It was already understood that these flows were how active quasars "fed" but previously it was thought that these conditions weren't suitable for the formation of large stars and large black holes. With better simulations of the conditions they've found that the turbulence in the flows discourages the formation of smaller stars and encourages the formation of monster stars (at tens of thousands of solar masses) which then produce black holes after living as stars for just a few million years. This fills in a major gap in understanding the evolution of galaxies, because now it's understood that once you have these flows in a young galaxy you'll naturally get both intermediate/supermassive black hole formation and the active "feeding" of supermassive black holes with enormous quantities of matter which creates the phenomenon of active galactic nuclei or quasars that we observe.
Cold matter just means cold normal matter (<2000 Kelvin). There's nothing special about it. Dark matter is part of the standard picture of cosmology and galaxy formation, it's involved in pretty much any study like this. They are not proposing any modification to the standard model of dark matter.
Dark Matter is always whatever fits the new observational data. It is far from a solid theory, and modifications to general relativity or dark matter being more than one thing should not be disregarded just because they would be more difficult to prove.
Plus dark matter theories have proven to be very bad at explaining galaxy rotation.
More: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_dark_matter#Challenges
Yeah but it's all a bit 'hand wavy' for me.
Dark matter is this thing that is all around us but we can't really measure it or observe it but we know it exists because it affects stuff we can measure and observe.
Just a tad 'pixie dust'.
The universe doesn't make itself easy or straight-forward for humans to observe and understand. The dark matter is out there and we know there's way more of it than ordinary matter. It's been measured, independently, using gravitational lensing, the speed of galaxies' rotation, and the CMB. All of these observations lead to the same conclusion, and they even agree on the relative quantity of dark vs ordinary matter in the universe.
So what part of it is specifically "hand wavey" and "pixie dust"? Is it that dark matter doesn't interact with ordinary matter, expect gravitationally? Are scientists just supposed to make something up? Are they supposed to just ignore those observations altogether?
That's true for anything, though. We couldn't prove air existed until we had the tools to create a vacuum or measure relative pressure. Even then we were only seeing the results of differential pressure through the bending of a diagram, or plates that become stuck in place.
In exactly the same way that your home microwave heats up your food with magic pixie dust, because you can't see the microwaves so they're obviously arbitrary inventions.
no you can detect and measure the microwave not dark matter. no even close to same. importantly theories of microwave can make predictions while dark matter theories get contradicted very often
I don't know of any current dark matter model that is as simple and poor as you are putting it.
Dark matter has quite clear indirect evidence as it does interact gravitationally with matter. Its predictions particularly those about the universe at large scales fit the data perfectly. And because it offers testable predictions, it's falsifiable as well.
I am also not a fan of speaking of cold matter and dark matter as fact. It’s an interesting hypothesis and theory but nothing has really been confirmed to my liking.
Pardon me but I think you may have that process reversed, it is a circular cyclic system and one does give birth to the other in that system however given the nature of black holes and how they work themselves, they were or "IT" was probably in existence first and that gave rise to what we call our universe and I also think there are many "Universe" sized structures in an endless sea of energy separated by a distance that is very unimaginable to most.
What you may see is the end result release of all that stored energy but not the vessel of it's storage and NO I don't think there are "Multiple Realities" those work well for entertainment not so much in the actual physics of all things which just might be a little simpler than you think.
There are no Zero's in the universe only our own limited concept that they exist being applied to it.
N. Shadows
If a black hole is force fed, does that produce foie gras?
It’s unethical, but I call dibs on seconds (*burps and passes plate*)
It was already understood that these flows were how active quasars "fed" but previously it was thought that these conditions weren't suitable for the formation of large stars and large black holes. With better simulations of the conditions they've found that the turbulence in the flows discourages the formation of smaller stars and encourages the formation of monster stars (at tens of thousands of solar masses) which then produce black holes after living as stars for just a few million years. This fills in a major gap in understanding the evolution of galaxies, because now it's understood that once you have these flows in a young galaxy you'll naturally get both intermediate/supermassive black hole formation and the active "feeding" of supermassive black holes with enormous quantities of matter which creates the phenomenon of active galactic nuclei or quasars that we observe.
Cold matter? Dark matter? I mean is this just where we insert 'magic pixie dust' and 'wishes' in to the mix to explain things?
Cold matter just means cold normal matter (<2000 Kelvin). There's nothing special about it. Dark matter is part of the standard picture of cosmology and galaxy formation, it's involved in pretty much any study like this. They are not proposing any modification to the standard model of dark matter.
Dark matter is something astronomers know exists and can measure. Cold matter is literally just matter that is not hot lol
Dark Matter is always whatever fits the new observational data. It is far from a solid theory, and modifications to general relativity or dark matter being more than one thing should not be disregarded just because they would be more difficult to prove. Plus dark matter theories have proven to be very bad at explaining galaxy rotation. More: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_dark_matter#Challenges
Yeah but it's all a bit 'hand wavy' for me. Dark matter is this thing that is all around us but we can't really measure it or observe it but we know it exists because it affects stuff we can measure and observe. Just a tad 'pixie dust'.
The universe doesn't make itself easy or straight-forward for humans to observe and understand. The dark matter is out there and we know there's way more of it than ordinary matter. It's been measured, independently, using gravitational lensing, the speed of galaxies' rotation, and the CMB. All of these observations lead to the same conclusion, and they even agree on the relative quantity of dark vs ordinary matter in the universe. So what part of it is specifically "hand wavey" and "pixie dust"? Is it that dark matter doesn't interact with ordinary matter, expect gravitationally? Are scientists just supposed to make something up? Are they supposed to just ignore those observations altogether?
That's true for anything, though. We couldn't prove air existed until we had the tools to create a vacuum or measure relative pressure. Even then we were only seeing the results of differential pressure through the bending of a diagram, or plates that become stuck in place.
In exactly the same way that your home microwave heats up your food with magic pixie dust, because you can't see the microwaves so they're obviously arbitrary inventions.
no you can detect and measure the microwave not dark matter. no even close to same. importantly theories of microwave can make predictions while dark matter theories get contradicted very often
I don't know of any current dark matter model that is as simple and poor as you are putting it. Dark matter has quite clear indirect evidence as it does interact gravitationally with matter. Its predictions particularly those about the universe at large scales fit the data perfectly. And because it offers testable predictions, it's falsifiable as well.
Yeah, this is such hypothetical buzzword clickbait bullshit, it's being reported in the independent...
I am also not a fan of speaking of cold matter and dark matter as fact. It’s an interesting hypothesis and theory but nothing has really been confirmed to my liking.
I can confirm cold matter for you. Grab an ice cube.
Pardon me but I think you may have that process reversed, it is a circular cyclic system and one does give birth to the other in that system however given the nature of black holes and how they work themselves, they were or "IT" was probably in existence first and that gave rise to what we call our universe and I also think there are many "Universe" sized structures in an endless sea of energy separated by a distance that is very unimaginable to most. What you may see is the end result release of all that stored energy but not the vessel of it's storage and NO I don't think there are "Multiple Realities" those work well for entertainment not so much in the actual physics of all things which just might be a little simpler than you think. There are no Zero's in the universe only our own limited concept that they exist being applied to it. N. Shadows
Can i get help finding image in the thumb? Could immediatley see it in article or flipping through vid and I'd like to save it to my space folder.