
Space is full of dirty, toxic grease, scientists reveal - oedmarap
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/jun/27/space-is-full-of-dirty-toxic-grease-scientists-reveal
======
BugsJustFindMe
Could someone here explain briefly (or point me somewhere) the basic process
through which someone is able to look at the sky and reliably say "there is
grease floating out there umpty billion miles away"? I understand things like
spectral emissions showing particular atomic elements, but does that extend to
complex molecules too?

~~~
projektfu
So, according to the abstract, this is looking at the absorbtion of a
particular infrared band (3.4um). This band is presumably associated with the
carbon-hydrogen bond, but I'm rusty on my IR spectroscopy so don't take my
word on it. It's already known that there is attenuation of this band
correlated with distance to a star, so they created molecules in the lab that
mimic the absorbtion. This tells them how many molecules are needed to produce
a particular amount of attenuation. From this, they can estimate the mass of a
column between the Earth and a star, and extrapolate that to the Galaxy.

~~~
tenaciousDaniel
Science is miraculous. I couldn't even imagine being able to figure that shit
out.

~~~
anonymousab
Almost everything is built on the work of those that came before.

The way projectfu describes it shows a clever but clear line of problem
solving from 'we have x and we know y, how do we figure out z'.

Still miraculous, of course.

I think it's inspiring to see that it's not too different the fundamental
problem solving process that many of us use in our daily lives.

~~~
nerdponx
Also don't forget that these scientists are deeply immersed in their fields.
Every single one of them has been through a PhD program and is an expert in
some domain, likely a narrow one. When you are that good at something, even
your shower thoughts (and especially your shower thoughts) will be
scientifically productive.

~~~
stronglikedan
We joke at my company that our contractors must charge us for thinking about
our problems in the shower, but I must admit that I sympathize and wouldn't
blame them if they did.

------
otoburb
I was trying to figure out why this material might be toxic, and the article
explains nicely:

"Until now there has been uncertainty over how much carbon is drifting between
the stars. About half is expected to be found in its pure form. The rest is
chemically bound with hydrogen in either a grease-like form, known as
aliphatic carbon, or as a gaseous version of _naphthalene, the main chemical
component of mothballs_."

~~~
maushu
What a cruel universe for moths.

~~~
_Codemonkeyism
Thanks, made my day, fell from my chair.

~~~
_Codemonkeyism
I understand clutter etc. but downvotes for a "Thanks?" to prevent future
"Thanks?" \- wow.

~~~
kbutler
I upped the thanks, downed the talking about downvotes.

Of course, this is also talking about downvotes, so...

~~~
_Codemonkeyism
Thanks ;-)

~~~
hutzlibu
Ah ... it is friday today, I see...

------
cabaalis
The Songs of Distant Earth by Arthur C Clarke makes it a large plot point that
any vessel traveling through the stars would need some kind of "windshield" as
mentioned in the article. His idea for implementing it seems as good as any to
my layman imagination!

~~~
jdwithit
This is also the function of the "deflector" on ships in Star Trek. The idea
being that when you're traveling that fast, even the tiniest debris will ruin
your day, so you need something to push it out of the way.

~~~
krapp
Interestingly, this would apparently be a problem with Alcubierre drives from
what I've read. The bubbles of spacetime around a ship would wind up
"collecting" stray particles as it travels, then releasing them in a massive
energetic burst when the bubble popped, probably annihilating anything in its
path.

I've sort of decided one of the possible solutions for gamma ray bursts is
just starships exiting to realspace.

