[HN Gopher] Bizarre space circle captured in unprecedented detail ___________________________________________________________________ Bizarre space circle captured in unprecedented detail Author : gmays Score : 117 points Date : 2022-03-28 18:31 UTC (4 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.nature.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.nature.com) | ericHosick wrote: | Anton Petrov has a great video on this: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRaQj_IMAjY. | cmroanirgo wrote: | Anton always presents great videos, but my guess is that it | _could_ also be bubbles from the breath of Great A 'Tuin, the | celestial turtle, as it swims through the cosmic ocean. /s | squarefoot wrote: | That picture gives off so many Star Trek TOS vibes. | erickhill wrote: | We definitely appear to be approaching a spatial anomaly. | swamp40 wrote: | They should run it thru Google Brain's SR3 image enhancer. | | Or maybe that would give it a face? | dylan604 wrote: | But will it be Ryan Gosling's face? | karmakaze wrote: | Two things immediately popped to mind. (1) 'con display' from | Star Trek (2) multi-star Dyson sphere under construction. The | latter doesn't make sense though, seems that many single spheres | would be simpler unless it was to be concealed: (3) sub-galactic | Great Wall? | | Can we detect single-star Dyson spheres as the disappearance of | stars before their expected end? | ianai wrote: | If it's a Dyson-anything, it's way bigger than a single star: | | "The new MeerKAT radio data shows that the ORC's large outer | circle is possibly more than a million light years across, ten | times the diameter of the Milky Way, with a series of smaller | rings inside" | | It actually sounds more like the wisps of gas seen jetting | through the Milky Way and being irradiated by something. That | alone, I think, isn't too unnatural of a thing to see out | there. | | Maybe someday this sort of thing will enlighten us on how | matter dispersed in the early universe i.e. when these galaxies | were forming out of still larger areas of matter. Who knows, | maybe there's some dark energy/matter information to be gleaned | in there, too. | ianai wrote: | Replying to myself to avoid an edit - | | You know, if I was a hairbrained, mega-structure scientist | from some future, highly advanced civilization that otherwise | couldn't study or explain dark energy/matter, one way to | simply gather data would be to fill huge regions of space | with matter and watch how my known input evolves and changes | over time. If science up to that point can explain 100% of | the movements of the matter from then on, then I know my | theories and data are widely in agreement. If I know nothing | else has perturbed that matter and the data are off, then the | disagreement tells me something about how physics works at | super large scale. [If I know physics with plenty of | certainty at those scales and something changes outside of my | expectation then something/someone new to the scene perturbed | that matter.] | | Which is to say, I wonder if there isn't a way to turn these | oddballs into very valuable scientific data. Build radio- | telescopes large enough to gather as fine grained data about | these ORCs as possible and model away. Maybe something in | there does translate to physics which explain dark | energy/matter. | ianai wrote: | Another hairbrained idea: | | This is just a region of the universe that started out with | a smattering of mass-energy in the early universe. What | we're seeing now is the residue around the edges after | gravity has merged the denser lumps of mass-energy into | galaxies, black holes, stars, planets, etc. Subtracting out | the initial mass-energy, but missing certain regions of | sparse mass-energy due to relative gravitational isolation. | Throw in whatever topological changes in spacetime due to | inflation, perhaps, if so affected. | finnh wrote: | FYI just because you seem to like it: "harebrained", like | having a rabbit's brain | ianai wrote: | Thanks! Dictionary.com at least says hairbrained is just | a variation on the spelling. | vikingerik wrote: | We could, if we happen to be looking at that star, but we'd | have to catch them in the act. Remember how vast these time | scales are, and consequently how improbable it is that any | other civilization would be doing it in the same decade or | century as we exist. | | We've had the ability to detect and track such changes in star | radiation for roughly a century. The potential scale of | intelligent life is on the order of ten billion years and | counting. That's a 1 in 10^8 chance that they're doing it at | the same time as we happen to be looking. | | Also, a Dyson sphere isn't invisible - the star doesn't exactly | disappear. The material will absorb some radiation, heat up, | and glow in the infrared. We've calculated what such a heat | signature would look like, and haven't found any such thing | yet. | ianai wrote: | It's also ten times the size of the Milky Way. | TheOtherHobbes wrote: | And things ten times the size of the Milky Way are likely | to last a while. | 867-5309 wrote: | *possibly | tshaddox wrote: | > (2) multi-star Dyson sphere under construction. | | We have a dozen or so stars within 10 light years. This circle | is a million light years across. So I'm guessing it would be a | ludicrous number of Dyson spheres. | deviantbit wrote: | Why can't it ever be aliens? | barkingcat wrote: | It's always aliens. | kreeben wrote: | Having looked at this picture for a good ten minutes it still | feels alien. | throwaway71271 wrote: | true! but looking at some zoomed spiders and they also feel | alien, so what do i know.. | dylan604 