Black Hole Particle Jets Explained

Screaming Cactus writes "A team of researchers led by Boston University's Alan Marscher have apparently worked out the physics behind the particle streams emanating from many black holes. According to the researchers, 'twisted, coiled magnetic fields are propelling the material outward.' By watching an 'unprecedented view' of a black hole in the process of expelling mass, they were able to confirm their theory, predicting where and when bursts of energy would be detected."

Comments

Next Slashdot Meme

[Anonymous Coward]

Barfing Black Holes

Taco Bell corollary:

[Anonymous Coward]

If you eat to much of it, uranus shoots out particles at nearly the spead of light.

Hawking Radiation

[packeteer]

So this is separate from Hawking Radiation? Black holes emit two kinds of energy?

Re:Hawking Radiation

[PhuCknuT]

Yes, this is completely different, but it's not exactly the black hole emitting anything. The jets are from material that hasn't fallen into the black hole yet, being accelerated along the axis of rotation by the twisted magnetic fields outside the black hole.

Re:Hawking Radiation

[ekstrom]

This is radiation from the accretion disk, which both supplies the material and twists up the fields which then accelerate the material. It's not from the hole itself. Of course it is all powered by the hole's gravitational field.

Re:Hawking Radiation

[Jugalator]

These particle jets aren't emitted from the actual "depths" of a black hole, but as the article says, ejected due to twisted magnetic fields perpendicular to its accretion disk. Once you get closer, space bends even the magnetic fields inwards, and everything else. And what goes that far is later emitted as Hawking radiation, the only form of energy theorized to be emitted from a black hole, in time believed to "evaporate" the black hole itself.

Re:Hawking Radiation

[techpawn]

The jets are from material that hasn't fallen into the black hole yet

So those sci-fi movies with "we'll sling shot around the sun" should really try "We'll sling shot around that black hole!"

Re:Hawking Radiation

[evanbd]

Well, large black holes don't evaporate -- even the cosmic background radiation is enough to add more mass than they lose to Hawking radiation. The CMB is at ~2.7K, and a 1 solar mass black hole has a temperature of 60nK from the Hawking radiation.

Re:Hawking Radiation

[Anonymous Coward]

I must admit I missed the fact that the jets are not from the black hole itself, but from material yet to be sucked in. I found the article still a bit ambiguous though. Thanks for clearing it up for me.

Re:Hawking Radiation

[PhuCknuT]

Large ones will start to evaporate... in a few trillion years once the CMB cools down enough.

Re:Hawking Radiation

[CrimsonAvenger]

Well, large black holes don't evaporate -- even the cosmic background radiation is enough to add more mass than they lose to Hawking radiation. The CMB is at ~2.7K, and a 1 solar mass black hole has a temperature of 60nK from the Hawking radiation.

Yet. The operational word is "yet". As the Universe ages, the cosmic background temperature will decrease until the point that even a very large black hole will radiate.

Re:Hawking Radiation

[RobinH]

So is the energy (to accelerate the particles in the jets) coming from the loss of potential energy of matter that is falling into the black hole, or is the energy from the black hole itself?

Re:Hawking Radiation

[sm62704]

Of course it is all powered by the hole's gravitational field.

Man, there's one hell of a joke there just begging to be typed but it seems the mods today have too much gravity and not enough levity.

So I'll let it pass.

No, on second thought I'll link to uncyclopedia. I mean, if I'm going to get modded down anyway -

"Black holes are simply where I decided to divide by zero" ~ God on Black Holes

"That's crazy" ~ Mr. Replier on God's black holes

"Originally, Black Holes where known as 'Gravaitationally Collapsed Stars'" ~ Steven Hawking on Gravaitationally Collapsed Stars

Re:Hawking Radiation

[Jugalator]

Yes, I probably should have added a 10^100 years or so disclaimer to "in time". Hehe. But I actually didn't realize that was because of the CMB, never considered that. I just thought they radiated slow enough. So I guess I learnt something there too, hehe.

Re:Hawking Radiation

[PhuCknuT]

It's both, they radiate very slow and the CMB will be warmer than them for a long time. I just looked it up, a stellar mass black hole will take 10^67 years to evaporate. I was way off when I said trillions. :)

The cool thing is, as they get smaller, they radiate faster. So they get smaller and hotter exponentially, and finally die (in theory...) in a massive burst of gamma rays. In the last second, they emit as much energy as a 5000000 megaton nuke. Would be a hell of a show (from a safe distance).

Re:Hawking Radiation

[IorDMUX]

So, I understand (in a manner of speaking) the whole material ejection process, so to speak. I was wondering if someone could clear up an issue for me, though... Why do accretion disks form in the first place? I mean, why a single disk rather than a sphere of material being drawn in to the essentially "spherical" black hole? Why is one plane favored above all others? Is it because the black hole itself is rotating?

Re:Hawking Radiation

[qeveren]

If you have a spherical collection of particles randomly orbiting an object, collisions between particles tend to average out their angular momentum, eventually concentrating them into a thin disk. The oblateness of the rotating primary about which they orbit tends to force that ring into alignment with the primary's equator.

Re:Hawking Radiation

[Anonymous Coward]

this is completely wrong. Get the facts before you post anything.

Re:Hawking Radiation

[dragonfire5287]

It's been done in Andromeda.

Re:Hawking Radiation

[Walt Dismal]

I've always wondered whether magnetic fields inside a black hole are restricted to being within the internal boundary of the black hole, but not able to penetrate outside it? Does the event horizon also apply to them? Does the boundary established by the hole's gravitational field prevent a magnetic field from emerging? That would imply gravity can trump magnetism. I guess that makes sense if gravity warps space, and magnetism has to propagate through space, so if space is distorted the magnetic field lines are too. So does this mean one could somehow bottle up enormous magnetic fields within a gravity-compressed space? Does this operate in suns to contain their reactions? And why do my friends from Tau Ceti always look at me like I was crazy when I ask them this? Just because I'm human doesn't mean they have to treat me like a galactic retard. Although that explains the Slinky they gave me, claiming it was advanced alien technology.

Re:Hawking Radiation

[ekstrom]

Well, strictly speaking, the energy is coming from the gravitational interaction between the infalling matter and the black hole. The arrangement of the hole and disk when a piece of disk is closer to the hole is more negative than when it is farther (the gravitational attraction does work on the material as it falls) and some of the energy given up there ends up powering the motion of the disk, which in turn twists the magnetic fields. The mass-energy of the black hole itself is not depleted here, where in contrast Hawking radiation does reduce the mass-energy of the hole. When it has eaten all of its disk, the hole will end up more massive than it was, but less massive than the original hole-plus-disk system. The eating process sends some energy away in this along with other ways.

Re:Hawking Radiation

[Mes]

It is the magnetic field of the black hole that powers the jets or is it the magnetic field of the orbiting accretion disk? If it was the magnetic field of the black hole, it is curious how it is able to escape the infinitely curved space of the black hole in order to do tremendous work powering these jets. This would indicate that black holes must radiate tons of energy, which I dont think is true.

The scatological aspects of astronomy.

[Kenja]

an 'unprecedented view' of a black hole in the process of expelling mass

Ok, so its juvenile and stupid. But it still made me laugh.

Re:The scatological aspects of astronomy.

[ZenDragon]

No worries man, I had a little chuckle myself over that statement. :)

On topic, somewhat; It would be interesting to see how many of Hawkins theories, if any have been debunked by this discovery. He has had an obsession with black holes for quite some time, which has been somewhat of an mystery in the scientific world. Over the last couple months and years however, there have been numerous discovery's made on black holes. Though I probably wont understand half of it, I would like to see what the little robotic voice has to say about this. :)

Re:The scatological aspects of astronomy.

[Wandering Wombat]

You mis-spelled asstronomy.

Re:The scatological aspects of astronomy.

[oodaloop]

Ok, so its juvenile and stupid. Not really. You may not be aware, but one of the reasons the term Black Hole stuck around was to annoy French astrophysicists (the term translates to a bodily orafice in French). The question was later posed (by Wheeler, I believe) as to whether black holes have 'hair', meaning do they give off observable radiation or other phenomena, much to the chagrin of his French counterparts. The question was posed, FWIU, mostly just so American physicists could snicker while French physicists had to talk about black holes and hair in public conferences. And it turns out that yes, black holes do in fact have hair.

Now we have black holes expelling mass. I'm sure you're not the only one finding this humorous.

Re:The scatological aspects of astronomy.

[The Only Druid]

Near as I understand it, this confirms Hawkings' theories.

Re:The scatological aspects of astronomy.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is misspelled no hyphen.

Re:The scatological aspects of astronomy.

[ZenDragon]

Didn't he say that matter could NOT escape a black hole?

Re:The scatological aspects of astronomy.

[The Only Druid]

Didn't he say that matter could NOT escape a black hole? This isn't matter escaping a black hole. This is matter, outside the black hole, being accelerated and hurtled outwards by the forces of the black hole.

Re:The scatological aspects of astronomy.

[evanbd]

Physicists have black holes, mathematicians have the Hairy Ball Theorem.

Re:The scatological aspects of astronomy.

[steelfood]

This is matter, outside the black hole, being accelerated and hurtled outwards by the forces of the black hole.

That somehow sounds far worse.

Re:The scatological aspects of astronomy.

[Trespass]

You mis-spelled asstronomy. Yeah, I'm pretty sure there's a colon in there somewhere.

Re:The scatological aspects of astronomy.

[jmn2519]

So does the mass sometimes cling to the hairs?
Yeah, it's called a Klingon.

Re:Black Hole

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly, the redirect to GNAA is broken.

Please fix it ASAP, I'm a nerd and I love it, you know that.

This is how science works

[smooth wombat]

'By watching an 'unprecedented view' of a black hole in the process of expelling mass, they were able to confirm their theory, predicting where and when bursts of energy would be detected."

Note to all ID supporters, this is how real science works. Propose a theory which can be tested, then go about trying to disprove the theory.

Now go ahead, flame me. My karma can take it.

Re:This is how science works

[Anonymous Coward]

Propose a theory which can be tested, then go about trying to disprove the theory.

Exactly!

Well, except global warming, obviously. That just gets accepted as is, since anyone who suggests otherwise is probably an oil company shill.

Re:This is how science works

[Kenja]

Well, except global warming, obviously. That just gets accepted as is, since anyone who suggests otherwise is probably an oil company shill. Um, we have decades of direct testing and thousands of years of indirect data supporting global warming. It has been and continues be heavily tested.

Re:This is how science works

[Anonymous Coward]

I worked in a lab with an assistant professor who believed in ID. He was a good scientist (a molecular biologist). He proposed theories, then went about finding evidence to support or disprove the theory. He did good science, the only difference being that when he discovered something he believed that it was designed that way.

