Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Tuesday March 29 2016, @10:27AM   Printer-friendly
from the ludicrous-bright dept.

UMass Amherst Astronomers Report Most 'Outrageously' Luminous Galaxies Ever Observed:

Astronomers at the University of Massachusetts Amherst report that they have observed the most luminous galaxies ever seen in the Universe, objects so bright that established descriptors such as "ultra-" and "hyper-luminous" used to describe previously brightest known galaxies don't even come close. Lead author and undergraduate Kevin Harrington says, "We've taken to calling them 'outrageously luminous' among ourselves, because there is no scientific term to apply."

Details appear in the current early online edition of Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

[...] Harrington explains that in categorizing luminous sources, astronomers call an infrared galaxy "ultra-luminous" when it has a rating of about 1 trillion solar luminosities, and that rises to about 10 trillion solar luminosities at the "hyper-luminous" level. Beyond that, for the 100 trillion solar luminosities range of the new objects, "we don't even have a name," he says.

[...] They also conducted analyses to show that the galaxies' brightness is most likely due solely to their amazingly high rate of star formation. "The Milky Way produces a few solar masses of stars per year, and these objects look like they [are] forming one star every hour," [UMass astronomy professor Min] Yun says. Harrington adds, "We still don't know how many tens to hundreds of solar masses of gas can be converted into stars so efficiently in these objects, and studying these objects might help us to find out. (Emphasis added.)

Obviously, the next step after ultra-, hyper-, and outrageously-bright would be ludicrously-bright. Right?

An abstract and full article (pdf) are available.


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 29 2016, @10:35AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 29 2016, @10:35AM (#324303)

    It's a Post-Scarcity Universe out there. Every human being who has ever lived could receive One Solar Mass worth of wealth and they'd never be able of eat all of it in a lifetime. And yet we still have Poverty on Earth simply because Humans are Greedy Evil Assholes.

    Eat the Stars!

  • (Score: 2) by Webweasel on Tuesday March 29 2016, @11:00AM

    by Webweasel (567) on Tuesday March 29 2016, @11:00AM (#324311) Homepage Journal

    Oh, If only I could be so grossly incandescent.

    Praise the sun.

    --
    Priyom.org Number stations, Russian Military radio. "You are a bad, bad man. Do you have any other virtues?"-Runaway1956
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by bitstream on Tuesday March 29 2016, @11:55AM

    by bitstream (6144) on Tuesday March 29 2016, @11:55AM (#324316) Journal

    This IS a problem:

    so bright that established descriptors such as "ultra-" and "hyper-luminous" used to describe previously brightest known galaxies don't even come close

    Whenever humans try to relate to things using adjectives on matters that isn't human in nature. This falls flat like a metaphorical pancake. And why real scientists use exponential expressions. Which in this case would be something like "it has 350 µm flux density larger than 100 mJy" instead of "that really really infrared omfg thing is outrageously bright".

    Now just ask the energy company for an electrical 10^9 W power fuse subscription.,. :p
    And your employer for a salary of at least 3 mUSD/s ;)

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 29 2016, @12:46PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 29 2016, @12:46PM (#324334)

      flatter than a pancake. more like rice-paper flat. micro-rice paper, even.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 29 2016, @12:45PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 29 2016, @12:45PM (#324333)

    There's "super-", but possibly sounds sub-"ultra-". However, "supra-" is more exotic so might sound more uber than "ultra-" and "hyper-". The linguists will note that almost all of those prefices are from the same indo-european route, just with latin, greek, and germanic twists.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by zocalo on Tuesday March 29 2016, @12:47PM

      by zocalo (302) on Tuesday March 29 2016, @12:47PM (#324335)
      Meh, I say we just skip all that linguistic fluff and just go straight to plaid!
      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
  • (Score: 3, Touché) by Bot on Tuesday March 29 2016, @01:08PM

    by Bot (3902) on Tuesday March 29 2016, @01:08PM (#324338) Journal

    if only there were a symbolic system able to quantify quantities and linear, fractional, exponential, scales, et cetera, without needing to resort to adjectives...

    --
    Account abandoned.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 29 2016, @03:35PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 29 2016, @03:35PM (#324397)

      I'll take ridiculously bright, insanely bright, ludicrously bright spectacularly bright and outrageously bright over lumens, candelas, lux and nits.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 29 2016, @05:00PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 29 2016, @05:00PM (#324412)

        > candelas, lumens
        Yeah it's all fun and games until you get to dollars.

      • (Score: 2, Funny) by nitehawk214 on Tuesday March 29 2016, @06:58PM

        by nitehawk214 (1304) on Tuesday March 29 2016, @06:58PM (#324454)

        Go straight to ludicrous speed!

        --
        "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 29 2016, @01:15PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 29 2016, @01:15PM (#324343)

    If I ever get an account on this site that will be my handle.

  • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 29 2016, @04:16PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 29 2016, @04:16PM (#324405)

    Obviously, the next step after ultra-, hyper-, and outrageously-bright would be ludicrously-bright. Right?

    Plaid galaxies are next.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 29 2016, @08:54PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 29 2016, @08:54PM (#324515)

    Anyone using the word "trillion" isn't exactly concerned about scientific nomenclature.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 29 2016, @11:00PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 29 2016, @11:00PM (#324553)

      sagans and sagans

    • (Score: 2) by stormwyrm on Tuesday March 29 2016, @11:28PM

      by stormwyrm (717) on Tuesday March 29 2016, @11:28PM (#324565) Journal
      Why so? Trillion now has has a perfectly well-defined meaning in English: 1012. Yes, I know all about the long and short scales [wikipedia.org]. However, the British started using the short scale informally for several decades in the latter half of the twentieth century, until eventually the usage became so prevalent that by 1974 they officially stopped using the long scale altogether. Just about every English-speaking country has followed suit since then, and it seems that today there are no English-speaking areas where use of the long scale still persists.
      --
      Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate.
  • (Score: 2) by inertnet on Tuesday March 29 2016, @11:04PM

    by inertnet (4071) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 29 2016, @11:04PM (#324557) Journal

    Right, so who messed with that galaxy? Unauthorized use of the Genesis device is not allowed.