SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for chromas
A Strange Black Hole Is Shooting Out Wobbly Jets Because It's Dragging Spacetime:
Some 7,800 light-years away, in the constellation of Cygnus, lies a most peculiar black hole. It's called V404 Cygni, and in 2015, telescopes around the world stared in wonder as it woke from dormancy to devour material from a star over the course of a week.
That one event provided such a wealth of information that astronomers are still analysing it. And they have just discovered an amazing occurrence: relativistic jets wobbling so fast their change in direction can be seen in mere minutes.
[...] V404 Cygni is a binary microquasar system consisting of a black hole about nine times the mass of the Sun and a companion star, an early red giant slightly smaller than the Sun.
The black hole is slowly devouring the red giant; the material siphoned away from the star is orbiting the black hole in the form of an accretion disc, a bit like water circling a drain. The closest regions of the disc are incredibly dense and hot, and extremely radiant; and, as the black hole feeds, it shoots out powerful jets of plasma, presumably from its poles.
[...] "We think the disc of material and the black hole are misaligned," [astrophysicist James] Miller-Jones said. "This appears to be causing the inner part of the disc to wobble like a spinning top and fire jets out in different directions as it changes orientation."
[...] It's a bit like a spinning top that starts to wobble as it's slowing down, the researchers said. This change in the rotational axis of a spinning body is called precession. In this particular instance, we have a handy explanation for it courtesy of Albert Einstein.
In his theory of general relativity, Einstein predicted an effect called frame-dragging. As it spins, a rotating black hole's gravitational field is so intense that it essentially drags spacetime with it. (This is one of the effects scientists hoped to observe when they took a picture of Pōwehi.)
In the case of V404 Cygni, the accretion disc is about 10 million kilometres (6.2 million miles) across. The misalignment of the black hole's rotational axis with the accretion disc has warped the inner few thousand kilometres of said disc.
The frame-dragging effect then pulls the warped part of the disc along with the black hole's rotation, which sends the jet careening off in all directions. In addition, that inner section of the accretion disc is puffed up like a solid doughnut that also precesses.
"This is the only mechanism we can think of that can explain the rapid precession we see in V404 Cygni," Miller-Jones said.
[...] the team had to [take] 103 separate images with exposure times of just 70 seconds and [stitch] them together to create a movie - and sure enough, there were the wibbly wobbly spacetimey jets.
A video explaining the activity is available on Vimeo.
A rapidly changing jet orientation in the stellar-mass black-hole system V404 Cygni, Nature (DOI: doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1152-0)
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Thursday January 02 2020, @08:23PM (70 children)
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Gaaark on Thursday January 02 2020, @09:02PM (59 children)
For myself, i am leery of any 'new discoveries' because of the lack of science behind them.
Of course, i'll get roundly whopped by mentioning 'dark matter'. Dark matter has so little 'real science' behind it and when i read "This galaxy has no dark matter which PROVES dark matter exists", but then they realize they calculated something incorrectly and it DOES have dark matter "which proves there is dark matter", i just have to sigh.
We need to return to real science so that people will start being more convinced it IS real science.
*No dark matter which proves it exists: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2018/03/dark-matter-galaxy-gravity-dragonfly-physics-space-science/ [nationalgeographic.com]
"If astronomers really have found an "undark" galaxy, it’s a strong clue that dark matter is real."
**No, it's closer than we thought, so it DOES have dark matter: https://www.sciencealert.com/there-s-a-really-simple-explanation-for-that-galaxy-with-no-dark-matter [sciencealert.com]
"After a new analysis, astronomers have determined that NGC1052-DF2 - found last year to contain absolutely no dark matter - is a lot closer to us than previous calculations estimated. Which means that it likely does have dark matter after all."