Re:This is how science works

[jav1231]

Well, except global warming, obviously. That just gets accepted as is, since anyone who suggests otherwise is probably an oil company shill. It's called "climate change" now. That way if the current trend of lower temps continues and we go into another mini ice age (as some are predicting) they're still right!

BRILLIANT!

Re:This is how science works

[Archangel Michael]

Evolution is a good explanation of "accepted" evidence. One cannot test it, therefore it isn't science.

When you can take a bacteria, and make a mouse using only "natural selection", then I'll accept that you've "tested" evolution.

Now move along.

I suspect I'll be flamed for stating the obvious.

Re:This is how science works

[Kenja]

Actually, "real science" goes like this.

Propose a theory to explain an observable phenomenon. Then attempt to disprove it. If it stands up to scrutiny it stands until disproved or a better theory comes along. The base theory itself does not need to be tested, in fact by definition it can not be proven, only disproved.

Re:This is how science works

[Anonymous Coward]

'By watching an 'unprecedented view' of a black hole in the process of expelling mass, they were able to confirm their theory, predicting where and when bursts of energy would be detected."

Note to all ID supporters, this is how real science works. Propose a theory which can be tested, then go about trying to disprove the theory.

Now go ahead, flame me. My karma can take it.

note to both ID supporters and ID critics.
this topic is about black holes, not ID.

Re:This is how science works

[UncleTogie]

Propose a theory which can be tested, then go about trying to disprove the theory.

That's assuming that all theories can be tested. Or, to put it another way: If you can't test it, is it a theory? According to Merriam-Webster, yes. Inference points towards your disputing that. Is this the problem in a nutshell?

Re:This is how science works

[smooth wombat]

Evolution is a good explanation of "accepted" evidence. One cannot test it, therefore it isn't science.

Right. Because the fossil record of both horses and humans do not show examples of intermediate changes from non-horses and non-humans to todays creatures.

And I suppose astrology is a science because it's so well "tested".

Re:This is how science works

[Gotung]

No you'll be flamed for demonstrating your ignorance.
Those dinosaurs you see at your local museum are just the tip of the iceberg. At this point millions, maybe even hundreds of millions of fossils have been found.
Hundreds of thousands of bones/fossils have been found at single dig sites.

The dots have been connected, by looking at the fossils you can actually watch some of the more complete species on record morph over time, sometimes to drastically different shapes
But you won't be satisfied until you see bacteria turn into a mouse before your eyes ...

Re:This is how science works

[Hatta]

There are ID supporters on /.?

I'd flame you, but only for being ludicrously off topic.

Re:This is how science works

[Creepy Crawler]

Im tenatively convinced about global warming for the following reason: acidic ocean water.

As anybody in chemistry knows, dissolving CO2 in water results in H2CO3, an acid. Only 2 major variables result in this, and that is pressure and amount. Since our pressure is roughly constant (28mmHg-32mmHg), that leaves the amount of CO2 to be rising.

Now, how can we look at prior trends of CO2 affecting the oceans? Simple. H2CO3 is an acid, and tends to leach calcium from single-celled creatures in the sea water. Now, looking at these plankton now shows disastrous effects on their shells due to oceans acidity. We can, however, use oceanbed samples to view millions of years prior to see if these effects have occurred before.

According to samples from ocean beds around the world, effects like these have never been seen on this dramatic of a scale.

Like I said, I was a naysayer, until I saw this evidence, and others.

Re:This is how science works

[SatanicPuppy]

Do you think that they made a black hole in the lab to "test" these theories?

Tracing the fossil record, and mapping historical changes in various genomes would be enough solid evidence for anyone who didn't have an irrational bias.

Like it or not, evolution through natural selection is a robust, predictive theory. So far we've only successfully applied it to things that have extremely fast reproductive cycles (e.g bacteria) but, again, that's good evidence.

Until you can actually produce a good argument based on actual evidence that there is something wrong with the theory of evolution as it is currently understood, you're effectively arguing that the world is flat. It is a crackpot position, and the only people who will take it seriously are themselves crackpots.

Thank you, come again.

Re:This is how science works

[BobNET]

When you can take a bacteria, and make a mouse using only "natural selection", then I'll accept that you've "tested" evolution.

How do you know the Earth isn't really a big giant Petri dish that someone is using to test evolution right now?

Re:This is how science works

[Anonymous Coward]

And he is right, too! Also, what's with this "Earth orbits around the Sun" crap, anyway? I won't believe it until I see it with my own eyes. Oh, and I want a full revolution in under a minute, since I have a low attention span.

Re:This is how science works

[Anonymous Coward]

That is not how scientific theories are tested.

Tests are done in a repeatable fashion that either support (not prove) or disprove a hypothosis.

Your "acceptable" test case is not reproducable ... for several reasons.
- lack of suffient time for the experiment.
- lack initial environment.
- lack of 3 1/2 *billion* years worth of modifying conditions.
- lack of initial bacterium that evolved into a mouse.

I do not understand the irrational knee-jerk reation to evolution that "Good Ol' Righteous God Fearing Folk" have.

The Theory of Evolution does NOT disprove the existance of your Almighty. Evolution and God are not mutally exclusive.

Re:This is how science works

[Anonymous Coward]

That's how _all_ science works.

Since you brought it up, when's the last time you saw someone test the theory of evolution? When's the last time you read an article about someone trying to debunk evolution? Sheesh. I admit ID is hard to test, but evolution is even more so.

Re:This is how science works

[ArcherB]

Note to all ID supporters, this is how real science works. Propose a theory which can be tested, then go about trying to disprove the theory. Or you can present a theory and then set about trying to PROVE it. Many times, it leads to other theories. Take, for example this story:

Premise: God created the Universe, as stated in the Old Testament.
Theory: The Universe had a beginning.
Test: Use Einstein's formula's to track time back until you find a beginning.
New Theory: Big Bang.

Note: I believe in ID. I just believe that in order to reach the "Design", evolution was used. Please don't assume that religion is a rejection of science. Many religious scientists use science to find out HOW God works.

(I know that it is off topic, but I was responding to another OT post)

Re:This is how science works

[hercubus]

'By watching an 'unprecedented view' of a black hole in the process of expelling mass, they were able to confirm their theory, predicting where and when bursts of energy would be detected."

Note to all ID supporters, this is how real science works. Propose a theory which can be tested, then go about trying to disprove the theory.

Now go ahead, flame me. My karma can take it.

yeah i'm sure /. is just overflowing with ID supporters

but a black hole is a relatively simple physical phenomenon, pretty simple compared to species and the bioshpere

i think there's still a lot of mystery regarding the origin of species. such as how RNA may be passing as much or more data than DNA

not so easy to test evolution, like set up a bioshpere and let it run for a billion years...

Re:This is how science works

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, in a world where everyone must battle for research funding, 'real science' works a bit like this :
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=761

Re:This is how science works

[DoofusOfDeath]

Note to all ID supporters, this is how real science works. Propose a theory which can be tested, then go about trying to disprove the theory.

Note to all anti-ID people, not all propositions can be tested by scientists. Especially alleged miracles, which are by definition one-off phenomena caused by an external agent that is itself inscrutable to human-devised experimentation.

I too would offer to be flamed, but I think that's pretty unnecessary considering the position I just advanced. The down-modding, rather than considered discussion, will occur of its own accord.

Re:This is how science works

[ArcherB]

Well, except global warming, obviously. That just gets accepted as is, since anyone who suggests otherwise is probably an oil company shill. Um, we have decades of direct testing and thousands of years of indirect data supporting global warming. It has been and continues be heavily tested. How many of those thousands of years worth of data found that GW is attributed to SUV's or the burning of fossil fuels for industry?

How many of those thousands of years worth of data include data on solar cycles?

Re:This is how science works

[MightyYar]

That just gets accepted as is, Noooo... you propose a theory, then test it against all the past data that has been collected. You may have noticed how the models have changed quite a bit in the last 30 years as the models improve and more data is collected.

Re:This is how science works

[Sciros]

You provided evidence for an increase in CO2, not evidence for a prolonged warming trend BASED on an increase in CO2. It's the latter issue that is causing concern, and the question is whether it's warranted.

Re:This is how science works

[Anonymous Coward]

"Look guys, a cool science article! I'll use it to ridicule ideas I don't understand!"

Irreducible complexity
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chapter10.asp

Re:This is how science works

[sm62704]

Nobody here is going to flame you for promoting or explaining science, you're not at whitehouse.gov. I am, however, pleasantly surprised that you were modded "insightful" rather than "offtopic".

Re:This is how science works

[macemoneta]

It's called "climate change" now. That way if the current trend of lower temps continues and we go into another mini ice age (as some are predicting) they're still right!

It's called "climate change" now because people had problems understanding the concept of global warming; they concentrated on the terminology instead of understanding the process.

Energy is being added to the Earth's outer layer, including the atmosphere. This additional energy is like turning on a blender - everything is going to get mixed up. Places where it was cold may turn warm. Places where it was warm may become cold. Deserts will form where there was arable land. Dry places may get wetter. The ice caps act as a thermal buffer (like the ice cubes in a drink), and the additional energy is causing them to melt. This in turn raises sea levels.

Things get complicated because of the political boundaries; people can't just move to where things are becoming nicer. If the farm land in the U.S. turns to a dust bowl for example, we can't just pick up 300M people and move to another country - just as the U.S. doesn't open its borders to tens of millions dying of thirst and starvation in other countries.

A secondary complication is the delicate balance between airborne particulates and greenhouse gases. Reducing pollution levels reduces both, but not at the same rate. As the two have opposing impacts, and tend to be politically controlled by local goverments, it's and extra monkey wrench in the calculations.

In this context, the term "climate change" is easier for people to grasp. It doesn't change what is happening.

Re:This is how science works

[Artuir]

You ever wonder why the same vaccines and antibacterial medicines and such don't work forever?

That's right - evolution. Those bacteria of which you speak learn to adapt to their (formerly hostile) new environment and thrive. This has been known, proven, and shown for decades now. I apologize on behalf of scientists everywhere that haven't figured out yet how to condense 4 billion years of evolution into a week for your sake.

Re:This is how science works

[sm62704]

Evolution has been tested. There are organisms that have a short life span (e.g. fruit flys). You don't test a theory to prove it, you test a theory to disprove it.

Evolution is testable, has been tested, and so far has not been disproven. If it is disproven, then another theory will take its place.

Re:This is how science works

[DoofusOfDeath]

I do not understand the irrational knee-jerk reation to evolution that "Good Ol' Righteous God Fearing Folk" have.

I'm agnostic, but let me take a stab at an answer to your question...

I think that bot Christians and Evolutionists have a spectrum of positions within their two camps; some are compatible, some aren't:

• Some Christians believe that the book of Genesis was meant to be understood literally rather than metaphorically or poetically. So to them, all Evolutionist viewpoints are incompatible with things they already believe.

