Slashdot Mirror


Mysterious Stars Surround Andromeda's Black Hole

UltimaGuy writes to tell us that Yahoo is running a story about a recent discovery that shows the source of strange blue light coming from the center of the Andromeda galaxy. The light is actually a cluster of stars circling the galaxy's central black hole with immense orbital velocity. From the article: "Such frenetic activity was thought to prevent star formation. Stars form when a knot of gas and dust collapses under its own gravity."

22 of 341 comments (clear)

  1. Get it right.. by beldraen · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Stars form when a knot of gas and dust collapses under its own gravity.

    No... Stars form however they damn well please. Our current models suggest it is done under their own gravity, but our models are not reality. They are our understanding of reality and are modified or thrown out when we find our understanding is wrong. The universe is always right.

    P.S. Sorry, it's one of my pet pieves when someone says "that not how physics works!"
    --
    Bel, the mostly sane.. "Of course I can't see anything! I'm standing on the shoulders of idiots." -- Me
    1. Re:Get it right.. by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Our current models suggest it is done under their own gravity, but our models are not reality.

      Physicists see equations as a reflection of reality.
      Engineers see reality as a reflection of equations.
      Mathematicians haven't made the connection.

      --
      If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
    2. Re:Get it right.. by ifwm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "No... Stars form however they damn well please"

      No, stars form however the rules of the universe allow them to.

      P.S. Sorry, but it's one of my pet peeves when people anthropomorphize inanimate objects.

    3. Re:Get it right.. by FreeUser · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, stars form however the rules of the universe allow them to.

      P.S. Sorry, but it's one of my pet peeves when people anthropomorphize inanimate objects.


      It is currently an unknown as to whether or not stars are living beings or inanimate objects. Our understanding of plasma physics and the internal electrical structure of stars is simply too small to tell for certain.

      P.S. Sorry, but it's one of my pet peeves when peope assume we know more than we do.

      (this is a little tongue in cheeck, but only a little: I don't believe for a minute stars harbor life or are themselves alive, much less intelligent--but that is a belief based on lack of evidence stemming more from lack of knowledge than any evidence to the contrary)

      --
      The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
    4. Re:Get it right.. by lgw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The physics answer for everything *is* we don't know, we just have a working model!

      Physics has little to do with "what's really hapening," and has everyhting to do with refining predictive models. This is on the whole a good thing, as predictive models are *useful* and understanding "what's really happening" is merely interesting.

      Still, it's important not to eat the menu.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    5. Re:Get it right.. by greg_barton · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, stars form however the rules of the universe allow them to.

      P.S. Sorry, but it's one of my pet peeves when people anthropomorphize inanimate objects.


      And you know for a fact that stars are not intelligent and self aware?

      P.S. Sorry, but it's one of my pet peeves when people deny out of hand the possibility of intelligence beyond humans.

    6. Re:Get it right.. by ifwm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How exactly could I prove stars are NOT intelligent? You do realize you can't prove a negative.

      In your rush to appear smart, you made a classic mistake. Next time think it through a bit more.

    7. Re:Get it right.. by g2devi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > > You do realize you can't prove a negative.
      > Prove it.

      Actually, he can't because you *can* prove a negative.

      Here's an example of what I mean, "Prove that the moon is not made of green cheese."

      What's the method of proof? Go to the moon and find out what it's made of. If it is made of something other than green cheese, then you've proved the negative.

      BTW, it's not always possible to prove a positive either. For instance, prove that the world outside actually exists and it's not just your dream or some shared VR simulation. I seriously doubt you can come up with a proof that what you *perceive* to be reality is real, especially since senses can be easily fooled.

      The problem here isn't "prove a positive" or "prove a negative", it relates to a class of problems that can only be proven if you can step outside the system. Such problems exist, curtesy of Godel's Incompleteness theorem. Flatlanders on a 2-D plane would never be able to detect 3-D space. They may be able to theorize what 3-D could look like and how their universe might look like in 3-D, but they couldn't know that 3-D exists unless they can leave their 2-D universe.

