So in my daily wanderings, I came across this article on the net.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtm...scistars115.xml
I thought it was pretty dam cool, and Physorg doesn't seem to have posted it, so I thought I'd share.
All very massive objects rotate. It seems to be a law of the universe. I would tend to believe that they all rotate the same way whereas we see them rotate clockwise or anti-clockwise only due to our view point, "in front or behind, above or below" so to speak.
QUOTE (kaneda+Oct 17 2007, 02:50 AM)
All very massive objects rotate. It seems to be a law of the universe. I would tend to believe that they all rotate the same way whereas we see them rotate clockwise or anti-clockwise only due to our view point, "in front or behind, above or below" so to speak.
I think you're missing the point here.
It was commonly believed the distribution of CW vs CCW would be random.
This survey that was done suggests that it isn't.
Moreover, your speculation suggests that there is some kind of prefered orientation with respect to the earth.
I think you're missing the point here.
It was commonly believed the distribution of CW vs CCW would be random.
This survey that was done suggests that it isn't.
Moreover, your speculation suggests that there is some kind of prefered orientation with respect to the earth.
The Catholic Church was right after all. Copernicus' solution was the special case. 
QUOTE (Sapo+Oct 18 2007, 11:07 AM)
The Catholic Church was right after all. Copernicus' solution was the special case.
Did I mention that I'm a regustered member of Galaxy Zoo?
Did I mention that I'm a regustered member of Galaxy Zoo?
Trippy. I have participated in this survey too.
Why is it a surprise that everything rotates the same way? It is nothing to do with the way things spread out after a mythical big bang but in the way all massive objects behave if left to their own devices in space. It is as natural as gravity.
Why is it a surprise that everything rotates the same way? It is nothing to do with the way things spread out after a mythical big bang but in the way all massive objects behave if left to their own devices in space. It is as natural as gravity.
QUOTE (kaneda+Oct 19 2007, 12:11 AM)
Trippy. I have participated in this survey too.
Why is it a surprise that everything rotates the same way? It is nothing to do with the way things spread out after a mythical big bang but in the way all massive objects behave if left to their own devices in space. It is as natural as gravity.
Try and think about it for a moment.
Assume that all galaxies rotate clockwise WRT their galactic magnetic field.
Assume Galaxies are oriented randomly.
Assume galaxies are distributed randomly.
We should see as many galaxies from 'above' as we do 'below' so there should be as many rotating clockwise as there are CCW.
If we assume that there is no preference in spin direction, that there as many spinning clockwise as there are CCW (WRT the GBF) then all we're doing is changing half of the ones that were observed spinning clockwise to spinning CCW, and VV, so the same conclusion applies - we should observe equal amounts of galaxies spinning in both directions.
Why is it a surprise that everything rotates the same way? It is nothing to do with the way things spread out after a mythical big bang but in the way all massive objects behave if left to their own devices in space. It is as natural as gravity.
Try and think about it for a moment.
Assume that all galaxies rotate clockwise WRT their galactic magnetic field.
Assume Galaxies are oriented randomly.
Assume galaxies are distributed randomly.
We should see as many galaxies from 'above' as we do 'below' so there should be as many rotating clockwise as there are CCW.
If we assume that there is no preference in spin direction, that there as many spinning clockwise as there are CCW (WRT the GBF) then all we're doing is changing half of the ones that were observed spinning clockwise to spinning CCW, and VV, so the same conclusion applies - we should observe equal amounts of galaxies spinning in both directions.
QUOTE (Trippy+Oct 18 2007, 06:34 PM)
We should see as many galaxies from 'above' as we do 'below' so there should be as many rotating clockwise as there are CCW.
This is very puzzling... how significant of a difference are we talking about though? Why can't they give a ratio or percentage?? Still, with such a large sampling, it should come out to be 50/50.
I quoted your remark so as to remind "non-spatial" people (and yes, I stirred thin air with my finger for a while) that when you are viewing a clockwise rotation from above, it will appear to rotate counter-clockwise when viewed from below, and vice versa.
This is very puzzling... how significant of a difference are we talking about though? Why can't they give a ratio or percentage?? Still, with such a large sampling, it should come out to be 50/50.
I quoted your remark so as to remind "non-spatial" people (and yes, I stirred thin air with my finger for a while) that when you are viewing a clockwise rotation from above, it will appear to rotate counter-clockwise when viewed from below, and vice versa.
