Astronomers use Hubble images for movies featuring space slinky

Aug 22, 2013
Astronomers Use Hubble Images for Movies Featuring Space Slinky
This sequence of images, taken over a 13-year span by NASA's Hubble Space Telescope, reveals changes in a black-hole-powered jet of hot gas in the giant elliptical galaxy M87. The observations show that the river of plasma, traveling at nearly the speed of light, may follow the spiral structure of the black hole's magnetic field, which astronomers think is coiled like a helix. The magnetic field is believed to arise from a spinning accretion disk of material around a black hole. Although the magnetic field cannot be seen, its presence is inferred by the confinement of the jet along a narrow cone emanating from the black hole. The visible portion of the jet extends 5,000 light-years. M87 resides at the center of the neighboring Virgo cluster of roughly 2,000 galaxies, located 50 million light-years away. The images are part of a time-lapse movie that reveals changes in the jet over more than a 13-year period. They were taken by Hubble's Advanced Camera for Surveys in 2006 and Wide Field Planetary Camera 2 in 1995, 1998, 2001, and 2007. Credit: NASA, ESA, E. Meyer, W. Sparks, J. Biretta, J. Anderson, S.T. Sohn, and R. van der Marel (STScI), C. Norman (Johns Hopkins University), and M. Nakamura (Academia Sinica)

(Phys.org) —Astronomers have assembled, from more than 13 years of observations from NASA's Hubble Space Telescope, a series of time-lapse movies showing a jet of superheated gas—5,000 light-years long—as it is ejected from a supermassive black hole.

The movies promise to give astronomers a better understanding of how black holes shape .

"Central, supermassive black holes are a key component in all big galaxies," said Eileen T. Meyer of the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore, Md. "Most of these are believed to have gone through an active phase, and black-hole powered jets from this active phase play a key role in the evolution of galaxies. By studying the details of this process in the nearest galaxy with an optical jet, we can hope to learn more about and black hole physics in general."

The research team spent eight months analyzing 400 observations from Hubble's Wide Field Planetary Camera 2 and Advanced Camera for Surveys. The observations, taken from 1995 to 2008, are of a black hole sitting in the center of a dubbed M87.

"We analyzed several years' worth of Hubble data of a relatively nearby spiraling jet of plasma emitted from a black hole, which allowed us to see lots of details," Meyer said. "The only reason you see the distant jet in motion is because it is traveling very fast."

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.
This video begins with a view of the stars and galaxies in the spring constellation Virgo. We zoom into the giant elliptical galaxy M87, which lies near the center of the Virgo cluster of galaxies. A high-speed jet of hot plasma is buried deep inside the galaxy. A supermassive black hole ejects the jet at nearly the speed of light. This Hubble Space Telescope time-lapse movie captures the movement of the jet over a timespan of 13 years. Credit: NASA, ESA, and G. Bacon (STScI)

Meyer found evidence that suggests the jet's spiral motion is created by a helix-shaped magnetic field surrounding the black hole. In the outer part of the M87 jet, for example, one bright gas clump, called knot B, appears to zigzag, as if it were moving along a spiral path. Several other gas clumps along the jet also appear to loop around an invisible structure.

M87 resides at the center of the neighboring Virgo cluster of roughly 2,000 galaxies, located 50 million light years away. The galaxy's monster black hole is several billion times more massive than our sun.

The Hubble data also provided information on why the M87 jet is composed of a long string of gas blobs, which appear to brighten and dim over time.

"The jet structure is very clumpy. Is this a ballistic effect, like cannonballs fired sequentially from a cannon?" Meyer asked, "or, are there some particularly interesting physics going on, such as a shock that is magnetically driven?"

Meyer's team found evidence for both scenarios. "We found things that move quickly," Meyer said. "We found things that move slowly. And, we found things that are stationary. This study shows us that the clumps are very dynamic sources."

It is too soon to tell whether all black-hole-powered jets behave like the one in M87, which is why Meyer plans to use Hubble to study three more jets. "It's always dangerous to have exactly one example because it could be a strange outlier," Meyer said. "The M87 black hole is justification for looking at more jets."

The team's results appeared Aug. 22 in the online issue of The Astrophysical Journal Letters.

