[HN Gopher] Astronomers 'image' a mysterious dark object in the ...
___________________________________________________________________
Astronomers 'image' a mysterious dark object in the distant
Universe
Author : b2ccb2
Score : 182 points
Date : 2025-10-14 14:45 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.mpg.de)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.mpg.de)
| orliesaurus wrote:
| a far away civilization probably draining energy from the
| emptiness of space to power some AI datacenters /s
| jsbisviewtiful wrote:
| Those gen AI images of cats playing poker won't create their
| own energy, you know T_T
| excalibur wrote:
| It's our descendants. They had to travel back in time to escape
| entropy and find sufficient quantities of energy to sustain
| them, which is why they're 10 billion light years away.
| DaveZale wrote:
| also, they didn't like what the future looked like
| baggachipz wrote:
| They're blaming Tylenol?! That's it, we're out of here.
| delichon wrote:
| That would be about 2.5 on the Kardashev scale, and in terms of
| heat, between Kim and Khloe on the Kardashian scale.
| _joel wrote:
| Is that from the sci-fi novel "Dyson Fear" :)
| Zigurd wrote:
| That vacuum is scary. Scary overpriced.
| blackhaj7 wrote:
| Haha, superb
| daxfohl wrote:
| AI to the edge meant they had to port CUDA to a JS framework.
| alansaber wrote:
| I look forwards to the python tutorial for building gpt-2 with
| string theory
| DonHopkins wrote:
| That is literally the plot of the game Dyson Sphere Program.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_XqHWx-v_Y
| jagged-chisel wrote:
| Is this the first time this article author has seen "image" used
| like this? We image human anatomy the same way - sophisticated
| algorithms take the output of CT, ultrasound, MRI and build
| something we can interpret visually.
| momoschili wrote:
| why would you get that impression?
| nonethewiser wrote:
| my read on it.
|
| - the quotes around image in the title
|
| - the commenter believes image is the correct word in a more
| literal sense
| jagged-chisel wrote:
| It is also in quotes in one of the image captions
| staplers wrote:
| the lowest mass dark object currently measured one
| million times the mass of the Sun
|
| Sometimes you read things that remind you how vast and untamable
| our universe really is.
| catigula wrote:
| If you think that's crazy, it's likely a drop in the bucket
| comared to the noumenonal world.
|
| There's no reason to think that our senses encompass the vast
| majority of understanding everything in reality and current
| evidence that they, in fact, do not, via dark matter as a
| primary source.
|
| I suspect our senses encompass a meaningless fraction of the
| noumenon.
| procflora wrote:
| In what way is dark matter not a phenomenon? Just because we
| don't know what it is doesn't make it a noumenon.
| catigula wrote:
| It's that it demonstrates that some sort of noumenon can
| likely have partial but not 'full' overlap as we understand
| it with a phenomenon.
|
| To elaborate, the noumenon can have properties that are
| unknown to us and outside the purview of certain senses (if
| not all) but still have partial phenomenal effects such as
| gravitational effects.
|
| Given partial overlap, we could, and likely should, surmise
| that overlap, if partial, can also be zero. In fact,
| partial overlap with certain things (such as the
| gravitational field) but no sensory experience is exactly
| what we'd predict if this were true.
|
| The mistake is thinking I'm asserting that things are
| phenomenon or noumenon when that's not quite right. Mostly,
| the supposition is that things can exist and have either
| 'full' (unlikely I think), partial, or zero overlap with
| our sensory experience. Things that demonstrably have
| partial overlap suggest a wider world of things. I simply
| find the idea that our evolved sensory experience encompass
| even a sizable fraction of reality to lack epistemic
| humility.
|
| This is obviously speculative.
| throwway120385 wrote:
| A good example of this would be the scope of our sense of
| sight as it relates to the entire electromagnetic
| spectrum. We can't see things like UV or Gamma radiation,
| we can only infer their existence by their effect on
| things we can see. The reality is that those phenomena
| might not actually exist in any perceivable way. The only
| thing we know, strictly speaking, is that the effect
| happens, and we have a plausible mental model for why the
| effect happens that predicted other effects that we also
| observe. But we can't prove that the mental model _is_
| reality.
|
| This is at the heart of the Allegory of The Cave:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave. What
| we're discussing is a kind of "Natural Philosophy" or
| Physics, the study of that which is.
| _joel wrote:
| Yep, this still blows my mind, has a radius of 330 million
| light years, of, er, nothing (well 60 galaxies compared to what
| should be several thousand).