Could it not simply be put down to chance?
There is obviously a huge element of randomness in this, for one thing we cannot view many of the galaxies that are out there. If the Big Bang occur ed in such a way as to create groups of gas clouds spinning a particular direction e.g. 300 clouds spinning anticlockwise in one area and 300 spinning clockwise in another area (if we were directly in between) could we not just be at a position slightly more inside one of the groups of clouds so that 100 of the anticlockwise clouds are above us and 400 spinning clockwise below. Then since we cannot see all the other galaxies in the universe we can only base what we know on these galaxies and thus an inaccurate view is given, if we were standing staring from above over the entire universe maybe it is 50/50 or directly below or directly in the middle but not if we are slightly above or below the "equator".
I confused myself halfway through thinking about this but I did work out how it could occur just failed to write it down understandably, hope you understand what I am trying to get at though.
There is obviously a huge element of randomness in this, for one thing we cannot view many of the galaxies that are out there. If the Big Bang occur ed in such a way as to create groups of gas clouds spinning a particular direction e.g. 300 clouds spinning anticlockwise in one area and 300 spinning clockwise in another area (if we were directly in between) could we not just be at a position slightly more inside one of the groups of clouds so that 100 of the anticlockwise clouds are above us and 400 spinning clockwise below. Then since we cannot see all the other galaxies in the universe we can only base what we know on these galaxies and thus an inaccurate view is given, if we were standing staring from above over the entire universe maybe it is 50/50 or directly below or directly in the middle but not if we are slightly above or below the "equator".
I confused myself halfway through thinking about this but I did work out how it could occur just failed to write it down understandably, hope you understand what I am trying to get at though.
Trippy. This assumes that we are in a universe where everything is equal in all directions. This is not necessarily true. I don't believe in the big bang and have doubts about any kind of expansion of the universe. The fact that we can see around 13 billion light years in any direction could be a limitation of EMR and a small part of a much bigger, much older universe.
QUOTE (kaneda+Oct 19 2007, 10:35 PM)
Trippy. This assumes that we are in a universe where everything is equal in all directions. This is not necessarily true. I don't believe in the big bang and have doubts about any kind of expansion of the universe. The fact that we can see around 13 billion light years in any direction could be a limitation of EMR and a small part of a much bigger, much older universe.
No, actually it doesn't rely on the Universe being equal in all directions - only as isotropic as we observe it to be.
We observse as many galaxies above the plain of the ecliptic as we do below it.
Again, if rotation direction is random, we should see an equal distribution, but we don't.
No, actually it doesn't rely on the Universe being equal in all directions - only as isotropic as we observe it to be.
We observse as many galaxies above the plain of the ecliptic as we do below it.
Again, if rotation direction is random, we should see an equal distribution, but we don't.
Trippy. Forget the BB. What if we are in a part of the universe away from an actual centre? Maybe on the "other side" of the universe, it is the opposite? Then again, if the universe were big enough, by sheer chance there could be a bias to one thing in the small area where we are?
It seemed that most of the galaxies I saw on galaxyzoo were just blobs and spirals were the exceptions.
It seemed that most of the galaxies I saw on galaxyzoo were just blobs and spirals were the exceptions.
QUOTE (kaneda+Oct 21 2007, 03:47 AM)
Trippy. Forget the BB. What if we are in a part of the universe away from an actual centre? Maybe on the "other side" of the universe, it is the opposite? Then again, if the universe were big enough, by sheer chance there could be a bias to one thing in the small area where we are?
It seemed that most of the galaxies I saw on galaxyzoo were just blobs and spirals were the exceptions.
OKay, forget the BB.
Then everything I'm saying still holds true.
Let's assume that every spiral galaxy in the universe is oriented the same same, Galactic north is 'up'.
Let's assume we're 'up' and 'right'.
Let's assume that every galaxy is actually rotating clockwise, wrt it's galactic magnetic filed (again, lableing 'north' as 'up').
What we should find, based on perspective is that all of the galaxies.
What we should find is that all of the galaxies we're viewing from 'below' should be rotating vounter clockwise, and all of the galaxies we're viewing from abiove should be rotating clockwise.
The galaxies we're viewing from above are those below the plane of the ecliptic - we're effectively looking 'down' at them.
