Slashdot Mirror
Milky Way Is Twice the Size We Thought
Peter writes to tell us about a research group at the University of Sydney in Australia, who in the middle of some calculation wanted to check the numbers everybody uses for the thickness of our galaxy at the core. Using data available freely on the Internet and analyzing it in a spreadsheet, they discovered in a matter of hours that the Milky Way is 12,000 light years thick, vs. the 6,000 that had been the consensus number for some time.
This time, you've already received your answer to why Wikipedia had this information, and it's in fact not a long time ago I've had to do the same.
So, please guys, before you bash Wikipedia, check if there's a good reason to the discrepancy of the information. Surprisingly often, especially in articles receiving good attention like the one for our galaxy, there is.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Ironically, Wikipedia is one among few encyclopedias that do this. Not for all facts, far from it, but for a fair number of facts. For example, Wikipedia has three references for the mass of the Milky Way, and you can also see which referenced were used for that sole claim. You won't be able to see that by using Britannica.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
From TFA with commentary:
Proving not all science requires big, expensive apparatus, Professor Gaensler and colleagues...downloaded data from the internet
No, this actually proves that you can reuse data gathered with large expensive apparatus. There's a difference. They couldn't have done this without expensive infrastructure that just happened to cost them nothing (or close to nothing) - ie. The original instruments and the Internet.
The University of Sydney team's analysis differs from previous calculations because they were more discerning with their data selection. "We used data from pulsars: stars that flash with a regular pulse," Professor Gaensler explains. "As light from these pulsars travels to us, it interacts with electrons scattered between the stars (the Warm Ionised Medium, or WIM), which slows the light down.
Well now wouldn't you want to explore why the data differs so much, before declaring your answer to be the correct one just because you verified your calculations are correct?
My first thought is: Did they use some standard or average value for the density of the WIM? Could the discrepancy be because the WIM itself is not uniform through the thickness of the galaxy/
This is definitely an interesting result and worth following up but rather than declare victory the real question is why is there such a large discrepancy with other data?
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
How is this modded "insightful"? Scientific models and methods improve, often building upon earlier models and methods. This isn't an indication of incompetence or malfeasance in the earlier science; it just means that we're getting better at it.
Additionally, the revised estimate of the point of divergence of humans from primates as a result of newly-discovered fossil evidence isn't even remotely relevant to a case in which existing data has been re-interpreted to form a new conclusion.
SIERRA TANGO FOXTROT UNIFORM
Read the best of all of Slash: seenonslash.com
It's what happens when one guy does a calculation and everybody else cites it... then it becomes "consensus."
Stupid sexy Flanders.
I guess I should clarify. I have no problem with amateurs editing Wikipedia. But I do have problems with, as you say, stupid, fucking amateurs editing Wikipedia.
For example, at the moment Wikipedia says:
The disk of the Milky Way galaxy is approximately 100,000 light years in diameter, and is believed to be about 1,000 light years thick (average thickness),[8] with the center bulge's thickness recently discovered by University of Sydney researchers to be about 12,000 light years, contrary to the previously thought 6,000.[9]This is not correct. The Wikipedia editors have decided somehow that the 12,000 light year measurement refers to the center of the Milky Way (even though it does not state this anywhere in the U Sydney Press Release). As I said above, the 12,000 light year measurement refers not to a location but to a component, the Warm Ionised Medium or WIM.
My point is simply that the quality of Wikipedia is only as good as the effort that editors make to understand a subject and edit appropriately.
You bet I take Wikipedia seriously.
It is the largest and broadest source of information that has ever been available, any where, any time. It gives access to any of 2.25 million articles at incredible speed: it takes many times longer to phrase the Google query that identifies the relevant article than it does to fetch the text.
Are the contents accurate?
That's the wrong question.
Are the contents useful?
You bet they are, if you understand the context and know how to critically assess what you read. As with any encyclopedia, the most valuable parts of the articles are the references and citations to other works. Through those, a discerning reader can learn the major features of an unfamiliar field. Additionally, the Wikipedia article itself is a pretty good indicator of what the well informed non-expert believes he knows about any field. This is important: it wasn't so long ago that expensive surveys were the only tools for assessing lay knowledge about a field.
Wikipedia is not authoritative. That does not diminish its value. For various reasons no encyclopedic collection is an authority on any subject (other than itself, and even that is often time-limited).
I can easily understand that talking about 'how thick the galaxy is' is a lot like the 'is Pluto a planet' dispute -- it's just shorthand for more complex issues that you could elucidate. For example -- you could provide a brief paragraph describing the controversy, and how different elements lead to different measures of a galaxy's thickness, and give those measures. You'd be, you know, educating. If you both care enough and know enough about a subject to be bothered by the Wikipedia article, that's a sign you should be improving it.
Read the best of all of Slash: seenonslash.com
My example about the dating of primate and human evolution was to prove that these type of huge "corrections" have occured even in other scientific fields as well. So what we know to be absolutely true today, can be completely off tomorrow.
Scientists never know anything to be "absolutely true". Absolute truth is the domain of charlatans, liars and cheats.
When geology started scientists proved that certain rocks in England were "millions of years old!", and postulated based on that that the earth might be "hundreds of millions of years old!". But those numbers seem quaint and even silly today. As new rocks were discovered we soon learned that they were billions of years old, and when we learned about plate tectonics we realized the Earth could be older than the oldest rocks we could find. Our guess as to what the milkyway even looks like are based on looking at other galaxies and then seeing similar structures in our own local neighborhood. We can't actually look at it like we look at other galaxies. We are inside of it; close by stars and dust obscure our view, and our vantage point is that of someone looking at a plane from the side.
What we can see are 'standard candles', that is stars emitting light within a certain range based on our knowledge of nuclear reactions and our ability to calculate apparent mass and composition. This rests on nuclear reaction theory for stars of large mass that we can not test as easily as we can test say simple nuclear decay, and it also rests on a number of approximations for the amount of dust vs "dark matter" in the intervening space (once you know how bright the star is at it's surface, you then base it's distance from you on how bright it appears to you on earth; the stuff in between matters). Terms like "dark matter" and "dark energy" should be hints that we can be off by several magnitudes. If one star is somewhere between 5,000 and 10,000 light years away, while it sounds like a huge difference, the same approximations can tell us that another star is between 5 and 10 light years away.
To put this in perspective, does it really matter if homo split off from ape 1 or 2 or 4 million years ago. Or, whether modern man is 50, 100, or 200 thousand years old? Even what happened in your day yesterday is not completely known to you. You have forgotten most of it, and what you do remember is colored by your dreams last night and your mind's ability to integrate it into what has happened before. But you'll make do with your imperfect knowledge of the day, this month you'll have an idea of how warm it was based on the weather this year + the fact that you don't remember it being an unseasonable day, and ten years from now you'll have an idea based on the season, and ten thousand years from now, people reading your description of your day will have an idea of the weather based on the season and climate. All are less accurate than if I had asked you yesterday how warm it was, but so long as you understand the data and it's approximate accuracy it is still useful. It's useful to have an idea of how long ago ape split off from man vs when modern man split off from other human species, but the day the month and the year isn't important when you're dealing with large numbers like this. The order of magnitude is all you need for any useful work. The processes probably took many years anyway. Except in the laboratory, speciation doesn't happen overnight...
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I fully expect to be modded down to oblivion for this and I honestly couldn't care less.