SIGH.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Thursday January 02 2020, @09:21PM (10 children)
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by maxwell demon on Thursday January 02 2020, @09:59PM (9 children)
That's like complaining about someone claiming to have seen someone on TV, because you can't see a person on TV, all you can see is a pattern of bright pixels that causes a somewhat similar illumination pattern on the retina.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday January 02 2020, @10:02PM (4 children)
Like complaining about a photo of a missing bunny rabbit. All I can see in the photo is the empty cage. No rabbit. So is it actually a photo of a missing bunny rabbit? Or actually a photo of a black hole?
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Thursday January 02 2020, @11:03PM (3 children)
(Twilight Zone music playing in background...)
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday January 03 2020, @02:35PM (2 children)
I'm not sure if you missed the basic idea. A photo of an empty rabbit cage with an open door could be interpreted as, or described as, a photo of a missing bunny.
A photo of a big empty black spot that sent no photons to particular pixels in the image censor could be described as a photo of a black hole.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday January 03 2020, @08:35PM
In other news - fortune tellers worldwide lose their crystal balls, when they become no longer able to see them.
In other news, we never saw any things anwyway, all we saw was photons now disconnected from the thing glitching a sensor inside our skulls.
In other news, epistemic and ontological philosophy are mostly tedious wank.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Saturday January 04 2020, @07:39AM
The difference between the open cage and the black hole is that there are known ways to produce the open cage without ever putting a bunny in. On the other hand, we are pretty sure that you cannotcreate the surroundings of a black hole without actually having a black hole inside.
Also note that there are murder convictions in cases where no one has watched the actual murder; often the evidence is far more indirect than the evidence of the black hole.
And no, it's not just the black pixels; there are more than enough places in the sky where you get black pixels without black holes. It is the details of the surrounding bright pixels, which behave exactly how they should if there is a black hole (and how they shouldn't if there isn't).
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Thursday January 02 2020, @10:10PM (3 children)
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mhajicek on Friday January 03 2020, @06:35AM (2 children)
But you're not seeing the light that left the person, you're seeing light generated by the TV.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 1, Troll) by barbara hudson on Friday January 03 2020, @04:36PM (1 child)
Which was generated from light originally leaving the person. Not the case with the black hole "image".
So your analogy fails. But that's okay.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Saturday January 04 2020, @07:41AM
So where exactly did the light leave Shrek?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DannyB on Thursday January 02 2020, @09:27PM (17 children)
My understanding, from cable documentaries, is that dark matter is a place holder. A stand in for something we can observe (more mass than we can explain) but for which we have no useful theory for at present. Once upon a time, the effects of magnetism could be observed, but there was very little science behind it.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Thursday January 02 2020, @10:35PM (16 children)
Except they're spending MILLIONS looking for this stuff and can't find it. Instead, they should be spending the money on things that are more scientifically based than black matter magic.
One i'm keeping an eye on is this guy's QI: DARPA gave him a million(ish) to further HIS theory which has more science (and an actual FORMULA) behind it than dark matter which gets all the money.
https://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com [blogspot.com]
Dark matter is guessing. QI is science.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Pslytely Psycho on Friday January 03 2020, @12:56AM (2 children)
All science begins with a "guess."
Something unexplained is observed, a guess (theory) is postulated. It is then either falsified or not. Sometimes quickly, most times not. Dark matter/energy is just a placeholder, not a finalized idea. It temporarily fills in the unbalanced equations while the reasons for the unbalanced equations are sought. Perhaps an unknown particle, perhaps an unknown force, perhaps a misunderstanding of how it all works in the first place. Over promoted perhaps, but certainly not magic.
As to your link. That is an interesting guess. I hope he gets some funding.
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Friday January 03 2020, @01:49AM (1 child)
DARPA is funding him and he has researchers working with him.
Hoping for more results.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Friday January 03 2020, @06:45AM
Ah, thank you.
I didn't have time to do more than scan the basics of what he was researching, so if it was in the original link, I missed it.
Always good to see original research funded, even if it doesn't lead to where the researcher hopes, it always expands knowledge and frequently opens up new doors.