• Some Evolutionists believe don't merely believe that natural variation and selection occurred. They go further to posit that any process (e.g., evolution) which appears random or capriciously cruel to them is surely not be guided by any God worth talking about. So to this subset of Evolutionists, all Christian believes are definitely wrong.

• In the middle, you have Christians who are willing to concede that a literal interpretation of Genesis might be inaccurate, either because its conflicts with what seam to be clear indications in the natural record that evolution occurred, or for other reasons of Biblical scholarship. (I'm told that regardless of an apparent conflict with scientific conclusions, some Biblical scholars have other reasons to believe that parts of Genesis are meant metaphorically, such as the style of the prose.)

Does that sound right?

Re:This is how science works

[muellerr1]

The overwhelming evidence for proving natural selection is the fossil record. To test evolution you look at the data from the fossil record to prove or disprove your hypothesis. Not one fossil has disproven natural selection so far. Given how many millions of fossils have been found so far, I'd say that theory is pretty well tested.

Re:This is how science works

[steelfood]

Wow, and this junk got modded insightful?

Here's something that you can do and in fact has been done over a timeframe of the past 50 years:

Take a large pool of bacteria, start killing them off with antibiotics, rinse, and repeat.

Now, the bacteria is your organism, the antibiotics the selective pressure. Natural selection dictates that eventually through random mutations, there will be bacteria that will no longer be susceptible to antibiotics.

Lo and behold, this has exactly happened. The overuse of common antibiotics has resulted in an outbreak of what doctors call superbugs--bacteria that are resistant to those same common antibiotics. And where are we most likely to find these superbugs? Hospitals, where antibiotics are most used. Why do you think they try to get patients out of the hospital as quickly as possible? It's not just because they need the beds. It's largely because, barring any need for specialized monitoring or equipment, the outside is a safer environment for the sick to heal than inside. 50 years ago when antibiotics just began to be used, the opposite was true.

So if you've gotten this far, you now have proof of natural selection, proof you can see with your very own eyes. And this is just the most simple, most mundane case. There is a more extreme case involving frogs where natural selection has resulted in speciation within a hundred years.

Re:This is how science works

[IndustrialComplex]

I wonder if in the future we will have to separate evolution from intelligent design (of the human kind).

Natural evolution vs forced genetic selection?

Re:This is how science works

[witherstaff]

Hey wow, I read that book!

Re:This is how science works

[93 Escort Wagon]

You're making the very common mistake of using sloppy terminology. "Global warming" is not necessarily the same thing as "anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming". The former is directly observable; the latter is not. We can build computer models that predict how human activity causes (or at least contributes to) the warming; and, if warming continues over time, the chance that it is just due to natural variation goes down with every new year the trend holds. But just observing that the climate has warmed, in and of itself, is not proof that it's been induced by human activity.

Re:This is how science works

[Jurily]

Actually, for GW to be tested, we would need another planet to play with.

Re:This is how science works

[steelfood]

Note to all anti-ID people, not all propositions can be tested by scientists. Especially alleged miracles, which are by definition one-off phenomena caused by an external agent that is itself inscrutable to human-devised experimentation.

And that's what makes it irrelevant to science, and more importantly, not science.

And if you're saying that miracles can be used to show ID is viable, then I think you'd agree that it shouldn't be taught with science in a science class. Maybe it should be taught in a class called, oh, I don't know, theology perhaps?

Re:This is how science works

[Anonymous Coward]

When you can take a bacteria, and make a mouse using only "natural selection", then I'll accept that you've "tested" evolution.

How do you know the Earth isn't really a big giant Petri dish that someone is using to test evolution right now?

Rumor has it that God got the early release of Spore. And we just haven't made it that far in the Space Phase yet.

Re:This is how science works

[SiriusStarr]

Pardon my lack of citation, but I do remember reading an article stating that scientists have almost demonstrated speciation in a laboratory using (I think it was) C. elegans. Would that be enough evidence?

Re:This is how science works

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if you pray to your invisible magic sky dad and get him to let me live comfortably for say 2 billion years on my own planet, I will make you your fucking mouse. (providing i get to start with sufficently advanced bacteria. Otherwise I might need another billion, 1.5 billion years.)

As long as you're addressing the flaws of the genesis story, or unreasoning literalism (take your pick), keep in mind the Bible says the sun revolves around the Earth, the moon is made of light not rock, the sun is the greatest light in the universe outside of god presumably, there are no snakes that don't spend their entire lives in the dust (ie the bible asserts there are no sea snakes or tree snakes). And we could go on. Your book is a piece of crap, it's a crutch for your weak faith, and now you're an anachronistic tool of a political work written by primitive, savage idiots. Congratulations.

Re:This is how science works

[mcmonkey]

Note to all anti-ID people, not all propositions can be tested by scientists.

Don't you mean, note to all pro-ID people? The argument against ID and specifically the argument for keeping ID out of science class when the discussion turns to evolution is exactly as you state it--not all propositions can be tested by scientists.

ID does not belong in science class not because it's not true. It does not belong because it is not science.

Science is not a collection of facts, it is a method of discovering and testing, observation and experimentation.

So if you agree ID cannot be tested and therefor is not science, then surely you agree it does not belong in a science class. That is all the anti-ID folks are saying.

Re:This is how science works

[DoofusOfDeath]

And that's what makes it irrelevant to science, and more importantly, not science.

And if you're saying that miracles can be used to show ID is viable, then I think you'd agree that it shouldn't be taught with science in a science class. Maybe it should be taught in a class called, oh, I don't know, theology perhaps?

Sure, I'm ok with that. I have no problem with a science class teaching that there's a good case for evolution. But we should remember that there are at least two versions of ID: (a) no evolution occurred and (optionally) the earth is about 6000 years old vs. (b) God exists and works his ID using evolution as his means. I think there's probably a good scientific case against (a), but I also think some evolution advocates over-reach and try to teach (b). That's what I object to. The teaching of (b) belongs in, you know, an atheology class or something.

Re:This is how science works

[Breakfast Cereal]

Actually, it can't be disproved, either, in the sense that it can always be tweaked this way and that to accommodate experimental results. Theories fall into and out of favor according to whether or not the majority of scientists in a given field prefer them to the alternatives.

Re:This is how science works

[dreamchaser]

It's called 'Climate Change' now for exactly the reasons GP stated. The whole 'Climate Change' scare is just another power/money grab. The science is NOT at all settled, and the infamous UN report was penned and influenced by non scientist politicians.

Talk to me in 20 years when the glaciers are advancing.

Re:This is how science works

[spazdor]

we've taken bacteria and made other bacteria which don't die in the presence of antibiotics. Without trying, even!

I assume you'll be consistent, and consider your faith to be equally 'untested' until you've managed to create a planet in seven days.

Re:This is how science works

[jav1231]

I somewhat agree. I think the term "climate change" was simply to explain the disparity of what people were seeing. To chalk this up to trying to explain it to the little people is disingenuous.

Clearly we are seeing changes in our climate. What isn't quantified is the direct cause. While humans are no doubt making an impact other factors show that such changes were likely inevitable and are still so. The relatively mild and stable nature of our climate is, in the history of Earth, an anomaly. To expect it to go on for ever is simply to ignore science. However, that doesn't take the burden off of us to curb our impact. We just need to understand that the idea that man could keep our climate stable isn't seeing the whole picture. That many are turning this into a political issue to secure power and money is equally disingenuous.

Re:This is how science works

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you really *are* a dumb shit.

Re:This is how science works

[DoofusOfDeath]

So if you agree ID cannot be tested and therefor is not science, then surely you agree it does not belong in a science class. That is all the anti-ID folks are saying.

That sounds reasonable. On the other hand, I don't think students should be hermetically shielded from the anti-evolution arguments that ID people make. I've seem some ID people make non-theological arguments against certain aspects of evolutionary theory. If you shut out these arguments just because they're made be people who also make theological arguments against ID, you're cutting off a source of critique that is so important to the scientific method.

Granted, not all sources of critique are equally worth our time. But given that a large fraction of American adults feel forced, perhaps unnecessarily, to chose between their theology and accepted science, it seems bizarre to me that we don't teach the kids the debate in detail. It seems like a totally kick-ass opportunity to sharpen their critical-thinking skills and to help them understand both the power and the limits of the scientific method.

Re:This is how science works

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure you've carefully read up the other posts here, but evolution isn't harder to test than ID. We can at least test evolution in the lab, or even by just watching the way we need new flu vaccines each year, since the flu is constantly randomly mutating, with the mutations that survive our current vaccines selected for in the environment of our bodies.

Re:This is how science works

[EvilToiletPaper]

Evolution is a good explanation of "accepted" evidence. One cannot test it, therefore it isn't science. When you can take a bacteria, and make a mouse using only "natural selection", then I'll accept that you've "tested" evolution. Now move along. I suspect I'll be flamed for stating the obvious.
Notice how theists, ID supporters, crackpots and their ilk like to (over)use credibility adding phrases like :
...Now move along.
...I suspect I'll be flamed for stating the obvious.
...and you know it.
As if they have stated an absolute truth. Any attempt to debate or disprove these statements and you're automatically a heathen, moron, spawn of satan, the cause of all misery etc. etc.
The only folks who I've seen reject evolution outright are the ones who've never read it properly and don't want to ever learn about it.
This is science.. this is how it progresses. No one posts a conclusion right at the onset of the problem. Every scientific 'law' starts out as a theory/hypothesis, scientists set out to prove the theory by means of laboratory experimentation, evidence gathering, consulting various scientists in different fields and then a conclusion may be drawn based on all findings. Even then the conclusion is up for debate/challenges/disproving.
NOTE: Pedophiles who've read just one book in their life are not good sources of information on any subject except youth rectums and the book itself.. Help yourself to a biology book from the local library.

Re:This is how science works

[C0vardeAn0nim0]

don't be a dumbass...

running an experiment means nothing per se. i cam mix two chemicals in a test tube, then simply pour the result down the drain. this is an experiment, but is not science. science is about collecting DATA from the experiment and analyzing it.

problem is, huge scale experimentation is not always possible to human beings (experimenting with anything on the scale of a black hole, for example), so scientists just let nature itself run the experiment and they just collect the data.

fields that let nature run the experiment for them includes astonomy, astrophysics, evolutionary biology, etc.

Re:This is how science works

[BigBlueOx]

Four letters.

MRSA

I suspect I'll be flamed...

Mmmm, could be, rabbit, could be.

Re:This is how science works

[Archangel Michael]

They did test the theory. They made a prediction, and the prediction was proven to be accurate. So far, I've never seen anyone predict a new species before it occurred.

I'm not opposed to science. I'm Opposed to an unproven theory (or collection of theories) being called "fact" and "proven".

I'd even accept as proof the prediction of an animal species in the fossil record before one is dug up. :-D

Re:This is how science works

[bigtimepie]

I think it shouldn't be a problem for ID supporters to accept that God created the laws of science and created everything according to such universal laws that he himself set up (or perhaps that have always existed, as He has).