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bo%C3%B6tes_Void
| bobmcnamara wrote:
| sssh, that's where we store the hammers
| GuB-42 wrote:
| I think there is a shortcut being taken here.
|
| We are surrounded by dark objects, a rock is a dark object,
| exoplanets are dark objects, and so are black holes. Pretty
| much everything but stars are dark objects. They are all dark
| because they don't emit light.
|
| Here, I think they mean stuff (whatever it is) that can only be
| detected by gravitational lensing, and it makes sense that it
| has to be extremely heavy, because gravity is so weak.
| RogerL wrote:
| I'm not a physicist but every definition of dark matter that
| I read says it does not interact with electromagnetic
| radiation hence it is invisible, and rocks are not that dark
| matter (wiki. NASA, etc)
| lutusp wrote:
| > ... every definition of dark matter that I read says it
| does not interact with electromagnetic radiation ...
|
| Actually, dark matter does interact with electromagnetic
| radiation -- it can deflect it, as in the case of
| gravitational lensing. But dark matter doesn't either emit
| nor absorb electromagnetic radiation directly.
|
| We only know about dark matter because of its gravitational
| effects.
| GuB-42 wrote:
| How about stellar mass black holes?
|
| They are much lighter than 1 million solar masses and we
| know a few of them, with a variety of ways to detect
| them, including companion stars orbiting around them and
| gravitational waves during mergers.
|
| Black holes fit the definition of dark matter, as they
| neither emit nor absorb electromagnetic radiation, not in
| a way that could be detected anyways. This is the "MACHO"
| theory of dark matter, which is not the favorite, but it
| is still taken seriously. Stellar mass black holes have
| been ruled out, I think, but it doesn't mean dark matter
| can't be made of black holes. In fact, primordial black
| holes are a rather hot theory.
| seanw444 wrote:
| So how do we know that these "dark matter objects" aren't
| actually just massive collections of normal matter that is
| dim enough and at such a far distance that it would appear
| (angular resolution-wise) to be invisible, but we can still
| detect the lensing?
| ianburrell wrote:
| There are a few reasons. It would be visible when
| backlit. Gravitational lensing detection limits the size
| so it can't planets (MACHOs). The CMB shows that only
| sixth of matter interacts with other matter, the rest is
| only interacts gravitationally.
| mr_toad wrote:
| > just massive collections of normal matter
|
| Normal matter in the universe is mostly hydrogen, which
| should coalesce to form stars, which give off light. The
| lack of light compared to the estimated mass is precisely
| the paradox.
| lawlessone wrote:
| yeah all those other things absorb light so they can be
| detected by the light they block and the infrared light the
| re-emit.
|
| Dark matter seems more ghostly , like gravitational shadow of
| matter
| sixo wrote:
| Can someone knowledgeable weigh in: is the "dark object" here
| believed to be a localized blob of dark matter? A dark star or
| black hole? Or is "dark" being used generally to mean "not bright
| enough to see at this distance"?
| bbarnett wrote:
| Or a cloaked ship?
| gclawes wrote:
| EXCESSION
| sixo wrote:
| If so it's a big one, 1M solar masses.
| layer8 wrote:
| That's just how warp drives happen to appear from the
| outside.
| preisschild wrote:
| ... and its heading right for us :P
| alansaber wrote:
| They found a statistical anomaly that they're trying to
| atrribute to new physics, using some novel maths. So a tiny
| speck of evidence towards a new theory of matter (i know
| nothing about astro, just my supposition)
| momoschili wrote:
| Dark in the context of astrophysics means specifically that the
| object/matter does not interact directly with electromagnetic
| radiation (eg absorb an optical/microwave/radio photon). So it
| is probably dark matter, but probably unlikely to be a black
| hole because we can typically detect a black hole's effects in
| an indirect manner :P
| bbor wrote:
| I'm an amateur but I feel confident enough to answer --
| hopefully not a mistake!
|
| They're explicitly looking for "Dark Matter", which doesn't
| "interact" with normal ("baryonic") matter or electromagnetic
| radiation (e.g. light). So it's not a black hole for sure, as
| those are composed of regular ol' matter.
