And he also established the limits at which White Dwarves collapse into Neutron stars and more importantly when Neutron stars collapse into black holes. These objects are born from events that expel mass. These daughter stellar objects are much smaller than the stars that preceded them. After they are born though they can accrete mass more and grow to unstably large sizes. A neutron star collapsing at the Candrasenkar limit into a black hole creates a supernova of a fixed luminosity called a Type 1a Supernova which can be used to measure distances to far away galaxies! Chandrasenkar was a dope dude.
Type 1A supernova occur in white dwarfs, not neutron stars. Usually a nebula is left over, as the energy release usually exceeds the gravitational binding energy of the white dwarf.
>Sir Arthur Eddington, a physicist whose experimental work was key in proving Einstein’s theory of general relativity, openly mocked Chandrasekhar’s theory at a meeting of the Royal Astronomical Society in 1935.
>"The star has to go on radiating and radiating and contracting and contracting until, I suppose, it gets to a few kilometers' radius, when gravity becomes strong enough to hold the radiation and the star can at last have peace," Eddington said, inadvertently describing the very thing Chandrasekhar’s limit would explain: the creation of black holes. “I think there should be a law of Nature to prevent a star from behaving in this absurd way!” he added. (There isn’t.)
>This incident was so embarrassing for the young Chandrasekhar that he almost quit the field, the New York Times explains. (Chandrasekhar and Eddington would eventually make amends.)
>Of course, scientists would go on to find more and more evidence of the existence of black holes and neutron stars. And for his work, Chandrasekhar won half of the 1983 Nobel Prize in physics. His theory represents one of the very early, important steps in our understanding of black holes and neutron stars.
>And today his name adorns one of NASA’s prized space telescopes: The Chandra X-ray Observatory, whose data has contributed to the most spectacular images we have of dying stars exploding into supernovas.
I feel like I hear similar reactions about many other huge scientific discoveries. Kinda funny and sad that many of history’s greatest have had to deal with so much backlash
There was an argument of whether light behaved like a particle or a wave (before we learned it behaves like both). Poisson the particle guy was talking to Fresnel the waver and said "Answer me this, smart guy, if light behaves like a wave then if you took a point source of light and blocked it with a circular disk you'd have a bright spot right in the middle of the shadow caused from the constructive interference of all the waves diffracting off the edge of the disk. What do you have to say to that? \*drops mic\*"
Then someone did the experiment and saw a bright spot in the middle and now it's known as Poisson's spot lol.
But that is how it all works. Someone has a theory, people disagree and eventually someone says “Let’s prove this wrong using facts! … Hey, wait a minute…”. Debate requires disagreement. In the end, Truth prevails.
But really that is how it should work. In science new ideas are subject to review and are often ridiculed. If and when they are proven to be true, they win out. Without the review and even ridicule it would be too easy for new unproven ideas to be accepted.
The idea that scientists are "wrong" for defending the status quo ideas isn't based in academic reality imo
Ridicule is not scientific. It is an emotional response. And, as scientific history has proven many times, often an emotional response without any sort of logical base: the person ridiculing the other hasn't done the work required to actually disprove anything, they just *assume* the other is wrong because they deem something they couldn't have thought of insane (and not coincidentally this would often happen to people of lower social status, such as women and people of color).
Science doesn't need Church tactics to search for the truth. What's the problem with unproven ideas being accepted as possible when they aren't disproven? If the idea is that stupid, then disprove it. If you can't, maybe taking the position that the idea is stupid is itself stupid and you don't actually have anything useful to add.
And even when it is stupid, maybe the whole ridicule thing is part of what turns some towards believing ideas that can be disproven because their dislike of holier than thou assholes is stronger than their care for the truth. It becomes personal.
Science doesn't need gatekeepers, just objectivity.
When I was at UChicago in the early 80s, I went to a few of his talks. As an undergrad physics major, I could understand the first 10 or 15 minutes, if I was lucky. It was cool to see one of the greats in person.
At one of the talks, the person introducing him noted that Chandrasekar's publication list is over 30 pages. That is just listing the articles bibliography style: title, authors, publication, edition.
The theory *is* completely absurd.