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday January 03 2020, @02:38PM (2 children)
Yes, and once upon a time when magnetism was unexplained, people spent time and money "playing around" with it. Trying different "parlor tricks", wasting time and money.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by Gaaark on Saturday January 04 2020, @12:04AM (1 child)
But, they'd found something real and could work with it and manipulate it and thereby predict things it would do and came up with a formula....
....dark matter has no formula, you can't manipulate it, you can't predict anything with it.....
Waste of time and money.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2, Disagree) by maxwell demon on Saturday January 04 2020, @07:55AM
Wrong. Just inform yourself.
Not that really I expect you to change your mind; religious people rarely do (and yes, your believe is religious in nature, even though it is not related to religion in the usual sense).
Whether dark matter in the end will turn out to exist, or whether there's another explanation for the observed phenomena, the future will tell. But the current evidence makes it more probable that it exists. But anyway, even if it turns out to be disproved in the end, the disprove of dark matter itself would invalidate your claim I quoted.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 03 2020, @03:47PM (1 child)
Ah yes, that guy. QI also slices, dices, and explains where that missing sock goes to when you do the laundry. It even solves problems that are later found to be hardware issues [nasa.gov]! Now THAT'S when you know your theory is working hard! He can even explain the thrust of the EM Drive. Just tell him what the final thrust measurements end up being (including zero) and he'll show you that it matches his theory!!
On the other hand, there are a very large number of people with grand unified theories, however most of them don't put together nice web sites.
If this guy's ideas are not only new and revolutionary, but can also do at least as well as the current mainstream ideas, then he'll bubble up to the top eventually. Until then, it will be yet another of the many alternatives in the village square being yelled about from soap boxes. But with the age of the Internet, he can accrue a good following with the "misunderstood genius" thing (I'm not suggesting that he himself is being disingenuous, but the Internet has a wonderful ability to aggregate people who are attracted to any nonconforming ideas; the whole Electric Universe crowd is one great example).
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Saturday January 04 2020, @12:06AM
He's got funding from DARPA: while you sit and masturbate to unicorns, he's doing science.
If only YOU were as useful.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday January 03 2020, @08:59PM (7 children)
But that's not even why we think there's dark matter - that evidence is actually supporting evidence for prior mathematical theories in cosmology that answer a lot of other questions about the early development of the universe. For example, some type of non-baryonic matter is necessary to explain the fluctuations in the CMBR. If we throw away even the idea of dark matter, we have to completely reinvent the last 50 years of cosmology from the ground up.
Ockham clearly supports the simplicity of the dark matter concept. "But wah-wah-wah we can't see it directly!!" is a toothless counterargument, we can see its existence as clearly as we can see the existence of black holes.
However, no-one's come up with a good counterargument against QI, so I'm happy to see research in that direction too. The guy's a bit fringe (have you heard him talk? he's a terrible explainer (he's better on paper, at least)), but so was Boltzmann - his ideas need development into testable hypotheses.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Saturday January 04 2020, @12:09AM (6 children)
"If we throw away even the idea of dark matter, we have to completely reinvent the last 50 years of cosmology from the ground up."
Yes.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Saturday January 04 2020, @02:58AM (5 children)
You and QI dude, you're going to do all of that, whilst every synchrotron and telescope in the whole world is contradicting you?
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Saturday January 04 2020, @03:26AM (4 children)
"You and QI dude, you're going to do all of that, whilst every synchrotron and telescope in the whole world is contradicting you?"
What I'm saying is there is obviously something wrong when physicists contradict themselves: physicists themselves cant agree, they are willing to grasp at unscientific theories while poo-pooing scientific theories.
Why back something that has no formula, isn't predictive, and is arbitrary over something WITH a formula, IS predictive and isn't arbitrary?
Sounds contradictory to me to be a scientist while backing unicorns: magical things that change over time in order to make the means fit the end.....
....I dunno. I just don't believe in unicorns.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Saturday January 04 2020, @03:39AM (2 children)
The CMBR spectral anisotropies made predictions. It was only later that the pretty pictures that you're trying to make fairy stories out of that supported those predictions were found to do this thing which scientifically minded people call "confirmation".
