Friday, August 24, 2007 | Science : Astronomy | print version

A hole lot of nothing found by astronomers

by AP, CNN

Thanks to Random Insanity for the link.

Story Highlights
- Astronomers find a mysterious hole in the universe
- They can't find anything -- no stars, no galaxies, no black holes, no dark matter
- Astronomer: "It could also be a statistical freak of nature"

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."

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Friday, August 24, 2007 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 81 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #65482 by DarwinsPitbull on August 24, 2007 at 12:53 pm

Maybe that giant hole is where god lives.

Other Comments by DarwinsPitbull

2. Comment #65484 by sane1 on August 24, 2007 at 12:58 pm

"It is 1 billion light years across of nothing. "

I think it actually IS god. The biggest nothing there ever was.

Other Comments by sane1

3. Comment #65488 by PaulJ on August 24, 2007 at 1:06 pm

The only explanation, Rudnick said, is it's empty of matter.

Maybe it's empty of time and space as well. A white hole.

Or... it's where a black hole used to be.

On the other hand, it could just be ET using a cloaking device....

Other Comments by PaulJ

4. Comment #65491 by Canuck#1 on August 24, 2007 at 1:11 pm

This is what happens when you go out for a smoke break...all empty space breaks loose....you're going to create a universe you have to keep at it...any more of this and we'll hire some one else to to do the creation....and there will be no letter of recommendation....

Other Comments by Canuck#1

5. Comment #65492 by steveroot on August 24, 2007 at 1:14 pm

Guys, PLEASE... stop! I've already wet my pants once today! ;-)
Steve

Other Comments by steveroot

6. Comment #65494 by sane1 on August 24, 2007 at 1:17 pm

"This is 1,000 times the volume of what we sort of expected to see in terms of a typical void"

They haven't met my ex-girlfriend.

Other Comments by sane1

7. Comment #65496 by Barbara on August 24, 2007 at 1:22 pm

Isn't it obvious? It's God's peep hole!

Other Comments by Barbara

8. Comment #65509 by Kakashi_monkey on August 24, 2007 at 2:04 pm

That's really wierd, such a huge void! I can't imagine what could cause it. It definitely isn't a huge cluster of back holes, or there would be matter being pulled in and lots of x-rays would come from the edges of the void. It seems like one of those things we can accept as true, but can't possibly explain right now, like the beginnings of the universe with the big bang and "what came before?"

Other Comments by Kakashi_monkey

9. Comment #65512 by Klaatu barada nikto on August 24, 2007 at 2:23 pm

Maybe there was intelligent life there and they REALLY pissed God off.

Other Comments by Klaatu barada nikto

10. Comment #65515 by Spinoza on August 24, 2007 at 2:33 pm

What do Astrophysicists mean when they say "Nothing"?

Yes, void of "matter"... but there's a big freaking space... surely there's "something" filling the space... otherwise there wouldn't be any space there.

I think...

So yeah, any astrophysicists in the house?...

Other Comments by Spinoza

11. Comment #65520 by Kakashi_monkey on August 24, 2007 at 2:50 pm

As I said, some things we simply can't explain. maybe we'll find out the mystery of this void, or if we're even reading it correctly. There could even be some new phenomenon we haven't discovered yet causing this.

Other Comments by Kakashi_monkey

12. Comment #65523 by steveroot on August 24, 2007 at 2:59 pm

11. Comment #65520 by Kakashi_monkey on August 24, 2007 at 2:50 pm
...There could even be some new phenomenon we haven't discovered yet causing this.

It's the Cosmic version of "The Neverending Story"!
Steve

Other Comments by steveroot

13. Comment #65525 by nancy2001 on August 24, 2007 at 3:13 pm

Maybe it's like the Monolith in 2001, artificially created to capture our attention.

Other Comments by nancy2001

14. Comment #65531 by ? on August 24, 2007 at 3:40 pm

Its where Limbo used to be before the Pope got rid of it:)

Other Comments by ?

15. Comment #65532 by mmurray on August 24, 2007 at 3:48 pm

What do Astrophysicists mean when they say "Nothing"?

Not sure what qualifies as empty. Certainly there could be a small amount of matter and we would be unable to see it or its effects. Small here would be by solar standards. I can't see why you couldn't put the earth in that void and not notice it from where we are. And of course light, gravity and other fields travel through it.

Yes, void of "matter"... but there's a big freaking space... surely there's "something" filling the space... otherwise there wouldn't be any space there.

