Bizarre space circle captured in unprecedented detail(nature.com)
nature.com
Bizarre space circle captured in unprecedented detail
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00861-6
143 comments
> There's something about this image that almost brings tears to my eyes. It's so big.
I can hardly look at the sky (at night) without getting a panic attack, for that exact reason: the enormity of it all. It scares me to death thinking about the time and the distances. And I never met people who have that too.
I can hardly look at the sky (at night) without getting a panic attack, for that exact reason: the enormity of it all. It scares me to death thinking about the time and the distances. And I never met people who have that too.
One thought to give me the heebee-jeebees is imagining to fall into Jupiter. Temperature and pressure aside, the vastness and alienness of falling into an abyss of ammonia clouds for an eternity and plunging into an ocean of liquid metallic hydrogen is terrifying. I could not finish a 3-hour video game[1] set on that very environment. Too scary for me.
I alt-F4'd Space Engine in panic when I told it to zoom to a black hole and I saw this circle of emptyness rapidly opening in my screen and distorting the infinity of stars in the background. I swear I found a dozen other people on forums mentioning their phobia of black holes caused by Space Engine.
Space is scary. Everything outside Earth's atmosphere is by definition alien and unnatural. Yet so fascinating.
1: https://store.steampowered.com/app/773370/Exo_One/ (it's actually pretty good)
I alt-F4'd Space Engine in panic when I told it to zoom to a black hole and I saw this circle of emptyness rapidly opening in my screen and distorting the infinity of stars in the background. I swear I found a dozen other people on forums mentioning their phobia of black holes caused by Space Engine.
Space is scary. Everything outside Earth's atmosphere is by definition alien and unnatural. Yet so fascinating.
1: https://store.steampowered.com/app/773370/Exo_One/ (it's actually pretty good)
Literal cosmic horror; the realization of being a meaningless speck in an indifferent universe.
(I was today years old that that's a Dr. Strange quote, sigh. I thought it was more profound, lovecraftian or something).
(I was today years old that that's a Dr. Strange quote, sigh. I thought it was more profound, lovecraftian or something).
Too me it isn't terrifying - it is exhilarating and liberating. We are just some crazy thing that happened - enjoy it regardless of what it all is.
If that cloud were conscious the way you and I are, it would probably be amazed that so much complexity could be compacted into such a tiny space as your brain, our world, teeming with equally complex life and intricate webs of interdependent systems to keep our little bundle of life running must be amazingly interesting to galaxy-sized systems such as that, although I bet it would be terrified of being compressed into such a finite size.
You’re not alone! I’m the exact same way, it’s like I try to wrap my head around the enormity of what I see and I’m filled with terror. My wife thinks I’m insane that sometimes I imagine falling in a space suit toward Jupiter and I feel scared.
Also anytime there’s an article about the sheer size of the universe, trying to get you to understand the enormity, I feel my grip on reality start to lessen and have to pull myself back and stop thinking about it.
I’ve noticed the moon doesn’t cause similar anxiety, maybe because it’s so close and tangible compared to everything else?
I’ve never met a fellow astrophobe, either. Hang in there.
Also anytime there’s an article about the sheer size of the universe, trying to get you to understand the enormity, I feel my grip on reality start to lessen and have to pull myself back and stop thinking about it.
I’ve noticed the moon doesn’t cause similar anxiety, maybe because it’s so close and tangible compared to everything else?
I’ve never met a fellow astrophobe, either. Hang in there.
It's nice to see that some people share some of my fears. When I still played Kerbal Space Program it used to make me anxious, and even something like the landing zone selection in Rimworld can be a bit scary. I used to have nightmares about being in space too. I'm not that scared of the night sky but when looking at it while laying down and seeing nothing else it can be scary.
At least know that in that vast universe you're not alone in your fears!
At least know that in that vast universe you're not alone in your fears!