The galaxies we're viewing from below are those above the plane of the ecliptic - we're effectively looking up at them.
So based on these assumptions we should see a distibution of Clockwise versus ccw, based on their location in the sky.
If we then flip half of the galaxies so they're facing the other way, then in any direction, there should be as many galaxies rotating clockwise versus counter clockwise, the only diffrence that being 'right' and 'up' of 'center' makes is that there is a higher number of galaxies visible in one dirction then the other.
It seemed that most of the galaxies I saw on galaxyzoo were just blobs and spirals were the exceptions.
OKay, forget the BB.
Then everything I'm saying still holds true.
Let's assume that every spiral galaxy in the universe is oriented the same same, Galactic north is 'up'.
Let's assume we're 'up' and 'right'.
Let's assume that every galaxy is actually rotating clockwise, wrt it's galactic magnetic filed (again, lableing 'north' as 'up').
What we should find, based on perspective is that all of the galaxies.
What we should find is that all of the galaxies we're viewing from 'below' should be rotating vounter clockwise, and all of the galaxies we're viewing from abiove should be rotating clockwise.
The galaxies we're viewing from above are those below the plane of the ecliptic - we're effectively looking 'down' at them.
The galaxies we're viewing from below are those above the plane of the ecliptic - we're effectively looking up at them.
So based on these assumptions we should see a distibution of Clockwise versus ccw, based on their location in the sky.
If we then flip half of the galaxies so they're facing the other way, then in any direction, there should be as many galaxies rotating clockwise versus counter clockwise, the only diffrence that being 'right' and 'up' of 'center' makes is that there is a higher number of galaxies visible in one dirction then the other.
Trippy. We don't know the mechanism for "flipping galaxies". We have only one "flipped planet" in our solar system of 8-11 planets. It is a rarity here at least.
Well I highly doubt the universe is lopsided to any degree that we could hope to find it out any time soon...
The other option given seems more resonable that the forces that make the universe are not fully known yet DUH...
If I had to guess I would probably guess that there is a pattern to the way the gallaxys form when you compair them to the gallaxys around them. And that probably has something to do with where they are located in the universe in comparison to its gravitational center if it has one. If it doesnt have a gravitational center then im clueless as to what would cause this or how the universe could be lopp sided at that rate...
But much like the primes I bet we will know the answers to these questions sooner then we expect
The other option given seems more resonable that the forces that make the universe are not fully known yet DUH...
If I had to guess I would probably guess that there is a pattern to the way the gallaxys form when you compair them to the gallaxys around them. And that probably has something to do with where they are located in the universe in comparison to its gravitational center if it has one. If it doesnt have a gravitational center then im clueless as to what would cause this or how the universe could be lopp sided at that rate...
But much like the primes I bet we will know the answers to these questions sooner then we expect
QUOTE (kaneda+Oct 23 2007, 12:23 AM)
Trippy. We don't know the mechanism for "flipping galaxies". We have only one "flipped planet" in our solar system of 8-11 planets. It is a rarity here at least.
Oh god.
You are soooo missing the point that it isn't even funny.
Nobody is seriously talking about flipping galaxies, I'm using that as an explanatory tool to explain why there should be as many galaxies rotating clockwise as there are counter clockwise.
In other words, I'm using it as a tool o explain the following concept:
"If there are as many galaxies 'upside down' as there are 'right side up' and as many galaxies rotating 'true clockwise' as there are 'true counter clockwise' then we should see an equal distribution of galaxies rotating clockwise compared to counter clockwise."
This is what was expected to be observed. This is why the observed 'anomaly' is news worthy - because it at least implies some form of potential bias.
Oh god.
You are soooo missing the point that it isn't even funny.
Nobody is seriously talking about flipping galaxies, I'm using that as an explanatory tool to explain why there should be as many galaxies rotating clockwise as there are counter clockwise.
In other words, I'm using it as a tool o explain the following concept:
"If there are as many galaxies 'upside down' as there are 'right side up' and as many galaxies rotating 'true clockwise' as there are 'true counter clockwise' then we should see an equal distribution of galaxies rotating clockwise compared to counter clockwise."
This is what was expected to be observed. This is why the observed 'anomaly' is news worthy - because it at least implies some form of potential bias.