|
| RE:"dark star", that's really up in the air, I'd say! AFAICT
| the only academic reference to that term is for normal stars
| _influenced by_ dark matter[1], but kinda the whole problem
| here is that we don 't know much about what dark matter is
| composed of _or_ into. Certainly it 's not going to be a star
| in the traditional sense as it can't emit light, but I'm not
| aware of any reason this object can't end up being a giant
| sphere.
|
| FWIW, Wikipedia says "One of the most massive stars known is
| Eta Carinae, with 100-200 [solar masses]", whereas this object
| "has a mass that is a million times greater than that of our
| Sun". If we're going to use metaphors, I think "dark dwarf
| galaxy" might be more appropriate?
|
| [1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1004.1258
| bongodongobob wrote:
| 100-200 solar masses is not one of the largest known. There
| are many that are 1000s of times more massive than the sun.
| shagie wrote:
| I'm unaware of any stars in the 1000 Msun range. Wikipedia
| puts 291 Msun of R136a1 at the largest. After that, 195 M
| of R136a2 is the next. A star at 100 Msun would be in the
| most massive stars known.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_massive_stars#Li
| s...
| mr_toad wrote:
| " A number of the "stars" listed below may actually be
| two or more companions orbiting too closely for our
| telescopes to distinguish, each star possibly being
| massive in itself but not necessarily "supermassive" to
| either be on this list, or near the top of it. "
|
| " More globally, statistics on stellar populations seem
| to indicate that the upper mass limit is in the
| 120-solar-mass range,[1] so any mass estimate above this
| range is suspect. "
|
| There are good theoretical reasons why a star shouldn't
| normally get as big as the ones on the top of the list.
| Long story short: they'd very quickly shed mass due to
| their intense luminosity. Some of them might even be
| boiling with bubbles of pure radiation.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddington_luminosity
|
| Beyond that, there's also the possibility of pair-
| instability supernova, which might cause the most massive
| stars to literally disintegrate.
| baconbrand wrote:
| This confused me too from all those solar object size
| comparisons I've seen. Turns out there are stars that are
| 1000s of times bigger than the sun, but they aren't the
| same density.
| t8sr wrote:
| (I'm an astrophysics undergrad.) Black holes aren't composed
| of anything, they're just defined by their charge, spin and
| mass equivalent.
|
| Dust clouds have those mass ranges. It's not a galaxy-scale
| mass by any measure.
|
| This thread has a lot of CS people being confident about
| physics.
| evanb wrote:
| I was always surprised that when we talk about BHs mass,
| charge, and spin that we really mean U(1) (electromagnetic)
| gauge charge and not charges from global symmetries. (If
| BHs had global charge, you could at least say that this or
| that black hole was made out of N baryons, or whatever.)
|
| But it's really so---according to GR, black holes don't
| have global charges. So even if you see a star made out of
| baryons collapse into a black hole, once the BH settles
| down into a steady state you can't say it's "really" got
| baryons inside: the baryon number gets destroyed.
|
| (Of course, a different model of gravity that preserves
| unitarity might upset this understanding.)
| daxfohl wrote:
| And that a BH made from matter and one made from
| antimatter are mathematically identical, and merging them
| would not cause any explosion.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| Thanks! That made me (superficially of course) understand
| it. Super weird stuff.
| 9991 wrote:
| Welcome to Hacker News.
| bbor wrote:
| I mean, I included a disclaimer... But regardless, you
| appear to be wrong on both counts (or at least
| contradicting Wikipedia):
|
| 1. "The presence of a black hole can be inferred through
| its interaction with _OTHER MATTER_ and with
| electromagnetic radiation such as visible light. "
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole
|
| 2. "A dwarf galaxy is a small galaxy composed of _ABOUT
| 1000_ up to several billion stars "
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarf_galaxy
|
| Darn astrophysics majors being confident about astronomy!
| ;)
| tremon wrote:
| _which doesn 't "interact" with normal ("baryonic") matter_
|
| I think you mean it doesn't interact electromagnetically with
| either matter or radiation. It does interact with normal
| matter via gravity -- that's pretty much the strongest
| (only?) argument for its existence.