Explore further: The entropy of black holes

More information: dx.doi.org/10.1088/2041-8205/774/2/L21

Related Stories

4C+29.30: Black hole powered jets plow into galaxy

May 15, 2013

(Phys.org) —This composite image of a galaxy illustrates how the intense gravity of a supermassive black hole can be tapped to generate immense power. The image contains X-ray data from NASA's Chandra X-ray ...

Spiral Galaxy NGC 3627

Jul 15, 2013

(Phys.org) —The spiral galaxy NGC 3627 is located about 30 million light years from Earth. This composite image includes X-ray data from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory (blue), infrared data from the Spitzer ...

Image: A supermassive black hole

Jan 24, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- In a single exposure, astronomers were able to confirm the existence of a supermassive black hole in the center of galaxy M84.

A multi-wavelength view of radio galaxy Hercules A

Nov 29, 2012

(Phys.org)—Spectacular jets powered by the gravitational energy of a super massive black hole in the core of the elliptical galaxy Hercules A illustrate the combined imaging power of two of astronomy's ...

Recommended for you

The entropy of black holes

Sep 12, 2014

Yesterday I talked about black hole thermodynamics, specifically how you can write the laws of thermodynamics as laws about black holes. Central to the idea of thermodynamics is the property of entropy, which c ...

Modified theory of dark matter

Sep 12, 2014

Dark matter is an aspect of the universe we still don't fully understand. We have lots of evidence pointing to its existence (as I outlined in a series of posts a while back), and the best evidence we have point ...

Gaia discovers its first supernova

Sep 12, 2014

(Phys.org) —While scanning the sky to measure the positions and movements of stars in our Galaxy, Gaia has discovered its first stellar explosion in another galaxy far, far away.

Astronomers unveil secrets of giant elliptical galaxies

Sep 12, 2014

New findings of how giant elliptical galaxies move have been discovered by an international team of astronomers using the newly installed Multi Unit Spectroscopic Explorer (MUSE) at the European Southern Observatory's (ESO) ...

Exploring the cosmic X-ray background

Sep 12, 2014

You are likely familiar with the cosmic microwave background. This background is a thermal remnant of the big bang. Because of the expansion of the universe, this remnant energy has a temperature of about ...

User comments : 45

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (17) Aug 22, 2013
It's sooooo perplexing! Why the confusion?
jet's spiral motion is created by a helix-shaped magnetic field called knot B
or
appears to zigzag, as if it were moving along a spiral path
or,
Several other gas clumps along the jet also appear to loop around an invisible structure.
and then,
why the M87 jet is composed of a long string of gas blobs, which appear to brighten and dim over time

Ignorance, nothing else!

or, are there some particularly interesting physics going on?

Why yes, but you are blinded by ignorance and the inability to approach the problem from any other angle than what you've been taught. You see, all the critical thinkers were weeded out of your profession, yourself and all your peers are superior at memorizing worthless facts and you excel at following directions. But you don't know how to problem solve beyond your myopic viewpoint. Your better off for anyway, chances are if you found the answer you'd end up like Hal Arp, fired.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (18) Aug 22, 2013
"Students using astrophysical textbooks remain essentially ignorant of even the existence of plasma concepts, despite the fact that some of them have been known for half a century. The conclusion is that astrophysics is too important to be left in the hands of astrophysicists who have gotten their main knowledge from these textbooks. Earthbound and space telescope data must be treated by scientists who are familiar with laboratory and magnetospheric physics and circuit theory, and of course with modern plasma theory." Hannes Alfven

This taken from his Nobel lecture, as true today as 43 years ago.
Gmr
4.1 / 5 (10) Aug 22, 2013
^Yammer yammer garp.

