This is cool as heck, and now I’m going to go back to my computer job and try not to think about how ridiculously tiny and fragile my little life is.
Importance is a local concept, and it can be quite relevant locally.
I never understood this `we're but a speck`. Do you know of many other specks with life ?
Now imagine instead- If the Universe is conscious, instead of that being one big conscious observer looking down; perhaps instead we (each of us humans, animals etc as life act as living observers) living our first person subjective perspectives like a multitude of cameras for the universe to experience itself on Earth
And we can imagine that happening at all scales simultaneously across all living worlds and other forms of mind throughout the cosmos, ie consciousness as first person observers might be as innumerable as the number of stars in the sky, and these living perspectives or subjective cameras are dotting the whole immensity all unify to provide the universe with an eye on itself in infinite perspective ..
Doesn't that make up for humans being puny tiny lifespans - we (our insignificant bodies) are just disposable cameras for consciousness
It makes absolutely no sense and at the same time makes about as much sense as anything.
- Bill Hicks- Carl Sagan in Pale Blue Dot
I've been trying to adopt this mindset myself in recent years.
It's helped me "cope" and accept certain things about my life. It's not how my mind developed initially, so it doesn't come naturally to me and I sometimes fall into old habits. So, sometimes I need to remind myself to practice it.
Anyway, thanks for the reminder! :)
So, I conclude, since our biology is tuned for that -- it's better to keep worrying and enduring, and we will be happier. There must be a contradiction somewhere though.
Yes, nobody said anything that you had to be a couch potato stoner person. We don't live in the world of Star Trek Federation, so we all have to do whatever job we do so we can afford the basic things we need. However, we get paid for 40 hours, so I'm not giving them 45, 50, or 60 hours. I'm not working 5 days a week, and then donating a 6th. My time is my time. I give you what you pay me for, and then I take my time back. My favorite quote from a coworker when I was very young, "I give them what they give me, 40 hours."
During my time, I can do whatever I want to do while not stressing about the J.O.B. Whatever I left on Friday will still be there on Monday. I'm not a doctor, so nobody is going to die because I didn't check my email or slack. The rat race ended for me a long time ago
Or my income for that matter -- just make 100% sure paid all the salaries, taxes, insurances -- if I come up negative, well, sucks to be me then, dude.
Our species was born on this rock and it will perish on this rock. And it will have no impact on anything even within our star system, let alone this galaxy.
The sentiment that the universe is our home is a nice one, but it’s not true at all. Existential crisis is the only reasonable thing here, at least from the lens of human existence.
That being said... I'd love to if I were terminally ill yet capable enough to understand what was happening -- to be yeeted into a super super massive blackhole that was not feeding such that I would not be torn to shreds or vaporized by the accretion disk and ultimately understand what lies at the center of my now time horizon...
> This is cool as heck, and now I’m going to go back to my computer job and try not to think about how ridiculously tiny and fragile my little life is.
There could be an alternative take here: we really lucked out that life as we know it exists at all. So we kinda won the lottery already.
Now there are fuck tonne of filters we passed so far, may very well fail on next one (probably self-destruction), and we are lucky with so far stable good place for life. Given there are billions of trillions of planets, no way we are on the very top of that ridiculous number.
We may be one of the earlier civs but no way we are first neither. But how we would recognize a civilization that has say just a 1 billion years headstart? Dyson spheres are for fools ignoring dark forest stuff, not something really smart cautious beings would do. Matter holds enormous amount of energy, and there are other ways to extract it in a less obvious ways, ie black holes or probably some other ways.
Look at it this way - we are maybe building a small baby steps for one of big civilizations of universe. Still extremely primitive in all possible ways while arrogant enough to mostly not see it, but there is potential for true greatness. Otherwise we will perish, I dont see anything in between.
Naw!!! We are rare, so rare that we might be unique in our solar system, galaxy! We don't look little and instead the reason for the whole show! "Where is everybody?" -- easy, we're it. Soooo, what's the reason??