|
| _I 'm not aware of any reason this object can't end up being
| a giant sphere_
|
| AIUI, most theories posit that solid spheres of dark matter
| are very unlikely because matter accretion is governed by
| electromagnetism in addition to gravity, and dark matter is
| not supposed to obey the former. Most models assume that dark
| matter is organized in gaseous clouds (halos); strictly
| speaking that's still a giant sphere, just not in the same
| way that Jupiter or the Sun or even the Oort Cloud is.
| t8sr wrote:
| Definitionally, yes. It's inert but lenses light around it.
|
| The paper is more about the technical achievement of detecting
| it, IIUC. It's not the first dark matter inference we've had,
| and doesn't really tell us anything new about the stuff.
| daxfohl wrote:
| It challenges warm dark matter and ultralight dark matter
| theories because they'd be less likely to clump into
| something so small. Similarly MOND would have trouble
| explaining a completely isolated chunk of it at this size
| (any baryonic matter trapped in a region this small would
| almost certainly emit enough light to detect).
| t8sr wrote:
| I'm admittedly a few years out of date in this, but weren't
| those already kinda ruled out? I've never met anyone who
| took MOND seriously - it looks like it's a pet project of a
| small number of people who cite each other, and people in
| different subfields have always been saying it doesn't work
| for them (diffuse galaxies, etc.).
|
| I know the current models favor cold DM, I thought the hot
| DM model was abandoned already when it became clear that
| clusters of any size exist?
| burnerRhodov2 wrote:
| In this context, "dark object" really does mean a localized
| blob of dark matter, not a black hole or a dim, normal-matter
| object.
|
| The research team detected it only through its gravitational
| lensing effect -- the way it slightly distorted the light from
| a more distant galaxy. There's no emission at any wavelength
| (optical, infrared, or radio), and its gravitational signature
| matches a million-solar-mass clump of invisible mass rather
| than a compact point source like a black hole.
|
| They specifically interpret it as a dark matter subhalo -- one
| of the small, dense lumps that simulations of "cold dark
| matter" predict should pepper the universe's larger halos. It's
| too massive to be a single star, far too diffuse to be a
| stellar remnant, and not luminous enough to be a faint galaxy.
|
| So "dark" here isn't just shorthand for "too dim to see at this
| distance" -- it's used in the literal physical sense: matter
| that doesn't emit or absorb light at all, detectable only via
| gravity.
|
| Eventually, all the dark matter clumps into rings around
| galaxies, but since this one is so distant, ~10B light years,
| so we are seeing that clump as it was that long ago before it
| difused into it's ring shape we can see in the galaxies around
| us.
| hermitcrab wrote:
| Why does dark matter form halos/rings around galaxies. Why
| isn't it attracted to the centre of the galaxy like 'normal'
| matter?
| devmor wrote:
| I believe that you have the order of operations
| misunderstood.
|
| I probably don't know that much more than you about the
| subject, but from what I understand, the prevailing model
| suggests that these Halos formed early in the formation of
| the universe when spacetime had varying "pockets" of
| density that naturally led to these halos - the formation
| of the galactic disk therein was actually supported by the
| halo existing first, because baryonic matter (aka non-dark
| matter, the stuff that makes up planets, stars, etc) was
| still too energetic from the formation of the universe to
| become gravitationally bound to itself.
| hermitcrab wrote:
| Does the dark matter not move under the influence of
| gravity like 'normal' matter?
| devmor wrote:
| At this point my knowledge probably pales in comparison
| to skimming some Wikipedia articles, but my understanding
| is that there is just so much dark matter concentrated in
| these halos and inter-galactic structures of it that the
| gravitational effects of baryonic matter are negligible
| in comparison.
|
| I believe dark matter comprises something like 80-85% of
| all matter in the universe.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| It is attracted to the center of the galaxy.
|
| Normal matter also makes halos or rings around the center
| of the galaxy. That's how gravity works. And since dark
| matter interacts less, it stays more spread.
| hermitcrab wrote:
| Halo implies empty (or low density) at the center. The
| 'normal' matter is denser at the center of a galaxy. I'm
| trying to understand why the difference.
|
| >since dark matter interacts less
|
| With electromagnetism or gravity?
| hermitcrab wrote:
| Did a bit more reading. I was thinking of a halo like an
| angel's halo, a disk with greater density near the edge
| and less at the center. But it seems that dark matter
| halos are roughly spherical with greatest sensity near
| the centre. In which case halo seems like a pretty poor
| name.