And of course, most scientists should be ok with accepting that our knowledge/theories/facts could be proven less accurate than we currently believe as humanity progresses. There is ALWAYS room for a greater understanding of things as we encounter new scenarios in the seemingly infinite universe.

Surely we can all get along. If there is in fact a Creator, then surely we should use our understanding of science to help us better understand Him; we should NOT use Him to help us devalue science/knowledge. That's just counter intuitive. If you use the two together then you gain on both sides, i.e. everyone wins.

Re:This is how science works

[Archangel Michael]

"You ever wonder why the same vaccines and antibacterial medicines and such don't work forever?"

No. I know why. Bacteria adapt. They don't become mice (or virii, or amoebas or ....) in that adaptation, they stay Bacteria.

Besides, you just made the classic blunder of mixing microevolution up with MacroEvolution. Now, If I made that mistake, all the Evolutionists would be screaming that I didn't understand Evolution.

Evolution should be able to predict a new SPECIES, not just variation within a species.

Re:This is how science works

[SpinyNorman]

Note: I believe in ID. I just believe that in order to reach the "Design", evolution was used.

1) Surely you mean "is being used", not "was used". Evolution hasn't stopped, not can be expected to ever stop (evolving to not evolve would be mal-adaptive). Conceivably there's an attractor that life will eventually circle, but we're not looping yet!

2) Even if evolution did, unexpectedly, arrive at some final "Design" (even if a dynamic rather than fixed one), we're not there yet, nor is there much chance that anything resembing man or anything described in the Bible will be a part of it. Time will take care of that. In a few tens/hundreds of millions of years Homo Sapiens will be nothing but a random species far back on the evolutionary tree - no more priviliged than any other point in our own current evolutionary history. Most branches of the evolutionary tree are dead ends, and only a few keep growing... there's no guarantee that our branch (or maybe mammals as a whole) will not eventually be a dead end, and it may well be that in 100,000,000 or so years time there's no species left with the intelligence to even ponder how insignificant our own species proved to be.

Re:This is how science works

[plague3106]

Well I believe they've also shown that CO2 increases always seem to preceed global warming. Such as unusually large volcanic eruptions expell a lot of CO2, and that is pretty shortly followed by warming weather.

Re:This is how science works

[hansraj]

Hey! By turning my reasoning back on me you are only persecuting me!! Why do you have to be so mean?

Re:This is how science works

[UncleTogie]

Note: I believe in ID. I just believe that in order to reach the "Design", evolution was used. Please don't assume that religion is a rejection of science. Many religious scientists use science to find out HOW God works.

Ten-to-one odds you get flamed by a devout agnostic...

What's funny is that many agnostics/atheists are convinced that "belief" and "science" are incompatible, and will try to ridicule anyone that suggests differently.

"Faith", indeed.

Re:This is how science works

[spazdor]

It's a "test" of your faith, lol!

Re:This is how science works

[plague3106]

Instead of yelling at those of us that are sick of most IDers saying evolution can't exist, why don't you yell at the nutjobs that also believe in ID but don't believe evolution.

Re:This is how science works

[chile_addict]

this is how real science works. Propose a theory which can be tested, then go about trying to disprove the theory.

It's important to remember that science is often experiment-driven rather than theory-driven. For instance, Active Galactic Nuclei, objects like the one referred to in TFA, were discovered by accident (Astronomers: "what the hell is that?") and then some theorists had to come up with an explanation. (physicists: "how about a giant black hole with an accretion disk and some magnetic fields and then you get these jets...."). It's only on rare occasions when the theorists make a huge leap beyond what is currently understood and then the experimentalists go and find it. The ones that do are usually celebrated as the greatest thinkers of their day (Einstein comes to mind).

Re:This is how science works

[Jock Kodimar]

Nice try... Global warming, climate change what ever you want to call it, it's all bs.

The Earth warms and it cools down by nature. You can make just as legitimate claims that any warming is caused by the planet wobbling, solar activity cycles and volcanic/lack of volcanic activity.

Earth got out of the last ice age just fine and last I checked the neanderthals didn't drive Hummers.

That being said we shouldn't "poop where we lay" either. We should keep pollution down as much as we can, but we should not destroy our economies to do so. Poor countries do not care about being green, only countries such as ours and most of the 1st world countries can afford to "be green." The government (and the environment) would be much better off giving tax breaks and incentives for companies that can prove that they are researching and implementing methods to reduce pollution. This would be much easier for everyone to swallow than agreeing to something like the Kyoto Protocol which pretty much stiffles everyones economies, and makes it harder to research more efficient and cleaner technology.

Re:This is how science works

[Tenebrousedge]

How many of those thousands of years worth of data include data on solar cycles? Well, probably we can use things like ice core studies and analyze tree rings and take a look at other fossil evidence and extrapolate from the evidence. For measuring, say, levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, you can take a look at ginko leaves, which haven't really changed in millions of years, and count the number of stomata on them, which vary depending on how much atmospheric carbon there is. High levels of CO2 = fewer stomata needed. You can figure out exactly how much by growing ginkoes in environment with varying CO2 levels, and then cross reference that with ice core data on temperature. High temperature + low levels of atmospheric carbon = the sun is probably putting out more energy than usual. So while we don't have a lot of direct data on the solar cycles, we can get a pretty good idea what the planet was like on a fairly long timescale.

Re:This is how science works

[ArcherB]

Instead of yelling at those of us that are sick of most IDers saying evolution can't exist, why don't you yell at the nutjobs that also believe in ID but don't believe evolution. Because *MOST* ID'ers (Christians, Jews, Muslims and whatever else) don't have a problem with evolution.

Besides, I haven't found any of those "nutjobs" here on slashdot. Those of you that are "sick of most IDers saying evolution can't exist" and post it here on slash are just yelling at the choir, so to speak.

Outside of slashdot, in many of the churches I've attended, I haven't met anyone who doesn't believe in evolution in some shape or form. I even read a Creationist book that claimed that God put animal categories on Earth and let evolution take over from there. For example, God made a bird, a fish, a cow, a lizard and so on and let evolution take over from there and make parakeets, catfish, jersey cows, iguanas and so on. I don't buy that, but it shows how even hard core creationists accept evolution on some level.

Now the problem that Creationists have is that some teach evolution as *proof* that God does not exist. This is why the "nutjobs" you refer to are so against evolution being taught. If evolution is taught as having nothing to do with religion, neither proving or disproving it, then nearly everyone can be happy with it. When I was taught evolution in Jr. High school many years ago, my teachers started it by saying "evolution does not prove or disprove the existence of higher being. It has nothing to do with it. You can believe what you want and I will never argue with that, but for the purpose of this class, you must learn what we are teaching you." No one had a problem learning evolution when it was introduced that way. I grew up in the "Bible-Belt", BTW.

An extension of that problem is people like those here on slash that call anyone religious and idiot or "dumb shit" for believing in ID. That statement is just as ignorant as the few "nutjobs" that feel threatened by evolution.

Re:This is how science works

[evanbd]

Talk about experiments you don't want to try at home!

Re:This is how science works

[ArcherB]

Note: I believe in ID. I just believe that in order to reach the "Design", evolution was used.

1) Surely you mean "is being used", not "was used". Evolution hasn't stopped, not can be expected to ever stop (evolving to not evolve would be mal-adaptive). Conceivably there's an attractor that life will eventually circle, but we're not looping yet! I stand corrected.

2) Even if evolution did, unexpectedly, arrive at some final "Design" (even if a dynamic rather than fixed one), we're not there yet, nor is there much chance that anything resembing man or anything described in the Bible will be a part of it. Time will take care of that. In a few tens/hundreds of millions of years Homo Sapiens will be nothing but a random species far back on the evolutionary tree - no more priviliged than any other point in our own current evolutionary history. Most branches of the evolutionary tree are dead ends, and only a few keep growing... there's no guarantee that our branch (or maybe mammals as a whole) will not eventually be a dead end, and it may well be that in 100,000,000 or so years time there's no species left with the intelligence to even ponder how insignificant our own species proved to be. I believe that the final design was man and the ecosystem to support us. As for man finally evolving to something else, the Bible states that the world will end long before that happens. I guess we'll find out in 100,000,000 years or so! :-)

Re:This is how science works

[malilo]

yes, but then you have someone like me who will come along and point out that really, humans are a part of nature as well, so anything we do is part of a "natural" process. :)

Re:This is how science works

[Anonymous Coward]

You *can* predict a new species by introducing bacteria to hostile environments.

You end up with new species of bacteria - one that is resistant to the hostile environment you introduced.

Bacteria, viruses, amoebas, and mice are all from different genuses ... and phylotypes and .....

Micro-evolution and macro-evolution and claims that the Theory of Evolution fails to predict speciation are poor attempts at hyper parsing the theory just so Creationists and IDers can say "There! Your precious theory doesn't hold up to my Staw Man! It must be false!"

Re:This is how science works

[SpinyNorman]

I believe that the final design was man and the ecosystem to support us. As for man finally evolving to something else, the Bible states that the world will end long before that happens.

Why pick and choose? If you believe we're descended from apes then you've already thrown out one chunk of the Bible as well as any notion of us being anything other than animals... So why do you choose to believe the Bible on the end game if you reject it on the beginning? Seems kinda arbitrary !

Re:This is how science works

[ArcherB]

I believe that the final design was man and the ecosystem to support us. As for man finally evolving to something else, the Bible states that the world will end long before that happens.

Why pick and choose? If you believe we're descended from apes then you've already thrown out one chunk of the Bible as well as any notion of us being anything other than animals... So why do you choose to believe the Bible on the end game if you reject it on the beginning? Seems kinda arbitrary ! Evolution doesn't make the claim that man is a descendant of apes. Evolution claims that man and apes have a common ancestor, but then again, EVERY species has a common ancestor!

Re:This is how science works

[Tenebrousedge]

Show evidence that it does not. Be sure to include an explanation for Venus and all research involving the words "greenhouse gasses".

But seriously, don't argue out of ignorance. Just because someone hasn't proved something to you to your satisfaction doesn't mean it's false.

There are all sorts of things that we can use to relate temperature and atmospheric C02. Ice cores, tree rings, levels of sediment deposits, other fossil records--the global temperature doesn't follow the CO2 levels exactly (for which the most obvious explanation is that there are also other factors involved), but they tend to coincide fairly often.

Re:This is how science works

[Tenebrousedge]

If you can't test it, it can still be falsifiable. Slight but important difference.

Re:This is how science works

[glitch23]

'By watching an 'unprecedented view' of a black hole in the process of expelling mass, they were able to confirm their theory, predicting where and when bursts of energy would be detected."

Note to all ID supporters, this is how real science works. Propose a theory which can be tested, then go about trying to disprove the theory.