wrote: | How do you schedule a zoom call with a spider? | mypalmike wrote: | Send it an invite. | jfk13 wrote: | Via a web app. | dylan604 wrote: | Come on in said the spider to the fly kind of invite? | wolverine876 wrote: | That's why we rely on empirical observation: our subjective | intuitions suck. | h2odragon wrote: | "Space circle" could describe pretty much everything and anything | outside the atmosphere, no? "Sphere" was probably too technical. | bee_rider wrote: | This article cites a paper. I was looking at one of the papers | they cite in _that_ paper, and they had a nice explanation in | the introductory paragraph. | | > Circular features are well-known in radio astronomical | images, and usually represent a spherical object such as a | supernova remnant, a planetary nebula, a circumstellar shell, | or a face-on disc such as a protoplanetary disc or a star- | forming galaxy. | | They describe these things as circles because that's how they | show up on the radio telescopes. They are being precise about | what they detected, I think. These are hard signals to even | pick up, after all, no need to introduce a made up | interpretation to further confuse things. | wolverine876 wrote: | Good point. Why is so much in gravityless, directionless (i.e., | no up and down) space shaped like a disc rather than a sphere? | Look at the orbits of planets around the Sun - why are they | mostly in the same plane? Look at galaxies. | nawgz wrote: | Spin | DiggyJohnson wrote: | A sphere spins in a circle <- probably the most abstract | answer possible, but correct as I see it. | wolverine876 wrote: | Ah, you mean that spin is (two-dimensional?), and that | these things form along the 'equator' of the spin? That is, | spin creates an 'equator', and the equator is a circle not | a sphere, and the orbiting objects align with the equator? | Are our solar system's planets aligned with our sun's | equator? (Sorry, the mathematical/physical terms are | escaping me.) | inamberclad wrote: | Generally anything acting under a force causing it to be pulled | together and possibly another force causing it to be pushed | apart. | mhh__ wrote: | Who says it's spherical? | h2odragon wrote: | Good point! Astronomy is the study of "Space Blobs" | mabbo wrote: | There's something great about physics and astronomy when it comes | to naming things. | | What is it? An odd circle of radio waves. What are we going to | call it? Well, if we call it an "odd radio circle" the | initialization is the same as the monstrous bad guys from a | classic fantasy novel. | | ORCs it is then! | the_snooze wrote: | My favorite one of those is "Hanny's Voorwerp," discovered by a | Dutch woman named Hanny, and "voorwerp" just means "object." | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanny%27s_Voorwerp | SkeuomorphicBee wrote: | There is also plenty of bad names in physics, the "colour | charge" and all other colour related names in quantum | chromodynamics would be a very notable example. | wolverine876 wrote: | An hypothesis based on subjective experience: | | In the post-modern era (roughly 1945-20??) people were highly | skeptical of their egos and of power, advertised humility, and | consequently had a sense of humor about themselves and the | world. Thus you get names like _quark_ and _Google_. | | Now in the newly-born (reactionary?) era, ego is our God, and | we get names like _Uber_. Physics perhaps hasn 't quite joined | the new era, yet. | erdos4d wrote: | > Physics perhaps hasn't quite joined the new era, yet. | | I dunno, I've noticed that most physicists I've met have the | "ego is God" vibe pretty well cooked in, and they will | definitely let you know it. | dddw wrote: | Interesting take. Might have something to do with the culture | of science, which still adheres more to values like | collaboration. | wolverine876 wrote: | Also, the culture of science is inescapably post-modern. | The new era aggressively rejects the Enlightenment bases of | science such as the supremacy of fact, the weakness of | subjectivity, resolving issues by reason, empowerment by | our intellects, etc. | [deleted] | pandoro wrote: | "Of the three stars, one was missing. There was a white cloud of | dust in its place, like the feces of an abyss whale. | | It's already been cleansed. Nothing more to do." | | - Death's End, Liu Cixin | monkeycantype wrote: | I'll make my pointless comment over here with the downvoted, | when I saw it I thought of the 4chan troll face | stadium wrote: | Gravitational lensing can make the same star appear in a circular | pattern, could the same happen for these radio wave patterns? | firebaze wrote: | This isn't meant to sound dismissive, but do you really assume | the experts in this field didn't consider this, and didn't deem | it (ir-)relevant enough to (not) mention in their paper? | | Genuinely interested what is the reason behind questions like | that. In general, it's definitely cool and understandable to me | to question the competency of anyone, but if (as in this case) | a researcher researches a quite deep detail of a very specific | field, using a very rare resource (a space telescope, which I | assume requires some credibility to even ask for observation | time) how do you assume they didn't check all boxes before | writing a paper? | throwoutway wrote: | OP has a legitimate inquiry, but you dismiss it with an | appeal to authority? Researchers miss things all the time. | But if they considered it and rejected it, then it still | makes it a valid question doesn't it? | firebaze wrote: | My question was equally valid to me. I didn't understand | the GP's question to be dismissive or ignorant, I just want | to learn where they're coming