back to article Something's missing in our universe: Boffins look into the SUPERVOID

The biggest structure in the Universe has astro-boffins a-twitter because there's less stuff in it than there should be. If you pop over to the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society you'll find the snappily-titled Detection of a supervoid aligned with the cold spot of the cosmic microwave background, which explains …

  1. herman

    If you stare into the abyss, then the abyss will stare right back at you.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      If you stare into the abyss

      Actually, if you stare into the abyss, its photons will be so cold it won't have anything to stare back with.

      1. toxicdragon

        Re: If you stare into the abyss

        Gaze ye not into the abyss, lest the abysses boyfriend get narky.

        1. Little Mouse

          I tried staring into an abyss once

          It was well boring. There was literally nothing to see.

          1. TheProf

            Re: I tried staring into an abyss once

            Ah! Broadcast television.

            1. Fungus Bob

              Re: I tried staring into an abyss once

              "Ah! Broadcast television."

              Its sad how far TV has fallen. Back in the Golden Era of Television it was regarded highly enough to be considered a vast wasteland!

    2. Kristaps

      Obligatory SMBC

      http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3628

    3. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      A more detailed image shows the text "this space deliberately left blank"

  2. DavidDoran

    The cold spot doesn't have a temperature of 70μK as reported; rather it's 70μK below the average CMB temperature of 2.7K. Although the wording in the article could be ambiguous, to me it reads as an absolute temp of 70μK.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      We need more digits

      e.g.

      * The average CMB temperature is 2.700000K (let's say)

      * The cold spot is 2.699930K

      It's pretty impressive that such tiny deviations can be measured.

      1. Mtech25
        Joke

        Re: We need more digits

        The question is, is it cold enough for a northerner to finally wear a coat?

        1. Mark Errington
          Coat

          Re: We need more digits

          "The question is, is it cold enough for a northerner to finally wear a coat?"

          Nah, but may consider a vest.

    2. Bunbury

      How are they defining the coldness?

      So this is a region containing galaxies, albeit that they seem less densely populated than elsewhere. Galaxies have shiny hot bits. So when they say it's colder than elsewhere, do they mean there are less hot bits so on average it's colder? Or are they referring to the spaces between the galaxies?

      1. TRT Silver badge

        Re: How are they defining the coldness?

        If it contains cold galaxies... do you think there are other brands of chilled chocolate in there?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: How are they defining the coldness? -other brands of chilled chocolate in there

          My God, it's full of Magnums!

  3. Panicnow

    Er, Red Shift not just velocity then?

    "That's what links the supervoid to the possible acceleration of the universe's expansion: over the 1.8 billion years between ingress and egress, the universe around the photons became less dense, leaving less stuff to give the photons back their kinetic energy."

    Photons loss energy as they travel it seems, i.e. they Red shift?

  4. Little Mouse

    Is it just me...

    ...that automatically mentally swaps the terms "Dark Energy" & "Dark Matter" with "the Aether" whenever I read them?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Is it just me...

      Yes, because dark matter is known to form haloes around galaxies, and dark energy drives cosmic expansion. The aether was a supposedly steady state field that provided a medium for the EM wave to propagate in, whereas dark matter doesn't feel the EM force at all.

      Quite different.

  5. Tony Haines

    the answer

    That's no moon...

    1. Bunbury
      Coat

      Re: the answer

      What is the reason for having the moon identified on this map? Is it some kind of Space 1999 of "you are here" reference?

      Mine's the one that's part of a ghastly beige jump suit thing.

      1. Little Mouse

        Re: the answer

        It's presumably because the moon occupies a fixed point in space and never, ever, moves.

        1. Martin Budden Silver badge

          Re: the answer

          Ah, that would be Foucault's moon.

  6. alain williams Silver badge

    It was being filled

    Ah, so that is the hole that the bankers were trying to fill - I always suspected that they weren't quite as bad and selfish as they had been portrayed!

    1. Elmer Phud

      Re: It was being filled

      It actually looks like the accountants true sheets when the banks were investigated.

      But could the missing stuff from the supervoid just be resting in Ted Crilley's account?

  7. tony2heads
    Boffin

    Catch up

    Radio astronomers (Larry Rudnick, Shea Brown and Liliya Williams) saw this in a lower number of radio sources there back in 2007. It is just that now the infrared astronomers have confirmed the void.

  8. VinceH

    So there's fewer galaxies (and therefore stars) in this supervoid?

    Two possible explanations spring to mind. Either some Tibetan monks have finally identified all nine billion names of God, or Mantrid is turning all matter into drones, and that's where he's started.

    1. Afernie

      Assuming we survive that, a swarm of killer carrots can't be far behind...

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Does there have to be a reason for it?

    Can't it just be the random outcome of the Big Bang? I don't understand why cosmologists assume that everything must have been smooth and even at the moment of the Big Bang. Since we don't even know what caused the BB that assumption is based on guesswork, not physics.