Venus rotating backwards doesn't really come into the same league as galactic orientation. Planets are expected to rotate in a direction depending on the formation of the solar system. The sun starts the spin and it translates outward.
In the case of galaxies, there isn't anything detectable that could be transferring a particular spin direction. It's like seeing a pot of soup spinning on the stove without ever having been stirred.
I'd have to wonder, what's the distribution of submitted galaxies? Is the bias continuous all the way around us or only in a particular direction/hemisphere.
It may also simply be a remnant of a bias from a big bang type event, or some other relating factor in the range of billions of years ago.
In the case of galaxies, there isn't anything detectable that could be transferring a particular spin direction. It's like seeing a pot of soup spinning on the stove without ever having been stirred.
I'd have to wonder, what's the distribution of submitted galaxies? Is the bias continuous all the way around us or only in a particular direction/hemisphere.
It may also simply be a remnant of a bias from a big bang type event, or some other relating factor in the range of billions of years ago.
Trippy. A galaxy would not actually be flipped but the original central mass around which the galaxy grew could be. Possibly in another part of the universe, people on an inhabited planet there are wondering why there is a bias towards clockwise spinning galaxies.
It does not imply a bias as a whole. Only in our area. There is the fact that probably over 99% of galaxies are too small at our current level of technology for us to see if they are spirals and if so, which way they are spinning so an unrepresentative sample.
Why do you get so upset because people do not rush to agree with you? This is a debating forum and whatever your opinion there are people here who will not agree with you.
It does not imply a bias as a whole. Only in our area. There is the fact that probably over 99% of galaxies are too small at our current level of technology for us to see if they are spirals and if so, which way they are spinning so an unrepresentative sample.
Why do you get so upset because people do not rush to agree with you? This is a debating forum and whatever your opinion there are people here who will not agree with you.
Corvidae. Every massive object in space rotates. It seems to be as basic as gravity. It is reasonable to believe that whatever causes this would cause all such objects to spin in the same direction. As with a magnetic field, from the south pole, it appears to spin in the opposite direction as from the north pole. Direction of rotation could be just a point of view.
[removed]
Trippy. Take some of your medicine then do another post and I'll reply to that.
QUOTE (kaneda+Oct 23 2007, 08:57 AM)
Every massive object in space rotates. It seems to be as basic as gravity. It is reasonable to believe that whatever causes this would cause all such objects to spin in the same direction.
That would imply that gravity has polarity, which up to this point, has never been seen.
On the atomic scale, atoms have electromagnetic structure that causes them to prefer certain physical arrangements (Crystal and protein structures for example), however there is no evidence that the same effect could or would translate into a particular spin direction.
Pretty much leaving us with the initial spin of galaxies being determined by the random chance of impacts as they formed. The reason they spin is simple, kinetic energy being preserved on impact. However there's nothing in that to give a bias to one direction or another, other than it's initial impact vector, which is assumed to be random.
That would imply that gravity has polarity, which up to this point, has never been seen.
On the atomic scale, atoms have electromagnetic structure that causes them to prefer certain physical arrangements (Crystal and protein structures for example), however there is no evidence that the same effect could or would translate into a particular spin direction.
Pretty much leaving us with the initial spin of galaxies being determined by the random chance of impacts as they formed. The reason they spin is simple, kinetic energy being preserved on impact. However there's nothing in that to give a bias to one direction or another, other than it's initial impact vector, which is assumed to be random.
I see the entire post was removed, rather then just the parts... Worthy of being removed.
The point that your missing, and the part(s) of that post that mystify me as to why they were removed was:
Nowhere was I actually talking about physically flipping galaxies. I have no idea where you've pulled that from.
The point that I have been trying to convey is a simple problem of geometry and statistics.
If all of the galaxies are rotating clockwise, then those galaxies that are below the plane of the ecliptic should be seen to be rotating clockwise, because we're seeing them from above, and those galaxies above the plane of the ecliptic should be seen to be rotating counter clockwise, because they're being seen from below.
If, however, the orientation of galaxies in the universe is random, with as many galaxies facing 'up' as 'down' or rotating 'clockwise' as 'anti clockwise, then there should be an even distribution. This, in fact, is what was expected.
This problem is a simple problem of three dimensional perspectives.