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Saturday January 04 2020, @04:09AM (1 child)
How is CMBR confirmation of DM???
"The standard model of cosmology was derived from a number of different astronomical observations based on entirely different physical processes. To reconcile the data with theory, however, cosmologists have added two additional components that lack experimental confirmation: dark matter, an invisible matter component whose web-like distribution on large scales constitutes the scaffold where galaxies and other cosmic structure formed; and dark energy, a mysterious component that permeates the Universe and is driving its currently accelerated expansion. "
https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Planck/Planck_and_the_cosmic_microwave_background [esa.int]
So, to make the data work, we just add additional components that lack experimental confirmation!
That is NOT confirmation.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Saturday January 04 2020, @01:17PM
DM solves an othewise unexplained impossibility in the spectral anisotropy of the CMBR.
What's your hangup about needing to perform an experiment in order to adopt a theory - there's no precedent for that at all - the change in the ptolmaic view of planets orbits was done without experiment either. We didn't have the ability to just set up our own new solar system and see how it behaved in an alternative configuration.
The experiments were being done all around us thousands of millions of years before we even existed. We can still look at the results, and more importantly how those results are progressing. We just didn't get to set them up, that's all.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2, Touché) by maxwell demon on Saturday January 04 2020, @08:03AM
What exactly are your qualifications to distinguish between scientific and unscientific theories? Because you sound quite confident on your qualification, despite going against the majority of scientists. So either you have a method of distinguishing that's far better than the one of the experts, or you are full of shit.
Probability points to the second option. So please provide evidence for the first.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by martyb on Friday January 03 2020, @12:03AM (12 children)
May I inquire how much you actually looked for the "real science" behind it? An obvious starting point would be on Wikipedia, specifically: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Observational_evidence which provides 11 (eleven) different types of observations which depend on dark matter to explain them:
Each one of these eleven independent observations provides evidence to support the theory of dark matter.
How much "real science" do you need?
Wit is intellect, dancing.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Gaaark on Friday January 03 2020, @01:33AM (9 children)
except they don't DEPEND on dark matter for an explanation:
1. QI also explains it: https://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2012/12/undue-wait.html [blogspot.com]
2. https://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2016/03/mihsc-wins-in-dwarf-galaxies.html [blogspot.com]
3. https://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2013/09/anomalies-at-low-acceleration.html [blogspot.com]
4. https://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2015/03/dark-matter-contradicts-itself.html [blogspot.com]
https://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2017/06/evidence-from-early-galaxy.html [blogspot.com]
5. https://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2014/11/a-love-of-anomalies.html [blogspot.com]
6. Are you asking Galaxy formation structure?
"There is no experimental evidence for dark matter, and for each different galaxy the dark matter has to be added by hand in such a way as to make general relativity work. This means dark matter is ad hoc and not predictive and so we may as well attribute the rotation to lingering poltergeists. In contrast, MiHsC predicts galaxy rotation without any 'fiddling'."
https://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2014/11/the-present-crisis-in-physics.html [blogspot.com]
7. Not enough data yet: https://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-bullet-cluster.html [blogspot.com]
8. How does this depend on DM? They, possibly, aren't consistent in being 'standard candles'.
9. I don't see how this DEPENDS on DM at all.
10. I don't see how this DEPENDS on DM at all.
11. I don't see how this DEPENDS on DM at all, either.
New list:
1. Dark matter can't explain Wide Binaries (AT ALL!) but QI can.
2. Renzo's rule
3. Milgrom's acceleration cutoff
4. Globular clusters
5. The cusp-core problem
https://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2017/10/dark-matter-does-not-exist.html [blogspot.com]
I need more "real science"!
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday January 03 2020, @11:02PM (8 children)
Damn right that response doesn't have enough data.
In no way is the thing that doesn't even address the question a better answer than the thing that addresses the question with an answer in agreement with other things we know about DM.