Now if only evolution could make predictions and then if scientists could ever observe what was predicted then those against ID might actually have a case. Just as someone mentioned already about how climate change is just accepted, it seems evolution is too with many assumptions included to make the theory semi-work. The only reason scientists have to believe in those assumptions is because they have faith in them. I just have trouble determining why their faith is viewed as so right and faith for ID is viewed as so wrong. When biases are thrown out, faith is faith.

Re:This is how science works

[UncleTogie]

If you can't test it, it can still be falsifiable. Slight but important difference.

Once again, does that make it !theory, or just not a scientific one? Slight but important difference.

Re:This is how science works

[Tenebrousedge]

Well, 'theory' isn't a reserved word. You can use it to describe just about anything if you like. For the purposes of science, it would not be a valid theory. That's the question that I was assuming that you were asking, because otherwise the question doesn't make sense: it depends solely on how you define the term.

Not to be condescending, but the quote is appropriate and Carroll is FTW

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'

Re:This is how science works

[glitch23]

Right. Because the fossil record of both horses and humans do not show examples of intermediate changes from non-horses and non-humans to todays creatures.

You can fit your evidence to whatever theory you want as many people have already done. If you take a movie (which of course is just made up of 30fps still images) and delete enough frames (seconds or minutes worth) you can come up with lots of things that could fit back into those missing pieces and still make the final movie come out the same. In fact, directors do this for every motion picture because they film hours and hours of video but only ~2 hours worth make their way into the final cut. The movie came out the same though in many cases (except for some of those director's cuts with alternate endings).

So goes the fossil record. There are too many gaps that need filled in to come to the conclusion that evolution is responsible. A different set of pieces that do not support evolution could be inserted to produce an entirely different movie that still makes logical sense (i.e. still produces existing observations), specifically a movie that does not use a few dozen unusual frames to tell the entire 2 hour plot which is what evolution basically is. It reminds me of Al Gore only taking video of chunks of ice falling off glaciers into the water, which happens all the time anyway, but filming a 30 second spot of a few and saying it is representative of all glaciers catastrophically melting is an outright lie. When, if other glaciers were actually filmed for comparison, it could easily be seen that selective use of Nature is not representative of Nature as a whole although it can be for those with an agenda.

The real test is to use evolution to predict what comes next since change, based on the theory, is inevitable. It's easy to work backward and interpret data to fit theory. Let's try working forward before we assume evolution is 100% perfect. By the way, since ID does not predict future change to species there is nothing to test.

Re:This is how science works

[SQLGuru]

Just like products that use artificial sweeteners can still be called "all natural"? It started as something in nature at some point in the process.......and after several chemical reations later, it turned into an artificial sweetener.

Layne

Re:This is how science works

[RatBastard]

So far, I've never seen anyone predict a new species before it occurred. Because that's not how it works. You can't predict when a new species will arise because that's not how evolution works. Evolution doesn't say that on March 15, 2009 a new species of wombat will suddenly appear. Just like the theory of gravity does not say that on January 1, 2015 a man will drop his duck.

I'd even accept as proof the prediction of an animal species in the fossil record before one is dug up. How many do you want? We've found tons of them. Evolution predicts that we should find ancient fish with fins adapted to walking on land. And we have. Evolution predicts that we should find fossils of ancient hominids with features of humans and apes. And we've found many examples of this.

Re:This is how science works

[Medievalist]

Well, except global warming, obviously. That just gets accepted as is, since anyone who suggests otherwise is probably an oil company shill. It's called "climate change" now. That way if the current trend of lower temps continues and we go into another mini ice age (as some are predicting) they're still right! Look, I hate to interrupt your meta-scoffing... but...

I personally sat through a lecture nearly 20 years ago that was given at the Stroud Water Research Center by the guy who discovered "global warming". I remember he was introduced by Dr. Ruth Patrick of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. AT THAT TIME, he said the worst mistake he'd ever made in his career was allowing the name "global warming" to get attached to what he was studying. He said that the global average warming trend was an indicator that something was changing, and that it appeared to correlate with increased carbon in the atmosphere mostly likely caused by human pollution, and that talking about "global warming" was like (my words here, don't remember his metaphor) calling your baby's influenza "mercury rise" because the tyke had a fever. Get it?

I suggested he should have called it "terrestrial albedo modification" but I was in a room full of biologists so they all looked at me funny. Really it should just be called "air pollution".

Incidentally, he presented pretty conclusive evidence at that time - ice cores, the Mauna Loa data, etc. that carbon in the atmosphere is increasing proportionally to global mean temperature. He also suggested that the increased energy being absorbed from the sun might result in more energetic weather, and a bunch of other stuff that seems prophetic now, but he cautioned that these suggestions could not be supported by the data and that we should not assume that his reasoning would necessarily pan out.

BRILLIANT! Oh, yes, quite right, carry on. Sorry to interrupt.

Re:This is how science works

[qeveren]

The meaning of the word 'theory' differs wildly between the colloquial usage and the much more rigid definition used by science.

Re:This is how science works

[SpinyNorman]

Huh?

The whole branch of the evolutionary tree we're in, going back 15 million years, is the great apes (Hominidae family) :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_timeline_of_human_evolution

So I'm not sure what your problem is with the description of us being descended from apes. I'd have hoped you'd have realized I wasn't saying that we were descended from a modern ape (such as ourself)!

Re:This is how science works

[UncleTogie]

Well, 'theory' isn't a reserved word. You can use it to describe just about anything if you like.

...which is why I linked to the Merriam-Webster entry on theory. You're referring to the entries 1 through 5 and 6c, but apparently {disagree with OR view differently} 6a and 6b.

Why?

I'm just suggesting that those that posit that ID isn't a "real" theory instead try using "not verifiable at present" instead; they might find a few more ears.

Re:This is how science works

[__aawavt7683]

*sigh*

Your argument has already been shot down. Dr. Dino uses the terms "micro evolution" and "macro evolution". Macro evolution is when a single-celled organism evolves into a mouse. Micro evolution describes the minute changes within an existing organism that vary its sense of smell, appendage length, scalieness of skin, whatever.

I can't say I've heard anyone argue against micro evolution. Macro evolution, on the other hand, I have never seen shown to be true. As far as I know, even fossil records don't ever show a clear transition from one species to another. Thus, no one has ever provided much evidence for evolution. (I suppose it could be explained by one article I read that mutations are "stored up" and expressed all at once -- many smaller changes would be unworkable and the resultant creature being unable to survive or breed with either its own species or another mutated creature -- and when a great many of them all mutate drastically, then you may get a few that can survive. A leap, but I'd say it's better than magic. That, and the fact that even mass deaths (think black plague) don't show markedly..) ... where was I? huh. Well anyway, I just wish the damn ID people would stop taking lack of _proof_ of one theory as _evidence for_ another, completely unjustifiable theory (magic).

My former employer once said to me, "Evolution is like throwing pieces of a watch into a drier, turning it on, and getting a watch out again. It's nonsense." I'd contend that if you gave it 15 billion years, not only would you get a fully functional watch out, but if you put in enough random matter and gave it enough energy, you would not only get _one_ watch, but you'd end up with an entire _industry_ of watches with different styles, qualities, ...

So.. yeah.

-DrkShadow

Re:This is how science works

[grahamd0]

You seem to suffer from the classic creationist misunderstanding of the nature of evolution.

Evolution does not have a goal. You cannot say that evolution requires creature A to evolve into hypothetical creature B. From the standpoint of natural selection, you can't demonstrate that dogs are "better" or "worse" than cockroaches or parrots or llamas by simply observing them as they are now. You cannot say that "given condition Y, creature X will evolve into creature Z". You can, however, observe evolution happening right before your eyes in very fast breeding species such as bacteria and fruit flies, or as has been previously mentioned, in the fossil record of more primitive apes evolving into humans or small, bipedal dinosaurs evolving into birds.

Re:This is how science works

[ArcherB]

So I'm not sure what your problem is with the description of us being descended from apes. I'd have hoped you'd have realized I wasn't saying that we were descended from a modern ape (such as ourself)! That is exactly what I thought you were saying. There is a difference between being a decedent of a homo-something-or-other and apes.

From a few clicks off your Wiki article:

A hominid is any member of the biological family Hominidae (the "great apes"), including the extinct and extant humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. Saying we are in the same family as apes and saying we are descended from them are two different things. My brother and I are in the same family, but we are certainly not descendants of each other.

Re:This is how science works

[Tenebrousedge]

Well, thanks for narrowing it down to less than ten possible things you could have meant. However, the definition of what is and what is not a scientific theory has nothing to do with Webster.

In general, a theory is scientific if it makes falsifiable predictions about the observable universe. Beyond that, to be taken seriously it helps to have some form of empirical evidence in support of your theory, and if it is parsimonious.

As has been discussed repeatedly on slashdot, newsgroups, and in courtrooms, Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory, full stop. There is nothing to verify (i.e. it is not falsifiable), it does not make predictions, there is not one whit of evidence to support it, and the concept of a designer is the opposite of parsimony. You may laugh at the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but realize that there is literally no difference between that and Intelligent Design from a scientific standpoint. As far as the above definition is concerned, they are the exact same theory.

Now, you can call a banana a hammer, or call a hammer a banana, if that makes you feel better. Some people, as you say, might find more comfortable. You can even stretch the definition of "hammer" to cover banana-shaped objects, and there may be a dictionary that supports that idea. But they aren't the same thing, and they're never going to be, and you should at the very least consider that before asking people to use the word "banana" whenever the subject of hammers comes up. Failing that, don't be surprised at the reaction you get from your carpenter.

Re:This is how science works

[jstott]

When you can take a bacteria, and make a mouse using only "natural selection", then I'll accept that you've "tested" evolution.

When you can take a bacterium and make anything without "natural selection," then I'll accept that ID might be a science.

-JS

Re:This is how science works

[jstott]

I think that bot Christians and Evolutionists have a spectrum of positions within their two camps; some are compatible, some aren't:

...

Does that sound right?

Both rational and informed about a religious topic? When did we start allowing this kind of nonsense on slashdot?

-JS

Re:This is how science works

[SpinyNorman]

you are an archer, your brother in an archer
your dad was an archer
your grandfather was an archer
your great grandfather was an archer ...

Are you descended from archers? Yes

Does that mean you were descended from your brother? No

Now substitute ape for archer, and extend the timeline from a few generations to 15 million years to cover the evolution of the entire great ape family, and maybe you get it.

Or maybe not.

Whatever.

Re:This is how science works

[plague3106]

Because *MOST* ID'ers (Christians, Jews, Muslims and whatever else) don't have a problem with evolution.

Yes, but those that do make your whole group look silly. Especially because I don't hear your supposed majority fighting these retards. The only vocal IDers are the nutjobs. The people in your camp seem content to let a small group make your larger group look retarded.

