Star (It's a pop-sci book, not science fiction as the title implies.)
Re: (Score:1)
I was just about to say, "the return of the Nemesis theory", except that "theory" was always too strong a word for that - "conjecture", perhaps.
The idea was that sub-stellar-mass dark companion of the Sun would pass near enough to the Oort cloud to throw a barrage of comets into the inner solar system every 35 million years or so, and that we're just about due. The name of this object would be "Nemesis". (I think Asimov wove that into the end of one of his last stories,,,)
I still like this as a working
flawed (Score:3, Insightful)
This seems to make a lot of assumptions (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:This seems to make a lot of assumptions (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Some string theorists claim that when a string bends in the 4th dimension it creates the effects of dark matter.
Not to sound like an idiot because I have no physics degree, but if it exists everywhere why isn't it on Earth or anywhere else? Surely in the last billion years since our solar system revolved around the galaxy once we would at least encounter some of it?
Re: (Score:2)
We do. There was a good analysis by somebody I read once looking at how much dark matter you'd expect to find in the solar system. It's not much. Space is really big, and dark matter is pretty well spread around. That's why it doesn't perturb the orbits of the planets noticeably. It also interacts with matter very little, so it's hard to detect.
Re:This seems to make a lot of assumptions (Score:4, Funny)
when a string bends in the 4th dimension it creates the effects of dark matter.
. . . but only if there is someone there in the 4th dimension to hear it.
Re: (Score:1)
Every reality-motivated explanation begins as a convenient way to to explain something not presently understood. Photoelectric effect not making sense with classical E&M? Hmmm, what if light came in discrete packets.
Dark matter was at the stage you seem to think it's at around 1960: "Hmmm, it would be convenient if there were more mass where we can't see it..." Starting from the Bullet Cluster, we have observed nearly a dozen galactic cluster collisions where the stars and dark matter pass right by/thro
No, this is the real reason... (Score:5, Funny)
Real Reason [hubimg.com]
Re: (Score:2)
INCORECT (Score:1)
I caused the extinction of the Dinosaurs
signed
Fred F.
Academia, we hardly knew ye (Score:2)
In retrospect, I rather regret not leaping on some bizzare and obscure science topic very early on in my career. With my early knowledge of pop-science and fantasy TV, film, and comic books, I could have made big headways in modern cosmology and theoretical physics by now.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, all you have to do is make numerically accurate predictions of future observations, how hard can that be? Or failing that, just be a String Theorist ...
Re: (Score:2)
the punchline... (Score:4, Funny)
obviously, the dark matter came from Uranus
Look to the geological record (Score:5, Interesting)
For more on the 62 million year problem [sfgate.com]
More on mass extinction events in general [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
If you look over the past 500 billion years, the geological record shows that there is a mass extinction event roughly every 62 million years.
So we have records of about, what, eight thousand mass extinctions? Wow, I had no idea. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Something wrong with this picture.... (Score:2)
I think you need to recheck your math.
500 billion divided by 62 million equals 8,064.5, so I don't understand where the 130 number is coming from.
Even if you were thinking 'million' as you typed billion, 130 still makes no sense, as 500 million divided by 62 million equals 8.
Best current estimates on the age of the universe are much smaller than 500 billion, more like 14-15 billion.
Where does the 500 billion come from?
BTW, other than the maths, you made an interesting comment. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Where the 8,000 came from, was the original poster saying that it was 500 billion years old, with mass extinctions every 62 million, which equaled 130 events. The 8,000 was a sarcastic comment regarding the incorrect maths.
I fully understand the current known facts, and the maths.
I was just curious where the 500 billion number came from that 'MichaelDavidCrawford' was making sarcastic replies to.
Start with this comment [slashdot.org] to clear up your confusion.
Why 500 billion? Where does that number come from?
That's what
It's an astronomical catastrophe! Duck and cover! (Score:3)
Yeah, I feel 'sucker-punched' by this as well.
All of those lying, conniving scoundrals that call themselves scientists have been trying to convince me for years that the universe was only 14 1/2 billion years old.
Man, I feel old now....
Hey wait, maybe this explains the universe expanding....it's trying to catch up with the new info. Yeah, that's gotta be it. ;-)
Re: (Score:3)
> If you look over the past 500 billion years, the geological record shows that there is a mass extinction event roughly every 62 million years.
Oddly enough, that works out to 1/4 of a galactic year to three decimal places.
Galactic seasons?
Re: (Score:2)
If you look over the past 500 billion years, the geological record shows that there is a mass extinction event roughly every 62 million years. Even though there is some give and take, on that timescale it's almost like clockwork. Since this discovery, scientists of many disciplines have been trying to figure out what could be causing it.
Computer scientists think about it for about two seconds. Then they mutter "Must be the garbage collector" and go fetch a beer.