The whole event is likely to be an exponential, and the last, ah, after Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Schrödinger, biochemistry, ..., computers, we look like we're at -- a standard for exponential growth, e.g., the question P v NP -- the unique big turn up out of the atmosphere ... blowing past Andromeda at 0.5 c and accelerating.
Accept your fragility, be grateful for what the universe gives you, be humble about your limits and faults, and spread happiness, joy and love to the other fragile, limited beings around you. There’s your cure for existential dread.
Afraid of the impending collision of Andromeda with the Milky Way? Not to worry. Life as we know will be gone by then. Huge processes like galactic mergers are "in slow motion" relative to our every day processes due to light speed bounds. The time they take to occur is enormous because the distances involved are enormous. In a cool way, the presence and influence of an astronomical object is just as insignificant to our processes as the presence and influence of one electron, and for the same reason: enormous difference of scale. The big stuff is no more scary than the small stuff.
"It’s been publicly confirmed that our galaxy is within the open maw of a massive galaxy-eating beast. The beast can’t move faster than light, so it’ll take hundreds of millions of years for it to finally bite down. This is something that humans will just have to live with"
(I don't think you can actually tell a good story with this, it's a background detail you would put in some other story).
From the abstract: “This is the lowest-mass object known to us, by two orders of magnitude, to be detected at a cosmological distance by its gravitational effect. This work demonstrates the observational feasibility of using gravitational imaging to probe the million-solar-mass regime far beyond our local Universe.”
Assuming this is repeatable, it will take a while to contextualize.
the lowest mass dark object currently measured
one million times the mass of the Sun
We are surrounded by dark objects, a rock is a dark object, exoplanets are dark objects, and so are black holes. Pretty much everything but stars are dark objects. They are all dark because they don't emit light.
Here, I think they mean stuff (whatever it is) that can only be detected by gravitational lensing, and it makes sense that it has to be extremely heavy, because gravity is so weak.
Actually, dark matter does interact with electromagnetic radiation -- it can deflect it, as in the case of gravitational lensing. But dark matter doesn't either emit nor absorb electromagnetic radiation directly.
We only know about dark matter because of its gravitational effects.
They are much lighter than 1 million solar masses and we know a few of them, with a variety of ways to detect them, including companion stars orbiting around them and gravitational waves during mergers.
Black holes fit the definition of dark matter, as they neither emit nor absorb electromagnetic radiation, not in a way that could be detected anyways. This is the "MACHO" theory of dark matter, which is not the favorite, but it is still taken seriously. Stellar mass black holes have been ruled out, I think, but it doesn't mean dark matter can't be made of black holes. In fact, primordial black holes are a rather hot theory.
Blank holes aren't dark enough. Because of their accretion disks, they typically stand out from their environments. Also, unlike dark matter, black holes tend to give themselves away by the focal distribution of their masses.
> Black holes fit the definition of dark matter, as they neither emit nor absorb electromagnetic radiation, not in a way that could be detected anyways.
Actually, Hawking radiation explains how black holes eventually evaporate, and the smaller the BH, the higher the Hawking radiation "temperature." This radiation is manifest in observations, and along with the energy emitted by accretion disks, black holes are often very conspicuous.
> Stellar mass black holes have been ruled out ...
Wait, the largest black holes are many millions of times the mass of our sun. Or did you mean only ruled out as a candidate for dark matter?
Another argument against black holes as dark matter is that black holes tend to congregate near the center of galaxies, while by contrast dark matter notoriously distributes itself through the entire volume of a galaxy.
I emphasize these are just counterpoints, not refutations, and black holes might play a part in the dark matter issue.
Normal matter in the universe is mostly hydrogen, which should coalesce to form stars, which give off light. The lack of light compared to the estimated mass is precisely the paradox.