Fascinating that a large galaxy like this has an active black hole at its core; from what I understand most center of the cluster residents are very high mass ellipticals past their star forming era. In other words, not normally much gas and dust for a black home to encounter.
GSwift7
3.7 / 5 (9) Aug 22, 2013
Troll ^^

Yeah, Arp had the same problem as Alfven. They both lacked observations with enough resolution and depth to test their own alternative theories. Arp is so stubborn that he still continues to rant (86 years old now) about his QSO theory that has been proven wrong since Hubble first went online. He has been forgotten by the professional world because he is stuck in the 60's. All the people he worked with back then have either retired or have passed away. His catalogue of peculiar galaxies turned out to be merging galaxies rather than odd single galaxies. His bridges between galaxies turned out to be a distortion caused by imperfections in telescopes of his time. The spectrum of high redshift objects turned out to exactly match the spectrum of similar galaxies nearby, only shifted to the red. He should know all of this, but he still refuses to accept simple modern obeservations. That's why nobody credible pays attention to him now.

Arp is a lot like you.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (18) Aug 22, 2013
177 of his published yammerings...
http://ned.ipac.c...ss=paper

Contrary to your claims, he didn't stop looking through telescopes in the 60's. He's able to collect plenty of data using modern instruments via his position at the Max Plank Inst.

"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo Galilei
GSwift7
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 22, 2013
In other words, not normally much gas and dust for a black home to encounter.


Yeah, M87 is a really cool object. It's true that there's not much dust, since it is destroyed by the intense radiation, but there's plenty of hot plasma falling into the center.
Greenwood
5 / 5 (7) Aug 22, 2013
He's able to collect plenty of data using modern instruments via his position at the Max Plank Inst.


He's barely publishing at all now, even you cannot deny that. The papers he publishes now do not strongly support his ideas however the evidence against his ideas is very strong. Holding a position at an institution does not guarantee you telescope time. The fact he has only published 1 paper in 5 years which used a survey data suggest he is not observing at all.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (16) Aug 22, 2013
He's barely publishing at all now, even you cannot deny that.

I was not trying to imply he is currently working, he is 86 after all. The only point is that he continued his work until recently, and he had access at modern observations.

his QSO theory that has been proven wrong since Hubble first went online.

That's an out and out lie, but it's not surprising.
http://www.hilton...0001.htm

His bridges between galaxies turned out to be a distortion caused by imperfections in telescopes of his time.

You mean like, NGC 4319 and Markarian 205the one where NASA released as "proof" a doctored image to refute Arp?
http://www.halton...ebuttals (first rebuttal)
http://uanews.ua....indings/

Once again, the reason most deny and ignore is because they know the implications, and they don't want to have to go flip burgers with their expensive yet worthless pseudoscientific degrees.
Gmr
3.9 / 5 (9) Aug 22, 2013
^Yammer yammer Arp.

@GSwift7 - Is this one of those clusters where there are massive amounts of hot plasma contained in the region gravitationally?
Greenwood
5 / 5 (6) Aug 23, 2013
The HST image was never the proof that this was an apparent effect caused by Markarian 205 being behind the halo of NGC 4319. The proof is that Markarian 205 has absorption lines that correspond to the redshift of the other galaxy, indicating it does indeed pass through it. http://adsabs.har...98..495B

That paper of Arp's you cited is proof he's living in the past. Redshift periodicity was abandoned years ago. Nothing on that page refutes the crushing reality that host galaxies of quasars have been analysed and found to be at the same redshift. The paper cites exceptions where things are not understood rather than addressing the broader tones.
GSwift7
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 23, 2013
@GSwift7 - Is this one of those clusters where there are massive amounts of hot plasma contained in the region gravitationally?


As you said, M87 is peculiar for being eliptical and having an active core, but that's not the only thing odd about it. The other odd things probably explain why it has an active core, once we are able to figure out what happened. There are multiple possibilities.

What we know is that the envelope surrounding it is unusually clean, so not much gas or dust around it. M87 has an unusual amount of free gas inside it though. M87 has two parts; a dense inner core and a less dense outer part, like the yolk and white of an egg. The outer part is clean, but the inner part isn't. They estimate that only 1/6th of M87's mass is in the form of stars, and there's not much dust, so most of M87's mass is in the form of free plasma. The leading theory is that it absorbed a smaller galaxy recently. There's several reasons they think that right now.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (12) Aug 23, 2013
Nothing on that page refutes the crushing reality that host galaxies of quasars have been analysed and found to be at the same redshift. The paper cites exceptions where things are not understood rather than addressing the broader tones.