Space doesn't need matter in it to make it exist.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

16. Comment #65548 by Friend Giskard on August 24, 2007 at 6:00 pm

MOONCHILD!

There. Fixed.

Other Comments by Friend Giskard

17. Comment #65552 by USA_Limey on August 24, 2007 at 7:05 pm

Fascinating.

I am not going to pretend I can really conceptualize this in my head. But what it says to me is that this is yet further evidence of just how little we really know about what's out there... or, ahem... not out there as the case may be.

That's some gap though eh? 'Insert God here' anyone?

Nah, I didn't think so.

__________________________________________________
Carousel is a lie! There is no renewal!

~ Logan

Other Comments by USA_Limey

18. Comment #65555 by prettygoodformonkeys on August 24, 2007 at 7:29 pm

The fact that there's anything at all is the anomaly; not really so weird to find nothing - in a universe where the sum of all energy is zero.

I think we have the floor, gentlemen!

Other Comments by prettygoodformonkeys

19. Comment #65561 by Canuck#1 on August 24, 2007 at 8:28 pm

Eureka....problem solved....god's blueprint for the brain of George Bush

Other Comments by Canuck#1

20. Comment #65566 by Cato on August 24, 2007 at 8:56 pm

Bah, light rays are passing through it, aren't they? That's not nothing.

Other Comments by Cato

21. Comment #65576 by Arcturus on August 25, 2007 at 12:17 am

Must be a very flat floor, should be taken as an etalon for flatness.

And don't forget than even the emptiest void is a soup of quantum fluctuations. "Nothing" doens't mean anything in this universe.

Other Comments by Arcturus

22. Comment #65587 by Topolino on August 25, 2007 at 2:03 am

Even the biggest nothing needs a name.

Please, let us call it "George W Bush!"!

Other Comments by Topolino

23. Comment #65589 by Guilty Secret on August 25, 2007 at 2:17 am

But one area of the universe had radio pictures indicating there was up to 45 percent less matter in that region.

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.

Doesn't this also suggest that one of these types of observation (or both) is somewhat less than accurate?

Other Comments by Guilty Secret

24. Comment #65614 by bluebird on August 25, 2007 at 6:04 am

Also:
http://www.brightsurf.com
********
A spoof site suggests a 'cosmic bowling ball' crashed thru this area. If thunder is 'God bowling', maybe...

Other Comments by bluebird

25. Comment #65625 by Kakashi_monkey on August 25, 2007 at 7:13 am

Ha ha, that's right, God is bowling there. Strike!!

Other Comments by Kakashi_monkey

26. Comment #65637 by Alter_GX on August 25, 2007 at 8:46 am

Well, it does fit the standard model of the universe. If there are denser patches that made the galaxies and a set amount of matter in the universe there had to be less dense patches.

All those pictures of the background radiation showed dark patches where less matter was, we just found one of those. A bit closer and bigger then we expected maybe, but the current theory said we'd find them.

Other Comments by Alter_GX

27. Comment #65638 by Rtambree on August 25, 2007 at 8:52 am

Let's leave this to the philosophers to sort out. Right up their alley. It should keep them busy for centuries.

Other Comments by Rtambree

28. Comment #65653 by RickM on August 25, 2007 at 11:14 am

I would press pause on this one. It needs confirmation.

Other Comments by RickM

29. Comment #65663 by Patchell on August 25, 2007 at 12:04 pm

This has to be a type III or maybe IV civilization on the Kardashev scale. Perhaps the galaxies are surrounded by large Dyson sphere's.

Other Comments by Patchell

30. Comment #65670 by Eamonn Shute on August 25, 2007 at 12:58 pm

So much for "Nature abhors a vacuum"!
I wonder who first said that - ah yes, now I remember - it was Spinoza! B-)

Other Comments by Eamonn Shute

31. Comment #65682 by The Schuermannator on August 25, 2007 at 2:29 pm

8. Comment #65509 by Kakashi_monkey on August 24, 2007 at 2:04 pm

That's really wierd, such a huge void! I can't imagine what could cause it. It definitely isn't a huge cluster of back holes, or there would be matter being pulled in and lots of x-rays would come from the edges of the void. It seems like one of those things we can accept as true, but can't possibly explain right now, like the beginnings of the universe with the big bang and "what came before?"