Besides, I haven't found any of those "nutjobs" here on slashdot. Those of you that are "sick of most IDers saying evolution can't exist" and post it here on slash are just yelling at the choir, so to speak.

You must not come here very often. Only recently have people in your position come out of the wood work.

Outside of slashdot, in many of the churches I've attended, I haven't met anyone who doesn't believe in evolution in some shape or form. I even read a Creationist book that claimed that God put animal categories on Earth and let evolution take over from there. For example, God made a bird, a fish, a cow, a lizard and so on and let evolution take over from there and make parakeets, catfish, jersey cows, iguanas and so on. I don't buy that, but it shows how even hard core creationists accept evolution on some level.

Interesting, because "birds" never existed until recently. They are dinosaur decendants. But the modern bird wasn't around pre-dinosaur. So the "bird" class isn't really valid. Again, there's a group that makes the whole look bad.

Now the problem that Creationists have is that some teach evolution as *proof* that God does not exist. This is why the "nutjobs" you refer to are so against evolution being taught. If evolution is taught as having nothing to do with religion, neither proving or disproving it, then nearly everyone can be happy with it. When I was taught evolution in Jr. High school many years ago, my teachers started it by saying "evolution does not prove or disprove the existence of higher being. It has nothing to do with it. You can believe what you want and I will never argue with that, but for the purpose of this class, you must learn what we are teaching you." No one had a problem learning evolution when it was introduced that way. I grew up in the "Bible-Belt", BTW.

I grew up in the NE, and evolution was not presented as proof god doesn't exist either. God didn't enter science class at all, and I even spent the first half of my schooling in Catholic school. I've yet to see any of your nut jobs site an example of where evolution WAS being presented in such a way. I don't even see why such a disclaimer is necessary. I was taught evolution, and "higher power" was never mentioned AT ALL. The only time evolution and religion crossed was in religion class, where one student asked how Genesis and dinosaurs could both be "correct."

An extension of that problem is people like those here on slash that call anyone religious and idiot or "dumb shit" for believing in ID. That statement is just as ignorant as the few "nutjobs" that feel threatened by evolution.

Well, think of it in this context. Evolution doesn't prove there's a god anymore than it disproves there is one. We also have no scientific evidence god exists, so there's no reason to believe in one. Especially with all the arbitrary rules that come with religion, and the problems having religions causes. Hell, Christains and Muslims belive in the SAME GOD and can't get along.

So, I think the reason some in my camp call your camp "dumb shits" is because you're believing a fairy tale. I'm sure someone that still believed in the Greek or Egyptian gods would be looked upon as silly, I don't see why Christains shouldn't be looked upon in the same light; they are all just fairy tales, yet Christains insist THEIR fairy tale is accurate. It boggles the mind of more logical people.

Re:This is how science works

[Anonymous Coward]

Propose a theory which can be tested, then go about trying to disprove the theory.

Exactly!

Well, except global warming, obviously. That just gets accepted as is, since anyone who suggests otherwise is probably an oil company shill. Don't care. It's still a smarter decision to err on the side of safety. We are well aware of what can happen when there is too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, so if we've even theorized that we could be putting so much of it into our ecosystem that we could be harming it, wouldn't it be a good idea to try to reduce our carbon footprint now, before it's too late?

Well, actually, who cares what your opinion is? We're going to work on the problem. And you know what? - We're dragging your kicking, screaming ass into it, whether you like it or not.

Checkmate!!

HA!! WE WIN, ASSHOLE!!

So go fuck off.

Re:This is how science works

[thepotoo]

I read The Beak of the Finch a while ago (awful book, skip it) and it attempts to give a number of case studies of speciation (the only good one was an experiment involving breeding fruit flies in the dark; within a few generations they become blind (and therefore basically unable to mate with individuals of their original species - making them technically a new species)

Anyway, it's not hard to trace the changes leading one species to another. I read stuff about Jack Horner modeling hypothetical intermediate dinosaurs; IIRC, someone later found a new species very similar to what he predicted.

There's a few other cases; walking sticks with and without a white stripe on their backs found in different vegetation types (still technically the same species, but becoming different).

There's a million more examples; nothing perfect yet, but, our current understanding is that macroevolution takes centuries (this will be proven wrong by a case study sometime in the next decade, I guarantee it. We are quite close right now, and remember that Darwin thought microevolution took millenia; we now know it can take as little as a generation - see the Grant's study on Galapagos Finches).

Re:This is how science works

[UncleTogie]

As far as the above definition is concerned, they are the exact same theory.

Never said they weren't, and long-winded explanations like that are why many theists don't care to talk to you on the subject.

Still doesn't change the fact that ID falls under the category of theory, whether you like it or not.

Re:This is how science works

[smooth wombat]

By the way, since ID does not predict future change to species there is nothing to test.

Nor does Evolutionary theory. Then again, ID doesn't propose anything that can be tested so there's no point trying to pawn it off as something which has any scientific merit.

In fact, your comments show exactly why ID isn't science. During this whole discussion, not once have you or anyone supplied any evidence to support ID as being a scientific endeavor.

Instead, and this is what the fundies keep trying to do, is show supposed holes in Evolutionary theory and then claim, "See! See these holes? Therefore, ID must be included."

I'll repeat what I said in someone's journal post: I will offer $1 million to anyone from the ID crowd who can submit any evidence to support ID as being scientific. The evidence cannot be based on the bible or any other religious text. The evidence must be submitted to three separate committees whose members have no relation to ID. If any one of those committees agrees that the evidence presented has merit, I will pay the prize.

Just as with James Randi's prize, no one will claim this prize either.

Re:This is how science works

[glitch23]

Nor does Evolutionary theory. Then again, ID doesn't propose anything that can be tested so there's no point trying to pawn it off as something which has any scientific merit.

That's the problem with evolutionary theory. It doesn't predict anything so why should we go on blind faith (and be preached in schools) to believe in it if it can't be tested? There is a double standard in place which requires blind faith in evidence interpreted to fit theory and is considered just fine and also considered real science for some reason. The other side of the double standard is the criticism applied to those who have blind faith that a Creator is responsible for the biological systems that exist today.

In fact, your comments show exactly why ID isn't science. During this whole discussion, not once have you or anyone supplied any evidence to support ID as being a scientific endeavor.

Is not part of the scientific method to create predictions and then later test them? If evolution can't be tested then why are you blaming ID as being non-scientific when it is difficult to even consider evolution as being science? Proving ID is science is neither here nor there as it isn't religion's responsibility to prove science right or wrong. Science is here to prove religion right (or wrong as some people believe) with respect to the claims that are made regarding biology, etc.

Instead, and this is what the fundies keep trying to do, is show supposed holes in Evolutionary theory and then claim, "See! See these holes? Therefore, ID must be included."

In theory, no pun intended, holes in 1 theory shouldn't be required to allow other theories to be introduced. It isn't a debate about whether ID should be included because it isn't scientific. It should be included just because it is a competing theory on the same topic. The classroom discussion would be organized by simply discussing all possible theories instead of being structured around only scientific theories. The fact there are holes in evolutionary theory just means the proponents of it are even more adamant to not let other competing theories (scientific-based or not) ever be discussed for fear the sheep would gain some brains.

I'll repeat what I said in someone's journal post: I will offer $1 million to anyone from the ID crowd who can submit any evidence to support ID as being scientific. The evidence cannot be based on the bible or any other religious text. The evidence must be submitted to three separate committees whose members have no relation to ID. If any one of those committees agrees that the evidence presented has merit, I will pay the prize.

When you hold evolutionary theory to the same ridicule maybe we'll talk. Evolutionary theory needs to be put under the microscope. It should not be taught as gospel without observing predicted outcomes. That's the scientific process. As I stated in my original post, as it stands now, people can put whatever movie frames they want in the missing spots of the fossil record and make claims it tells the story they want to be preached but that isn't scientific either but someone else could just as easily do the same thing and come up with another story. Which one to believe?

Since we seem to be having a reasonable discussion here I'll ask for a favor and give you an opportunity to raise my awareness. Can you describe what aspects of evolutionary theory make it scientific? A simple link to a site would suffice to save you the typing.

Re:This is how science works

[Tenebrousedge]

Well, I gave you a short explanation and a long explanation, and you've still missed the point, so we'll go through it again.

Let's just say that there are only two definitions of the word theory, one broad and one precise, as so:

1) any idea

2) {scientific definition of the word theory as explained in the previous post}

Intelligent design is only a theory under the first definition. The first definition of the word is not useful to science, and people discussing science do not use it. You can refer to ID as a theory or not as you like, but whether or not you choose to do so is completely irrelevant to a discussion on science. It is not correct---it's not even incorrect. It's a completely separate discussion.

whether you like it or not. You seem to be implying that I am asserting that ID is not a theory under any definition. I find that rather strange; given your previous comments it almost looks like you are deliberately misunderstanding me. So stop it. This is pedantic and inane, and this conversation is not worth having. A conversation on whether or not falsifiability is a valid criteria for a scientific theory would be good. We could discuss the methodology of knowledge, the philosophy of science--I'd even accept a discussion of theology or creation mythology. In point of fact, I'd even welcome a discussion of Intelligent Design, from a non-scientific perspective. So please, bring something meaningful to the table, that actually merits discussion. Or would that be too "long-winded" for you?

Re:This is how science works

[ralphbecket]

Now that's what I call a compelling argument!

Re:This is how science works

[smooth wombat]

I'll give you the classic one which outlines pretty much everything about Evolution including rebuttal of supposed 'gaps':

Talk Origins

That said, if one does a search for Intelligent Design, as far as I can tell, every article/web page/whatever tries to use one of two arguments about ID: either the Bible is used as an explanation for ID because obviously if it's in the Bible, it must be true or that there must be a an intelligence to why things are the way they are.

In the first case, that argument then puts the ID supporters into the realm of backtracking on their claims that ID is not religious-based. If it's not based on religion, then why bring the Bible into it? In the second case, ID supporters never answer who that designer is or how one tests for it (I'm presuming that a being capable of creating matter from nothing doesn't have a sex). If you can't test or show if such a being exists, how can one claim that such a being did the designing?

Further, Evolutionary theory does make predictions which have been tested, the classic being what I have already mentioned; the fossil tree of horses and humans. Despite your contention that there are gaps, there are none. There is a sufficient number of intermediary fossils to show how earlier life forms evolved into what we have today with more being found on a yearly or every-other year basis.

Good science writing

[ekstrom]

This is a good article. It was complete enough to satisfy the casual interest of this old physicist who once worked for awhile as an astronomer, explained all of its terms in ways accessible to a more general public, but was never tedious about it. We need more science writing of that quality. Also good work, it would seem. Rarely do you get a chance to check astrophysical theory in such detail against observations.

Re:Good science writing

[Anonymous Coward]

By saying that the black hole is expeling matter, the article is accurate?

Isn't that against the core theories of black holes, that nothing leaves (except Hawking radiation...but semantics).