| layer8 wrote:
| From the paper, it could be the dark-matter halo of an
| otherwise too faint dwarf galaxy. They state that a "more
| definitive statement on what type of object [it] is will
| require deep optical/infrared observations to detect any
| potential EM emission".
| tiffanyh wrote:
| Related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45538113
| layer8 wrote:
| Actual paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-025-02651-2
|
| From the abstract: "This is the lowest-mass object known to us,
| by two orders of magnitude, to be detected at a cosmological
| distance by its gravitational effect. This work demonstrates the
| observational feasibility of using gravitational imaging to probe
| the million-solar-mass regime far beyond our local Universe."
| blamestross wrote:
| And when you are trying out a new imaging method, the selection
| bias for "long tail weird stuff" that shows up is pretty high.
|
| Assuming this is repeatable, it will take a while to
| contextualize.
| geniium wrote:
| Probably a small bug in the matrix
| deadbabe wrote:
| It's nothing, mostly empty space.
| baconbrand wrote:
| I have nothing but admiration for people who can study space and
| not melt down into a permanent existential crisis.
|
| This is cool as heck, and now I'm going to go back to my computer
| job and try not to think about how ridiculously tiny and fragile
| my little life is.
| HPsquared wrote:
| Conversely, people who study microscopic phenomena might end up
| with gigantic inflated egos. "Lord of the atoms"
| dgfl wrote:
| It's our job. It's mundane. It's only cool again when you
| step back for these kind of publications, or when you go to a
| conference and you see a bunch of adjacent (and importantly,
| completed) work. 99% of the time we look at a screen / piece
| of paper / whiteboard.
| somenameforme wrote:
| Another fun one. The Cosmic Calendar. [1] Imagine breaking down
| the history of the universe into a single year. It really
| offers some amazing perspective on the length of life, and what
| it means.
|
| [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ln8UwPd1z20
| VTimofeenko wrote:
| I wonder if it's similar to how mefical doctors feel about
| their jobs. It's gotta turn into a bit of a routine, otherwise
| they will just spend time in that existential crisis and not
| get anything done.
|
| > This is cool as heck, and now I'm going to go back to my
| computer job and try not to think about how ridiculously tiny
| and fragile my little life is.
|
| There could be an alternative take here: we really lucked out
| that life as we know it exists at all. So we kinda won the
| lottery already.
| kakacik wrote:
| Some form of life is probably quite common given the scale of
| entire universe, amino acids could be found in space for
| example coming from pre-solar times. If you understand what I
| just wrote you have to accept above as fact.
|
| Now there are fuck tonne of filters we passed so far, may
| very well fail on next one (probably self-destruction), and
| we are lucky with so far stable good place for life. Given
| there are billions of trillions of planets, no way we are on
| the very top of that ridiculous number.
|
| We may be one of the earlier civs but no way we are first
| neither. But how we would recognize a civilization that has
| say just a _1 billion years_ headstart? Dyson spheres are for
| fools ignoring dark forest stuff, not something really smart
| cautious beings would do. Matter holds enormous amount of
| energy, and there are other ways to extract it in a less
| obvious ways, ie black holes or probably some other ways.
|
| Look at it this way - we are maybe building a small baby
| steps for one of big civilizations of universe. Still
| extremely primitive in all possible ways while arrogant
| enough to mostly not see it, but there is potential for true
| greatness. Otherwise we will perish, I dont see anything in
| between.
| gigatexal wrote:
| Same. As soon as I really let myself consider how vast, empty,
| desolate empty space is and then imagine myself floating in it
| with no reference and unable to tell if I am up or down or
| going anywhere ... I get all sorts of dread.
|
| That being said... I'd love to if I were terminally ill yet
| capable enough to understand what was happening -- to be yeeted
| into a super super massive blackhole that was not feeding such
| that I would not be torn to shreds or vaporized by the
| accretion disk and ultimately understand what lies at the
| center of my now time horizon...
| butlike wrote:
| You're in good company with the atoms in your fingernail, I'm
| sure :)
| WaxProlix wrote:
| Tidal forces would still shred and disfigured you
| horrifically well before the event horizon. The term is
| literally 'spagghetification'
| pixl97 wrote:
| Depends on the size of the black hole. Small black holes,
| yes you get shredded. Supermassive black holes maybe not.