I feel that very profoundly, and always brings to my mind the phrase "And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
Sounds like existential anxiety type issue to me. You might study the stoics or learn to embrace nihilism to get past it. Once you accept how small and irrelevant you are in this big picture, you can stop worrying about success or "winning" and get on with things that are important to you.
Life in a galaxy is an inherently risky business.
Once we become less rocks-banging-on-rocks primitive, the first order of business will be to get the hell out of the galaxy.
Once we become less rocks-banging-on-rocks primitive, the first order of business will be to get the hell out of the galaxy.
Once we'll have the technology to move outside the galaxy, we'll be a Type-III civilisation on the Kardashev scale that will need to harvest an entire galaxy's worth of energy just to sustain itself. God itself would fear us.
(Unless you mean to move outside the Solar system. I've seen plenty people confuse the two.)
(Unless you mean to move outside the Solar system. I've seen plenty people confuse the two.)
Ability to move operations outside the galaxy is probably available at Kardashev II.
Just moving out of the solar system would be pointless, except to obtain a ready supply of cold. We may expect cold to remain essential to anybody still bound by laws of thermodynamics.
The whole "Kardashev" business, anyway, comes from an extremely primitive outlook. Once a culture gets a handle on mass/energy conversion, relying on stars to provide process energy gets left behind, and other resource limits become important instead. Safety from nearby magnetar quakes and merging black holes, for example.
Just moving out of the solar system would be pointless, except to obtain a ready supply of cold. We may expect cold to remain essential to anybody still bound by laws of thermodynamics.
The whole "Kardashev" business, anyway, comes from an extremely primitive outlook. Once a culture gets a handle on mass/energy conversion, relying on stars to provide process energy gets left behind, and other resource limits become important instead. Safety from nearby magnetar quakes and merging black holes, for example.
I just get sad thinking about the slow travel/trapped. Maybe someone will figure it out.
It is sad.
But, on a flip side - somewhat tangentially, I've recently become interested in molecular biology. The strides we're making within the field is incredible.
Perhaps it isn't as sexy as astronomy, but it's far more within our grasp, and arguably has a far bigger impact on us, at least right now
But, on a flip side - somewhat tangentially, I've recently become interested in molecular biology. The strides we're making within the field is incredible.
Perhaps it isn't as sexy as astronomy, but it's far more within our grasp, and arguably has a far bigger impact on us, at least right now
Eventually, the human consciousness will move to a synthetic medium, and we will feel far less "trapped" as time will virtually cease to hold meaning.
I'm also intrigued thinking about a post-meat existence. But I think that while time will then not be measured in hours or days, we will be counting down the total energy available to us from Sol, and if it will suffice to bring us to a new star or other energy source.
There will always be an uncertain countdown.
There will always be an uncertain countdown.
This begs the question - is there a maximum "star cluster" size, beyond which a post-meat society on starship(s) would be unable to obtain more energy?
In essence, given some function that takes in:
- a graph of stars/blackholes (energy sources), with:
- the distances between each energy source
- the expected remaining lifetime of the source
- (optionally) the probable locations of new sources, and their expected time to maturity
and:
- a set of starships, with:
- the maximum material lifetime of the starship (e.g. of solar panels)
- the percentage of material renewal possible at each node
- the energy consumption of the starship
is there a finite longest path, that is meaningfully smaller than the universe?
And what is the probability that we will encounter a life-bearing planet on this path, which we will have to mine to oblivion to enable the renewal of our starship(s) for the survival of our own species?
In essence, given some function that takes in:
- a graph of stars/blackholes (energy sources), with:
- the distances between each energy source
- the expected remaining lifetime of the source
- (optionally) the probable locations of new sources, and their expected time to maturity
and:
- a set of starships, with:
- the maximum material lifetime of the starship (e.g. of solar panels)
- the percentage of material renewal possible at each node
- the energy consumption of the starship
is there a finite longest path, that is meaningfully smaller than the universe?