Re:Good science writing

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes I read the actual articles on Slashdot and sometimes I don't, but this comment connects with me and makes me instantly want to read it. Thanks for a great suggestion, and this is sincere. :)

I've got a brown hole...

[loafula]

...and it ejects lots of matter, too!

Particles coming out of blackholes...

[Whatanut]

That's what's left of the poor alien souls that attempted to use a pair of them for travel...

Re:Particles coming out of blackholes...

[evanbd]

How do you know it didn't work? Perhaps those jets will be reconstructed ;)

Re:Particles coming out of blackholes...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm finding it sad that you are being modded "informative" to this. Funny maybe, but informative?

Yuck

[electricbern]

Am I the only one that feels disgusted by "an 'unprecedented view' of a black hole in the process of expelling mass"??

Where does the magnetic field come from?

[AxelBoldt]

Where does the magnetic field perpendicular to the accretion disk come from? Does the material in the accretion disk carry a net charge?

Re:Where does the magnetic field come from?

[jessica_alba]

Field generation Stellar magnetic fields are believed to be caused within the convective zone of the star. The convective circulation of the conducting plasma functions like a dynamo. This activity destroys the star's primordial magnetic field, then generates a dipolar magnetic field. As the star undergoes differential rotationâ"rotating at different rates for various latitudesâ"the magnetism is wound into a toroidal field of "flux ropes" that become wrapped around the star. The fields can become highly concentrated, producing activity when they emerge on the surface.[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_magnetic_field#Field_generation

But aren't backholes magical singularities that physics has absolutely no explanation for? Or are they blackbodies that can behave like any star? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body#Radiation_emitted_by_a_human_body

Re:Where does the magnetic field come from?

[carnivorouscow]

The high temperature and particle speed in the accretion disc ionize the particles. Electrons have a hard time staying with their nucleus when you start applying those kind of forces to the atoms. After they're charged they become a moving electric charge and induce a magnetic field perpendicular to the direction of travel (but it sounds like you already knew that).

Re:Where does the magnetic field come from?

[Anonymous Coward]

There doesn't have to be a net charge (i.e. monopole moment), there just have to being higher order moments in the charge distribution. So if you partially ionize the accretion disk and/or obscuring torroid then you can get magnetic fields that are wound up by the rotation.

Re:Where does the magnetic field come from?

[AxelBoldt]

The high temperature and particle speed in the accretion disc ionize the particles.

Sure, but now you have positive and negative charges, rotating independently, and the generated magnetic fields should cancel each other. Or do they rotate at different speeds?

Re:Where does the magnetic field come from?

[AxelBoldt]

there just have to being higher order moments in the charge distribution.

What's the origin of those moments? The fact that electrons are lighter than protons?

Re:Where does the magnetic field come from?

[carnivorouscow]

The field would cancel if the flow remained laminar but the plasma is in turbulent flow so it's a non uniform mixture. Since the flow is 3 dimensional and turbulent the B field interacts with itself in strange ways. The particles aren't all moving at the same speed or staying in a similar position WRT one another, that's why the magnetic field don't cancel out.

Physics meets Beavis and Butthead

[192939495969798999]

bh: heh heh... he said expelling mass ... uhhhh heh heh heh...

French Translation...

[headkase]

French speaking nations tend to dislike the literal translation of "black hole" into their language... It doesn't translate well.

Re:French Translation...

[BoredAtWorkWhatElse]

French speaking nations tend to dislike the literal translation of "black hole" into their language... It doesn't translate well. Do we ? What's wrong with "Trou Noir" ?

Re:French Translation...

[$RANDOMLUSER]

I have some lectures on black holes in mp3, and listening to the Japanese speakers talk about "brack hos" gets me going every time.

Re:French Translation...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've heard that the Russian term for Black Hole translates as "Frozen Star"-- referring to the time dilation as one approaches the event horizon. Perhaps the French could borrow the Russian term rather than the English one?

Re:French Translation...

[headkase]

Shortly thereafter, the use of the expression "black hole" was coined by theoretical physicist John Wheeler. Prior to that time, the term black star was used occasionally. The latter term appears in an early episode of Star Trek, and was still used occasionally after 1967. This is because some people found the term "black hole" obscene when translated into French or Russian, for example.

From: here

Re:French Translation...

[Anonymous Coward]

U RAFF, U RUSE

Old hat

[jessica_alba]

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current "A Birkeland current generally refers to any electric current in a space plasma, but more specifically when charged particles in the current follow magnetic field lines (hence, Birkeland currents are also known as field-aligned currents). They are caused by the movement of a plasma perpendicular to a magnetic field. Birkeland currents often show filamentary, or twisted "rope-like" magnetic structure."

I wonder when they will discover that these "super massive destructive forces" are actually electric powerhouses that light up the cosmos.

Does it even matter?

[camperdave]

My understanding of hawking radiation is that a particle/anti-particle pair is created near the event horizon. One particle falls in and the other falls out. It's the ones that fall out that are called hawking radiation, and the particles falling in contribute to the black hole's demise.

The question that arises in my mind is this. Presumably there is a 50/50 chance that it's the particle that's being emitted, and the anti-particle falling into the hole. The other 50% of the time it's the antiparticle that escapes, and the particle falls in. So, if half of what falls in are particles, and half are anti-particles, wouldn't the net effect on the black hole be zero?

Re:Does it even matter?

[evanbd]

Antiparticles have positive mass, but opposite charge (and in the case of things like proton vs antiproton, the internal quarks are changed to antiquarks, etc). So yes, the black hole does lose mass, even though half of the radiation is antimatter.

Re:Does it even matter?

[ChatHuant]

My understanding of hawking radiation is that a particle/anti-particle pair is created near the event horizon. One particle falls in and the other falls out. It's the ones that fall out that are called hawking radiation, and the particles falling in contribute to the black hole's demise.

The question that arises in my mind is this. Presumably there is a 50/50 chance that it's the particle that's being emitted, and the anti-particle falling into the hole. The other 50% of the time it's the antiparticle that escapes, and the particle falls in. So, if half of what falls in are particles, and half are anti-particles, wouldn't the net effect on the black hole be zero?

IANAPhysicist, so I son't know anything about the state of matter inside a black hole, but even if the particles and antiparticles annihilate, the resulting energy doesn't dissapear or leave the black hole. So this basically makes no difference: the net mass still increases.

Re:Does it even matter?

[evanbd]

The relevant ones aren't the particles that fall in, but the ones that leave. Externally, they appear to have been created from nothing; but the mass has to come from somewhere, and it comes from the black hole. The details of why are not something I fully understand (IANAP either).

Re:Does it even matter?

[camperdave]

Antiparticles have positive mass, but opposite charge (and in the case of things like proton vs antiproton, the internal quarks are changed to antiquarks, etc). So yes, the black hole does lose mass, even though half of the radiation is antimatter.

That makes no sense. If both the particle and antiparticle have the same positive mass, then the black hole will increase in mass, not decrease.

Re:Does it even matter?

[evanbd]

There's a black hole. Quantum vacuum fluctuations create a particle-antiparticle pair near it, both with positive mass. One falls in, the other escapes. Thanks to quantum weirdnesses, the mass for the escaping one gets stolen from the black hole. Half the time it will be the antiparticle escaping, and half the time the particle. (Overall, though, they'll mostly do the same thing and both fall toward it or away from it, and annihilate each other with no net effect. But on the rare occasion when they get created in the right spot with the right energy, one will fall in and the other will escape.)

Of course, you could just read the Wikipedia article.

Re:Does it even matter?

[teebob21]

Hawking radiation particles don't come from *inside* the black hole; that's impossible. Instead they are the "virtual particle" pairs that are constantly created (and almost always immediately destroyed) from vacuum fluctuations of the fabric of space time, specifically those pairs pop into existence straddling the infinitely thin line that is the event horizon. Due to gravitational acceleration, these particles become real due to the Unruh effect. If the antimatter particle, say an antiproton, is captured, it will remove mass from the black hole when it encounters a matter particle and releases energy. Coincidentally, the same amount of mass "radiated" is as the antiproton destroyed. Courtesy of the transitive property of addition, the net effect is the same as if the black hole had ejected one proton from within the event horizon.

Re:Does it even matter?

[Wavebreak]

CBA to look this up right now, but IIRC it's actually the energy required to separate the particle/antiparticle pair that comes from the black hole, and causes a net decrease in mass.

Re:Does it even matter?

[camperdave]

But you're missing the point. Suppose that our black hole is composed of n particles of matter. Now suppose a proton/anti-proton pair gets created and the anti-proton falls in while the proton escapes. The anti-proton will anihilate the first proton it encounters, reducing the mass of the black hole to n-1. Now suppose another proton/anti-proton pair gets created, and this time it's the proton that falls in and the anti-proton that escapes. This time there is no anti-particle within the black hole, so its mass goes from n-1 back to n. If there is an equal chance that the captured particle is a normal matter particle or an antiparticle, then over time, the net effect is zero and the black hole does not evaporate.

Re:Does it even matter?

[TheAlmightyQ]

The point that might not be being explained properly, is the whole Conservation of Energy (and also Mass) thing. The only way virtual particles can be produced from the vacuum is if they recombine and disapear before the violation of the Conservation of Energy can be measured. Otherwise you'd be getting something for nothing.
In this case, the particles are being separated from each other before they can recombine, and it doesn't matter whether a particle or anti-particle falls into the black hole. For its virtual partner to be able to survive while obeying the laws of conservation, the particle falling into the black hole must subtract mass/energy from the black hole.
Remember, all matter, whether matter or anti-matter, has POSITIVE mass/energy, it's just their other properties that are opposite. In this case we're talking about matter that in some ways appears to have NEGATIVE mass/energy. And that is what is decreasing the mass/energy of the black hole.

must you humans be so dense?

Re:Black Hole

[spazdor]

We nerds love it.

We call those...

[spazdor]

Quantum dingleberries.

mod parent insightful

[spazdor]

Ironic commentary, betraying an almost Foucaultian weariness of the tedium and the hubris of our discourse. AC, I salute you.

A Couple of Things

[Nom du Keyboard]

This should be causing the black hole to lose energy then, because you can't accelerate matter to high speeds without putting energy into it, and that energy has to come from somewhere.

Also TFA refers to this as a "tremendous particle accelerators". Is it busy creating Higgs bosons then?

Re:A Couple of Things

[Lijemo]

This should be causing the black hole to lose energy then, because you can't accelerate matter to high speeds without putting energy into it, and that energy has to come from somewhere.

The black hole is losing energy because of this. Just like you lose energy by absent-mindedly tapping your fingers on a table-top. But in both cases, it's not enough energy for either you or the black hole to notice unless it's kept up for eons.

Also TFA refers to this as a "tremendous particle accelerators". Is it busy creating Higgs bosons then?