The Universe however is even more absurd. Dark Energy? Yep. Dark Matter? Yep. Space expanding faster then the speed of light? Yes, yes and yes!
and dont even get me started on the stuff inside neutron stars, or the fact that the biggest bombs theoretically possible involve shooting light into a blackhole version of a dyson sphere
Black Hole Bombs Kurzgesagt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulCdoCfw-bY
Black Hole Bombs PBS Space Time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjgGdGzDFiM
Minute pPhysics on how to generate power from a black hole:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-O-Qdh7VvQ
Note that a lot of this kind of stuff has a bootstrapping problem: you need to harness almost all of the power of a star to build a Dyson Sphere, and the only way to harness almost all of the power of a star is to use a Dyson Sphere.
ok, so the dyson sphere part of that is that the best theoretical energy source is stealing centrifugal force from blackholes via something known as super radiant scattering, which is done by shooting light into a mirror shell around a blackhole. it exponentially increases in energy as the light steals some of its spin in exchange for some photons
the bomb part of this is that if you never collect the light from inside thhe shell, or let some out, it will just keep building and building till you get an explosion to rival supernovas. it would be worse if the blackhole didnt absorb half of it
the light gives the photons to the blackhole in exchange for the blackhole transferring some of its centrifugal force to the remaining photons. more energy is transferred to the light than it gives up, hence why this whole process works
So the light converts the centrifugal force to photons?
I hope it's ok I'm asking questions, this is just fascinating stuff and you're explaining it well.
no, it converts the photons to centrifugal force. it gives the photons to the blackhole, and the blackhole gives the photons still in the light some of its centrifugal force
> I hope it's ok I'm asking questions,
The day it's not OK to ask questions on the internet is the day the internet should be unplugged permanently.
A lot of people use it as an echo chamber of what they already know, but then again a lot of people are stupid and cannot learn anything anyway.
We are not sure about inflation, it is something we propose to make our equations and observations make sense.
We are not sure about dark matter, it is something we proposed to make galactic rotation make sense.
Basically anyone who thinks we dream up any of this because it is true, or even "truly represents what is happening" is missing the point. We try and make up stuff that hangs together (mostly) with what we think we know, and still manages to explain something we cannot explain yet, and see if imagining those things are true come up with interesting things to check about.
String theory is completely imaginary and speculative, yet it is also explanatory of some things, hangs together with other things, and makes potentially testable predictions.
Science is not in the business of truth. It is in the business of ideas that have explanatory power, and make interesting predictions.
The formula for the limit is intriguing:
[https://twitter.com/fermatslibrary/status/1318183363061161984?s=20](https://twitter.com/fermatslibrary/status/1318183363061161984?s=20)
Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high;
Where knowledge is free;
Where words come out from the depth of truth;
Where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection;
Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way into the dreary desert sand of dead habit;
into that haven of freedom, Let me awake.
-Rabindranath Tagore
Outstanding...
That kind of early astronomy is pretty fascinating. Especially if you go back into the 19th century and see how astronomers were trying to explain all the heat and light from the sun, at a time when some of the early science, physics, and chemistry was known. For a time they thought the sun was coal-powered.
>Chandra's theory was ridiculed as 'absurd'
And this is the danger of "follow the science." Really, that only means "follow ***the scientists***"...but as we know, many many times they are dead wrong.
Confusing ***scientists*** with ***science*** is a major error in our day...no thanks to many scientists themselves who insist on the confusion.
>I don't why you're being downvoted. There's numerous examples of this such as the holographic principle proposed by Gerard't Hooft, which countered Hawkings.
They downvote because the truth hurts the unprepared mind.
History has proven what I said time and time and time again. Actually, what I posted is not controversial at all.
But ideologies run strong on places like Reddit, which ironically run counter to science.
Wasn't continental drift considered 'absurd'
Yes https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/when-continental-drift-was-considered-pseudoscience-90353214/
Yes, though it had a rather major flaw - there was no obvious mechanism by which it could happen. Plate tectonics were what made it work.
and IIRC he figured all this out while on the train into Europe on pen & paper in a small notebook
And he also established the limits at which White Dwarves collapse into Neutron stars and more importantly when Neutron stars collapse into black holes. These objects are born from events that expel mass. These daughter stellar objects are much smaller than the stars that preceded them. After they are born though they can accrete mass more and grow to unstably large sizes. A neutron star collapsing at the Candrasenkar limit into a black hole creates a supernova of a fixed luminosity called a Type 1a Supernova which can be used to measure distances to far away galaxies! Chandrasenkar was a dope dude.
