Scientists Solve Mystery of Star Formation Near Black Holes 88
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.
but you'll need a subscription... (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Oh Please (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Oh Please (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
Re:Oh Please (Score:3, Insightful)
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).
Re:Oh Please (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [reference.com]
Definition of theory [reference.com]
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.
Re:Optimism at it's best (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Optimism at it's best (Score:2, Insightful)
We really ought to teach calculus as part of the standard curriculum. It'll help demystify science and help everyone
I entirely agree; It has gone on too long now where people hear the word calculus and instantly freeze up thinking "oh i wont be able to do it!". Granted some people might not be geared towards thinking the way you need to think for calculus, but I'm pretty sure its a much smaller segment of the population that fits that description than society thinks. Many people hear of integrals or transforms and simply sieze up without actually finding out if they CAN do such things when they apply themselves.
I'll never really understand that defeatist kind of mentality either. It seems to be the same pattern in peoples heads that causes issues with tech support. How many times have you had to explain to someone something that was written out exactly in the error message they received as they didn't read it at all because "I'm not good with computers!"?
Sucks. Personally, i would love to see a world where education starts off with Critical Thinking, Basic Statistics and Probability, and THEN moving on to the factual details for all other subjects. Starting with critical thinking and ingraining scientific views of statistics and probability at an early age would probably go a long way towards demystifying all branches of science.
Too bad that would make masses harder to predict though as people might start thinking for themselves on a regular basis. Apparently we can't have that =(
Just messin' with ya, Einstein (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Optimism at it's best (Score:2, Insightful)
Mod me a troll if you want, but you know I'm right.
Re:Oh Please (Score:3, Insightful)
.... 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.