Yep, and as Arp points out; "they barely mentioned that the line was about 10 times fainter than than expected. I.e. the quasar was indicated to be only 10% in back of the galaxy (Or one might say 90% in front.)"
And it in no way addresses the physical link between the two objects.
BTW, Arp received his Bachelors degree from Harvard College in 1949 and his Ph.D. from California Institute of Technology in 1953, both cum laude. His doctoral work was under Hubble and until he found his "atlas" he was considered as one of the superior astronomers on the planet. I highly doubt this brilliant man at the top of his profession doesn't "understand" what he is doing. Your response indicates you are the confused one.
IMP-9
5 / 5 (4) Aug 23, 2013
"they barely mentioned that the line was about 10 times fainter than than expected. I.e. the quasar was indicated to be only 10% in back of the galaxy (Or one might say 90% in front.)"


I can see the quote but where is the paper showing this? The "bridge" can be completely coincidental. The galaxy has tails and streams one of which could create this appearance.

BTW, Arp...


An argument from authority, that's funny coming from you.
GSwift7
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 23, 2013
Once again, the reason most deny and ignore is because they know the implications, and they don't want to have to go flip burgers


Yeah, I think you nailed it there. That is exactly Arp's problem. If you know this, then why do you continue to cite him?
stellar-demolitionist
5 / 5 (7) Aug 23, 2013

... as Arp points out; "they barely mentioned that the line was about 10 times fainter than than expected. I.e. the quasar was indicated to be only 10% in back of the galaxy (Or one might say 90% in front.)"


Like IMP-9 I don't see a source for that quote so I am somewhat confused by its meaning. What does it mean for a line to be "10 times fainter"? The Bachall et al. paper linked by Greenwood is measuring absorption lines in the quasar spectrum. They could be 10x weaker (or stronger) than expected, but fainter makes no linguistic sense.

Interstellar absorption lines measure the property of the absorbing gas, not the background object. The measured redshifts of the lines show that the absorbing gas has the same redshift as the (foreground) galaxy and not that of the quasar.

Even if the quote tried to mean that the quasar was 10x fainter than expected it doesn't mean that the quasar is 10% "in front" of the galaxy, only that 90% of the light was absorbed by the galaxy.
stellar-demolitionist
5 / 5 (8) Aug 23, 2013
His doctoral work was under Hubble and until he found his "atlas" he was considered as one of the superior astronomers on the planet. I highly doubt this brilliant man at the top of his profession doesn't "understand" what he is doing. Your response indicates you are the confused one.


Actually, his observations and especially his catalog are well known and respected by professionals, even those of us who do not work extra galactic astronomy. He identified some of the most interesting nearby galaxies-- actively colliding ones.

Where Arp went wrong is getting stuck on his unorthodox and then semi-plausible explanation of quantized, non-cosmological redshifts. The data collected since has not supported that conclusion, yet Arp has remained fixed on his bypassed ideas.

Had he instead speculated that the universe was filled with sheets of galaxy clusters separated by nearly empty voids he would be hailed as a visionary because that is the realit. (see Geller & Huchra et seq.)
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (14) Aug 23, 2013
Like IMP-9 I don't see a source for that quote so I am somewhat confused by its meaning. What does it mean for a line to be "10 times fainter"?

That is a response he gave on the "rebuttals" page for his website I linked above, his web page which worked fine yesterday and seems to not be working today.

The data collected since has not supported that conclusion, yet Arp has remained fixed on his bypassed ideas.

Once again, a completely spurious claim. Arp along with Chris Fulton using the Sloan Digi Sky Survey examined 118,000 galaxies and ~25,000 quasars, what they found was more of what Arp has been claiming for years.
http://arxiv.org/...1587.pdf

Hilton Ratcliffe summarizes here;

http://www.hilton...hift.htm

What I would like is for someone to explain the "Fingers of God" as the results of mapping of objects by redshift indicate. Is the Universe geocentric?
yyz
5 / 5 (3) Aug 23, 2013
"That is a response he gave on the "rebuttals" page for his website..."

Yes, but is that a response in regards to to early spectroscopic work by Stockton et al: http://adsabs.har...31..673S

...or (old) ground based spectra with the Isaac Newton Telescope: http://adsabs.har...48..153B

...or UV spectra of Mrk 205 from HST:

http://adsabs.har...03L..55B

http://adsabs.har...98..495B

...or X-ray spectra of Mrk 205 from Beppo-Sax: http://adsabs.har...21...91F

Do tell.