~~~
jacobush
Could be a feature, depending on circumstances. :-)

What would happen to radio transmissions from an Alcubierre drive fitted space
ship while in transit?

~~~
krapp
>What would happen to radio transmissions from an Alcubierre drive fitted
space ship while in transit?

I'm not an expert on the physics involved, but I imagine they would probably
just get reflected back as Hawking radiation or something.

The point of the bubble is to separate an object entirely from our own
universe, because while there is a limit to information travelling at the
speed of light, and relativity makes it impossible for an object with mass to
approach lightspeed, there are no such limitations on spacetime moving through
spacetime.

If anything can cross the threshold and get into or out of the bubble in
transit, then there is some degree of quantum entanglement and information
transfer and it still counts as a "thing" in our universe, so I would assume
the trick only works if the bubble is essentially a black box.

speculatory edit: this also seems to suggest that a ship in an Alcubierre
bubble would be blind and unable to actually _steer._ I don't know if the
bubble itself would decay (possible due to collisions with interstellar matter
or some inherent instability) or would have to be collapsed from the outside.
If the latter, then you need an existing infrastructure of stargate-like
things already in place (either moved by conventional means or constructed)
and just have to hope they're working and where you're aiming when you set
off. There might be models that overcome these issues, I don't know.

If it turns out that Alcubierre drives are the only viable means of FTL, then
one possible solution to the Fermi Paradox might lie in the complications
inherent to using them - the civilizations that survive tend to be the ones
that don't progress beyond simple rockets and radio telescopes, and FTL
civilizations are still limited to expansion at below relativistic speeds, and
even then the inherent complexity and risk means FTL travel isn't likely to be
common.

~~~
naravara
>this also seems to suggest that a ship in an Alcubierre bubble would be blind
and unable to actually steer. I don't know if the bubble itself would decay
(possible due to collisions with interstellar matter or some inherent
instability) or would have to be collapsed from the outside. If the latter,
then you need an existing infrastructure of stargate-like things already in
place (either moved by conventional means or constructed) and just have to
hope they're working and where you're aiming when you set off.

I'm not sure even having stargates/mass relays would be enough if the bit
about collected stray particles turning into omni-directional death-rays upon
exiting the bubble is true. You'd need to somehow actually carve a clear path
in space-time between any two points.

Alternatively, you might be able to create some sort of limiter and only do
"short" hops that limit how much energy gets ejected upon exiting. If you're
building up energy inside the bubble though, wouldn't it be putting some kind
of strain or pressure on whatever has to maintain the bubble? Seems like that
alone would create an upper limit on how much you can "charge" it up.

~~~
krapp
If I were writing this for a fictional setting, I would probably say that the
bubbles act a bit like black holes, and decay over time. So the field's
durability (and relative speed) is a function of the power used to create the
field and apply the initial impulse to it.

And since heat and radiation may be factors inside the field, available
shielding might also be a limiting factor.

And then I would solve the particle problem by saying the field somehow
converts real particles into virtual particles and then put bars on my windows
to protect against the bricks thrown by physicists ;)

------
CPLX
Interesting substitution of "full of" for "has trace amounts of" but I guess
on this topic everything is contextual right.

~~~
pyre
I'm thinking it has more to do with spread than concentration. Trace amounts
distributed over the entire universe, vs trace amounts in a localized area.

------
JoshTko
I wonder if this is a factor limiting interstellar travel. Where spaceships
are not able to approach light speed because they will quickly accumulate a
ton of space grease.

~~~
tenaciousDaniel
grease is slippery so what if it helps them move faster

~~~
rytill
Spacetime is pretty slippery already. At least, I haven't been able to stop
moving through it yet.

~~~
_jal
I think the secret is crankiness. I have a family member who is stuck in the
70s.

~~~
coldtea
To their defence, that's a way better decade to be stuck at compared to
anything that came after...

~~~
smt88
That's true for a minority of living humans[1]. In the US, it's certainly not
true for LGBTQ people, women, or racial minorities, all of whom have more
rights now than we did in the 70s.

[https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/jul/28/is-the-world-
re...](https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/jul/28/is-the-world-really-
better-than-ever-the-new-optimists)

~~~
coldtea
> _That 's true for a minority of living humans[1]. In the US, it's certainly
> not true for LGBTQ people, women, or racial minorities, all of whom have
> more rights now than we did in the 70s._

It could just as well be true for all of them as well (assuming it is for the
rest of course).

The "but now X group has rights" argument doesn't mean much. Such rights are a
small, and rather insignificant part of life. Women, gays, lesbians, and
racial minorities had huge great movements and tons of fan in the 70s in their
everyday life as well. It's not like their whole existence was diminished by
how others conceived them or whether they had this or that law.