And what is the probability that we will encounter a life-bearing planet on this path, which we will have to mine to oblivion to enable the renewal of our starship(s) for the survival of our own species?
There may exist extra timelike dimensions that can be a conduit for information. I hear that the ultrahyperbolic equations this leads to are difficult to comprehend.
You might take comfort in, that it also puts a dampener on interstellar wars (my assumption).
Another way to see it is that while we are so small and irrelevant - enjoy the fact that we are irrelevant and yet we get all this.
Add to this the scale of time - just remember that in 500 million years after all evidence of us is long, long, LONG gone that the clouds will still form and the waves will still crash on the shore.
That we are here and potentially meaningless isn't something to fear, it is something to cherish.
Add to this the scale of time - just remember that in 500 million years after all evidence of us is long, long, LONG gone that the clouds will still form and the waves will still crash on the shore.
That we are here and potentially meaningless isn't something to fear, it is something to cherish.
> we are so small and irrelevant
I see it the other way around - we are the only thing that is relevant, and the rest of the universe isn’t. Yes, it is big (to put it mildly) and hostile, and some people feel that thinking about it is somehow “liberating,” which, in fact, is merely a fleeting illusion, because the excitement quickly passes as soon as you go back to your daily minutia and have to continue to put up with all the bullshit and what not that’s happening around you. (The thought of the impending death may be just as “liberating” except that it’s not and never has been. You simply go through you daily routine until, say, you get sick and die. That’s it.)
I see it the other way around - we are the only thing that is relevant, and the rest of the universe isn’t. Yes, it is big (to put it mildly) and hostile, and some people feel that thinking about it is somehow “liberating,” which, in fact, is merely a fleeting illusion, because the excitement quickly passes as soon as you go back to your daily minutia and have to continue to put up with all the bullshit and what not that’s happening around you. (The thought of the impending death may be just as “liberating” except that it’s not and never has been. You simply go through you daily routine until, say, you get sick and die. That’s it.)
The daily routine until you get sick and die - that is true but there is something special in that in that it is just the way we are. Why should we expect anything more?
I've heard these kind of feelings many times and I find them particularly interesting because I've never felt anything like that
I think the feeling of being "minuscule" starts at a much lower scale. Who am I in this city? No one relevant. 40-50 people might feel sad if I die today. The remaining X million won't care. Does that make me feel bad or irrelevant? Not really...I'm relevant to 40-50 people and very relevant to my close family and friends.
I'm not too attached to the human species either. I think we have some great things, but even in terms of the earth we've only existed for a tiny bit (and maybe we won't be for much longer....100 thousand more years?). I'm also fine with that.
My hypothesis is that many people feel very strongly things like the soul is eternal or that humans have a unique and uber-important destiny in the universe. If you feel that, contemplating how minuscule we are when considering time-space will make you feel weird because it contradicts those very strong feelings.
I think the feeling of being "minuscule" starts at a much lower scale. Who am I in this city? No one relevant. 40-50 people might feel sad if I die today. The remaining X million won't care. Does that make me feel bad or irrelevant? Not really...I'm relevant to 40-50 people and very relevant to my close family and friends.
I'm not too attached to the human species either. I think we have some great things, but even in terms of the earth we've only existed for a tiny bit (and maybe we won't be for much longer....100 thousand more years?). I'm also fine with that.
My hypothesis is that many people feel very strongly things like the soul is eternal or that humans have a unique and uber-important destiny in the universe. If you feel that, contemplating how minuscule we are when considering time-space will make you feel weird because it contradicts those very strong feelings.
If you think the size of the source object is large, consider the size of space its viewable from.
If you see a spec of light from a star, that same spec is visible from every point on a sphere around it (ish)
Now consider the size of the sphere! It's amazing anything reach us at all.
Now consider the size of the sphere! It's amazing anything reach us at all.
I felt the same way recently reading about galaxy filaments and walls
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!