Just because we don't know what it is doesn't mean we can't know it exists from what it does. *No* scientist is saying they know what it is, and you appear to be using that honesty as a stick with which to beat them. But that's not how science works. We knew the planets go round the sun a long time before the concept of a gratitational field was hypothesised. That's not a flaw, that's piecing together larger theories bit by bit. If you deny the evidence, such at planets going round the sun, you're quite likely going to *slow down* the progress of science.
Keep an open mind, but don't let your brain fall out.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Saturday January 04 2020, @12:51AM (7 children)
I AM keeping an open mind: I'm not saying QI IS the answer and no other, la la la my ears are plugged....
...what I'm saying is DM is a kludge to save GR that kept evolving new parameters (can't think of the word I want) until it worked.
It is not scientific, it has magical qualities (theres the word) brought in to make it work.
I hate magic...I open my mind to science like QI.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Saturday January 04 2020, @03:08AM (6 children)
[* No, I will never put an apostrophe in "ones", there's no historical precedent for it, and it's an ignorant modern change that complicates things. Posessive pronouns ("his", "hers", "its", "theirs", "yours", "ones") do not have apostrophes as *nothing was apostrophised*. Ockham, motherfucker.]
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Saturday January 04 2020, @03:33AM (5 children)
Well, see, I see QI as the simplest Ockham solution, "mother fucker".
Has a formula, is predictive and isn't arbitrary: much simpler than o formula to work with, predicts nothing and is arbitrary as hell!
Ockham, "mother fucker".
And, it's easy to balance a slice of cucumber and you don't need magic!
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Saturday January 04 2020, @03:46AM (4 children)
DM has been tested, and supported with evidence. Everything that cannot be explained simply without it supports DM.
QI has not been tested to any comparable extent. And the last thing I heard, last year, was that it had suffered an embarassing failure.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Saturday January 04 2020, @04:27AM (3 children)
QI has not been around as long but is now getting funding and testing and seems to me to be supported by more real evidence than DM!
And what, pray tell, is this embarrassing failure?
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Saturday January 04 2020, @01:31PM (2 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Saturday January 04 2020, @02:22PM (1 child)
It wasn't disproved:
First measurement campaigns were carried out
with both thruster models reaching thrust/thrust-to-
power levels comparable to claimed values.
However, we found that e.g. magnetic interaction
from twisted-pair cables and amplifiers with the
Earth’s magnetic field can be a significant error
source for EMDrives. We continue to improve our
measurement setup and thruster developments in
order to finally assess if any of these concepts is
viable and if it can be scaled up.
---https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325177082_The_SpaceDrive_Project_-_First_Results_on_EMDrive_and_Mach-Effect_Thrusters
They say further improvements to setups are needed to disprove.
Ooopsy!
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Saturday January 04 2020, @04:36PM
Keep cheering for them, by all means. We scientists need something to laugh at.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Funny) by c0lo on Friday January 03 2020, @01:36AM (1 child)
Double blind study on a statistically significant and representative set of Universes. With independent replication studies by at least 3 others and no p-hacking... Or GTFO
(grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday January 03 2020, @02:40PM
This can still be affected by the varying levels of honesty of the universes in reporting what is truly going on.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by stormwyrm on Friday January 03 2020, @12:59AM (16 children)
Dark matter can actually be compared to the old Ptolemaic system of epicycles. You know, ancient astronomers didn't come up with the system of epicycles out of nothing: it actually did agree with the crude astronomical observations possible with naked eye astronomy, which is why it persisted as the dominant theory of the universe for nearly two thousand years. The Ptolemaic system was eventually superseded when the telescope was invented and better observations became possible, and a theoretical framework for the motions of the planets could be developed culminating in the work of Kepler and Newton. So too with dark matter: it actually does agree with the astronomical observations we can make today, from the scales of planets and stars, to the scales of galaxies, all the way to the large-scale structure of the universe itself. Someday we might think up a better way of looking at the universe and there will be a new theory that ties it all together. But until then, dark matter is the best explanation we have for much of what we can see.