Q-Star
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 23, 2013
"That is a response he gave on the "rebuttals" page for his website..."

Yes, but is that a response in regards to to early spectroscopic work by Stockton et al: http://adsabs.har...31..673S

Do tell.



That's one of the pit-falls one must be on the watch for when ya let some crank web sites tell ya how to rebut "when they say so & so,,,, show them this & that",,,,,, better to learn the material and then rebut from an understanding of the topic.
rug
2.3 / 5 (9) Aug 23, 2013
@Q-Star - Most of my understanding of science I have learned from school, tv (discovery, PBS nova, science channel, Bill Nye, etc), articles on sites like this, pod cast like TWIS (This Week In Science), and some minor research into the data on topics I was interested in I have done myself. That being said, I think I have a pretty good understanding of most of the science that is going on out there but it's really just an understanding of the topic. Does that mean that I can't really rebut these goofs on here?
IMP-9
5 / 5 (5) Aug 23, 2013
Once again, a completely spurious claim. Arp along with Chris Fulton using the Sloan Digi Sky Survey examined 118,000 galaxies and ~25,000 quasars, what they found was more of what Arp has been claiming for years.


Other works find nothing and point to selection effects causing the apparent periodicity in 2DF and SDSS. Papers like these cannot be ignored.

http://adsabs.har...33...41T
http://adsabs.har...56..702R
http://adsabs.har...24...13H
http://adsabs.har...26...11B
http://adsabs.har...07.2641T
http://adsabs.har...12.3833H

Q-Star
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 23, 2013
Most of my understanding of science I have learned from school, tv (discovery, PBS nova, science channel, Bill Nye, etc), articles on sites like this, pod cast like TWIS (This Week In Science), and some minor research into the data on topics I was interested in I have done myself. That being said, I think I have a pretty good understanding of most of the science that is going on out there but it's really just an understanding of the topic. Does that mean that I can't really rebut these goofs on here?


It means the opposite. Ya have taken the time to learn the topic, and talk about the topic. As opposed to those who think learning the topic is too hard, don't have the discipline to really explore. All they want to do is make the topic foolish and dumb so they have an excuse for being lazy. They are lazy, but try hide it by telling everyone how wrong the people who do put in effort to enjoy the subject fully. It takes no effort to be a troll, and they do get attention from it.
rug
2.3 / 5 (9) Aug 23, 2013
Well, thats a good point. Not sure I would call watching tv being anything but lazy though. lol I've always found science extremely interesting. The idea that some of the greatest discoveries came form people that were not even in the field until later gives hope to all us novice out there. Astronomy being the main field were amateurs have made huge contributions.
Q-Star
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 23, 2013
@ rug

Some of the most informed and highest quality comments ya will find on this site are from people who learned this subject in just the way ya did. Like ya seem to, they enjoy it, pursue it and work on in it for the satisfaction of learning one more new thing each day. I for one, come here mostly to read their comments, I'm not seeking the final complete definitive answer, there are always new perspectives and views, even when discussing established mature science. A new way of describing something old. A nuanced connection between two desperate objects or processes, etc. I enjoy your comments and contributions.
rug
2.3 / 5 (9) Aug 23, 2013
Thanks! I'm just geek so I like to learn. Though, the comments are what keep me coming back. Well, the liget comments at least.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (16) Aug 23, 2013
Well that's great ya appreciate people who learn, so long as they learn what ya'll see as the "right way". Ya know, there are plenty of people who learned the "wrong" things and that led them to the "right" things. How can you know what's right if you only know what you already know?



Other works find nothing and point to selection effects causing the apparent periodicity in 2DF and SDSS. Papers like these cannot be ignored.

http://adsabs.har...33...41T


Looks like a lot of excuses, "it's not like this, it's like that." "statistics are ok for WMAP, but not for Arp", "well the data can't prove one thing or the other..."

show them this & that",,,,,, better to learn the material and then rebut from an understanding of the topic.