| Of course the rotation of the black hole may have a
| different idea about that.
| gigatexal wrote:
| exactly. I am thinking hyper massive -- super duper
| massive ones where I could ostensibly be falling for
| minutes? days? towards the end of time... what bliss
| pseudosavant wrote:
| Same. The scales that the universe operates on (distance, time,
| mass/energy, etc) make the human experience so infinitely small
| as to be nearly nothing. Yet, here we are. Pondering our own
| existence.
| dylan604 wrote:
| It's actually one of the things I enjoy about it. It is a
| reminder of just how unimportant we actually are. All of the
| rat races and stress and worry we endure and/or put ourselves
| through is ultimately for nothing. Since it doesn't matter
| anyways, might as well live it in the most free and self
| fulfilling way one can.
| hnuser123456 wrote:
| Yep. Plus, with the Rubin telescope online, we have a pretty
| high resolution and high frequency scan of the solar system
| where we could detect anything that could hurt us pretty far
| out, probably even wandering black holes.
| smokel wrote:
| Whether something is important or unimportant is something
| that only humans, and possibly some animals, and possibly
| some AI, can reason about. Most of the universe does not
| reason, and does not think that things are important or not.
|
| Importance is a local concept, and it can be quite relevant
| locally.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Fine. s/important/significant/ or any other word you feel
| befitting.
| alcover wrote:
| I agree so much. For all we know yet, there's nothing out
| there. Nothing conscious or even sentient. So our lives and
| the life on earth are infinitely important.
|
| I never understood this `we're but a speck`. Do you know of
| many other specks with life ?
| objektif wrote:
| How does existence of life outside Earth (or lack of it)
| change importance of our life in the grand scheme of
| things?
| spoiler wrote:
| This attitude is referred to as optimistic nihilism, if
| anyone wants to look more into it.
|
| I've been trying to adopt this mindset myself in recent
| years.
|
| It's helped me "cope" and accept certain things about my
| life. It's not how my mind developed initially, so it doesn't
| come naturally to me and I sometimes fall into old habits.
| So, sometimes I need to remind myself to practice it.
|
| Anyway, thanks for the reminder! :)
| Keyframe wrote:
| It kind of became a daily obsession of mine recently, the
| question being - how can we NOT study space and what's around
| us as almost the main thing? I kind of regret not going that
| direction when I was in my 20s.
| malux85 wrote:
| If something that is true scares you, you should think about it
| and look at it, in little bits, until it doesn't.
|
| Accept your fragility, be grateful for what the universe gives
| you, be humble about your limits and faults, and spread
| happiness, joy and love to the other fragile, limited beings
| around you. There's your cure for existential dread.
| cvoss wrote:
| In some sense, our small size with respect to astronomical-
| scale processes does not make us all that fragile, because we
| are also very _short-lived_ with respect to these things.
|
| Afraid of the impending collision of Andromeda with the Milky
| Way? Not to worry. Life as we know will be gone by then. Huge
| processes like galactic mergers are "in slow motion" relative
| to our every day processes due to light speed bounds. The time
| they take to occur is enormous because the distances involved
| are enormous. In a cool way, the presence and influence of an
| astronomical object is just as insignificant to our processes
| as the presence and influence of one electron, and for the same
| reason: enormous difference of scale. The big stuff is no more
| scary than the small stuff.
| XorNot wrote:
| Reminds me of my favorite writing prompt that was so good it
| was it's own story too:
|
| "It's been publicly confirmed that our galaxy is within the
| open maw of a massive galaxy-eating beast. The beast can't
| move faster than light, so it'll take hundreds of millions of
| years for it to finally bite down. This is something that
| humans will just have to live with"
|
| (I don't think you can actually tell a good story with this,
| it's a background detail you would put in some other story).
| hearsathought wrote:
| Not a "distant universe" but our universe distant in time ( aka
| our universe in the past when it was younger ).
|
| The title reads like astronomers found a mysterious dark object
| in another universe. Like a distant solar system or a distant
| galaxy.
|
| Or am I misunderstanding the findings here?
| aethrum wrote:
| no it doesn't
| cellular wrote:
| What are the white blocky pixels in the picture?
|
| Why are they there?
| womitt wrote:
| The big intergalactic 220V plug
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-10-14 23:00 UTC)