That's the $25,000 question, isn't it? Particle physicists would LOVE to be able to set up their detectors alongside this thing and find out.

Re:A Couple of Things

[adisakp]

This should be causing the black hole to lose energy then, because you can't accelerate matter to high speeds without putting energy into it, and that energy has to come from somewhere.

I'm a bit distressed that a slashdotter like yourself has never heard of gravity. Did you ever take a physics class in your life?

Re:A Couple of Things

[Tenebrousedge]

Theoretically, yeah, it is creating Higgs bosons. Extremely high energy cosmic rays do the same thing in our atmosphere every day, but probably it happens a lot more frequently around black holes. I propose a field trip to go investigate the phenomenon...

Re:A Couple of Things

[Nom du Keyboard]

I'm a bit distressed that a slashdotter like yourself has never heard of gravity. Did you ever take a physics class in your life?

These fields are accelerating matter AWAY from the black hole at near C velocities. That ain't gravity speaking, and requires a lot of energy.

Why Open Solaris is Failing?

[kurt555gs]

Simple, cause it sux.

Re:Why Open Solaris is Failing?

[Tenebrousedge]

This is the funniest post I've seen all day.

entropy

[locallyunscene]

Has anyone done a calculation to determine when the background radiation will be too low to sustain a black hole? Could the last surviving civilization be one that harnesses the hawking radiation of a black hole(if this is even possible IANAP)?

Gravity violates the speed limit in black holes?

[Blasticidin]

The whole thing about gravity, light etc and black holes bothers me to no end. So it is said by Einstein and many others that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, not even gravity. Well if the mass of the black hole is inside the event horizon and so much of it is gathered as a singularity in the center, then why do black holes have such a large gravitational influence on other objects? Arguably the things that anchor EVERY single galaxy are black holes in the center. These prevent matter such as other stars from being ejected into space. Well, if light can't escape a black hole, than why does gravity? According to common theories, most of the gravity should be lost inside the black hole since gravity also travels as waves. This isn't so since we can easily see the impact that massive black holes have on the cosmos. There is a small growing sector that believes in gravity acting instantaneously and this would be supported by black holes. I am not a physics major, but can someone please explain this to me?

Oblig: Re:Hawking Radiation

[Dragonshed]

I call it a Hawking Hole

restart?

[globaljustin]

do you think that this gamma ray burst you speak of in the last few seconds of the SM black hole's life might have something to do with 'restartng' our universe once everything gets consumed by black holes?

IANAP, but i have been reading up on the ultimate fate of the universe and it seems like the going theory is "with a whisper"

correct me if i'm wrong, but once the universe is completely 'flat' in a google years, current ideas say that only another brane collision could start another big bang

Re:restart?

[ChadN]

A "googol" years... Not "Google" years.

Error in summary

[Scott Carnahan]

The article is about an observation of the dynamics of the jets, not any recent theoretical development regarding the mechanism behind them. Blandford and Znajek proposed the process behind jet formation 30 years ago.

Re:Gravity violates the speed limit in black holes

[Entropy2016]

1) If you haven't yet, look up The General Theory of Relativity.
It models gravity not as a particle, nor a wave, but instead as curvatures in space-time.
To refer to an overused analogy, an object with gravity like a bowling ball placed on a stretched rubber-sheet. Try to move straight, but then pass through the depressed region, and regardless of your speed, your direction will be altered.
A black hole would be kinda like a boweling ball that ripped through the rubber-sheet, and also ruined the sheet's elasticity in doing so, so there's a sloping depression, which turns into a hole. Stuff that goes in the hole doesn't come back out.

2) If I recall, the speed of light is relative to your "absolute-spacetime".
So "c" can change if your spacetime is curved (aka gravity), or if the spacetime is expanding/contracting. C being constant is only if measured locally.

ID is testable

[mosb1000]

ID is testable. It simply assumes a creator and then requires you to hypothesize about the will of your creator. For example, you could hypothesize that your creator would design the earth's environment to be in a state of semi-stable equilibrium so that life can exist. This is a scientifically testable hypothesis.

I think that people get hung up on the fact that you can't disprove the existence you your creator using ID (since your interpretation of your creators purpose might be wrong, or your creators design might not achieve it's purpose). So in that regard, you could say that Gods existence is not a scientific theory. That does not affect the testability of a hypothesis based on the assumption of God's existence.

Interview with Alan Marsher

[teridon]

There is an interview with Alan Marscher on this week's Nature Podcast (24 April 2008). If you want to skip to the story, it starts at 25:19.

I am french that is not informative

[aepervius]

Black hole translate to "trou noir", which is as funny (or unfunny) as "black hole" is in english. I don't ever recall an astrophysicists in France which was annoyed, or amused. I would REALLY like to see a reference to this.And to the moderator, such an assertion would require at least a lnik or reference to be modded informative +5. Right now at best it is only +5 funny.

Re:I am french that is not informative

[oodaloop]

If I recall correctly, I read that in Kip Thorne's Black Holes and Time Warps. I don't have it with me, otherwise I'd look it up.

Re:I am french that is not informative

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because it's not offensive in French doesn't mean the USians who thought it up didn't THINK it was offensive.

Remember, USians protested France's refusal to support the war in Iraq by BUYING French wine and then emptying it down the drain. Critical thinking is NOT the US's strong point.

Black hole pr0n?

[liftphreaker]

So these astronomers saw a black hole shitting itself for the first time? Ugh. And they talk of pedophiles and gay pr0n as something "bad".. while these astronomer dudes get paid to watch pr0n on a galactic scale. Bizarre.

Re:Gravity violates the speed limit in black holes

[Blasticidin]

Yes, I am familiar with that analogy.

According to common thinking, the speed of gravity is equal to C, the speed of light.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity

However, Isaac newton said that gravity acts instantaneously. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/gravity_speed_030116.html

Instant gravity violates Einstein's relativity, since in any frame of reference, gravity would be faster than C. This is supported by black holes. Since light is not fast enough to escape a black hole, yet the effects of that black hole's gravity can be felt anywhere near it.

If gravity followed Einstein's Laws than black holes would have no gravitational influence on any matter near them, since if Light can not escape them, then obviously gravity traveling at C, in EVERY frame of reference, would also not be able to influence anything.

I think Eintsein is incorrect here.

Also the analogy of the bed sheet implies that gravity also acts instantaneously, since the dimple is always there. If one were to say travel faster than C and encounter the dimple, there would not have been enough time for gravity to travel to you in your spacecraft at C, but I am willing to but a pretty penny that gravity would still be felt.

This would confirm that it is faster than c.

Re:Gravity violates the speed limit in black holes

[Entropy2016]

Yes, I am familiar with that analogy.
According to common thinking, the speed of gravity is equal to C, the speed of light.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity
However, Isaac newton said that gravity acts instantaneously. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/gravity_speed_030116.html

I don't think anyone cares about what Isaac Newton said anymore (in the context of theoretical physics). It's been proven he was wrong about multiple things related to the subject. For example, he thought time moved at the same rate everywhere, but we've *experimentally proven* that time-dilation does happen if you travel fast or are affected by gravity, which is predicted by General Relativity. Have you considered that instantaneous gravity may violate causality by going faster than light (and thus offer the possibility of sending information backwards in time)?

Instant gravity violates Einstein's relativity, since in any frame of reference, gravity would be faster than C. This is supported by black holes.

[Citation Needed]. I've never heard/read any physicist claim this. (With all due respect,) I think you just misunderstand the physics.
Frankly, I think it's the opposite. Black holes were not discovered experimentally. We didn't find it then explain it. We predicted their existence using only General Relativity. If black holes & general relativity were in conflict, then how did we predict it on paper first, then find astronomical data that confirmed it? Did every physicist doing the calculations make the exact same mistake & still correctly predict their existence?

For the moment let me assume the idea of instant-gravity is correct. If so, then all matter in the universe is gravitating on all other matter in existence, all at the same time. Wouldn't all matter in the universe have a tendency to gravitate to a common-center? Consider the implications it may have on the universe's formation. It's not a simple thing to change the speed of gravity.

Since light is not fast enough to escape a black hole, yet the effects of that black hole's gravity can be felt anywhere near it.
If gravity followed Einstein's Laws than black holes would have no gravitational influence on any matter near them, since if Light can not escape them, then obviously gravity traveling at C, in EVERY frame of reference, would also not be able to influence anything.

I think you're trying to mix-&-match stuff from a General Relativity model & Quantum-Mechanics and tossing them recklessly into the same model thinking it'll make sense.

Under General Relativity, gravity isn't traveling through curved spacetime, it IS the curved spacetime.
When you mention the idea of gravity escaping anything, it implies gravity is a "thing" that moves away or is emitted from something, which says to me this model is using particles to describe the forces, BUT, that would be quantum-mechanics.

If you wanna go that route, we can:
You're basically saying "gravity shouldn't be able to escape gravity".
You think a graviton emitted by a black-hole should be able to hit a graviton it emitted a 3 nanoseconds ago? Wether the gravity's speed is instant or c, when 2 things going the same speed & in the same direction, they aren't going to touch eachother.

A graviton moving through curved-spacetime is a tad redundant.

Pick a General Relativity model or a Quantum Mechanics model, but don't mix & match parts. We don't have a quantum-theory of gravity yet.

Also the analogy of the bed sheet implies that gravity also acts instantaneously, since the dimple is always there.

Not true!
That dimple can only reshape as quickly as the speed-of-light allows it to. The rubber-sheet is made of atoms which can't go faster than C. If you disagree, show me your magical rubber-sheet with faster-than-light-atoms,

You have got a point

[aepervius]

I still remember snickering for week at a petty things like renaming French fries freedom fries (sorry to my US friend, but sometimes you can't stop it :) ). Still I would have expected to find a reference somewhere. And a cursory visit to Google did not ppan anything, and a long time ago, I remember speaking about black holes with one of most well known French astrophysicist, and I can't remember him snickering or reacting when we discussed. If anything that must be a really old reference. On a off topic thematic I wonder how Laplace called his speculation on star which did not let light escape due to gravity back in the 18th century...

Re:Gravity violates the speed limit in black holes

[Anonymous Coward]

i guess from a quantum theory point of view the idea is this: nothing can escape from inside a black hole "except" gravitons. gravitons are packets of space-time. but the problem is that we don't know if gravitons really exist. if they do then sometimes things can go faster than light, for example, gravitons during cosmic inflation. So in theory gravity could travel faster than light, and yet you can't really say that a graviton moves (in 3-d) because what is it supposed to be moving through? it can't move through space-time because it would be moving through itself. if gravitons are moving in another dimension then they simply passes through our universe (and any event horizons) leaving light where it may. the speed of light could in theroy be referenced back to the "speed" of gravitons passing through our universe. but still we don't have a reference point for gravity. our whole universe may be inside a black hole with gravity is passing through it and on to other universes. quien sabe?