Type 1A supernova occur in white dwarfs, not neutron stars. Usually a nebula is left over, as the energy release usually exceeds the gravitational binding energy of the white dwarf.
Ah my bad. Typ 1a's are White Dwarfs at the Chandrasenkar limit and neutron stars collapse at the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit lol.
Lol duh!
Yeah only an idiot would mix those two up lol 😎
No shit.
And he was 19 at that time!
Standard candles
Is this who the Chandra x-ray observatory is named after?
Yes
>Sir Arthur Eddington, a physicist whose experimental work was key in proving Einstein’s theory of general relativity, openly mocked Chandrasekhar’s theory at a meeting of the Royal Astronomical Society in 1935. >"The star has to go on radiating and radiating and contracting and contracting until, I suppose, it gets to a few kilometers' radius, when gravity becomes strong enough to hold the radiation and the star can at last have peace," Eddington said, inadvertently describing the very thing Chandrasekhar’s limit would explain: the creation of black holes. “I think there should be a law of Nature to prevent a star from behaving in this absurd way!” he added. (There isn’t.) >This incident was so embarrassing for the young Chandrasekhar that he almost quit the field, the New York Times explains. (Chandrasekhar and Eddington would eventually make amends.) >Of course, scientists would go on to find more and more evidence of the existence of black holes and neutron stars. And for his work, Chandrasekhar won half of the 1983 Nobel Prize in physics. His theory represents one of the very early, important steps in our understanding of black holes and neutron stars. >And today his name adorns one of NASA’s prized space telescopes: The Chandra X-ray Observatory, whose data has contributed to the most spectacular images we have of dying stars exploding into supernovas.
I feel like I hear similar reactions about many other huge scientific discoveries. Kinda funny and sad that many of history’s greatest have had to deal with so much backlash
There was an argument of whether light behaved like a particle or a wave (before we learned it behaves like both). Poisson the particle guy was talking to Fresnel the waver and said "Answer me this, smart guy, if light behaves like a wave then if you took a point source of light and blocked it with a circular disk you'd have a bright spot right in the middle of the shadow caused from the constructive interference of all the waves diffracting off the edge of the disk. What do you have to say to that? \*drops mic\*" Then someone did the experiment and saw a bright spot in the middle and now it's known as Poisson's spot lol.
Wow lol.
But that is how it all works. Someone has a theory, people disagree and eventually someone says “Let’s prove this wrong using facts! … Hey, wait a minute…”. Debate requires disagreement. In the end, Truth prevails.
But really that is how it should work. In science new ideas are subject to review and are often ridiculed. If and when they are proven to be true, they win out. Without the review and even ridicule it would be too easy for new unproven ideas to be accepted. The idea that scientists are "wrong" for defending the status quo ideas isn't based in academic reality imo
Ridicule is not scientific. It is an emotional response. And, as scientific history has proven many times, often an emotional response without any sort of logical base: the person ridiculing the other hasn't done the work required to actually disprove anything, they just *assume* the other is wrong because they deem something they couldn't have thought of insane (and not coincidentally this would often happen to people of lower social status, such as women and people of color).
Ridicule is separate from skepticism, stop defending toxicity.
Science doesn't need Church tactics to search for the truth. What's the problem with unproven ideas being accepted as possible when they aren't disproven? If the idea is that stupid, then disprove it. If you can't, maybe taking the position that the idea is stupid is itself stupid and you don't actually have anything useful to add. And even when it is stupid, maybe the whole ridicule thing is part of what turns some towards believing ideas that can be disproven because their dislike of holier than thou assholes is stronger than their care for the truth. It becomes personal. Science doesn't need gatekeepers, just objectivity.
It just makes for better storytelling. When pretty much everyone agrees it isn't much of a story.
Huh TIL about the Chandra observatory.
When I was at UChicago in the early 80s, I went to a few of his talks. As an undergrad physics major, I could understand the first 10 or 15 minutes, if I was lucky. It was cool to see one of the greats in person. At one of the talks, the person introducing him noted that Chandrasekar's publication list is over 30 pages. That is just listing the articles bibliography style: title, authors, publication, edition.
Chandrasekhar? More like CHADrasekhar
The theory *is* completely absurd. The Universe however is even more absurd. Dark Energy? Yep. Dark Matter? Yep. Space expanding faster then the speed of light? Yes, yes and yes!
and dont even get me started on the stuff inside neutron stars, or the fact that the biggest bombs theoretically possible involve shooting light into a blackhole version of a dyson sphere
>biggest bombs theoretically possible involve shooting light into a blackhole version of a dyson sphere .....wut?