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!
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
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanny%27s_Voorwerp
Continuing the thread, my favourites are the sequence of telescopes named "very large telescope", "extremely large telescope" and "overwhelmingly large telescope"!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_Large_Telescope
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremely_Large_Telescope
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overwhelmingly_Large_Telesco...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_Large_Telescope
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremely_Large_Telescope
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overwhelmingly_Large_Telesco...
Some other cool uses of adjectives:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Attractor
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Magellanic_Cloud
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Magellanic_Cloud
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_Void
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Void
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Nothing
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermassive_black_hole
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Attractor
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Magellanic_Cloud
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Magellanic_Cloud
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_Void
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Void
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Nothing
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermassive_black_hole
And of course, the obligatory xkcd (it's not just 927 again!): https://xkcd.com/1294/
It's missing "Ludicrously Large Telescope" and "Plaid Telescope".
or the Bloop [0], a mysterious underwater sound that I guess sounded like bloop. Similar: The Ping [1], The Hum [2].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloop
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fury_and_Hecla_Strait#%22The_P...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hum
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloop
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fury_and_Hecla_Strait#%22The_P...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hum
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.
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.
Interesting, although I think your hypothesis would benefit from additional examples. It’s way too easy to cherry pick with a sample size of 2.
I'd like to think Uber is an uncommon example of hubris by a bad actor.
Lift, Cabify and Freenow are slightly more down to earth ;)
Lift, Cabify and Freenow are slightly more down to earth ;)
Theranos? Elon Musk? Silicon Valley and IT are full of hubris-based actors, successful or not.
Linus invented Git, one can repent ;)
Yeah, ironically when i think of Uber, i think of Ubermenschen, which featured prominently in Nazi propaganda[1], so 1940s. So much for ego being a new thing and cherry picking how in olden times things were better.
Even so, your thesis was falsifiable which makes it good in my book :)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Cbermensch#Use_by_the_Naz...
Even so, your thesis was falsifiable which makes it good in my book :)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Cbermensch#Use_by_the_Naz...
That's what I think of too.
> So much for ego being a new thing and cherry picking how in olden times things were better.
I never said ego was a new thing, or that all of history was better. In fact, I chose the post-war period - whose culture, I would guess, was partly a reaction to the fascist ideology (or any ideology).
> So much for ego being a new thing and cherry picking how in olden times things were better.
I never said ego was a new thing, or that all of history was better. In fact, I chose the post-war period - whose culture, I would guess, was partly a reaction to the fascist ideology (or any ideology).
> 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.
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.
Interesting take. Might have something to do with the culture of science, which still adheres more to values like collaboration.
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.
As somebody who's interested in postmodern philosophy, I'm not sure I'd characterise it as being against reason or intellectual empowerment. It's primarily skeptical of metanarratives, like the idea of historical progress or the inevitable triumph of reason. The big one it expresses skepticism towards is the modernist project, but that doesn't mean a rejection of reason. After all, postmodern philosophy uses arguments from reasoning to make its case!
Social constructivism and the like also aren't anti-facts or pro-subjectivity (assuming that's what you were implying, just a guess though) - it's about acknowledging which things we consider objectively true are actually only true by convention or tradition rather than being rooted in physical laws. Also how the human mind models knowledge and the relations between our models of reality and reality itself, so we don't mistake the map for the territory.
Social constructivism and the like also aren't anti-facts or pro-subjectivity (assuming that's what you were implying, just a guess though) - it's about acknowledging which things we consider objectively true are actually only true by convention or tradition rather than being rooted in physical laws. Also how the human mind models knowledge and the relations between our models of reality and reality itself, so we don't mistake the map for the territory.
> As somebody who's interested in postmodern philosophy, I'm not sure I'd characterise it as being against reason or intellectual empowerment.