  2. Neato. by Pxtl · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sounds similar to Saturn's rings. A ton of matter spread into teeny blocks in space by tidal forces, but still with enough mass to pull together into a bazillion little blobs. Perhaps the radiant matter/antimatter/energy from the black hole (I'm fuzzy on Hawking's theory on the subject) is heating the surrounding star-spray enough to light some of them?

  3. Hubble by Bonhamme+Richard · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Just another example of how valuable Hubble is.

    Its too bad we only have one giant eye in the sky...

    1. Re:Hubble by ifwm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If I have one major quibble with NASA, it's not blowing up astronauts, but losing Hubble. It seems like the Hubble puts out new stuff all the time, and some if it is absolutely amazing. I think they got their priorities wrong with that decision.

  4. Well... by slobber · · Score: 5, Insightful

    IANAA, but could these stars have formed prior to being caught by the gravity of that black hole?

    --
    "You mortals are so obtuse." -Q
  5. You, sir, by benhocking · · Score: 2, Insightful

    are correct. Thanks for the correction.

    --
    Ben Hocking
    Need a professional organizer?
  6. bad explanation? by peter303 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My explanation is almost as bad as the fundamentalists. If something complicated happens, they say God made it rather some scientific explantion. I'm just substituting advanced aliens for God.

    1. Re:bad explanation? by Fastolfe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If a god did it, and you tried to repeat the act, people would scream, "Don't play God!"

      But if aliens can do it, then it's practically a God-given mandate to one-up them.

    2. Re:bad explanation? by thesandtiger · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's a fair statement, except for one thing:

      We know we exist, and we advance. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to think that it is possible that other species, like us, exist, and are just more advanced.

      However, we've absolutely no reason what-so-ever to believe in god. We don't see little gods, running around, creating things out of thin air, so what possible reason for extrapolating to a bigger/more advanced god is there?

      --
      Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
  7. Re:Duck... by Pxtl · · Score: 4, Insightful

    what I've heard is that while galactic collisions look like all holy hell breaking loose, the stars so rarely pass actually close to each other that they never meat - it's like two clouds of sand passing through each other. The only worry is that something massive brushing within a few lightyears of our solar system might screw with the oribits.

  8. Oblig. "2010: The Year We Make Contact" quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "My God! It's full of stars!"

  9. Re:Argghh by Rycross · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, as a religious person myself, I'll answer your question.

    Simply because saying "Its because of God," leads us to a dead end. If we attributed everything to God, then our scientific progress would be halted. In fact, you can see the results of this type of thinking in our own history. It's called the Dark Ages.

    Science has to take an agnostic stance in order to work. We have to take an agnostic stance in human knowledge in order to progress. If we depend on daddy (God) to give us all the answers, then we will never grow up.

  10. Re:Argghh by CaptainTux · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Simply because saying "Its because of God," leads us to a dead end

    As a Christian, I can see both sides of the debate. I think we need to accept that things are the way they are "because it was God". I think that is what faith is. But I also believe that God, who created the laws of physics and quantum mechanics, would operate fully within those laws during his creation of the universe and things in it.

    That said, I think that Christians can investigate the creation scientifically. We already know the WHO of the creation. But nothing is stopping us from finding out the HOW and WHY.

    --
    Anthony Papillion
    Advanced Data Concepts, Inc.
    "Quality Custom Software and IT Services"
  11. Re:Argghh by lgw · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Indeed! Investigation of a theory's weaknesses is precisely how science progresses, and we should encourage that! However, it should also be made clear that when a scientist says "theory" he means "something that we're certain of, to so many significant digits, for the currently available data" and not "guess".

    It should also be taught that science is less interestd in "what really happened" and more in "how things act", and that regardless of where life really came from, life forms reliably and predictably act as if evolution was their origin - true or false, the theory is incredibly *useful* (at least, to biology, farming, and medicine) and should be taught.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  12. Signs of ETI??? by Pablo+El+Vagabundo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If I was a type 3 player in this universe and wanted to make my presense known maybe I would place stars in unusual places.

    Eventually other would figure it out and maybe there is a message to decode.

    They should look for mathematical alighnments in the stars to see if they are unnatually positioned.

    Would be pretty cool.
    Pablo