15 ms·
Star's strange path around black hole proves Einstein right (2020)
- throwaway81523 5y agoI like Lenny Susskind's remark about a similar Einstein vindication: "they didn't call him Einstein for nothing!".
- consumer451 5y agoI wonder if this is so funny due in part to the fact that it causes a compiler warning in one's brain.
- TekMol 5y agoProves Einstein right in what way? If I say that below the surface of earth there are green goblins who suck down objects from the air and then an apple drops from a tree - that does not prove me right. It just does not prove me wrong.
- gliptic 5y agoWhat's the prediction on your green goblins hypothesis. Specifically, how does it differ from Newton's?
- hungryforcodes 5y agoWhat?
- OneTimePetes 5y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beeldenstorm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beeldenstorm Modern scientific authority derives from a inheritance of proofen right, which people who hang around in online communities usually do not know about. Add to that the "progressive" tendencies to smash the "old" - now taken over by the alt-right and you get a ahistoric bunch of fool, who would throw dirt at everyone no matter how right or wrong his hypothesis was.
- aetherspawn 5y agoCould you please explain the link reference. I don't get it.
- OneTimePetes 5y agoThere is a history of anti-history, as in revolutionary movements that tried to erase pre-existing culture. When napoleon conquered europe, the secularisation swept Europe and secularized monastrys, destroyed churches etc. Ironically like the catholic church, a thousand years prior. Old books were thrown into fire or used to pave muddy roads. And it was always for "progress" as in, the catholic church did it for progress, the protestant threw part of it out for "progress", the secularization threw the rest of it out for you guessed it. While it has its moments (the catholic church owned half of europe and its lands ripped away created a fresh start) those "Picture-storms" always created a wave of destruction too. When all the old is gone and nothing but the "horror" stories about the "before" times remain, you loose alot of knowledge too. Including the knowledge that all of this has been done a thousand times, for a thousand good and bad reasons and that even the "erasing" the past, has a long, bad history.
- jack_riminton 5y agoThat’s not how anything works
- eloisius 5y agoI couldn't not read this comment in Charlie Kelly's voice.
- 317070 5y agoSince Einstein did not observe this extreme situation of a star around a black hole prior to formulating his theory, it does proof him right. It was a falsification observation, and it verified the theory. Apples and goblins should produce predictions that differ from existing theory, and predict a new type of observation that could confirm its correctness versus existing work.
- boomboomsubban 5y ago>it does proof him right. It was a falsification observation, and it verified the theory. It provides evidence that his theory is correct, it does not prove it because they still could find evidence that does not fit general relativity. The posters example made it sound crazy, but "proof" is the wrong word to use. I much prefer the paper's opener of >The theory of General Relativity (GR) continues to pass all experimental tests with flying colours
- andrewgleave 5y agoAnother way to phrase it is that relativity hasn’t been refuted by this observation.
- quickthrower2 5y agoThey had different equations for gravity so only one could be right.
- WJW 5y agoAt most one, I think. It's also possible (likely, even) that they are both wrong.
- polymatter 5y agoIn a fundamental sort of way you're quite correct. Science can never _prove_ things correct in the same way mathematicians do. In fact, science constantly revises over time. It is not "done". And as a reminder, the way something is proved is when recognised scientific minds perform peer review and conclude it is proved. And they often get it "wrong" as most published science is later proven incorrect. This is science working. However, this doesn't open the floodgates to any old theory because a simpler theory that explains the data is preferrable to a more complex one. Your green goblin theory might fit the data, but then leaves open questions like what do green goblins eat, why were they not detected previously, what else might they affect etc etc.
- IAmNotAFix 5y agoYes, the title is not quite scientific.
- rightbyte 5y agoI don't get it. It just looks like the blackhole and the star are rotating around a third object?
- anentropic 5y agoI think it's demonstrating this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging
- carl_dr 5y agoIndeed. From that Wikipedia page : "In the case of stars orbiting close to a spinning, supermassive black hole, frame dragging should cause the star's orbital plane to precess about the black hole spin axis. This effect should be detectable within the next few years via astrometric monitoring of stars at the center of the Milky Way galaxy." And it's exactly this they are showing in the article.
- lmilcin 5y agoThe "artist's animation" show periapsis getting higher or lower (depending on how you interpret direction of motion of the star) which is not how orbits work. These people (linked in the article) calculated the effect to be "12' per orbital period": https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2020/04/aa37813-20/aa37813-20.html https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2020/04/aa37813-... So no, not even close to being as dramatic as on "artist's animation".
- xadhominemx 5y agoThe animation exaggerates the effect of course. But I don’t think the periapsis is modeled incorrectly. Not sure why you are so angry about this.
- LatteLazy 5y agoI'm starting to wonder if we will ever have a single unified theory or if QM and relativity will never be married. Maybe the universe works different at different scales etc?