I agree completely! The "new era" to which I referred is not post-modernism, but what I describe as the current 'reactionary' era in my earlier post (the GGGP, beginning "An hypothesis ..."). Sorry if that was confusing.
I agree completely! The "new era" to which I referred is not post-modernism, but what I describe as the current 'reactionary' era in my earlier post (the GGGP, beginning "An hypothesis ..."). Sorry if that was confusing.
Understood, and agreed :)
So what do you think? Are we in a new period after post-modernism? What would you call it? When and how did it start? I can't be the first to think it - by who and where is it talked about?
Some humantities and social science academics I know disdain post-modernism, with all the scholarly reason and social momentum of being 'no longer cool' in high school - 'you're still wearing those shoes?'. I asked one, in front of their friend, about the post-modern person on whom they wrote their thesis. They changed the subject and then later told me quietly, 'I don't read that anymore'.
For all the ridiculousness of that, it's serious business. Post-modernism contained the weapons and armor against fascism and other ideology, and we've disarmed ourselves. What do people intend to replace it with?
Some humantities and social science academics I know disdain post-modernism, with all the scholarly reason and social momentum of being 'no longer cool' in high school - 'you're still wearing those shoes?'. I asked one, in front of their friend, about the post-modern person on whom they wrote their thesis. They changed the subject and then later told me quietly, 'I don't read that anymore'.
For all the ridiculousness of that, it's serious business. Post-modernism contained the weapons and armor against fascism and other ideology, and we've disarmed ourselves. What do people intend to replace it with?
If you are referring to Uber the app, "Uber" had nothing to do with ego. The cab experience was poor, and the service was called UberCab to delineate a better cab experience. Cab++ if you wish.
They got sued for using the word "cab" in "UberCab", and just shorted the name to "Uber".
They got sued for using the word "cab" in "UberCab", and just shorted the name to "Uber".
The people who named it no doubt put much more thought into the name than we are, and I am confident they knew the implications of the word 'uber'; also, emember that it was founded by Travis Kalanick whose public actions seem to fit some of those implications.
Also compare the word 'uber', however you interpret it, with words like 'google', 'yahoo', 'GNU', 'quark', 'charmed', 'C', 'C++', etc. Those have wit, humor, and disarm ego. (In fairess, maybe there are similarly witty names now that I'm not thinking of?)
Also compare the word 'uber', however you interpret it, with words like 'google', 'yahoo', 'GNU', 'quark', 'charmed', 'C', 'C++', etc. Those have wit, humor, and disarm ego. (In fairess, maybe there are similarly witty names now that I'm not thinking of?)
You are overthinking this by a wide margin. UberCab was being used with the same meaning of “Ubercool”.
And you are factually wrong: UberCab was created without Travis Kalanick, by Garrett Camp. Travis invested in UberCab 6 months later or so, and he became CEO as part of the deal.
Do your research please.
And you are factually wrong: UberCab was created without Travis Kalanick, by Garrett Camp. Travis invested in UberCab 6 months later or so, and he became CEO as part of the deal.
Do your research please.
Is that not ego? "We're better than a cab".
It would be ego-less if they called it CabApp or something.
It would be ego-less if they called it CabApp or something.
WeTriedOurBestAndHopeWeDidBetterThanRegularCabs™
"We are paying less tax and insurance than a cab"
All the other cabapp names are egoless
All the other cabapp names are egoless
Medicine is the same but they do it in Latin so that plebs don't know they're actually using Buffyspeak.
This can be really annoying. I went into an ENT for an ear infection. Doctor looks at me really seriously and tells me I have "otitis media". I look it up. It's just latin for "ear infection". That's nice, but I came in to learn what to do about it.
I have idiopathic hypersomnia, or "you're more sleepy than you should be, idk why".
I blew up my knee in a motorbike incident, turning my ACL into a puddle of goo in the process. Imagine how impressed I was when after two minutes of research I found out "Ante-cruciate ligament" is "Back-crossy tying thing."