Off-topic: slashboxes (Score:1)
Are these things being obsoleted? The most discussed and hot comments boxes haven't been updated in a week or two. Is the beta rollout still happening?
Re: (Score:2)
Is the beta rollout still happening?
If I remember correctly, the beta was not going 'live' until the end of March, or beginning of April.
I for one, was hoping it was an elaborate April Fools joke on /.'s part.
You have to admit, this one would go down in history as bigger than the year we were subjected to 'OMG...PONIES!!!'
I don't really expect /. beta to be an April Fool, unfortuneately.
Something's afoot (Score:2)
Yesterday, a story about upskirt photos being legal in Massachusetts and today dark matter killing off the dinosaurs.
Coincidence? I think not.
You know, it's amazing the insights that a few Friday afternoon cocktails can bring.
Add in Li'l Boosie getting released from prison today, and you can't tell me the Illuminati isn't behind all this. Maybe.
Re: (Score:2)
We had nothing to do with Li'l Boosie getting out! Word of honour.
(He was actually released on Wednesday, BTW.)
Re: (Score:2)
You'd like us to believe that, wouldn't you?
Dark Matter: Dr. Evil's next great plot (Score:2)
Nothing "real" to be explained here (Score:2)
Dark matter? (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not a physicist but every description I've heard of dark matter more or less boils down to "we've noticed there is more gravity in areas where we don't see mass. And since only mass can generate gravity we have missing mass. We're going to call that missing mass dark matter."
Okay... fine... but that's entirely theoretical. No one has actually found dark matter... as in put it under a microscope or touched it. So... until then, lets not come up with any halfassed theories regarding it.
Re: (Score:1)
Okay... fine... but that's entirely theoretical.
Right, like all of science.
No one has actually found dark matter... as in put it under a microscope or touched it
Right, like all of cosmology.
There's solid evidence for the existence of dark matter - it's composition remains a mystery as early hypotheses aren't panning out.
What I don't get is why anyone would think Dark Matter would form layers above and below the galactic disk. Hard to see why the distribution about the galaxy would be anything but spherical.
Re: (Score:2)
It would seem to follow that dark matter would tend to naturally form some type of structure. Normal matter certainly forms rather consistent shapes on many different scales. What shapes would dark matter favor if it only interacts gravitationally? Wouldn't it form either a dense ball at the bottom of our galactic gravity well, or flatten into a disc with the rest of the matter in our galaxy? I don't think I've ever read any real theories on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Both matter concentrating in the middle and forming disks is due to it interacting with itself. Friction, basically. Dark matter doesn't do that.
Re: (Score:1)
Doesn't it interact gravitationally with itself and normal matter?
That's silly (Score:2)
fuuck (Score:1)
I believe this is real. It's on one of those other god like astro physics levels of things, that people don't understand. Like mind control, and directed-energy weapons. People don't understand shit about the universe, how cold it is, or how fucking dangerous and volatile it is ..
I think we should ditch planet earth now and focus on building an artificial planetary system which can avoid other planets, comets, energy, and other uncontrollable systems. Immediately, as soon as we can, before we ourselves pari
Space bees (Score:3)
"So what if there was this giant swarm of space bees, and every 35 million years our solar system–"
"Wait. Wait, hold on. You're suggesting space bees killed the dinosaurs?"
"Not directly! These bees are huge. Moon-sized. And they live in the interstellar gaps between stars. I calculated that if their swarm passes through the Oort Cloud, they would get really upset and buzz around, and their gravitational forces would fling asteroids and comets into the solar system."
"How did you calculate that the Oort Cloud makes your hypothetical space bees angry?"
"Well it's a lot more plausible than your hypothetical invisible aether making the sun go wonky."
a bit of a flaw with this (Score:2)
Dinusaur-sized grain of salt but... (Score:1)
Not new (Score:2)
UFOs (Score:2)
Dark matter is like the UFOs of astronomy. It's only called "dark" because they don't know what it is yet! UFOs are only "unidentified" until they identify the flying object. There's no reason to think that "dark matter" is something mysterious or alien, astronomers just can't see it...because it doesn't glow!
Old news, much? (Score:2)
Dark Matter decays to Bottomonium? (Score:1)
Article extract:
The signal is very well fit by a 31-40 GeV dark matter particle annihilating to bb_ *** with a density of 0.3 GeV/cm^3.
*** bb_ (note: that's a bottom quark and a bottom antiquark)
WIkipedia "Bottom quark":
There are many bottomonium states .... These consist of a bottom quark and its antiparticle.
Conclusion: Dark matter decays to a state of bottomonium.
Re: (Score:2)
"9 out of 10 Slashdot ACs we surveyed could not tell the difference between UBUNTU GNOME and a dead crab."
Re: (Score:2)