Astrobites

https://astrobites.org/ is great for astronomy and astrophysics. You'll be thrown out in the deep end but if you stick to it for a few weeks you'll get a good idea of where astronomy/astrophysics research is at.

The best suggestion I have is https://astrobites.org/ These are paper summaries, written by people in the field, where you are probably the target audience. I don't read it myself, but give it a go!

Not OP, but I can think of two reasons – too many LEO satellites can actually hinder views of the night sky[0] and additionally, the risk of kessler syndrome[1]. I'm in no way equipped to give a scientific risk assessment of either, so I'll defer to others to share if they feel it's major concern. But whether these are present issues or not, they're worth considering and thinking about as we move forward with more LEO deployments. The latter issue especially, given that once it occurs, it'll be extremely difficult (nigh impossible?) to rectify in short order. [0] https://astrobites.org/2020/09/25/leosats/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome

You may enjoy reading about the best models of the structure of the matter near the surface of a neutron star, that is called "nuclear pasta" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pasta and one with graphics that explain the names https://astrobites.org/2017/10/05/nuclear-pasta-in-neutron-stars/

Wasn't the neutron star merger, that was followed up on by multiple optical (and even neutrino detections, iirc), a pretty good validation? I mean, how else would they have known what to look for? Update: this is the event I'm talking about: https://astrobites.org/2017/10/16/multi-messenger-observations-of-a-bi… Also, are there any peer-reviewed, serious criticisms of the existing gravitational wave observations papers that I could read? I've read the objections a few times now, but only in popular media, not in scientific discourse.

If you're looking for the astrobites treatment, I think this is Howard and Marcy's paper, or at least Howard and Marcy are authors on this exoplanet paper discussing this topic: http://astrobites.org/2012/09/02/looking-for-planets-around-barnards-s… Although I think the reported 22% number comes from a different exoplanet paper on the topic of moon formation, probably on the assumption you need tidal forces for ... something: http://astrobites.org/2011/06/16/searching-for-pandora/ I highly recommend the astrobites RSS feed. Formerly in my google reader, now in my newsblur.

> If you (the neutron star) gain mass near the gravitational field, it pulls you in closer. This conflicts with the Strong Equivalence Principle (SEP) in its universality of free fall form, or more colloquially a rule that the trajectory of a self-gravitating object depends only on its initial position and velocity and not on its internal composition (including the evolution of its mass). There is a good test of the SEP in a system involving the millisecond pulsar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSR_J0337%2B1715 which is in a hard binary with a white dwarf; a second white dwarf orbits the inner binary. Here is a trace of the orbits https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDgfqq_W_uM -- I recommend reading the video description. Reference 2 (Archibald et al.) at the wikipedia page is an excellent paper. There are a couple of good astrobites aimed at (advanced, or possibly final-year) astrophysics undergrads at https://astrobites.org/2014/01/14/timing-is-everything-a-pulsar-in-orb… (2014) and https://astrobites.org/2019/03/25/testing-einsteins-equivalence-princi… (2019) You're right that the flow of mass in a complex system might be relevant to the merging binary, but in general a stellar black hole's circumstellar accretion structure isn't going to do much to a close-in neutron star except create a lot of (relatively small) nuclear explosions on the latter's surface. There just isn't going to enough material in the accretion…

I'm going to skip the more philosophical part of your question. Or in other words, if you're asking, "is there any observable evidence of something outside the observable universe?" My answer is: no comment at this time. If you're asking, "what did John C. Mather mean in talking about the edge of the universe?" I'm not John C. Mather, but here's my guess -- The curvature of the universe [1] has been computed from distortion of the Cosmic Micrwave Background and independently using other measurements. The current consensus is that the universe is indistinguishable from a flat universe. [2] A curved universe would have an edge, meaning there's a limit to how much could be observed. If it's x light-years until you wrap around the universe, then plant an observer into this universe at a time greater than x years and that observer (if lucky) could observe the same things in two directions by seeing "all the way around the universe." A curved universe might lead to a "big crunch" since the curvature of space-time is caused by the quantity of matter, or not. Depends on if the matter is tightly packed enough. A flat universe has no limit -- no matter how far in the future you plant an observer, the speed of light is not fast enough for them to observe the entire observable universe. There's a relationship between the curvature of the universe, how dense the universe is (how densely packed the matter is), and how fast the universe is expanding (the Hubble Constant). It's…

1/2 as common. https://astrobites.org/2022/04/16/template-post-9/#:~:text=Type%20II%2…

There is some debate regarding gravitational self-interaction. This[1] post gives an overview of a proposal by Deur. Note though that while this is peer-reviwed work, it's still contentious. [1]: https://astrobites.org/2020/08/17/the-alternative-to-dark-matter-may-b…

Odd timing, given that only a few days ago we were talking about a gravitational wave background (https://astrobites.org/2023/06/28/drop-the-bass-evidence-for-a-gravita… not that we're in a position to render that as an image, but it's close.