I'm not claiming to be a black hole expert, but I AM enrolling at UF in Jan as an astronomy major... I would like to argue that it's fairly possible that a huge cluster of blackholes that have existed long enough may have already pulled in all local matter. If I recall correctly, black holes' gravitational forces work relatively close range compared with other stellar bodies, otherwise wouldn't our solar system be quickly spiraling in towards the galactic core (super-massive black hole) of the Milky Way? Or perhaps we already are, and at an extremely slow rate.

Maybe the void is Heaven's septic tank, and they finally just came and emptied it for the first time since the Big Bang??

Other Comments by The Schuermannator

32. Comment #65690 by dhweaver on August 25, 2007 at 4:00 pm

You realize this finding allows for a whole new series of "your momma's so fat" jokes. I'll be the first idiot to do one."

Your momma's so fat, god had to make a billion light year hole for her to fit in heaven.

Other Comments by dhweaver

33. Comment #65695 by Blondin on August 25, 2007 at 6:12 pm

I propose we call it "the SFA Nebula".

Other Comments by Blondin

34. Comment #65697 by Dr Benway on August 25, 2007 at 6:25 pm

If you make a big batch of chocolate chip cookies, you can end up with a couple of cookies that have only one or two chips. Happens.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

35. Comment #65699 by Sittingduck on August 25, 2007 at 6:55 pm

There has to be some kind of matter there --- doesn't there? Im thinking maybe my car keys...I've looked everywhere else.

Other Comments by Sittingduck

36. Comment #65702 by windfall on August 25, 2007 at 7:48 pm

I'm not an astrophysicist either, but I don't think there's any new science here.

Regarding the 'there has to be something there' comments, uh, what do you think exists between here and the moon (besides some rocks and satellites)? It should be obvious on reflection that some space is empty. If it weren't then we'd live in a very different kind of universe. So this empty region is A LOT bigger than other ones, so what? Don't get me wrong, it's fascinating, but it's not that kind of mysterious.

They're not saying there's no space-time there, just no matter in it (or at least none we can presently detect).

Just my two cents...

Other Comments by windfall

37. Comment #65705 by Spinoza on August 25, 2007 at 10:21 pm

Nobody has yet answered my question properly... all I've gotten so far have been different configurations of the same obscurities... or things I already knew.

No space is empty if by empty you mean void of anything. That's just a logical point.

So what do astrophysicists mean by "empty space" or by "nothing"?

Other Comments by Spinoza

38. Comment #65712 by comicus on August 26, 2007 at 12:19 am

Call it 'The Shot Gun Effect'. In an explosion, you will get random patterns. Just take a look at a paper target shot by a shotgun from several meters away. You will find that some of the shot stays condense while clearly other parts of the target were missed.
With a universe made up of matter of different mass, the particles are going to travel at different speeds, some moving faster, leaving the other slower moving particles farther and farther behind, some staying together and yet others separating. Eventually, you have a very large void in some area's and in others you will have a dense concentration of matter.
The void indicates that there has not been any energy movement through this area. So without any energy signature, you will not find matter. in other words, the Big Bang's 'shot gun blast' simply missed this region.

Other Comments by comicus

39. Comment #65713 by epeeist on August 26, 2007 at 12:49 am

Comment #65525 by nancy2001 o

Maybe it's like the Monolith in 2001, artificially created to capture our attention.

It is artificially created, you are right. It has obviously been cleared to create a hyperspace bypass :-D

Other Comments by epeeist

40. Comment #65717 by JanChan on August 26, 2007 at 1:25 am

I'm disappointed with all of you, can't you even come up with a real speculation?

Perhaps the simplest explanation is that, it might simply be that for the first time in history we have stumbled upon anti-gravitational phenomenon that is only concentrated on a small part of the as yet known universe. Hence pushing away all matter in the vicinity, perhaps even speeding up EM waves, so that they bend outwards instead, making that spot seemingly "empty".

Ha! Take that, Newton!

Other Comments by JanChan

41. Comment #65727 by bluebird on August 26, 2007 at 5:09 am

Another poster mentioned 'Death by Black Hole', N.DeG.Tyson's new book.
Looks favorable & promising...

Other Comments by bluebird

42. Comment #65735 by Rational_G on August 26, 2007 at 7:51 am

Nothin's gonna change my world...
wah wah wah wah wah wah wah
Nothin's gonna change my world...