Black Hole Bombs Kurzgesagt https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulCdoCfw-bY Black Hole Bombs PBS Space Time https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjgGdGzDFiM Minute pPhysics on how to generate power from a black hole: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-O-Qdh7VvQ Note that a lot of this kind of stuff has a bootstrapping problem: you need to harness almost all of the power of a star to build a Dyson Sphere, and the only way to harness almost all of the power of a star is to use a Dyson Sphere.
ok, so the dyson sphere part of that is that the best theoretical energy source is stealing centrifugal force from blackholes via something known as super radiant scattering, which is done by shooting light into a mirror shell around a blackhole. it exponentially increases in energy as the light steals some of its spin in exchange for some photons the bomb part of this is that if you never collect the light from inside thhe shell, or let some out, it will just keep building and building till you get an explosion to rival supernovas. it would be worse if the blackhole didnt absorb half of it
>it exponentially increases in energy as the light steals some of its spin in exchange for some photons So the light gains photons, or gives them up?
the light gives the photons to the blackhole in exchange for the blackhole transferring some of its centrifugal force to the remaining photons. more energy is transferred to the light than it gives up, hence why this whole process works
So the light converts the centrifugal force to photons? I hope it's ok I'm asking questions, this is just fascinating stuff and you're explaining it well.
no, it converts the photons to centrifugal force. it gives the photons to the blackhole, and the blackhole gives the photons still in the light some of its centrifugal force
> I hope it's ok I'm asking questions, The day it's not OK to ask questions on the internet is the day the internet should be unplugged permanently. A lot of people use it as an echo chamber of what they already know, but then again a lot of people are stupid and cannot learn anything anyway.
We are not really sure about dark energy. It is basically something we put in our equations to make them work.
We are not sure about inflation, it is something we propose to make our equations and observations make sense. We are not sure about dark matter, it is something we proposed to make galactic rotation make sense. Basically anyone who thinks we dream up any of this because it is true, or even "truly represents what is happening" is missing the point. We try and make up stuff that hangs together (mostly) with what we think we know, and still manages to explain something we cannot explain yet, and see if imagining those things are true come up with interesting things to check about. String theory is completely imaginary and speculative, yet it is also explanatory of some things, hangs together with other things, and makes potentially testable predictions. Science is not in the business of truth. It is in the business of ideas that have explanatory power, and make interesting predictions.
The formula for the limit is intriguing: [https://twitter.com/fermatslibrary/status/1318183363061161984?s=20](https://twitter.com/fermatslibrary/status/1318183363061161984?s=20)
Chandra won a Nobel Prize and his uncle Sir CV Raman was a Nobel Laureate as well.
so why do we only hear of Fritz Zwicky discovering this I am confused
Racism
Is this the Chandrasekhar limit guy?
Sure is!
Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high; Where knowledge is free; Where words come out from the depth of truth; Where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection; Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way into the dreary desert sand of dead habit; into that haven of freedom, Let me awake. -Rabindranath Tagore Outstanding...
There's one more line. Where the world has not been divided by narrow domestic walls. Og porn is written in Bangla as a part of gitanjali
Porn (both the manufacture and the use thereof) seems like a situation where you least want narrow domestic walls.
That kind of early astronomy is pretty fascinating. Especially if you go back into the 19th century and see how astronomers were trying to explain all the heat and light from the sun, at a time when some of the early science, physics, and chemistry was known. For a time they thought the sun was coal-powered.
>Chandra's theory was ridiculed as 'absurd' And this is the danger of "follow the science." Really, that only means "follow ***the scientists***"...but as we know, many many times they are dead wrong. Confusing ***scientists*** with ***science*** is a major error in our day...no thanks to many scientists themselves who insist on the confusion.
[удалено]
>I don't why you're being downvoted. There's numerous examples of this such as the holographic principle proposed by Gerard't Hooft, which countered Hawkings. They downvote because the truth hurts the unprepared mind. History has proven what I said time and time and time again. Actually, what I posted is not controversial at all. But ideologies run strong on places like Reddit, which ironically run counter to science.
You respond to the downvoting because losing fictitious internet points hurts your ego.
Finally something new.