Only got a 1000 characters ya know, saw ya'll's responses about HA's long responses and I know what high regard my opinion is held in these parts. May as well hear it from someone who knows and has worked with Dr. Arp.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (15) Aug 23, 2013
Once again, a completely spurious claim. Arp along with Chris Fulton using the Sloan Digi Sky Survey examined 118,000 galaxies and ~25,000 quasars, what they found was more of what Arp has been claiming for years.


Other works find nothing and point to selection effects causing the apparent periodicity in 2DF and SDSS. Papers like these cannot be ignored.

http://adsabs.har...33...41T


This paper here shows briefly how the authors of one your linked papers erred;
http://electric-c...dixB.pdf
IMP-9
5 / 5 (4) Aug 24, 2013
Looks like a lot of excuses, "it's not like this, it's like that." "statistics are ok for WMAP, but not for Arp", "well the data can't prove one thing or the other..."


Proof you didn't actually look at them. The irony is you claim they dismiss Arps work so that you can justify dismissing their work. None simply dismiss previous findings. Some analysed the data and found nothing significant. The last few show that selection effects can cause periodicity when there is none. If you think that's an excuse you've got your head in the sand.

Which paper does that error refer to? It doesn't specify. It also seems confused in that it claims the periodicity should be seen only in intrinsic redshift and yet other papers from Arp (e.g. the 2008 2DF one) use only raw redshift. The original work on periodicity from Karlsson also concerns raw redshift only.
IMP-9
4.8 / 5 (5) Aug 24, 2013
explanation of superluminal motion of M87 jets


An apparent effect which was actually predicted in the mainstream.
http://en.wikiped...l_motion
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (14) Aug 24, 2013
explanation of superluminal motion of M87 jets


An apparent effect which was actually predicted in the mainstream.
http://en.wikiped...l_motion

Coming up with an ad hoc explanation after the fact is by no means a "prediction". It should be noted, the jets are also not predicted by the "standard model" either, that's part of the reason they're so "mysterious". And waving bunnies doesn't explain this either. This can only be explained with electric circuits in plasma. A plasmoid will generate these jets, no magical BH monster needed, just real plasma phenomena. This is another falsification of Einstein's self imposed speed limit. But as with every other example of falsification and difficult questions posed to the BB and GR guesses, they are claimed to be an illusion or completely ignored.
rug
2.8 / 5 (9) Aug 24, 2013
They are not ignored, you just haven't bothered to read the science that has been done. As with everything else. It's either that or you are ignoring them just as you claim everyone else is ignoring your pet theory.
IMP-9
5 / 5 (6) Aug 24, 2013
Coming up with an ad hoc explanation after the fact is by no means a "prediction".


Do you ever read anything people post before replying with ignorant drivel? It was predicted because it was described by Martin Rees years before it was observed.

Does EU explain observation of jets? We don't know because not even the people who invented this crap have any quantitative grasp of it. You need a quantitative theory to explain quantitative data, otherwise you have a hypothesis.

And no claiming "plasma explains this" without evidence is not a falsification of a well tested idea. Special relativity and geometry was used to predict superluminal motion, that's a big tick for relativity, not a falsification.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (14) Aug 24, 2013
Does EU explain observation of jets?

Why yes, as said it's a plasmoid that creates such jets. Why don't you know? Refusal to look I would imagine.
http://www.holosc...tronomy/
The plasmoid at the heart of the galaxy can be seen at bottom of page.
IMP-9
5 / 5 (5) Aug 24, 2013
I did look and what did I find? Exactly what I said it was, qualitative speculation that isn't rigorous enough to test. I can say "two giant antimatter elephants" create the jets, but until I have a model which can match observation I have nothing but I hypothesis. I cannot claim that hypothesis explains the data until I show it can.

What it doesn't explain is what is the energy source energy source, why this ion/electron separation is not observed (atomic emission lines are), why do some active galaxies not have jets at all (most AGN do not actually) and all of the spectral characteristics of AGN. Also if the mass of AGN is caused by high energy particles experiencing "relativistic mass" (funny this person seems to agree with relativity) where is the massive synchrotron?