"Front-crossy tying thing", anyway. A back-crossy tying thing would be "post-etc." Anyway everything needs a name.
"Middle-ear infection". So, more specific than just ear infection. But the same number of syllables as "otitis media". But when you say the latter, you are not only saying you know what it is, but hinting you know what to do about it. (Which you might not.)
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.
https://i.imgur.com/UB2r629.png you can tell it's pioneering science when they've used up all the fancy qualifiers like "polar" and "equatorial" and end up just saying "Another ring"
That picture gives off so many Star Trek TOS vibes.
We definitely appear to be approaching a spatial anomaly.
It could be sentient. Let's probe it with our prime directive of non-interference
It's the last thing they'll expect.
For scale:
> The odd radio circle’s large outer circle is possibly more than a million light years across
The entire Milky Way galaxy is 100,000 light years across: https://www.universetoday.com/75691/how-big-is-the-milky-way...
> The odd radio circle’s large outer circle is possibly more than a million light years across
The entire Milky Way galaxy is 100,000 light years across: https://www.universetoday.com/75691/how-big-is-the-milky-way...
Anton Petrov has a great video on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRaQj_IMAjY.
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
Everyone knows it's turtles all the way down.
At first I didn't see the big deal, because it looks just like a nebula, just in RF spectrum. Then I processed the fact that it's over a million light years across.
That article is rather thin.
How far away is it? There appear to be some odd-shaped objects in the background that look like some galaxies from the Hubble Deep-space images. But HDS is optical, and this is radio.
What RF frequencies are represented by the blue-grey haze? That info would make it possible for a layman to speculate about what material was doing the radiating.
It does seem mysterious. If that thing's really a million ly across, then it's surely hard to explain. Any event at the centre most probably happened in a galaxy, and I would expect the galaxy itself to have captured most of the energy from the event.
Have they tried to look at the central galaxy in optical? Does it look like an watermelon that's been blasted with a 12-bore?
So we're talking about an event that occurred 1 million years ago, plus the time light took to get here. Perhaps it's a hugely energetic event that has illuminated and ionised intergalactic gas? But I can't imagine what kind of event that could be (the merger of two black holes doesn't seem to me to be right, but what do I know).
How far away is it? There appear to be some odd-shaped objects in the background that look like some galaxies from the Hubble Deep-space images. But HDS is optical, and this is radio.
What RF frequencies are represented by the blue-grey haze? That info would make it possible for a layman to speculate about what material was doing the radiating.
It does seem mysterious. If that thing's really a million ly across, then it's surely hard to explain. Any event at the centre most probably happened in a galaxy, and I would expect the galaxy itself to have captured most of the energy from the event.
Have they tried to look at the central galaxy in optical? Does it look like an watermelon that's been blasted with a 12-bore?
So we're talking about an event that occurred 1 million years ago, plus the time light took to get here. Perhaps it's a hugely energetic event that has illuminated and ionised intergalactic gas? But I can't imagine what kind of event that could be (the merger of two black holes doesn't seem to me to be right, but what do I know).
Based on the galaxies inside the ORC, it's probably at z ~ 0.55. With those distances you don't get much detail, everything is mainly slightly squashed smudges.
The observations covers the range of 880 MHz to 1680 MHz (with some gaps to avoid RFI, see their table 2), find a spectral index between -1.9 to -0.9 with a median of -1.6. Also the image is an interferometric measurement.
The observations covers the range of 880 MHz to 1680 MHz (with some gaps to avoid RFI, see their table 2), find a spectral index between -1.9 to -0.9 with a median of -1.6. Also the image is an interferometric measurement.
If you are looking at a circle that is a cone of light. Couldn't this be is big radio burst on the other side of something with a lot of mass? A normal spherical expansion of an explosion when going past a massive object would obscure the centre and bend some light to form a circle.
Don't see what that isn't one of the suggested theories.