    1. Elmer Phud

      Re: Does there have to be a reason for it?

      If it's a random outcome that that's the reason for it.

      (Thougth it's unlikely to be 'random' 'cos everything is Chaos and Quantum these days.)

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Does there have to be a reason for it?

        Seems to me "quantum" is just a physics code word for "something happened but we have no idea how".

        1. Elmer Phud

          Re: Does there have to be a reason for it?

          "It's all quantum"

          See The Science of Discworld.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Does there have to be a reason for it?

          Seems to me "quantum" is just a physics code word for "something happened but we have no idea how".

          Banesh Hoffmann book

          I suggest you read this (it's free) written by one of the early quantum physicists. It's very out of date but it will explain the history of quantum physics almost as it emerged, and it will show you just how wrong you are. Then you can read the Feynman lectures.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Does there have to be a reason for it?

            "it will show you just how wrong you are."

            Quantum theory explains WHAT can happen. It does not explain HOW.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Does there have to be a reason for it?

              "Quantum theory explains WHAT can happen. It does not explain HOW"

              I repeat; read Hoffman's book and a few others. I don't think you quite understand what science does and how it works. Of course at one level of explanation we don't know why we live in a quantised universe. But we do understand to a considerable degree why classical mechanics doesn't work at atomic scales (the UV catastrophe for a start) and how uncertainty and quantisation explain many phenomena - such as how the electron can orbit an atom without spinning into it in a small blast of radiation. In essence, these are the axioms on which we build a working physical model of the world which is very precise indeed. And everything in that model has to be intellectually consistent to fit in. Therefore, suggesting that physicists simply handwave and say "quantum" when anything unexpected happens is just nonsense.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Does there have to be a reason for it?

                "I don't think you quite understand what science does and how it works"

                Thanks for the assessment, but I did a chemistry degree so I have a pretty good idea.

                "Of course at one level of explanation we don't know why we live in a quantised universe"

                Which is just paraphrasing my point really. Quantum phenomena have to be accepted as just-is. There is currently no explanation for why or how they occur.

                "Therefore, suggesting that physicists simply handwave and say "quantum" when anything unexpected happens is just nonsense."

                In the context of Causes of the Big Bang theories, handwaving speculation and chucking around the word "quantum" is exactly what happens.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  "but I did a chemistry degree so I have a pretty good idea"

                  I think therein lies your problem. Chemistry is at bottom the science of the behaviour of electrons that orbit atoms. It isn't really concerned with the more metaphysical questions that arise in fundamental physics.

                  One of my supervisors, a metallurgist, was of the view that it was a mistake for scientists to study metaphysics and the philosophical issues raised by quantum mechanics. He felt that asking too many questions along that line would stop someone being an effective working scientist. I do have sympathy with this viewpoint, because clearly if (in my case) you were investigating surface absorbtion of hydrogen in transition metal alloys, spending a lot of time thinking "When you get right down to it, what is an electron?", or "what exactly is the nature of experimentation and the status of theories?", wouldn't help. But since I ceased actual research, I've had time to investigate the more theoretical stuff and try to understand the grounding of physics. It turns out we have constructed a very effective model of the world based on a set of axioms which we are having trouble pushing down to a deeper level of explanation. But that goes for maths too.

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: "but I did a chemistry degree so I have a pretty good idea"

                    "I think therein lies your problem. Chemistry is at bottom the science of the behaviour of electrons that orbit atoms. It isn't really concerned with the more metaphysical questions that arise in fundamental physics."

                    One minute you're talking about the scientific method, next your handwaving about metaphysics. Goalposts moved, much? Oh, and if you're going to try and be patronising - try harder.

                    "based on a set of axioms which we are having trouble pushing down to a deeper level of explanation"

                    Which again is paraphrasing my point. For someone who claims to be so smart you do seem to have an awful lot of trouble understanding simple statements.

                    I imagine you have to be very careful walking down stairs in case you trip over that massive ego you're clearly carrying in front of you.

                2. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

                  Re: Does there have to be a reason for it?

                  Quantum phenomena have to be accepted as just-is. There is currently no explanation for why or how they occur.

                  Epistemological rubbish. Any "explanation for why or how" of any physical phenomenon is simply an appeal to a theory at another level of abstraction. This is farcically represented by the "purity argument", but as Anderson pointed out back in '72, there are unavoidable information-losing consequences in making such transitions.

                  Complaining that quantum theories (QED, QCD, whatever) do not answer "how" and "why" questions is simply a complaint that there is no commonly-accepted definition of a lower level of abstraction. And that's because the quantum theories as a body typically define their domain as going all the way down. There are no more turtles; you're at the last one.

