Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Solve Mystery of Star Formation Near Black Holes
eonlabs writes "A new paper has been published on the formation of stars in close proximity to a supermassive black hole. Their formation has not been well understood until now, but with the help of a year of supercomputer time, scientists have been able to model the interstellar processes needed to produce them. The results not only match up well with earlier observations, but provide clues as to how their formation is remotely possible. It also helps clear up previous research in this area. 'The simulations...followed the evolution of two separate giant gas clouds up to 100,000 times the mass of the Sun, as they fell towards the supermassive black hole. ...The disrupted clouds form into spiral patterns as they orbit the black hole... In these conditions, only high mass stars are able to form and these stars inherit the eccentric orbits from the elliptical disc.'"
The paper itself was published in Science, but you'll need a subscription to read more than the abstract.
you'll need a subscription to read more than the abstract.
Slashdot gets worse: now we can't RTFA. Not that that'll make the slightest bit of difference to anyone's comments.
I'm not a scientist, but even I know evolution is simply accepted - by some - as the best current explanation for our existence, and will be revised or replaced the moment a better explanation comes along. This is a good thing.
I don't care why you're posting AC
It's also on the BBC News site:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7574255.stm
No, it is a theory, but by far the best one we have that fits the observable universe. But if you choose to believe the universe was created by the flying spagetti monster 75 years ago as the pastafarians do, or some variant thereof by all means, be my guest. Just don't pass it off as science.
If you have done some research that radically overturns an established theory, (say quantum mechanics) great - publish it. But your theory had better fit the observable universe better than than the established one. (Quantum mechanics does)
My rights don't need management.
I just want to add that creditable scientific theories exist due to their supporting factual evidence. This is why evolution itself is considered well supported in the same way theoretical gravity is supported by factual evidence.
Note that this is for evolution by itself, specifically human evolution has many pieces to the puzzle (pieces meaning factual evidence), but are missing a few currently. And you know what? theories "evolve" at the same time that new evidence is brought up. So for the top parent, go back to your damn bible and read up. Leave science alone. You believe, after all, that you were created from dirt, correct? It is extremely obvious that your skull is filled with it. Now there's an example of a theory supported by evidence (you ignorance).
clearly god did it :)
clearly Joe Pesci did it :)
There; you mde an accidental typo that just had to be corrected.
Yes and we're...
Oh, you are, are you?
...ecstatic that it was possible to do so without O(e^n) and taking more than our lifetime.
This type of simulation is very common in computational astrophysics from stellar scale to large-scale structure, and everything in between. The two common computational techniques are the particle mesh methods. It's easy to think about the complexity of the particle problem: every particle interacts with every other particle, giving O(n^2), which is unworkable for even moderate values (astrophysically speaking) of n.
Judiciously sacrificing a little accuracy for a lot of efficiency gets you down from O(n*n) to O(n*log n) calculations. Mesh and hybrid methods used in MHD and FD simulations are similarly tractable; that is, only just, if you have a lot of processors for the (*moderately*) large n in what is now very attainable memory.
No part of the complexity analysis of any of these physical processes is super-polynomial. So I don't think you know what you're talking about, and I certainly don't think you're Ian Bonnell or Ken Rice, nor apparently even a student with basic experience with either complexity analysis or the basic physical concepts being modelled (on a computationally-large scale).
I haven't read the paper yet, but this isn't exactly a bolt from the blue for the researchers; they've published other papers on this subject matter which are typical for the field. They're working on the same problems as lots of people, using the same methods as lots of people, and only "ecstatic" about the whole affair when they actually get supercomputer time, again like other people.
This is both useful and impressive.
It is not at all impressive, which should be obvious to anyone actually doing this research. It would take a very naive and conceited individual to trumpet this research as such if it were his own.
That is all.
Your modesty and lack of impersonation are noted by all.
I know there are at least a few Slashdot readers who use this sort of thing in their work; maybe one will chime in here if the record isn't already straight enough.
My brain is super dense. Does that count?
Please point out a theory in religion. I gave my examples - in evolution and gravity - they simply explain the natural phenomena of evolutionary mutation and gravity. you give yours. The first challenge, that I'm interested in is finding the natural phenomena.
Definition of faith
Definition of theory
The same? I think not. Let me know when you come up with proof that one religion overpowers the rest in factual evidence that supports it. Again, you don't know what the hell a scientific theory is at all.
No, I'm no science student. I simply follow specific definitions, and I remain a skeptic to everything. I don't believe or have faith in evolution. I simply accept evidence. It may morph in the future as more evidence comes in, but it will never make it "wrong" - for according to the concept of a scientific theory - hypotheses are supposed to evolve. The same with quantum mechanics - I am no believer in it, so I simply follow what has been proven in the physical world. Can a man walk on water? I sure would like to see it. Is there an immortal being for who I am a servant to? I sure as hell would like to see this person in the physical world, then existence of immortal creators will be an obvious fact.
Not to get too off-topic, but I find the Bible, Torah, and Koran the best collection of moral tales (moral as in the morality 2000 years ago) that have ever been discovered. The immoral concepts you learn from them show that YHWH, God, and Alah did not create man in their own image, but in fact man created YHWH, God, and Alah in their own image.
Personally, I would pick a woman goddess to worship. They seem to know how to take care of things pretty damn well.
Why? Astrophysics isn't that hard: you just need a good understanding of calculus (differential equations for best results) and humility enough to look up obscure terms. I think anyone of average intelligence could learn enough to get the gist of a research paper, if not to spot errors or produce results himself.
We really ought to teach calculus as part of the standard curriculum. It'll help demystify science and help everyone.
The paper itself was published in Science, but you'll need a subscription to read more than the abstract.
It's ironic that of all of the ways that we as a society could choose to fund our primary scientific journal, the method we did choose is based on keeping scientific results away from people who are interested in science.
"Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
Main three? The top three are # Christianity (2.1 billion), Islam: (1.5 billion), and what the adherents.com refers to as "Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist" (1.1 billion). Skipping over the secular/none of the above category, Hinduism (900 million) would be next.
Judaism is way down the list at number 12 (14 million). Calling it one of the main three is far off base.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Mod me a troll if you want, but you know I'm right.
.... But if you choose to believe....
that everything else in this universe is a product of time plus chance is that science or is it philosophy?
(...But your theory had better fit the observable universe better...)
Observing the facts and doing experiments of science, but interpreting these facts is philosophy based on the worldview of the person doing the interpreting.
A person who BELIEVES that the universe came about by processes of time and chance, will interpret the facts and observations through that lens of this belief. A person who BELIEVES that the universe came about by careful thought and planning, will also interpret the facts and observations through that lens of that belief.
The actual experimental evidence and the observation is the same for both worldviews, but give rise to different theories.
All theory is gray
...factual evidence...
There is no such thing as factual evidence, only just plain evidence. Evidence can only be believed not proven.
(...evolution itself is considered well supported...)
Evolution is widely believed, but that does not mean it is correct or the only possible interpretation of the evidence.
(...You believe, after all, that you were created from dirt....)
Apparently you don't know that some good fertile dirt capable of growing the good things you like to eat, is not too different from the elemental makeup of your own body. After all, you are what you eat. We all eat what came up out of the ground (dirt). Therefore, this is good evidence for the biblical interpretation of what you are made of, dirt!
Your shame however is, that your mind is filled with dirt by putting other people down who believe differently than you.
All theory is gray