Galaxy in the middle might not be the source, just the mass that's doing the bending of the radio waves.
We should learn something from these pictures - we're so infinitely small and unimportant regardless of our pathological narcissism and greed. We should be humble and modest and all agree that there is so much more outside of Earth than on Earth where we wage wars and kill each other over stupidity. Instead, focus all efforts on us becoming interplanetary, and then there's more out there than our greed can ever handle!
Gravitational lensing can make the same star appear in a circular pattern, could the same happen for these radio wave patterns?
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.
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.
Thanks! I saw three theories listed in the nature article and none of them mentioned lensing or Einstein rings.
Some curiosities behind the question were whether optical and radio frequencies behave the same with lensing. And how to tell if the radio image is in front of or behind the stars.
I'm an armchair astronomer if that, and obviously didn't read the source paper. Appreciate your thoughtful response!
Some curiosities behind the question were whether optical and radio frequencies behave the same with lensing. And how to tell if the radio image is in front of or behind the stars.
I'm an armchair astronomer if that, and obviously didn't read the source paper. Appreciate your thoughtful response!
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?
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?
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).
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).
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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. "
"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. "
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
>... 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.
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.
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.
No need to for you to be defensive on the scientist’s behalf.
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.
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.
So we have meerkats on the lookout for orcs.
https://www.brightmast.com/ask-ap/
Also apparently ASKAP is doing double duty on payroll, taking care of the elfs for us.
And the hobbitses?
https://www.brightmast.com/ask-ap/
Also apparently ASKAP is doing double duty on payroll, taking care of the elfs for us.
And the hobbitses?
They mention one possible cause: merger of a pair of super-massive black holes after galaxies merge.
I wonder if any life in such a galaxy could survive such an event.
I wonder if any life in such a galaxy could survive such an event.
"Space circle" could describe pretty much everything and anything outside the atmosphere, no? "Sphere" was probably too technical.
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.
> 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.
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.
A sphere spins in a circle <- probably the most abstract answer possible, but correct as I see it.
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.)
[deleted]
Spin
Generally anything acting under a force causing it to be pulled together and possibly another force causing it to be pushed apart.
Gigantic radio waves? Couldn't it be some alien species broadcasting it with advanced tech over millions of years?
Any chance that the James Webb telescope will have a look at this?
Would we get better data/images from it than from MeerKAT?
Would we get better data/images from it than from MeerKAT?
I wonder if there is something, some phenomena or rare event that can cause smoke rings in space?
Lots of things. Question is, which one is this?
Why can't it ever be aliens?
It's always aliens.
Having looked at this picture for a good ten minutes it still feels alien.
That's why we rely on empirical observation: our subjective intuitions suck.
true! but looking at some zoomed spiders and they also feel alien, so what do i know..
[deleted]
Kind of looks like a lens flare.
Why does this stuff always look out of focus?
thats an Orconeoid
The Trisolaran fleet
Odd that no one mentioned yet that those look like the Ring from Expanse.
"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
It’s already been cleansed. Nothing more to do."
- Death's End, Liu Cixin
I'll make my pointless comment over here with the downvoted,
when I saw it I thought of the 4chan troll face
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?
Can we detect single-star Dyson spheres as the disappearance of stars before their expected end?
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
While we're imagining.. maybe it's a swarm of self-replicating AI locusts that consume entire worlds. They're growing, almost exponentially, outward from the poor civilization that created them...
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.
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.
It's also ten times the size of the Milky Way.
And things ten times the size of the Milky Way are likely to last a while.
*possibly
> (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.
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.
Do we humans represent something greater? Are we just a smear of pixels, a trivialising of some incomprehensibly large object? Are we really just this small? Are we a galaxy to some other being in some microscopic dimension, imaged with technology of a totally alien nature? Maybe these aren't logical questions.
I mean, there are plenty of photos like this, where you can just barely begin to appreciate the scale of the visible universe, but yeah, this one just got me today.