A galaxy with no dark matter can actually be proof that dark matter is real, being an exception that proves the rule. The galaxy formation theories involving dark matter do predict that young galaxies at high red shifts should not yet have much dark matter, which is supposed to accumulate in later stages of formation, and as such they should rotate with Newtonian motion. That was what they thought they saw at first, but making observations of the rotation of very distant galaxies is obviously very difficult, and mistakes can be made, so now the prediction is still up in the air. That is of course how the process of science works. Science is always wrong, it just gets less wrong over time. Someday, with better telescopes and such, it might be possible to confirm or refute dark matter in this way. If they look at a very distant galaxy that dark matter theory predicts should not yet have a lot of dark matter in it and find that it's still rotating as though it had dark matter, that would be a serious blow to dark matter and a very strong boost to modified gravity theories. But if observations do find such young galaxies behaving exactly the way dark matter theory predicts, well, that would be another nail in the coffin for alternatives. Many of the other predictions dark matter made were later borne out by observations though. These dark matter-free young galaxies are one prediction that isn't yet resolved.
Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Friday January 03 2020, @01:44AM (4 children)
Yes, DM is VERY epicyclic: one day we'll look back and have a good laugh.
"But until then, dark matter is the best explanation we have for much of what we can see."
But it also fails in so many areas, such as wide binaries, the existence of which NULLIFIES dark matter!
"A galaxy with no dark matter can actually be proof that dark matter is real"
My house doesn't have a unicorn in it: EVIDENCE UNICORNS ARE REAL!
MOND works as well as DM: BOTH have an arbitrariness to them (MOND has it's adjustable formula, DM has NO formula, just arbitrary addition of DM to each galaxy you look at)
I prefer QI because, for one, it has a non-adjustable formula that is predictive and works in so many ways.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 3, Informative) by stormwyrm on Friday January 03 2020, @02:13AM (3 children)
Absence of unicorns could be evidence of their existence if the theory of unicorns gave conditions for where you shouldn't find them, so if you went to a place that satisfies those conditions, and didn't find them, then that's evidence in favour of their existence and that the theory of unicorns is correct. Conversely, that implies that a place that doesn't satisfy those conditions should have unicorns, and as such you should be able to observe them in such places somehow. Dark matter is that way: we have observations that it potentially explains, e.g. the rotation of galaxies, and that is how its presence is inferred. Theories of galaxy formation based on its hypothesised properties predict that at earlier stages dark matter should not yet be present. We can't yet observe galaxies at that stage of formation clearly enough to determine how they rotate though. That is one impetus for better telescopes and other observational instruments.
Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Friday January 03 2020, @02:29AM (2 children)
But to me, after, what, 40 years and millions of dollars and research hours, we have nothing more than unicorns: we have no formula, no way of non-arbitrarily knowing how much DM goes into each different galaxy, no predictive qualities. It is all "Dark matter as we know it cannot solve this, so we will make up a new 'quality' for DM to posess!"
It is all non-scientific.
At least QI is predictive, has a non-arbitrary formula and works in so many areas: a scientific mind says "Let's put our money into something like this". Instead we have DM that keeps getting new qualities every time it hits up against something it can't solve, just like Superman did when it wasn't enough that he could just jump high and far quickly because he was used to a higher gravity.
Not scientific and very much like magic: instead of DM, you might as well say it's cow farts: cow farts are just as predictive and have as much of a scientific formula (actually, it probably has more formulae than DM).
And DM can't explain wide binaries at ALL... unless it gains some new Superman quality....
I can't say QI IS the answer, but it's, to me, a better answer than DM.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 03 2020, @03:51PM (1 child)
Could you help me and point out where QI has been predictive? The bit that I've bother looking at it has all been explaining observations, not suggesting new ones.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Saturday January 04 2020, @01:07AM
https://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2017/10/dark-matter-does-not-exist. [blogspot.com]
https://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2019/02/wide-binaries-30.html. [blogspot.com]
https://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2018/09/wide-binaries-20.html [blogspot.com]
Just type 'predict' into the search box at the top of his site.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday January 03 2020, @11:12PM (10 children)
Quite the opposite. It simplifies the theories, as it explains a whole bunch of seemingly-unrelated other things that seem to be going wrong with what we see in the universe.