Light shining through dark matter, if that dark interacts with electromagnetic radiation, would show absorption lines, and I suspect they'd be of compelling interest. My understanding is that there's no observational evidence that it does. Given that we now know precisely where a dark-matter candidate is I suspect that there will be attempts made to identify any possible spectrographic signature which would confirm (if absent) or refute (if present) current understandings of dark matter's nature.
Dark matter seems more ghostly , like gravitational shadow of matter
There's no reason to think that our senses encompass the vast majority of understanding everything in reality and current evidence that they, in fact, do not, via dark matter as a primary source.
I suspect our senses encompass a meaningless fraction of the noumenon.
To elaborate, the noumenon can have properties that are unknown to us and outside the purview of certain senses (if not all) but still have partial phenomenal effects such as gravitational effects.
Given partial overlap, we could, and likely should, surmise that overlap, if partial, can also be zero. In fact, partial overlap with certain things (such as the gravitational field) but no sensory experience is exactly what we'd predict if this were true.
The mistake is thinking I'm asserting that things are phenomenon or noumenon when that's not quite right. Mostly, the supposition is that things can exist and have either 'full' (unlikely I think), partial, or zero overlap with our sensory experience. Things that demonstrably have partial overlap suggest a wider world of things. I simply find the idea that our evolved sensory experience encompass even a sizable fraction of reality to lack epistemic humility.
This is obviously speculative.
This is at the heart of the Allegory of The Cave: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave. What we're discussing is a kind of "Natural Philosophy" or Physics, the study of that which is.
The research team detected it only through its gravitational lensing effect — the way it slightly distorted the light from a more distant galaxy. There’s no emission at any wavelength (optical, infrared, or radio), and its gravitational signature matches a million-solar-mass clump of invisible mass rather than a compact point source like a black hole.
They specifically interpret it as a dark matter subhalo — one of the small, dense lumps that simulations of “cold dark matter” predict should pepper the universe’s larger halos. It’s too massive to be a single star, far too diffuse to be a stellar remnant, and not luminous enough to be a faint galaxy.
So “dark” here isn’t just shorthand for “too dim to see at this distance” — it’s used in the literal physical sense: matter that doesn’t emit or absorb light at all, detectable only via gravity.
Eventually, all the dark matter clumps into rings around galaxies, but since this one is so distant, ~10B light years, so we are seeing that clump as it was that long ago before it difused into it's ring shape we can see in the galaxies around us.
If you're sufficiently close to the mass, and/or its radius (relative to your own and your distance from it) is large, as with, say, a stone tossed from ground level on Earth, that orbit will intersect the surface rather quickly.
At astronomical distances, ranging from some significant fraction of the distance between the Earth and Moon to interstellar and intergallactic distances, it's far more likely that an attraction will result in some other form, generally an ellipse (typical of a captured orbit), circle (a perfectly non-eccentric ellipse), a parabola (object moving at escape velocity), or hyperbola (object moving faster than escape velocity).
Ring systems form as multiple masses interact around a larger mass, be that a moon, planet, star / quasi-stellar object, galaxy, or other mass. Until the tangential velocity is lost, the particles within the ring will continue their orbit. Occasional interactions and collisions, as well as radiated energy (including gravitational radiation) may cause a given particle to spiral inwards, or be ejected from, the ring system.
I probably don't know that much more than you about the subject, but from what I understand, the prevailing model suggests that these Halos formed early in the formation of the universe when spacetime had varying "pockets" of density that naturally led to these halos - the formation of the galactic disk therein was actually supported by the halo existing first, because baryonic matter (aka non-dark matter, the stuff that makes up planets, stars, etc) was still too energetic from the formation of the universe to become gravitationally bound to itself.
I believe dark matter comprises something like 80-85% of all matter in the universe.
None of this tells us what this "matter" actually is.
Normal matter also makes halos or rings around the center of the galaxy. That's how gravity works. And since dark matter interacts less, it stays more spread.
>since dark matter interacts less
With electromagnetism or gravity?