Other Comments by Rational_G

43. Comment #65750 by windfall on August 26, 2007 at 9:30 am

Richard Morgan, I can't quite make out whether you're agreeing with what I said or not. But just in case, let me briefly restate:

The data so far indicates that we've found a spot in space where there aren't any of the usual players (galaxies, stars, planets, gas, etc.). Many posters have asked (somewhat oddly I think) 'how can there be nothing there; there must be SOMETHING there'. I'm just pointing out the silliness of this comment. In our local spot in the universe, there are some planets, moons, stars, comets, asteroids and dust WITH SPACE IN BETWEEN. In the macro-world in which we live our everyday lives, nobody finds it necessary to reflect on the strangeness of this empty space, quantum field fluctuations notwithstanding.

That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying that this new discovery isn't unusual. It might even be something which we haven't yet encountered. But to regard this empty space as different from ordinary empty space, that seems unnecessary and almost naive.

Am I alone here (in this observation)?

Other Comments by windfall

44. Comment #65764 by wice on August 26, 2007 at 11:26 am

i'm sure that the universe is actually a four dimensional soap-bubble, and we live on it's three dimensional surface. so, this stuff must be the place where the bubble touches the four dimensional straw with which the giant four dimensional girl blows up the bubble. let's pray to her not to stop it for a while, at least not before the final episode of Lost is aired. it would be quite frustrating not to know how it ends, just because the universe ceased to exist.

Other Comments by wice

45. Comment #65765 by windfall on August 26, 2007 at 11:42 am

Richard Morgan: I think you just missed my point entirely. Ok, sure, be suspicious of phrases that begin that way, but don't you agree that people are generally making more of this than is warranted?

Use Occam's razor here. There isn't anything visible in that region of space. Three possibilities (at least): 1. There's no matter there. This is unusual, but not mysterious; 2. There is matter there, but we can't see it (e.g. dark matter, too small for the resolution of the telescope, etc.); 3. As yet undiscovered phenomenon, new to science. Which of these is the most likely? 3 is the least likely using Occam's Razor (which DOES NOT rule it out, it just makes it unlikely).

People are talking about empty space as though it's something unusual. I'm saying it's not.

Other Comments by windfall

46. Comment #65768 by windfall on August 26, 2007 at 11:48 am

By the way, the astronomers quoted in the story (and elsewhere) are on my side. They're simply surprised to see so much empty space. They're not theorizing about the meaning of 'voids' and 'holes' and 'nothing', except to the extent that there is just no matter there:

"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."

The term 'hole' here is misleading. It doesn't mean a tear in the fabric of space-time, it just means no matter there. That is not mysterious.

Other Comments by windfall

47. Comment #65776 by A on August 26, 2007 at 1:25 pm

Richard Morgan, you sir, are an idiot ! :)

I have just read through your discussion with windfall, he is making a simple and arguable point, you seem only to want to argue against the person and do not challenge his point at all.

Laughable.

Other Comments by A

48. Comment #65778 by windfall on August 26, 2007 at 1:42 pm

Richard Morgan, possibly we're not on the same wavelength as you say. I'm trying to find out.

You seem to be objecting to the way I phrase things and not to the content of my argument.

What I said in my first post was: 'It should be obvious on reflection that some space is empty.' I was clearly saying 'empty of matter'. This is a regular, ordinary observation, which I daresay doesn't need to be backed up by data.

What's so controversial about this? If I said 'It should be obvious on reflection that the sky is blue,' would you come back with: 'according to which criteria?, "obvious" - to whom? using which data, and which reasoning processes?'. I certainly hope not. And it wouldn't be a tinge unscientific to not question this fact. Your objections sound a bit post-modernist. I'm absolutely not trying to label you that way. But, is that your angle?

I think you automatically dove into a pile of assumptions of things I was not claiming at all. You seem all too eager to read something into this discovery, which I think is unwarranted.

My initial comment stands that space simply devoid of matter is not mysterious, and that some people on this post don't seem to get that.

Is this a controversial statement on your wavelength, or have we really been in agreement all along, but you just jumped to a conclusion too early.

Does anyone else in here agree with me on this?

Other Comments by windfall

49. Comment #65779 by windfall on August 26, 2007 at 1:44 pm

Thank you, A. I thought I was lost in the twilight zone for a little while there. :)

Other Comments by windfall

50. Comment #65782 by windfall on August 26, 2007 at 2:09 pm

Richard Morgan, I refuse to edit my post after a reasonable amount of time has passed, so I'll admit that my question about your possible post-modernist bent was off-target. What I really had in mind was a kind of zealous, hair-trigger pedant. Someone who instantly derails an argument by demanding evidence for every claim, even the banal, if they sense any possible disagreement with their own view.

By the way, I say all this in the spirit of friendly debate, so, nothing personal.

Other Comments by windfall