The point that your missing, and the part(s) of that post that mystify me as to why they were removed was:
Nowhere was I actually talking about physically flipping galaxies. I have no idea where you've pulled that from.
The point that I have been trying to convey is a simple problem of geometry and statistics.
If all of the galaxies are rotating clockwise, then those galaxies that are below the plane of the ecliptic should be seen to be rotating clockwise, because we're seeing them from above, and those galaxies above the plane of the ecliptic should be seen to be rotating counter clockwise, because they're being seen from below.
If, however, the orientation of galaxies in the universe is random, with as many galaxies facing 'up' as 'down' or rotating 'clockwise' as 'anti clockwise, then there should be an even distribution. This, in fact, is what was expected.
This problem is a simple problem of three dimensional perspectives.
So sorry to have missed it, Trippy. Oh, well... 
Corvidae. I would think that gravity has just the one direction, so to speak rather than "two poles".
Trippy. The sample of galaxies is almost non-existent compared to how many galaxies there are. It is like tossing a coin a million times and taking a sample of ten tosses and then saying all the other tosses are the same which means that 80% of all tosses come up heads.
I was surprised that spiral galaxies seemed to be a rarity from the thousands I looked through.
I was surprised that spiral galaxies seemed to be a rarity from the thousands I looked through.
QUOTE (kaneda+Oct 25 2007, 10:30 AM)
Corvidae. I would think that gravity has just the one direction, so to speak rather than "two poles".
It does only have one direction, attraction. However the attraction of gravity doesn't have a polarity or bias to chose one spin direction over another. When two masses collide, they simply conserve the linear momentum, by converting it to angular.
In other words, it's very rare for two masses to hit perfectly centered, and any off center impact will cause spin. So pretty much everything is going to be spinning in some direction in space.
What we're missing here is the sample size and distribution. Were the Aussie's involved in this much? Or are most of the galaxies only visible from the northern hemisphere?
The other thing missing is our knowledge of galaxy formation. Do we really understand the interaction of dark matter with a galactic black hole? For that matter, do we really know how dark matter interacts with anything, and are we really sure it even exists?
The problem with those gaps is that to figure out why galaxies around us would have a bias towards one direction or another, we have to work backwards from where they are now to when they formed, since that's when they started spinning. Because as it's already been beaten to death earlier in the thread, the galaxies aren't being flipped to all spin in one direction. They started out that way if it's an actual bias. The challenge now is to find what caused it.
It does only have one direction, attraction. However the attraction of gravity doesn't have a polarity or bias to chose one spin direction over another. When two masses collide, they simply conserve the linear momentum, by converting it to angular.
In other words, it's very rare for two masses to hit perfectly centered, and any off center impact will cause spin. So pretty much everything is going to be spinning in some direction in space.
What we're missing here is the sample size and distribution. Were the Aussie's involved in this much? Or are most of the galaxies only visible from the northern hemisphere?
The other thing missing is our knowledge of galaxy formation. Do we really understand the interaction of dark matter with a galactic black hole? For that matter, do we really know how dark matter interacts with anything, and are we really sure it even exists?
The problem with those gaps is that to figure out why galaxies around us would have a bias towards one direction or another, we have to work backwards from where they are now to when they formed, since that's when they started spinning. Because as it's already been beaten to death earlier in the thread, the galaxies aren't being flipped to all spin in one direction. They started out that way if it's an actual bias. The challenge now is to find what caused it.
QUOTE (Corvidae+Oct 26 2007, 02:37 AM)
What we're missing here is the sample size and distribution. Were the Aussie's involved in this much? Or are most of the galaxies only visible from the northern hemisphere?
The data comes from the Sloan digital sky survey.
The aim of which is to map out a quarter of the sky.
I quote from the SDSS web page:
So, the sample size used by the Galaxy Zoo, is 200,000,000. This includes (I believe) stars, galaxies, and the occasional satelite (As those are the possible classifications on the Galaxy Zoo website.
And this from the second phase of operations:
So, the sample size used by the Galaxy Zoo, is 200,000,000. This includes (I believe) stars, galaxies, and the occasional satelite (As those are the possible classifications on the Galaxy Zoo website.
And this from the second phase of operations:
DR6 includes images of roughly 287 million objects over 9,583 square degrees of the sky. The survey also includes 1.27 million spectra of stars, galaxies and quasars.
DR6 is the sixth public data release.
