Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Submission + - Another large Black hole in "our" Galaxy (arxiv.org)

RockDoctor writes: A recent paper on ArXiv reports a novel idea about the central regions of "our" galaxy.

Remember the hoopla a few years ago about radio-astronomical observations producing an "image" of our central black hole — or rather, an image of the accretion disc around the black hole — long designated by astronomers as "Sagittarius A*" (or SGR-A*)? If you remember the image published then, one thing should be striking — it's not very symmetrical. If you think about viewing a spinning object, then you'd expect to see something with a "mirror" symmetry plane where we would see the rotation axis (if someone had marked it). If anything, that published image has three bright spots on a fainter ring. And the spots are not even approximately the same brightness.

This paper suggests that the image we see is the result of the light (radio waves) from SGR-A* being "lensed" by another black hole, near (but not quite on) the line of sight between SGR-A* and us. By various modelling approaches, they then refine this idea to a "best-fit" of a black hole with mass around 1000 times the Sun, orbiting between the distance of the closest-observed star to SGR-A* ("S2" — most imaginative name, ever!), and around 10 times that distance. That's far enough to make a strong interaction with "S2" unlikely within the lifetime of S2 before it's accretion onto SGR-A*.)

The region around SGR-A* is crowded. Within 25 parsecs (~80 light years, the distance to Regulus [in the constellation Leo] or Merak [in the Great Bear]) there is around 4 times more mass in several millions of "normal" stars than in the SGR-A* black hole. Finding a large (not "super massive") black hole in such a concentration of matter shouldn't surprise anyone.

This proposed black hole is larger than anything which has been detected by gravitational waves (yet) ; but not immensely larger — only a factor of 15 or so. (The authors also anticipate the "what about these big black holes spiralling together?" question : quote "and the amplitude of gravitational waves generated by the binary black holes is negligible.")

Being so close to SGR-A*, the proposed black hole is likely to be moving rapidly across our line of sight. At the distance of "S2" it's orbital period would be around 26 years (but the "new" black hole is probably further out than than that). Which might be an explanation for some of the variability and "flickering" reported for SGR-A* ever since it's discovery.

As always, more observations are needed. Which, for SGR-A* are frequently being taken, so improving (or ruling out) this explanation should happen fairly quickly. But it's a very interesting, and fun, idea.

Submission + - Surado, formerly Slashdot Japan, is closing at the end of the month. (srad.jp) 1

AmiMoJo writes: Slashdot Japan was launched on May 28, 2001. On 2025/03/31, it will finally close. Since starting the site separated from the main Slashdot one, and eventually rebranded as "Surado", which was it's Japanese nickname.

Last year the site stopped posting new stories, and was subsequently unable to find a buyer. In a final story announcing the end, many users expressed their sadness and gratitude for all the years of service.

Comment Re:seven shuffles (Score 1) 102

re: sorted deck

I said that to make it easier for the reader to verify that there is indeed hidden order in 7 perfect shuffles. If you want to go thru the hassle, start with a what you believe is a random deck, and write down on paper each card in order, and then do the perfect shuffle as described above 7 times, and then compare the order to what you wrote down on paper.

As to a card shuffling machine, I would make it do my description of perfect shuffle, but do random cuts. Applies to a human shuffler too.

As in, pull a random sized chunk of cards from the near middle of the deck (say 11 to 29 cards - near quarter to near half of deck), at a random offset from the top, and then randomly place that chunk on either the bottom of the deck or on the top of the deck. Then shuffle. Rinse and repeat at least 4 times and make sure that the cuts go to both top and bottom.

You may have noticed that in my 7 perfect shuffle described above, neither the top card or the bottom card ever change. This is why there must be random cuts from middle placed on top of deck and bottom of deck. To get those cards to move in the stack. If you do not do cuts from the middle, cards near the bottom will tend to stay there, and cards near the top will tend to stay there. You have to do a random cut before each shuffle, whether the shuffle is perfect or not.

Comment Re:seven shuffles (Score 1) 102

And you have made my point.

Your definition of perfect is not what I was describing.

The article also explains why seven shuffles "is just as close to random as can be" -- rendering further shuffling largely ineffective.

Is not accurate.

I was just noting that there is hidden order. Note that I never mentioned cutting the deck.

Comment seven shuffles (Score 0) 102

With a 52 card deck, 7 perfect shuffles returns you to your starting point. It is not random. Try it. You need to be consistent. Start with your deck stacked by suit and order so you can verify easily after the process. You need to split the deck into two stacks of 26 the same way every time. Say top 26 to right hand pile, and the bottom 26 to left hand pile. The easiest way is to count off the top 26 into a new pile, flipping them one at a time. And then turn that pile over. You need to decide which pile will contribute the bottom card, and stick to that choice. Let's say left is first bottom card. Then, to do the shuffle, turn both piles over. Being able to view the value of the card has no bearing on this. Pick from the left (turn the card over) and start the new deck. Then the right (turn the card over), alternating left and right piles. Repeat 6 more times, following the exact same procedure each time. Check the deck, it should match what you started with.

Comment Re:Not a big deal (Score 1) 247

the U.K.'s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) says that the Pfizer-BioNtech vaccine's short-term efficacy was 89 percent between days 15 and 21 after the first dose

What is the efficacy 120 days after the first dose? Because the Canadian government, in its infinite wisdom, decided to stretch the interval between doses to 4 months.

Slashdot Top Deals

God made the integers; all else is the work of Man. -- Kronecker

Working...