Introducing dark matter is literally like sticking the sun in the middle - all the planets now rotate happily about it - it's just a sun we can't directly see yet. It has the annoying property that it's going to be very hard to ever see it, but it took half a century to find evidence for just one higgs boson, we shouldn't get too stressed yet.
When two galaxies look identical (in terms of mass distribution) at all wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum but behave differently (in terms of rotation curves), is "something that does not strongly interact with the electromagnetic field is affecting things" not the absolute simplest explanation?
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Saturday January 04 2020, @01:39AM (9 children)
Except DM is basically nullified by wide binaries because it cant explain them at all
https://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2017/10/dark-matter-does-not-exist.html [blogspot.com]
"When two galaxies look identical (in terms of mass distribution) at all wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum but behave differently (in terms of rotation curves), is "something that does not strongly interact with the electromagnetic field is affecting things" not the absolute simplest explanation? "
Not when that solution is not scientific. The way I see it is we got something wrong somewhere along the way and we're just barreling ahead.
For example, Einstein originally thought space and time were separate (as did Mach), but the math was too hard for him so he combined them and now we have space-time problems: paradoxes, worm holes, etc that would disappear if Einstein had stuck with his first thought.
I don't believe in time travel or worm holes and would love to see more exploration in that area of space and time being separate.
But I am not a physicist, so let's just blindly go along getting things 'wronger and wronger'.....
I just like science.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Saturday January 04 2020, @03:13AM (8 children)
Erm, you seem to be making assumptions about the mass distribution of the dark matter you're presuming doesn't exist, in order to conclude that its presence doesn't explain things.
Did you ever stop to think that maybe it might be absent in places?
Its proponents did.
You're yet again 4 steps behind them.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Saturday January 04 2020, @03:43AM (7 children)
I guess I'm 4 steps behind.
But tell me, how does DM keep wide binaries from separating? They are spaced too far apart for DM to keep them circling each other. Show me the formula for DM to keep them circling...
And yet QI has an answer, a formula for it and even is predictive of it.
I'll stay 4 steps behind, thank you.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Saturday January 04 2020, @03:48AM (6 children)
Handy hint: Task made simpler by removing head from arse.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Saturday January 04 2020, @04:18AM (5 children)
You should take your own advice: DM is needed, according to DM supporters, to keep galaxies from flying apart/keep the stars from flying away from each other.
But it's not needed to keep wide binaries (which are basically just galaxies not flying away from each other) from flying apart???
If you don't need DM to keep wide binaries together, why do you need DM to keep galaxies together?
And...do you always revert to rudeness when losing an argument?
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Saturday January 04 2020, @01:28PM (4 children)
Why do you think the existence of DM at all implies there's significant levels of DM everywhere. Your previous 3 posts have had that implicit assumption in them. No scientist asserts that at all, no scientist would aggree with at all. You, however then assert that because there seem to be regions with no DM, that DM cannot exist anywhere.
You've created a misrepresentation of DM, proved it false, and concluded that the actual experimentally-validated (we've seen the lensing it performs) models we have are false.
That's pure straw man. And you are an idiot for repeatedly resorting to it.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Saturday January 04 2020, @02:34PM (3 children)
Sigh: let's do it again.
Galaxies need DM to stay together: there is not enough visual mass to keep them from flying apart, right?
Wide binaries. What keeps them orbiting each other when there is not enough visual mass to keep them from orbiting. DM, right?
But DM can't work that magic. QI can. Therefore, QI is the better theory, no?
No?
But I am done with your rudeness. You can't prove to me that DM is a better theory, so you just continue being ruder and ruder. Maybe YOU are the idiot?
Bye.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Saturday January 04 2020, @04:45PM (2 children)
Nobody is saying that DM is fully understood, or that various DM-based models have solved every problem.
