The news is out! The @NANOGrav pulsar timing array collaboration has detected a background of cosmic gravitational waves rippling through our Universe! Let’s talk about it!
(Full press conference tomorrow, ) 1/n https://t.co/5jd4mp989Wnanograv.org/news/2023Annou…
@NANOGrav Q: What does this mean?
A: Whenever violent gravitational events (like colliding black holes) happen in the cosmos, it causes ripples in space itself: gravitational waves. This is the 1st detection of a “stochastic background” of these waves, coming from all over the cosmos.
2/n
@NANOGrav Q: What are pulsars?
A: Pulsars are ultra-dense neutron stars (remnants of dead stars) that have jets of radiation coming from their poles & rotate rapidly. Typically the jet isn’t aligned with the pole, so it sweeps around. When it hits us, we get a pulse.
3/n
@NANOGrav Q: What’s a pulsar timing array?
A: The pulsars in a PTA pulse at short (~millisecond) intervals, very regularly. If space is distorted between us & them by gravitational waves, it can delay pulses. By observing a LOT of pulsars, we can (in theory) tell waves are passing.
4/n
@NANOGrav Q: What did @NANOGrav see?
A: NANOGrav used 15 yrs of careful observations of the timing of 68 pulsars to figure out that the weirdnesses in pulse arrival times matched what you’d expect if gravitational waves - the kind from colliding supermassive black holes - fill space.
5/n
Q: How are PTAs different from LIGO/gravitational wave detectors on Earth?
A: LIGO sees GWs from star-mass black hole binaries, which orbit a few to thousands of times a second. PTAs can see extremely LOW frequency waves: supermassive BH pairs in orbits of months or years.
6/n
Q: So did NANOGrav detect supermassive black holes colliding?
A: Well, maybe. Probably! But so far we can’t be sure exactly what the gravitational wave background is coming from. Supermassive BH binaries are the expected source, but we need more data to be certain.
7/n
Q: What could it be if it’s not supermassive black hole collisions?
A: Technically the background is also consistent with weird stuff like ripples from cosmic inflation, phase transitions in the early universe, & even networks of defects in space. Could even be a combo!
8/n
Q: If it’s supermassive black holes, what does that tell us?
A: At the moment, all we can say is there’s a background consistent with more-or-less what we expect SMBHs to be doing. BUT with more data, we can study the build-up of galaxies through mergers across cosmic time!
9/n
Q: Is there anything surprising in the data?
A: The result (a gravitational wave background) isn't surprising - it was surely there! But if it's from supermassive BH binaries, best analysis suggests SMBHs might be more common &/or more massive than expected. Intriguing!
10/n
Q: Is it REALLY a new way of seeing the universe? We already had gravitational waves.
A: LIGO etc see higher-frequency GWs, from star-mass objects; PTAs see low-frequency GWs, from supermassive BHs. It’s like observing with visible light vs radio: you see different stuff!
11/n
Q: Give me a nice analogy.
A: The Earth is a ship on a cosmic sea. Every once in a while, we’re hit by a wave, and we know something went by. But now, for the first time, we can start to see the choppiness of the entire ocean, and we’re learning what else lives in our sea.
12/n
Q: Is NANOGrav the only group doing this?
A: Not at all! There’s a huge international group of pulsar timing array collaborations (see: PPTA, EPTA, CPTA) all announcing results today. NANOGrav got the first detection but combining data from all is crucial for learning more.
13/n
Q: How exciting is this, really?
A: Hugely exciting! We’re using RADIATION JETS from DEAD STARS to detect RIPPLES IN SPACE from the COLLISIONS OF SUPERMASSIVE BLACK HOLES ACROSS THE ENTIRE COSMOS. Honestly that’s just frickin’ awesome.
14/n
Q: OK but does it change our understanding of the Universe in a fundamental way?
A: Well, not really, because we did expect this, & we don’t have enough data yet to say much about the origin of the gravitational waves. But it’s just our first glimpse! Who knows what's next‽
15/n
Q: What’s the most likely scientific breakthrough to come from this?