                  If you want to make a meaningful argument that quantum physics lacks a "why or how", you're either going to have to define that next abstraction (to your interlocutors' satisfaction), or argue that we should operate under a different epistemological model. And good luck with that.

    2. Primus Secundus Tertius

      Re: Does there have to be a reason for it?

      @boltar

      Yes.

      The very early universe went through an "inflationary" phase, when everything was smoothed out: the geometry, and the distribution of photons and other particles.

      The reported temperature deviation is about four standard deviations, so is worth investigating.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Does there have to be a reason for it?

        "The very early universe went through an "inflationary" phase, when everything was smoothed out: the geometry, and the distribution of photons and other particles."

        Since the theory of inflation isn't looking as sure these days as it once was, using as a predictor perhaps isn't the best approach.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Next they will be saying that there is something special about

    the location of Juipter's spot, forgetting that ofc it is a moving chaotic anomally.

  11. David Pollard

    I don't understand this at all

    "The low mass helps explain the low observed temperature of the cold spot. Crossing the region, CMB photons lose energy ... Were the universe regular, those photons would recover energy from other mass exiting the region; the shortage of mass means the energy isn't recovered."

    Imagine a photon traveling from afar and crossing a region of the universe where the density is different from the average. If this was a region where density is locally higher than average, the photon's energy would increase as it approaches and then decrease back towards its original energy as it moves back into the overall average density; as it 'climbs out' of the gravitational well. So why don't photons approaching a region of lower density lose energy as they approach and then gain it back again when they move away; as in going over a gravitational hillock?

    1. Francis Boyle Silver badge

      That part of the article is very badly worded

      I assume the photons start to regain the lost energy once they pass the centre of the void. But by then 0.9 billion years have elapsed and the universe is less dense so they'll never recover it all. Hence the very slight cooling.

      1. David Pollard

        Yes, but

        Suppose there happened to be massive objects situated such that through gravitational lensing there were two (or more) paths available from wherever the photon started out in the distant past to a detector on Earth, one going through the less dense region the other(s) not. Depending on the path that the photon took, its energy would be different when it arrived.

        1. John G Imrie

          Re: Yes, but

          Doesn't Quantum Physics say it will take all paths, until you look at them.

          1. David Pollard

            Re: Yes, but

            "Take all paths" - That's the problem. How can the photon's energy have more than one value?

            Equally, how can the gravitational potential of a point in space be defined if it depends on which direction you choose to look?

  12. Wilseus

    What's a cold spot not?

    A hot spot!

    Seriously though, I was reading in other articles that the distance to this void is approximately 3 billion light years, yet as this article states, it's 1.8 billion light years across. With this in mind, I can't understand why it appears so small in the 360 degree image, I'd expect it to take up about half the sky!

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    That's actually the spot where the Universe's first intelligent life evolved, but many of the Galaxies were wiped out when their civilisation destroyed itself in a war. Hence the void. In a few milling years someone will be looking at the Local Group and saying "Shouldn't there have been a few more galaxies there?"

  14. Paul Hovnanian Silver badge

    We have found ...

    ... the universe's belly button.

    Or perhaps this is the drain that everything is circling.

  15. Gordon 10
    Alert

    A great void?

    Where's Flinx when you need him?

    BEWARE OF THE MINIDRAG ----->

  16. Cynic_999

    Is it really surprising?

    Throw a handful of rice onto a worktop, and you will most likely see several "holes" in the pattern where the grains are far less dense than in surrounding areas, as well as "bumps" where a small area is more densely populated. IIUC it would be an anomaly if such patterns did *not* occur in a random distribution.

  17. Mark 85

    Since what we see from earth is a mix of the history of the universe as far as time goes... the light we see from something 2 million light years away left there 2 million years ago... I'm puzzled by this. As they look deeper into space and find things like this void.. that's how it was, not how it is. Right? Can they extrapolate what "was" to what "is"? I'm trying to make some sense of this... A void 1.x billion light-years across means what they're seeing is a younger version on the farside than the nearside (to us). So..... what does it really all mean?

    Hmm..... I guess that's why I'm not an astronomer or a quantum theory type.

    1. Sweep

      "the light we see from something 2 million light years away left there 2 million years ago"

      not quite! That would only be true if the universe was static. It isn't. Your something is 2 million light years away. The light leaves on its way to us but will take more than 2 million years to reach us as the fabric of the universe itself is expanding as the light is travelling...headfuck, right?

  18. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

    And there was me...

    ...expecting a story about boffins finally discovering why mobile phone signal propagation doesn't match up to the marketing hype.

    So, it's a cold spot, not a hot spot and definitely not a nor spot. Although based on the details in the story it's not so much a cold spot as a very slightly more freezing humongous blemish than the normally fookin' freezing temperatures found in "average" spatial voids.

  19. Winkypop Silver badge
    Coat

    Galactic Homeopathy

    There's nothing in it.

    Boom Boom!

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like