from. | jjulius wrote: | >... I just want to learn where they're coming from. | | Ignorance is all it is - and not in a bad way. They don't | know something, they're curious about it, so they're | asking. It's legitimately as simple as that. | renewiltord wrote: | This is a valid criticism in general, but I think in this | case, user was asking for instruction. "You say this is | strange, but this other simple explanation would explain it | to my knowledge. Why is this different?" is intended in this | case to be "Instruct me so that I may detect my error and | update" rather than "Have you considered X?" | | Since I believe you are also asking genuinely, I will attempt | to disambiguate the two cases with illustrations: | | 1. OP states the question as "Could this be the same?". This | expresses uncertainty of the form "Is this possible?" and | "Are these simpler explanations still on the table?" | | 2. OP may have stated the question as "Did they consider X?". | I think this moves closer to the idiot advice that is often | of the form "Did they consider correlation is not causation?" | etc. etc. | | 3. OP may have stated opinion directly: "They did not | consider X". In this case, lacking knowledge of OP expertise, | you may safely conclude that this is a statement from an | armchair expert. | | Of course there are an infinitude of statements and | responses. But hopefully these 3 examples will help. | FredPret wrote: | OP is inquiring to learn more. I think it's a good question | and would also like to know. | | No need to for you to be defensive on the scientist's behalf. | happytoexplain wrote: | This attitude discourages question-asking. | | Edit: To be more clear, I mean the implication (no matter how | qualified) that it is _remarkable to even ask a question_ | based on how likely it is that experts have already answered | the question. That premise doesn 't seem to make any sense: | First, non-experts have no context for knowing what experts | have likely ruled out and what they haven't, by definition. | Second, if experts have ruled it out, the answer to the | question is still valuable (how/why did they rule it out). | kaashif wrote: | I wonder how it's possible for people to read a comment so | differently. Like others have said, I read the comment as | more of a "Why is this wrong?" than "Why are they idiots and | didn't think of this?" which isn't an interpretation that | would have occurred to me. | | I could parrot your own comment back to you and say, do you | really assume that the person didn't realise that only | experts use giant telescopes and know what they're doing? | Maybe they're hoping one of those experts will somehow come | up with a good explanation and maybe some links to further | reading. | | Sometimes people read an aggressive or condescending tone | into perfectly neutral comments and it really confuses me. | firebaze wrote: | I'm not sure I understand you. We're talking of an analysis | of a very specific, very rare (1 of 5) occurrence of an as | of now unresolved physical phenomenon. I think to get into | the position to research phenomena like that, you need to | prove your worth a bit. I'm not referring to meritocracy | but to money, since that's what observation time comes down | to. | | So, to me it boils down to: is there's something about the | GP's question I missed, which is what I'd like to learn | about? If not all is fine. If so, I'd like to learn the | reason behind it. | | I'm not a native english speaker. | legohead wrote: | > could the same happen for these radio wave patterns | | Perhaps he was just seeking knowledge. There may be an | interesting reason why these radio wave patterns may or may | not be affected by lensing. | | Also, if you have been around as long as I have, it is not | that uncommon for experts to be missing something obvious, or | for science articles to exclude certain details in order to | appear more fascinating. | firebaze wrote: | But what would be an appropriate answer? Yes probably, this | would mean they were wrong. No would be quite complex, I | suppose. | | I didn't assume the GP to be ignorant or distrusting the | credibility of the researcher, and the question was valid | in my point of view as well from that perspective. | derekp7 wrote: | The answer to your question is simply linguistic | shortcuts. That is, the question could have been phrased | such as this: | | "I am but a casual reader with an interest in this topic. | I have read about Gravitational Lensing, and the pattern | matching algorithm in my brain finds a loose match | between that an this phenomenon. I am curious as to the | particulars of this that makes it different from what | I've read before, such that this requires a different | explanation". | | Of course, that is way to many words, an the shortcut of | "Why isn't this Gravitational Lensing" is a more succinct | way of asking the question. Which is a major reason why | HN has as one of their guidelines "Please respond to the | strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, | not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good | faith. " | bee_rider wrote: | They go into a bit more detail about possible explanations here | (this is cited in the paper that the article talks about). | | https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.14805 | | They talk about your option in 5.11, "Einstein rings." For | reasons that I don't understand (but I don't understand | anything about optics) they come to the conclusion that the | gravitational lens would have to be really large, and it is | unlikely that such a large, well-structured lens would exist. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-03-28 23:00 UTC)