A: Other than the detection itself, we’ll learn a LOT about supermassive black holes, how galaxies merge/grow, & about the conditions at the centers of galaxies. It'll help us understand our cosmic origins!
16/n
Q: How can I learn more?
A: Just about every science outlet has stories on it; here’s one from SETI: . For some physics-student-level details, see: https://t.co/XoEvQ7duYR. The full press conference is tomorrow, 1pm Eastern: https://t.co/7hsBd7IWdO
17/17seti.org/press-release/… astrobites.org/2023/06/28/dro… nanograv.org/news/2023Annou…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Nothing exemplifies a complete failure to understand the point of science like demanding to settle a scientific issue through the medium of emotionally persuasive public shouting
We actually do a lot of arguing and debating within science! But — and this is pretty important context — we do it with knowledge and expertise already in hand, having read and understood the relevant literature, and for the purpose of improving the work. Not to win via applause.
Scientists don't do everything right & our methods aren't always unimpeachable.
But there's really not enough awareness that most of us spend a HUGE amount of our time trying desperately to find flaws in our own & each others' work. And we are very well equipped for this!
We don’t call Trump a liar and criminal because we don’t like him. We don’t like him because he’s a liar who does lots of crimes.
He has explicitly bragged that his fans would happily excuse his crimes even if they were murders in the streets; let’s not pretend the righteous indignation and claims of innocence are genuine.
I don’t think the right wing seriously believes he’s not a criminal. I think they just understand that it’s more socially/politically acceptable to play-act outraged credulity than to admit they don’t care about rules or honesty as long as their guy is winning.
I applied to Twitter for verification in 2016, when I had about 40k followers and was starting to have a voice in the online astronomy/physics community. The checkmark suddenly appeared shortly after a snarky tweet of mine went super viral and my following doubled in a week.
I don’t know how much of it has been due to going viral, or to my science, or just to how I tweet in general, and I don’t know how much verification helped, but I built up a wonderful little network of amazing people here whose work I admire and whose friendship I truly value.
Twitter has had its bad aspects for sure but for me, it’s been a doorway into a room full of my heroes, & a chance to listen to voices I might otherwise never encounter. I don’t know what it will be when so many people whose company I treasure find it no longer worth their time.
The point of Twitter verification is that for certain individuals/organizations it’s useful to be able to verify their statements are coming from them. (This is why so many journalists/reporters are verified.) It’s supposed to help combat disinformation, not be a status symbol.
People think of it as a status thing because a lot of people with status are verified but the causality is that if you’re well known, you’re more likely to be a target for impersonation and/or there’s more public interest in being able to verify that your statements are yours.
(This is not to say that Twitter verification is always applied sensibly/fairly. It certainly isn’t. And the verification distribution system has been bad in many ways for a long time. But turning it into purely a vanity accessory for pay would in fact be worse.)
This is an image of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). It's a projection of the whole sky onto an oval, aligned such that the center of the image is in the direction of the center of our Galaxy, and the edges are the opposite direction.
The CMB is often described as the afterglow of the Big Bang, but it's actually a DIRECT view of the Universe around us -- of parts so far away that the light has been travelling for about 13.8 billion years, so we see those regions as they were when the cosmos was STILL ON FIRE
In the early universe, all space was filled with hot dense plasma: space was aglow. Then, as time passed & the cosmos expanded, that plasma cooled & the gas became dark. So we see the bright plasma THROUGH the dark gas; the Cosmic Dark Ages are *closer* to us, backlit by the CMB
This is neat: the @ehtelescope team has done some new processing of their black hole image data to tease out a ring of light that comes to us from BEHIND the black hole, curving all the way around to focus into a ring that we can use to measure the BH's mass & spin more precisely
There's some helpful nitty-gritty about what this "photon ring" is really showing us in this blog post by @MattStrassler from May -- check out the figure here. Essentially what the @ehtelescope team did was remove the direct image to show us just the ring profmattstrassler.com/2022/05/10/bla…
What's important about the photon ring specifically? Mainly, the size & shape of the photon ring are determined by the gravitational physics of the black hole, rather than the details of the astrophysical environment (disk/jet), so it helps us learn about the black hole directly.