It's a hypothesis for creating a beam but it does nothing to explain observations other than one or two things which are only qualitatively described. And you have the cheek to harp on about ad hoc models.
Protoplasmix
2.3 / 5 (12) Aug 24, 2013
Thanks to those who presented all the fine facts - I tried to vote 5 stars and may have accidently logged a couple 4's, sorry (stubby fingers, small touchscreen).

@rug - you'd probably like the Galaxy Zoo, great place to learn a few things and take part in the discoveries: http://www.galaxyzoo.org/
Captain Stumpy
1.5 / 5 (11) Aug 24, 2013
I am trying learn and i have a question: can anyone explain the asymmetrical jet discharge? why would it discharge only one direction... shouldn't it discharge at least in two directions?
not trolling, just dont understand.
can anyone explain? or perhaps provide a link where it explains the asymmetry?
thanks in advance
Q-Star
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 24, 2013
not trolling, just dont understand.
can anyone explain? or perhaps provide a link where it explains the asymmetry?
thanks in advance


Symmetry implies that there are equal or balanced conditions shaping the phenomena. In things as numerous as galactic objects any number of things can make them appear differently.

It's best analogy is to the humans,,, there are 6 plus billions of them, & everyone is different. Lot's of variations & even some that possess radically different (pathological) mutations,,,,,,

There are 100 plus billions of galaxies & each one was formed in conditions that may be the same, slightly different, very different etc from each other,,, hence much variation is to be expected,,,,

The short answer to your question is, an asymmetric phenomenon may be harder to "analyze" & explain than symmetric phenomena. Because the symmetric probably have commonalities that are easy to identify. The asymmetric ones probably have a myriad of DIFFERENT causes.
Captain Stumpy
1.7 / 5 (11) Aug 24, 2013
P.S.
@Protoplasmix
thanks for the galaxyzoo link. I am also trying to learn. looks like a good page ...
Captain Stumpy
1.7 / 5 (11) Aug 24, 2013
@ Q-Star
thanks for the input... guess I got caught up in symmetry. don't know why... just focused on it. appreciate your response.
Q-Star
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 24, 2013
P.S.
@Protoplasmix
thanks for the galaxyzoo link. I am also trying to learn. looks like a good page ...


@ Everyone,,,

Here is another source ya all might enjoy. Sean Carroll's blog page where he posts his thoughts on a variety of topics concerning the state of cosmology, physics, and life in general. It has something for everyone, even the "fringe" science people (as long as ya don't mind when he points out it is the unconventional "theory").

He's not very kind to cranks and people who can't seem to tell the difference between being out of the box profound and being undisciplined speakers of gobbledygook.

http://prepostero...sts.html
Q-Star
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 24, 2013
@ Q-Star
thanks for the input... guess I got caught up in symmetry. don't know why... just focused on it. appreciate your response.


Ya are most welcome. Questions are a good thing as long as they are asked in earnest without being asked for a setup "got-cha".
Captain Stumpy
1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 24, 2013
@ Q-Star
I just read his book "From Eternity to Here". darn good book. really enjoyed it... thanks for the heads up!
Q-Star
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 24, 2013
@ Q-Star
I just read his book "From Eternity to Here". darn good book. really enjoyed it... thanks for the heads up!


Yeah, that is a great book. The one he wrote last year on the Higg's boson and how it will impact some pressing questions in cosmology in the near future is excellent also.
Captain Stumpy
2 / 5 (12) Aug 24, 2013
I just looked it up on Amazon: this book, right?
"The Particle at the End of the Universe: How the Hunt for the Higgs Boson Leads Us to the Edge of a New World" by Sean Carroll (Nov 13, 2012)
I am ordering it... cant wait to read it. I like his writing style. reading his blog now ...
appreciate the help!
also- i don't do that Gotcha crap. but i do ask a LOT of questions. i always thought that growing old was more about not asking questions and seeking answers than physical debilitation through senescence .. i will stop asking WHY when i am dead.
rug
2 / 5 (8) Aug 25, 2013
@rug - you'd probably like the Galaxy Zoo, great place to learn a few things and take part in the discoveries: http://www.galaxyzoo.org/

Thanks! I've been there before. Some great pics and can be rather helpful. I had lost the link a good while ago and couldn't remember the name of it. You have reconnected me with my fav past time. :)