So, the problem is not small sample size, and the data is from above the plane of the ecliptic.
Here's the photometry coverage:
Here's the spectroscopy coverage:
These images are at the time of DR5.
The data comes from the Sloan digital sky survey.
The aim of which is to map out a quarter of the sky.
I quote from the SDSS web page:
QUOTE
The SDSS completed its first phase of operations — SDSS-I — in June, 2005. Over the course of five years, SDSS-I imaged more than 8,000 square degrees of the sky in five bandpasses, detecting nearly 200 million celestial objects, and it measured spectra of more than 675,000 galaxies, 90,000 quasars, and 185,000 stars. These data have supported studies ranging from asteroids and nearby stars to the large scale structure of the Universe.
So, the sample size used by the Galaxy Zoo, is 200,000,000. This includes (I believe) stars, galaxies, and the occasional satelite (As those are the possible classifications on the Galaxy Zoo website.
And this from the second phase of operations:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The SDSS completed its first phase of operations — SDSS-I — in June, 2005. Over the course of five years, SDSS-I imaged more than 8,000 square degrees of the sky in five bandpasses, detecting nearly 200 million celestial objects, and it measured spectra of more than 675,000 galaxies, 90,000 quasars, and 185,000 stars. These data have supported studies ranging from asteroids and nearby stars to the large scale structure of the Universe. |
So, the sample size used by the Galaxy Zoo, is 200,000,000. This includes (I believe) stars, galaxies, and the occasional satelite (As those are the possible classifications on the Galaxy Zoo website.
And this from the second phase of operations:
DR6 includes images of roughly 287 million objects over 9,583 square degrees of the sky. The survey also includes 1.27 million spectra of stars, galaxies and quasars.
DR6 is the sixth public data release.
So, the problem is not small sample size, and the data is from above the plane of the ecliptic.
Here's the photometry coverage:
Here's the spectroscopy coverage:
These images are at the time of DR5.
Just looking at those coverage area's, unless it's a HUGE bias for one direction over another, I'd say wait until they have more galaxies cataloged.
The thing to remember is that a few thousand galaxies in our neighborhood is a statistical nothing in the scale of the galaxy. We still need a larger sample set to say the rotation direction is anything more than an odd fluke of chance.
There could very well be sets of hundreds or thousands of galaxies all rotating in uniform direction in discreet groups all over the universe. Of course if there are, then we'd have to come up with a theory to explain it. Galactic super groups don't seem to be capable of causing that type of effect.
The thing to remember is that a few thousand galaxies in our neighborhood is a statistical nothing in the scale of the galaxy. We still need a larger sample set to say the rotation direction is anything more than an odd fluke of chance.
There could very well be sets of hundreds or thousands of galaxies all rotating in uniform direction in discreet groups all over the universe. Of course if there are, then we'd have to come up with a theory to explain it. Galactic super groups don't seem to be capable of causing that type of effect.
I'm not sure (off the top of my head) what sort of depth it represents, but here's a map of part of the survey:
It maps out to a redshift of 60,000 km/s.
It maps out to a redshift of 60,000 km/s.
this from the galaxy zoo faq:
I'm not able to find any exact figures yet, but as near as I can tell, the Bias seems to be statistically significant (from the comments that I have been able to find).
There is this paper from arxiv: http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.3793 which has yet to be accepted (I think it has something to do with his proposed causes of bias) but he cites the significance as being 3.11 standard deviations (I think his sample size was in the hundreds of thousands).
The other thing that I can tell you is that as of August, 10,000,000 images had been classified - so we have a statistically significant result (I'm still looking for the data) possibly as great as 3 standard deviations, from a sample size of 10,000,000.
QUOTE
Q. Why record the rotation of the galaxy when it depends on your position? A different observer on the other side of the galaxy would observe it rotating the opposite way. And shouldn't they all be random?
A. Yes, they should be, but a recent investigation, involving many fewer galaxies, suggested that the odds of seeing a clockwise or an anticlockwise galaxy changed depending on where you look in the sky. If this is true, it suggests we're missing something about how the Universe is organised on large scales, and so we decided - with your help - to see if the effect is real. We are also interested in the correlation s between neighbouring galaxies, for example whether a close pair of galaxies rotate the same way, as this contains information about the way galaxies form and the large-scale forces acting on them. All observers would agree on such an observation.