"Halos in religious art began transitioning from spherical or radiant forms to flat, ring-like discs during the early Renaissance, around the 14th to 15th centuries."
While I can fully believe The Simpsons will run for that time, they are still not there.
They're explicitly looking for "Dark Matter", which doesn't "interact" with normal ("baryonic") matter or electromagnetic radiation (e.g. light). So it's not a black hole for sure, as those are composed of regular ol' matter.
RE:"dark star", that's really up in the air, I'd say! AFAICT the only academic reference to that term is for normal stars influenced by dark matter[1], but kinda the whole problem here is that we don't know much about what dark matter is composed of or into. Certainly it's not going to be a star in the traditional sense as it can't emit light, but I'm not aware of any reason this object can't end up being a giant sphere.
FWIW, Wikipedia says "One of the most massive stars known is Eta Carinae, with 100–200 [solar masses]", whereas this object "has a mass that is a million times greater than that of our Sun". If we're going to use metaphors, I think "dark dwarf galaxy" might be more appropriate?
Dust clouds have those mass ranges. It’s not a galaxy-scale mass by any measure.
This thread has a lot of CS people being confident about physics.
But it's really so---according to GR, black holes don't have global charges. So even if you see a star made out of baryons collapse into a black hole, once the BH settles down into a steady state you can't say it's "really" got baryons inside: the baryon number gets destroyed.
(Of course, a different model of gravity that preserves unitarity might upset this understanding.)
1. "The presence of a black hole can be inferred through its interaction with OTHER MATTER and with electromagnetic radiation such as visible light." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole
2. "A dwarf galaxy is a small galaxy composed of ABOUT 1000 up to several billion stars" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarf_galaxy
Darn astrophysics majors being confident about astronomy! ;)
2. I missed the dwarf part, but think about what you’re arguing: the mass range of a loosely defined category (the lower bound of a few thousands is not one I’ve ever heard, btw) that has nothing to do with the paper in question. Collections of stars of any kind produce light. This doesn’t. What are you saying?
What do you think physicists do all day?
I think you mean it doesn't interact electromagnetically with either matter or radiation. It does interact with normal matter via gravity -- that's pretty much the strongest (only?) argument for its existence.
I'm not aware of any reason this object can't end up being a giant sphere
AIUI, most theories posit that solid spheres of dark matter are very unlikely because matter accretion is governed by electromagnetism in addition to gravity, and dark matter is not supposed to obey the former. Most models assume that dark matter is organized in gaseous clouds (halos); strictly speaking that's still a giant sphere, just not in the same way that Jupiter or the Sun or even the Oort Cloud is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_massive_stars#Lis...
“ More globally, statistics on stellar populations seem to indicate that the upper mass limit is in the 120-solar-mass range,[1] so any mass estimate above this range is suspect. “
There are good theoretical reasons why a star shouldn’t normally get as big as the ones on the top of the list. Long story short: they’d very quickly shed mass due to their intense luminosity. Some of them might even be boiling with bubbles of pure radiation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddington_luminosity
Beyond that, there’s also the possibility of pair-instability supernova, which might cause the most massive stars to literally disintegrate.
The paper is more about the technical achievement of detecting it, IIUC. It’s not the first dark matter inference we’ve had, and doesn’t really tell us anything new about the stuff.
I know the current models favor cold DM, I thought the hot DM model was abandoned already when it became clear that clusters of any size exist?
But yes, CDM is what most researchers expect, by a large margin.
- the quotes around image in the title
- the commenter believes image is the correct word in a more literal sense
And if it has a chewy nougat center.
(Sorry. Reminded me of an old TV commercial.)
Why are they there?
The title reads like astronomers found a mysterious dark object in another universe. Like a distant solar system or a distant galaxy.
Or am I misunderstanding the findings here?
Would you assume the headline is referring to a galaxy far away (spatially) or your own galaxy in the past?