188
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Nov 2023
188 points (90.9% liked)
[Dormant] moved to !space@mander.xyz
10605 readers
1 users here now
This community is dormant, please find us at !space@mander.xyz
You can find the original sidebar contents below:
Rules
- Be respectful and inclusive.
- No harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
- Engage in constructive discussions.
- Share relevant content.
- Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
- Use appropriate language and tone.
- Report violations.
- Foster a continuous learning environment.
Picture of the Day
The Busy Center of the Lagoon Nebula
Related Communities
๐ญ Science
- !astronomy@mander.xyz
- !curiosityrover@lemmy.world
- !earthscience@mander.xyz
- !esa@feddit.nl
- !nasa@lemmy.world
- !perseverancerover@lemmy.world
- !physics@mander.xyz
- !space@beehaw.org
- !space@lemmy.world
๐ Engineering
๐ Art and Photography
Other Cool Links
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Stars don't pop into existence from nothing. They form from large clouds of gas. We also understand physics enough to know how that interaction happens to know that isn't it. Physics has been studied for a long time. Unexplained things usually aren't explained by simple guesses. It's probably something either much stranger, or much more mundane, like an error somewhere.
Im assuming when the post says "empty," they are meaning "empty of light," since we cannot know the space is genuinely devoid or just not sending detectable radiation our direction.
Im also pretty sure that a particle we have never seen before acting in a way we've never seen before is likely going come from a phenomena we've never seen before. After studying physics for a long time, we know that new ways to do things we previously thought we understood all the ways to do are discovered when we keep studying physics.
My point wasn't that it isn't something new, it's that it probably isn't something that simple.
Gas clouds are devoid of visible light often, but they still emit electromagnetic radiation (aka light). It's pop-science, so who knows what their meaning of words is, but a gas cloud would not be empty, and stars can't come from nothing. Also, presumably, we'd detect the star formation afterwards. Instead of a star it could be a direct collapse black hole (which we don't know for sure if this is even possible), which would be harder to detect after, but would still have to form from an even denser gas cloud, so even more EM radiation would be coming from it. Regardless, it's probably not something like this, assuming they used a reasonable definition of the word "empty".
You will notice I explicitly said lacking radiation. You will also notice nothing I suggested was even mildly simple.
My comment was not subtly implying that this particle would be a forerunner of an event, moving far ahead of traditional radiation. This would be the beginning of detecting the afterwards.
I also was very clear that I thought it was the birth of a phenomena, and named a new type of star birth as an example of one such possibility.
I do find it kinda funny that youre telling me Im wrong by repeating my comments back to me