A. Yes, they should be, but a recent investigation, involving many fewer galaxies, suggested that the odds of seeing a clockwise or an anticlockwise galaxy changed depending on where you look in the sky. If this is true, it suggests we're missing something about how the Universe is organised on large scales, and so we decided - with your help - to see if the effect is real. We are also interested in the correlation s between neighbouring galaxies, for example whether a close pair of galaxies rotate the same way, as this contains information about the way galaxies form and the large-scale forces acting on them. All observers would agree on such an observation.
I'm not able to find any exact figures yet, but as near as I can tell, the Bias seems to be statistically significant (from the comments that I have been able to find).
There is this paper from arxiv: http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.3793 which has yet to be accepted (I think it has something to do with his proposed causes of bias) but he cites the significance as being 3.11 standard deviations (I think his sample size was in the hundreds of thousands).
The other thing that I can tell you is that as of August, 10,000,000 images had been classified - so we have a statistically significant result (I'm still looking for the data) possibly as great as 3 standard deviations, from a sample size of 10,000,000.
Well, this is all very interesting, but i see a big problem with determining Right handedness with left handedness since spacetime has no direction. In space, no matter what inertia point and momentum a system has, from its frame there is an up and a down a left and a right, but on the whole, we find there are actually no directions in spacetime. This is true, and no scientist will argue. Then...
Right handed momenta and left handed moments are equal and the same. No reference when the universe is concerned.
Right handed momenta and left handed moments are equal and the same. No reference when the universe is concerned.
QUOTE (NeoNo.1+Oct 26 2007, 02:39 PM)
Well, this is all very interesting, but i see a big problem with determining Right handedness with left handedness since spacetime has no direction. In space, no matter what inertia point and momentum a system has, from its frame there is an up and a down a left and a right, but on the whole, we find there are actually no directions in spacetime. This is true, and no scientist will argue. Then...
Right handed momenta and left handed moments are equal and the same. No reference when the universe is concerned.
Actually, you're wrong, there may or may not be a universal reference frame, but if you actually comprehended what I wrote, each time I referred to up and down, I did in fact specify a local reference frame (the galactic magnetic field) so this objection has no substance.
Right handed momenta and left handed moments are equal and the same. No reference when the universe is concerned.
Actually, you're wrong, there may or may not be a universal reference frame, but if you actually comprehended what I wrote, each time I referred to up and down, I did in fact specify a local reference frame (the galactic magnetic field) so this objection has no substance.
Corvidae. As to a galactic black hole (or any black hole) and dark matter, BH's should scoop it all up when it comes close enough. Regardless of what particle DM is supposed to be made of, it is said to interact gravitationally so would not last long close to a black hole.
If DM forms large structures, I would think that as a central black hole absorbed one of them, that would cause another to fall into it's place which would also promptly be absorbed and so on till only a little DM was left in the outer reaches of the galaxy.
If DM forms large structures, I would think that as a central black hole absorbed one of them, that would cause another to fall into it's place which would also promptly be absorbed and so on till only a little DM was left in the outer reaches of the galaxy.
I think some brilliant minds have missed the point here. Trippy has provided the article reference - its shortcomings could be checked by anyone (as he painstakingly has shown).
To the extent that it has been verified, the discussion ( as I said, your minds are superb) could be a brainstorm of ideas as to its possible causes and implications.
There is unquestionably something wrong with the present 'analogy' of science which has non-directional space changing direction and universal time slowing down for certain objects, and where pairs of spinning particles, separated by kilometers, can make the spin of one change with respect to the other.
Incongruous events should be (evaluated, naturally) explored when even slightly possible, because that, in a blog where only the poorly self-confident look for esteem) is an opportunity to go beyond the limits usually imposed by the work place.
To the extent that it has been verified, the discussion ( as I said, your minds are superb) could be a brainstorm of ideas as to its possible causes and implications.
There is unquestionably something wrong with the present 'analogy' of science which has non-directional space changing direction and universal time slowing down for certain objects, and where pairs of spinning particles, separated by kilometers, can make the spin of one change with respect to the other.
Incongruous events should be (evaluated, naturally) explored when even slightly possible, because that, in a blog where only the poorly self-confident look for esteem) is an opportunity to go beyond the limits usually imposed by the work place.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.