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.
Yeah, it comes with "%30 MORE!" now.
Obesity is everywhere.
Wikipedia says it's only 1000 light years thick.
This is a good reminder how you're supposed to dig down to the raw data and validate that. I remember reading in one of Richard Feynman's books about a similar case, some conclusion or data appeared well supported, because a lot of the research papers were supportive of the idea, but it turned out that they derived what they said based on a single source.
The case here is similar, it's a good reminder how science is about data, validation and facts not about authority. You're supposed to check your data, check your facts and try to avoid making implicit assumptions.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
[1] Now known to consist of dark matter and dark energy, which is why you can't see them.
1 light-year = 4 * (cost of war in Iraq so far) * (mile/$)
;)
I hope that brings it into perspective for you
For the perfect anti-Unix, write an OS that thinks it knows what you're doing better than you do and let it be wrong.
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
It's pretty hard to measure the size and shape of the Milky Way simply because we are stuck in the middle of it. Measuring the size and shape of far away galaxies is a lot easier because we have a better view. Our galaxy is a flat disk with spiral arms where we are in one of those arms - the overall structure is very hard to measure from that perspective. To complicate things further there is quite a lot if interstellar dust that messes up our view in certain directions.
As an analogy - imagine being stuck in a traffic jam. Figuring out the extent of it is very hard from the view you get from your car. A helicopter in the sky has no problems though.
siener's youtube channel
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
I am an astronomer, so first some background: The Milky way has several components: young stars, old stars, dust and various components of gas. They all have different thicknesses. There is no single "thickness". One of these components (warm ionized gas) has been measured to have a thickness larger than expected. This measurement has not been confirmed by others, nor (I think) published yet.
Despite this complexity, this discussion thread is awash with arguments, confusion, wild speculation, suggestions that dark matter might be wrong etc. etc. OK, fine, this is slashdot, that's what slashdot is for.
But the same people (presumably) have also rushed off to edit Wikipedia! (I see a half dozen edits this morning, to add in the "new" thickness.) That's the part that I find incredible. And people really take Wikipedia seriously?
I agree that the nature of science is that we will definitely need to improve on our findings and get higher and higher levels of accuracy. That is to be expected.
What I find worrying is the range of correction that needs to be applied and also the fact that the correction takes this long - especially considering that the group was able to arrive at a value which is *twice* the older value by just spending a little bit of time studying the data.
The questions it raises are:
1. How is it that the Milkyway was considered to be 6000 light years wide? When someone made this claim, wasn't the data ever rechecked by anyone? If someone with a spreadsheet can come up with this new value of 12000 light years just by spending a few hours studying it, why was it not done earlier? What happened to peer-review - was it ever conducted? If this isn't an indication of incompetence at some level among a few people involved in setting this value, what is?
2. Scientific findings will, no doubt, be modified as new things come to light. However, corrections are normally meant to be just a few % off the initial value. 100% change is not an improvement - it means that the initial value was astoundingly and absolutely wrong. What is staggering about this is the fact that the new value was not calculated based on any *new* finding - but rather it was found just by recalculating based on the *already* existing data.
3. What implications does this have on other findings?
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.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton