If you look at the galaxy from the other side, wouldn’t it be counterclockwise?
James Webb Space Telescope reveals that most galaxies rotate clockwise
161–170 of 318 posts
Re: James Webb Space Telescope reveals that most galaxies rotate clockwise
#162Earlier quoted context omitted.
This along blows my mind: I picture this bin bang and everything expanding from that point and... that everything is now a sphere. In my mind. But it isn't? Yes, I know next to nothing but love thinking about all of this.
Picture an infinitely long piece of elastic. Now stretch that elastic.
Isn't this a 1d or 2d simplification?
Re: James Webb Space Telescope reveals that most galaxies rotate clockwise
#163If you look at the galaxy from the other side, wouldn’t it be counterclockwise?
Yes, but I think the interesting thing is that there are a greater number of galaxies spinning one way than another.
Re: James Webb Space Telescope reveals that most galaxies rotate clockwise
#1641. Are they really saying "Because we are in a universe with a preferred spin and black holes have spin, we must be inside a black hole?" Tenuous, no? 2. If we are inside a black hole, where is the singularity?
> where is the singularity?
Maybe black holes don't have a singularity:
Re: James Webb Space Telescope reveals that most galaxies rotate clockwise
#165Complete layman's question: If we would indeed be inside a black hole wouldn't we be able to observe new energy and matter entering? Related question: the horizon of a black hole is expanding when the mass increases. Could this map to the expansion of our universe, which seems to expand faster and faster?
>If we would indeed be inside a black hole wouldn't we be able to observe new energy and matter entering?
Re: James Webb Space Telescope reveals that most galaxies rotate clockwise
#166Seems like we've got a few of these imbalances now where you'd expect 50:50 but instead it's skewed to one side where nature had a different idea Matter-antimatter ratio Left vs right handed molecules Now galaxy spin directions Maybe there are others I missed too
For the matter-antimatter ratio, you would not expect 50:50, or would you? Because 50:50 would be a highly unstable system? In any case, you would expect that unstable states would be highly unlikely, and it would converge into a stable state. I'm not sure about the other examples. But maybe it's a similar reason that it is not a 50:50 ratio?
You would expect a 50/50 ratio because when energy is converted into matter, it's typically in the form of matter/antimatter pairs.
There's nothing special about matter or antimatter. Same energy, just opposite charge. All else being equal, they should be created in equal amounts. As far as we're aware, there is no special property that would make the universe preferentially create more matter than antimatter.
There's also no requirement that the configuration of matter and antimatter be "stable" for whatever definition you want to apply. The only rule is that conserved quantities stay conserved.
Re: James Webb Space Telescope reveals that most galaxies rotate clockwise
#167Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was my understanding that if two black holes collide, they just form a bigger black hole, but we know there's a black hole in our universe, which then would mean that there's a black hole inside of a black hole that did not merge with the parent black hole, right? Is that something that is considered possible?
I'm under the impression that we really have no clue what's going on inside of black holes, so the most we can really say with confidence is that when two black holes collide they appear from the outside to now be a single black hole.
It’s a reasonable assumption. If two solar masses collide, their masses tend to combine[^]. Just “look” at planets that smash into each other. Ergo, a more massive black hole.
[^]: Ignoring ejections. But black holes also don’t “eject” mass. Or maybe they do? Hawking Radiation is weird.
Re: James Webb Space Telescope reveals that most galaxies rotate clockwise
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're equidistant from the edge of the observable universe in all directions. One would think that puts us at the center. (But the same is true for someone sitting on another planet).
> equidistant from the edge of the observable universe in all directions That seems like an example of "streetlight effect." The streetlight effect, or the drunkard's search principle, is a type of observational bias that occurs when people only search for something where it is easiest to look. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetlight_effect
It's not. Rather it's that every observer in the universe is at the center of their own light cone.
The fact that we can not observe anything outside our light cone is well understood.
Re: James Webb Space Telescope reveals that most galaxies rotate clockwise
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
Picture an infinitely long piece of elastic. Now stretch that elastic.
Isn't this a 1d or 2d simplification?
Yes, 1d. But it's easier to go from a strip to a sheet to a block than trying to imagine an infinite block from scratch.
The important part is that at any given point on the elastic strip, both sides are getting further away. Everything else is getting further away.
You might think if A-B-C-D are points on the tape and A-B are expanding and C-D are expanding, then B and C must be squished together, but the distance between them is also expanding. You have infinite elastic, but you also have infinite room to stretch it (even along the direction it already occupies). You now have A--B--C--D.
It's tempting to think about that stretch from the point of view of the floor/table beneath the elastic, in which case some parts of the elastic move faster than others as they stretch, but if you always think from a point on the elastic, then the speed of the rest of the elastic depends on how far away it is. Stuff twice as far away moves away twice as fast. Stuff infinitely far away moves away infinitely fast. That's true for every point on the elastic. No bunching up.
Re: James Webb Space Telescope reveals that most galaxies rotate clockwise
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't this a 1d or 2d simplification?
Yes, 1d. But it's easier to go from a strip to a sheet to a block than trying to imagine an infinite block from scratch. The important part is that at any given point on the elastic strip, both sides are getting further away. Everything else is getting further away. You might think if A-B-C-D are points on the tape and A-B are expanding and C-D are expanding, then B and C must be squished together, but the distance b…
I usually just imagine an n-dimensional space and then substitute n as needed