Zuriz

A matter of patience

https://sh.itjust.works/post/54160812

Jan 26 at 9:19pmWeb
Show threadBjörnJan 26

Don’t agree. There is so much interesting stuff happening in astrophysics. It’s hard to choose one.

Vera Rubin going online is already giving us a huge boost to detecting near earth objects.

And neutrino astronomy is pretty much still in its infancy. There is still a lot to learn.

We’re finding older and older objects every month. A potential bio signature has been found on Mars. We discovered our third Interstellar visitor. The next stage of the moon mission is about to launch people around the moon in the next few months. The crisis in cosmology is getting bigger and bigger.

Astrophysics is in a great shape.

Show threadRhaedasJan 26
It's still a few years away, but so excited for the Europa Clipper to get to Jupiter.
Show threadSlein4273Jan 27
And Europa Clipper and JUICE will be exciting! I like JUICE a little bit more because of the name :)
Show threadChakravantiJan 28
The Monolith did tell you not go to Europa. Just Sayan.
Show threadRhaedasJan 28
The message was not to land there. Clipper is doing a bunch of flybys (to minimize the time in Jupiter's radiation belt and extend the life of the probe). We're good.
Show threadRustyJan 28
Is anyone else concerned that Europa Clipper will get more stupider?
Show threadRedactedJan 28
Can you define crisis in cosmology please? Trying to learn.
Show threadBjörnJan 28

Edit: PBS Space Time and Dr Becky have done some great videos about this on YouTube.

It’s basically a disagreement on the expansion rate of the universe. Depending on how we measure it we get two vastly different numbers. And either our understanding of how the universe evolved after the Big Bang is wrong or we interpreted data from our telescopes incorrectly.

The hope with the launch of JWST was that it would go away with better data. But it seems to be getting worse.

So that makes it more and more likely that our universe formation theories are wrong. This does not mean that there wasn’t a Big Bang. But it means that what we thought happened between the Big Bang and now isn’t quite right.

So we can expect some great new theories in the next decades.

Show threadRedactedJan 28
Thank you!
Show threadryannathansJan 26
What about planet 9’s likely discovery
Show threadFuglyDuckJan 26

Ammonite? aka 2023 KQ14?

Pluto is crying into it’s pillow case right now. (If Pluto isn’t a planet, then it’s dubious that Ammonite is- for the same reasons.)

Show threadryannathansJan 26

No, space.com/…/evidence-of-controversial-planet-9-un…

youtu.be/vdqQMmVplYA

Very good video on it

Bigger than Neptune

Evidence of controversial Planet 9 uncovered in sky surveys taken 23 years apart

If the object really is Planet Nine, it would be larger than Neptune and exist 700 times further from the sun than Earth.

Space
Show threadgrueJan 26
(It’s funny because we can’t stop them from passing straight through the pool.)
Show threadThe_LurkerJan 26
Nah. Neutrinos and NEOs actually exist.
Show threadlime!Jan 26
i thought neutrinos were getting less attention because the huge japanese neutrino detector exploded
Show threadNaibofTabrJan 26
The implosion incident with Super-Kamiokande happened in 2001. Repairs were completed in 2006.
Accident grounds neutrino lab – Physics World

Japan's Super-Kamiokande experiment is dealt a crippling blow

Physics World
Show threadlime!Jan 26

did they see any since then?

/j

Show threadSkullgridJan 27

The implosion incident with Super-Kamiokande happened in 2001

“HOLY FUCK, an IMplosion?!”

One of these tubes – each of which contains a vacuum – is thought to have imploded as the detector was being refilled with water following maintenance work.

I guess “vacuum tube crushed by water” needed a bit of punching up.

Show threadteftJan 27
It was a giant cascade of implosions. More than half of the tubes (7000+ tubes) imploded in a cascade. One popped which caused a shockwave which in turn imploded its neighbors which popped and set off their neighbors…
Show threadnialv7Jan 27
Oof that sounds expensive…
Show threadteftJan 27
Something like $30 million to replace them all. They put some plastic covers over the new ones to try and prevent it from happening again.
Show threadNaibofTabrJan 27
Well yes, one imploded, but the shock wave created by that first implosion then shattered 6600 of them.
Show threadPearlJan 27
Do you want neutron weaponry? Because that’s how you get neutron WMDs
Show threadTrex202Jan 27
SNOLAB in Sudbury Ontario has done a tonne of work on neutrinos
SNOLAB - Wikipedia

Show threadmindbleachJan 27
We’re trying, okay? It’s not our fault they have all their preferences set to DNI.
Show threadCheesyFoxJan 28
i mean,if i was a neutrino, i’d have “humans DNI” in my twitter profile
Show threadSolanoJan 27
Dark matter is just matter hidden in darkness, hence we cannot see it. It’s not some extraordinary substance. Mark my words.
Show thread🍉 Albert 🍉Jan 27
it is because we invested so much in telescopes there was no budget for flashlights
Show thread87SixJan 27
Who downvoted this? 💀
Show threadSolanoJan 28
Right. Wish people were more scientifically minded around here. My guess is just the most simple one, and I welcome challenge to it with the mark my words part.
Show threadsbirdJan 28

There is evidence of matter that does not interact with electromagnetic waves (so light, UV, etc.), so we cannot see it, but we do see the gravitational lensing caused by it, meaning it does interact with gravity (the bending of light around something that has a lot of mass)

There’s bazillions of different theories of what dark matter could be (since all we know is that it doesn’t interact with electromagnetism but it does with gravity), theories include primordial black holes (mini black holes made in the early superhot and dense universe), new forms of neutrino (like massive right-handed neutrinos), supersymmetric particles, and loads of other hypothetical/new particles (axions, WIMPs, etc.)

Show threadSolanoJan 28
Regular matter fits that description too, but saying it doesn’t interact with light is not the best way to say it. It’s giving an assumption, that it’s a black body because we cannot see it with our current tech. The flash light responder of my first comment is ironic, because you can think of a dark night with a flash light failing to illuminate things perpendicular to the beam. Space is vast, and we know physics does some strange things depending of the scale (tiny or huge). Have you pondered any of these questions: If there was enough light to illuminate everything in the universe, would space look black? When you think about solar systems, do you imagine stars at the center of them? Have you thought about solar systems that do not have the critical mass to ignite a star? What if the percentage of dark matter lines up with percentage of solar systems without a star to illuminate nearby objects? Is there really a large planet out in the Oort cloud, or is there that much little rocks out there we cannot see? And, on top of all that, I know for a fact there isn’t solid evidence for any explanation yet, but people will not be scientific and disregard anything that’s not the popular meme. But again, that is the common reaction through out history of new theories, until they are proven definitively. Even then people will believe the old norms in the face of facts. MIT is famous in teaching to brainstorm ever single possible solution, no matter how dumb or weird it is, because it might actually not be later on. Science isn’t about sticking to a popular belief and defending it only, as that will stifle progress. There are lots of things we don’t fully understand, and that’s okay, but the unknown can be scary (and we have seen conservatives do some awful stuff in fear of changing their world views). We don’t fully understand gravity as a “force”. There are drugs we don’t fully understand what exactly happens in our body, but see the side effects. We don’t fully understand how the brain works. DNA was mapped but understanding it is going to take a very long time with research. I knew the type of responses I would get for not saying the popular theory (But hoped I would pleasantly surprised with mindfulness). And I do mean theory in the scientific definition, but most people treat it as scientific laws. Have you notice how people talk about the big bang theory, like they been there and seen it, the conviction in the way it’s spoken, using that background radiation as the main source. I welcome new evidence, and will change my guesses/hypotheses when it comes, as all scientifically minded should. I just think it’s wrong to clinch on to popular beliefs and not properly lay out assumptions.
Show threadSkullgridJan 27
Hi diddely ho, neuterino
Show threadmnemonicmonkeysJan 27
Except there is neutrino research going on. There’s also a hypothesis that right-handed neutrinos are significantly more massive than their left-handed counterparts and are actually Dark Matter
Show threadsbirdJan 28
something something seesaw something
Show threadChakravantiJan 28
CoCain
Show threadsbirdJan 28
If you don't understand the seesaw The explanation for the observed light neutrino masses that involves massive right-handed neutrinos is called the “seesaw mechanism”, since it kind of works like a seesaw (when mass of right-handed neutrinos goes up, the left-handed neutrino masses go down. Since observed neutrino masses are very very light, like ridiculously so, it was first though that they were massless until it was discovered that they oscillate between 3 flavours, which is only possible if they have mass, these right-handed neutrinos must be quite massive indeed) For the record, I’m not a particle physicist of any kind and I got that information from a couple lectures that I watched that were about neutrino-related things. The supersymmetry camp also thinks that right-handed sneutrinos (the theoretical supersymmetric partners of the neutrinos) could also be a candidate for dark matter. Note the prefixed s, that’s how most of the supersymmetric partners of the observable fermions are named (squarks, selectrons, sneutrinos), while most of the supersymmetric partners of the observable bosons end with ino (photino, gravitino, and I’m pretty sure they call the partner of the W boson the Wino).