DM, with very simple properties, solves a lot of seemingly unconnected problems that non-DM models had. It solves problems it wasn't even invented to solve - that makes it very powerful.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Saturday January 04 2020, @08:46PM (1 child)
Okay. For ME, QI solves more problems than DM.
It's different for you.
We'll have to agree to disagree.
Thanks.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Saturday January 04 2020, @11:35PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DannyB on Thursday January 02 2020, @09:23PM (1 child)
It is a cool story. I have nothing useful to comment. (not that it would stop me...) Maybe others are likewise. Hoping to read something posted here that is brilliant, insightful, enlightening, etc.
As to the A/C you replied to, not all competing theories have equal value. Although the flat earthers and birthers would disagree.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Saturday January 04 2020, @12:28AM
Yeah, we know flat-earthers and birthers are B.S.
Hollow Earth and the Vril are where it's at......
And Hitler rides a T-Rex....
https://youtu.be/URTPgGEhmNM?t=108 [youtu.be]
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by nitehawk214 on Thursday January 02 2020, @10:14PM
The stories that generate the most comments are the ones with political shitpost potential. But since SN doesn't get paid more for getting people to click through a dozen comments of clickbait bullshit with ad revenue on it, we can actually post these informative articles.
This one is just "cool" and actually made me click through to read the full article and some followup searches on similar objects. I didn't know that microquasars [wikipedia.org] are a thing before today.
Please don't equate "generating comments" with "value".
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday January 03 2020, @01:31AM (4 children)
Sorry, been busy lately bleaching shellac.
God, done without centrifuges or vac-pumps, filtering precipitates can take ages. Still faster than courier delivery at holidays time, tho'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Friday January 03 2020, @02:24AM (3 children)
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday January 03 2020, @03:34AM (2 children)
Not yet there. I could only buy orange shellac at the hardware store, but I need a very pale blond one (clear if possible).
And it is possible [google.com] starting with the flakes (the linky starts with the raw material) to bleach darker tints. Dissolve the flakes (slowly) in slightly basic solution, add a few drops of bleach and stir for some 15mins then precipitate by turning the pH to acid (vinegar's good enough). Filtering and washing the precipitate of the remaining salts are a pain in the ass when using only coffee filters in a funnel, especially when the solubility of the original is somewhere around 1:15 ratio (like 10g of shellac in 150+ solution - more like 200ml when you can't strictly control the temperature; then wait for the 15+ parts of water to sloooowly go through the filter. At least twice, 3 times recommended)
Understandable, given that you need as pure alcohol as possible in which to dissolve shellac (on the risk of having a cloudy appearance at pretty low water content), it's really like breathing alcohol vapors.
Better done in an open space - take a beer with you, tho, or more - the risk of dehydration in summer is higher.
But I'm being pedantic at the beginning of the new year, apologies for that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Friday January 03 2020, @04:48PM (1 child)
Extra information is always good. We can never tell when some odd fact or reference will come in handy when we need to McGyver something.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 03 2020, @06:15PM
I like your attitude.
Indeed, the only useless information, is inaccurate information.
I never really thought about MacGyver as an intellectual, but my personal definition of intelligence in humans is the ability to apply knowledge/information to solve problems. Knowledge of facts/data does not equal intelligence, but the ability to apply that does equal intelligence...IMHO.
MacGyver in spades!
But on the other hand, sometimes we can outsmart ourselves, 'Wiley E. Coyote, Super Genius' style.(ie: 'educated beyond his/her intelligence'-as seen frequently in politcs)
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday January 03 2020, @07:24PM
I tried to look up this stuff on Wikipedia, but the pages were particularly unhelpful as they waded into thick math without ever giving a layman's analogy.
Then I looked it up on Simple Wikipedia and it was like a 2-paragraph page that didn't tell me anything at all.
*shakes fist at quantum stuff*
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Saturday January 04 2020, @09:44AM
Well, now it's over 70 comments.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.