A black who had a steady Detroit job in the 70s in a nice home, family and so
on, felt much better off than an unemployed same-aged man in Detroit today,
even if the second has more nominal rights and articles about him now (not to
mention that there are probably more police shootings of blacks today than in
the 70s, and let's not even compare Trump to Carter or even Nixon on that
regard).

Or go talk to gay people, and see how they feel about the 70s and 80s, and
various scenes that existed then compared to today. You'd be surprised Living
in a looser and laxer decade can be more important than having some right in
some law book (gays then partied far more widely and extravagantly than the
meagre contemporary scene where they have rights, sure, but society is run by
prudes and money spoilt most scenes).

Heck, in the same period we had a full blow military dictatorship in my
country, and people can still wax poetically about the times and the fun they
had. Even people persecuted then and even tortured by the police at this point
or another.

------
starbugs
I can already see the Grease Drive coming in the next Star Trek Discovery
season.

~~~
moron4hire
It's already canon. The front cone portion of the nacelles are Bussard
collectors.

[http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Bussard_collector](http://memory-
alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Bussard_collector)

~~~
jacobush
Though its job is mainly to capture deuterium, I presume for propulsion. (In a
fusion process? This is where Star Trek veers off into literary freedoms with
the dilithium crystals and what not.)

~~~
Semirhage
IIRC, it’s a matter-antimatter drive, and the dilithium crystals in some way
help to catalyze the production of antimatter. As you say, fictional.

~~~
magduf
No, the dilithium is somehow supposed to help control the matter/antimatter
reaction. The antimatter is stored onboard in magnetic bottles I think.

But yeah, it doesn't make that much sense.

------
nnx
Could this “grease” be what we thought to be dark matter?

Ie. explaining the “missing” mass of the universe

~~~
jwilk
No. We know it's grease because it absorbs certain wavelengths of light,
unlike dark matter, which doesn't interact with light.

Besides, it's just tiny part of the galaxy (1E37 kg vs >1E42 kg).

------
zeroisnowfour
not suprised 40TTT of anything can be found in infinite space given enough
distance

~~~
diminoten
Well I don't think it's _actually_ infinite, but yeah the example units on
this article are kind of strange. Packs of butter?

~~~
mirimir
Infinite? Hard to say.

But yes, why use "packs of butter" as a unit? I mean, what size pack? Pounds?
Kilos? Pats?

Edit: OK, 250 gm packages, standard in the UK, and generally outside the US.

------
mtzaldo
it is not grease, it a Symbiote...

------
codeulike
The space behind the washing machine, presumably?

------
yeasayer
Is this a new oil? That could speed up the space exploration.

~~~
alex_duf
I don't think its density would make it worth anything. It could be used in
transit though I suppose

------
binarymax
This is hardly surprising, given what we know of how violently the universe
was created. When a massive explosion occurs it propels matter everywhere.
Some debris is large but there is plenty of dust.

~~~
Ar-Curunir
That intuition doesn't work for galactic scales, and anyway in the Big bang
nothing really exploded

------
mikeymop
Was hoping for an image of what they recreated.

------
test6554
There was an attempt to be more relatable to the lay person.

40 trillion trillion trillion _packs of butter_.

------
arrty88
Can we harvest it?

~~~
tgtweak
> 40 trillion trillion trillion packs of butter

Toxic butter.

~~~
sjs382
> 40 trillion trillion trillion packs of butter

I have a new favorite unit of volume.

~~~
deadmetheny
[http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=nutrition+in+one+cubic+...](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=nutrition+in+one+cubic+parsec+of+butter)

------
mac01021
So that's what dark matter is...

~~~
ddalex
Dark matter is butter... not even Douglas Adams could figure this out :)

~~~
saalweachter
Everyone likes butter, Galactus included.

------
eruci
Good to know...

------
realo
__* My God, it 's full of grease! __*

(Sorry... couldn't resist...)

------
dvfjsdhgfv
> carbon ... which ... is essential for life.

We know so much more about the universe, discovered a huge number of
exoplanets, and still hold on to these traditional ideas. Carbon is essential
to life as we know it, that's it.

