Science Thread (now with 100% less religion)
The old science thread seems to have gotten locked, not sure what the rules are but I thought we could try again.
Pretty neat preprint out from The
. They use low frequency radiation (<100MHz) to map the sky.Most of the paper deals with the technical details, they have to use multiple telescopes separated by 1000s of miles to eliminate noise (the Earth's atmosphere interferes a ton with radiation in that frequency range), but the end result is a nice picture of just .
That's about 20k SMBHs in about 5% of the sky. It was widely believed before that SMBHs holes are very common, since they've been found in the galactic centers close enough to resolve, but nice to see more confirmation as LOFAR is equipped to see very high energy point sources, which is dominated by accretion disks of SMBHS.
I find this really interesting mostly because it's still a mystery how these things even exist. Hopefully we will get a better picture of how SMBHs form in the first place, because it's likely a completely different process than what forms stellar black holes.
5 Replies
Interesting that Webb has basically confirmed older data which gives contradictory results on the value of Hubble's constant. There's definitely something wrong here, between local and cosmological data and the odds that it's new physics and not just some measurement issue seem pretty good now.
Interesting that Webb has basically confirmed older data which gives contradictory results on the value of Hubble's constant. There's definitely something wrong here, between local and cosmological data and the odds that it's new physics and not just some measurement issue seem pretty good now.
So you are saying Eric Weinstein was right after all?
Eroc Weinstein has produced nothing of value on the subject that can be evaluated as right or wrong. Unfortunately for him science is not politics and a conservative affirmative action doesn't lead to actual researchers taking you seriously, unlike podcast lemming morons.
Eroc Weinstein has produced nothing of value on the subject that can be evaluated as right or wrong. Unfortunately for him science is not politics and a conservative affirmative action doesn't lead to actual researchers taking you seriously, unlike podcast lemming morons.
Well, Eric Weinstein does have a PhD in mathematics, for whatever that is worth to you. And his basic premise is that current physics paradigms, especially string theory, are completely inadequate dead ends. And for political reasons physics has been stuck pursuing dead ends for decades.
And it can be true that he is correct, and he has produced no true progress in the field himself; although he has made some attempts in an amateur capacity.
Yes I have a PhD in math from the same department as him and am also in finance. You've only heard of him because of the conservative affirmative action pipeline.....his audience has no ability to determine if what he is saying has merit and he's not really interested in doing any hard science, just anti elite anti intellectual political science to a largely uneducated white male bro audience.