- c048 5y agoMaybe relativity is the aproximate, fast calculation for calculating distant world cells. Meanwhile, QM is there for detailed local-world cell calculations. The split is there because running the entire simulation completely in QM is overkill will bring the main CPU to its knees.
- gpderetta 5y agobut even if you run our current QM (i.e. the standard model) simulation completely you would still not recover general relativity. Some sort of quantum gravity is still needed.
- mjburgess 5y agoReality isn't a simulation because QM is non-deterministic. The non-determinism and measurement fidelity of QM also means reality is classically non-deterministic, as in chaotic systems which cannot be predicted beyond short horizons because measurement precision in initial conditions forbids it. Algorithmic/computational models of reality are therefore false ("aproximations") rather than the converse. All computations are functions from N to N -- and randomness in the QM sense isn't a function. Ie., a QM/Classical-Chaotic system is a "function" from state-space X to measurement space Y such that for some X there is no determinate Y. This isn't a function; and hence not computable.
- macguillicuddy 5y ago> Reality isn't a simulation because QM is non-deterministic. That doesn't necessarily follow. It's totally possible for us to observe non-determinism within a simulation. Reductio ad absurdum - the simulation could be of what we think we know, rather than actually what we observe.
- andrewgleave 5y agoIt don't "prove" anything. The observation just doesn't refute relativity.
- sudhirj 5y agoA better headline would be “doesn’t prove Einstein wrong”.
- sidlls 5y agoAn even better one would be "Einstein's General Relativity model supported by (another) observation". We've had many similar observations already (e.g. Mercury's procession around the Sun) that provide similar confirmation. That's why there is such consternation about it, versus the Standard Model born of quantum physics: both models have tons of confirming evidence supporting them, and yet they are at some level incompatible/incomplete. There's a gap in our knowledge, understanding, and intuition.
- ManBlanket 5y agoPublication bias might suggest otherwise.
- xadhominemx 5y agoNo, it proved Einstein’s theory predicts the trajectory of objects in the presence of a rotating supermassive object
- andrewgleave 5y agoThe observation is consistent with the theory of relativity.
- xadhominemx 5y agoLike I said, in proves general relativity predicts the trajectory of objects in the presence of a rotating supermassive object
- surfsvammel 5y agoEinstein seems to really deserve his iconic status in popular culture as the most brilliant mind ever. I’m not sure that he was, but that seems to be the popular image of him. One thing that does amaze me though, is his unbelievable capacity for intuition.
- papito 5y agoInformed intuition.
- credit_guy 5y agoSome people indeed have that image. But quite a lot of other people consider Newton to be the most impactful scientist and mathematician ever. I count myself in that camp. Gauss was obviously a more brilliant mathematician than Newton, and maybe even Terry Tao, or Grothendieck, or a few others, but none of them change the the world the way Newton did. There is simply math after Newton, and math before, and they are like spacecraft vs stone tools.
- adgjlsfhk1 5y agoas evidenced by Leibniz, it seems like most of it would have happened without him. his work on series was probably not going to happen for a bit without him.
- JadeNB 5y ago> as evidenced by Leibniz, it seems like most of it would have happened without him. his work on series was probably not going to happen for a bit without him. I think that part of what was marvellous about Newton (Einstein, too) was how many things he did. As you say, it seems plausible any individual thing Newton did would have been done by someone else—probably the same is true of anyone—but it seems unlikely that any one person could have done everything Newton did.
- dylan604 5y agoEven Newton himself has said "If I have seen further my self it is because I stand on shoulders of giants."
- papito 5y agoSerious question: when was Einstein proven wrong in a big way?
- GoblinSlayer 5y agoHe liked the hidden variables theory. And on that one he was proven wrong in a really big way.
- doctoboggan 5y agoI think Einstein had some wrong ideas in the area of quantum mechanics. While I don't think we have a perfect understanding of entanglement, it has been demonstrated in many experiments. Einstein didn't like this "spooky action at a distance". He was also quoted as saying "god does not play dice with the universe" in regards to the fundamental randomness that seems to underlie QM.
- pddpro 5y agoTo which Neils Bohr is supposed to have replied, "Stop telling God what to do!"
- rhrowawa 5y agoNo, superdeterminism could very well be it and once again confirming Einstein was ahead of the game; even by today’s popular theory.
- arrow7000 5y ago"big if true" vibes
- papito 5y agoI subscribe to the view of the world in the show DEVS. Basically, given enough processing power to simulate every particle in the Universe, there is no randomness. I have a pretty crazy opinion about all of this, where I think creationism and science do not contradict each other. The book of Genesis and science describe the same exact thing, but in different languages. And it explains how, in the Bible, this God "person" was able to predict the future without fail, with unlimited horizon. It's like a video tape - fast forwarding and going back to the original point does not change the plot. See? I figured it out. Next question.