I picked up February's Astronomy magazine (I was attracted to it by the controversial headline on the front, "What if string theory is wrong?", with the subtext, "if it is, then dark matter, dark energy and cosmic inflation are in big trouble" - I'll report on that section, if interesting, when I get to it :), and just started into it and saw "Bob Berman's Strange Universe" on page 14 entitled "Missing shadows".

It's the last few paragraphs that caught my attention, though from the rest of the article, I'm now going to have to dangle an eraser from a thread in the sunlight to see if the shadow goes round when I pull it away:

But this past September, astronomers published analyses of data from the sophisticated Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe observatory, and found that many galaxy clusters cast no shadows at all. No shadows? How could this be?

The most logical answer is that the cosmic microwave background (CMB) originates from space that's nearer than the galaxies. In that case, the CMB does not come from any wall of light at the edge of the visible universe - and we have to throw out the Big Bang. Or maybe these galaxies give off their own microwaves, thus "filling in" their shadow. But why would so many galaxies emit microwaves of exactly the same precise 2.725-Kelvin temperature? It makes no sense. Or maybe something's wacky with the data.

We need a shadow expert. We could call Punxsutawney Phil, but the little groundhog isn't talking.

I'd heard of the no-shadow result from last fall, but I didn't follow it up very far. Is Astronomy magazine usually this controversial just to be controversial? :) I'm a little surprised there was no mention in the artcle of a mainstream answer to the no-shadow result, but perhaps that will come in time.

It's little things like this that make me feel a little less crazy (... just a little) ;)