I'd like to see more work done with investigating field self-interaction. This 2020 paper by Alexandre Deur is very interesting. "[W]e find that relativistic corrections to the rotation curves of disk galaxies are significant at large galactic radii." "Relativistic corrections to the rotation curves of disk galaxies" - https://arxiv.org/pdf/2004.05905.pdf And a blog covering the paper: https://astrobites.org/2020/08/17/the-alternative-to-dark-matter-may-b…

> Once the black holes merge, the new, now-larger black hole experiences a kick that sends it off in a random direction, and it plows through the gas in the disk Hm, I would expect the merged object to move in the same way as the center of mass of the unmerged objects. Where does the extra momentum for this "kick" come from? Is there mass from the surrounding disk thrown in the other direction? Or maybe some relativistic effect? edit: apparently gravitational waves can carry away linear momentum, and that's where the kick comes from[1]. [1]https://astrobites.org/2018/03/08/recoil-detectives-searching-for-blac…

It isn’t totally discredited, but the constraints on it make it exceedingly unlikely. Against it: No gamma ray signals as hoped/expected from evaporating PBH’s. LIGO is not seeing PBH mergers at a rate that would support the numbers required. Micro lensing studies don’t support it. Is it’s possible, but it’s much less likely than other theories which allow for less fine tuning of parameters. There’s a very good graphic that shows what I’m talking about. https://astrobites.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/constraintsPBH.png From: https://astrobites.org/2017/08/31/could-dark-matter-be-black-holes/

Dark matter, quite possibly: https://astrobites.org/2017/08/31/could-dark-matter-be-black-holes/ http://aasnova.org/2017/09/27/can-ligo-find-the-missing-dark-matter/

With adaptive optics it's possible to achieve resolutions down to ~30 milliarcseconds. At 1400 ly that would subtend a distance of 13 AU, so you wouldn't be able to find Earth-like planets. But even if it's theoretically possible to resolve 13 AU separations at 1400 ly, in practice the light from the star is so much brighter than the planet that it bleeds all over the image and completely washes out the reflected light of the star. To do direct imaging you really need to look at systems near the Earth, maybe a few tens of ly away. Then you can separate the planet from the star by enough that you can hope to mask the light from the star and still be able to detect the planet. To get some idea of the techniques required to do this, take a look here: http://astrobites.org/2013/06/09/lowest-mass-exoplanet-discovered-via-…

> because of dark matter's lack of electromagnetic interaction This is still an assumption, because we don't know for sure that dark matter is only weakly interacting, but this is what was observed in the Bullet Cluster collision: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster There's a good explanation here: https://astrobites.org/2016/11/04/the-bullet-cluster-a-smoking-gun-for… The lensing was found to be strongest near the visible matter (stars), and the amount of observed lensing couldn't be accounted for with the total stellar mass alone. So the assumption is that the dark matter, like the stars, wasn't slowed much by the collision. The gas, on the other hand, interacts electromagnetically and slows down in the middle. That's not to say that the stuff that stars are made up of isn't affected by electromagnetism, but it's a short-range effect and even in a collision, interstellar separation is large (i.e. contrary to what you might think, a galaxy collision doesn't involve all the stars smashing into each other, most of them will just sail right on through). Gravity will dominate in that case.

Partial list: Aaron Toponce https://pthree.org Abduzeedo http://abduzeedo.com ACLU https://www.aclu.org adafruit.com http://www.adafruit.com ae911truth.org http://www.ae911truth.org aeon.co http://aeon.co aerospaceprojectsreview.com http://www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com A Fistful of Euros http://fistfulofeuros.net AirlineReporter.com http://www.airlinereporter.com akihabaranews.com http://akihabaranews.com Al Jazeera http://www.aljazeera.com AllGov http://www.allgov.com AlterNet http://www.alternet.org American Forces Press Service http://www.defense.gov amusingplanet.com http://www.amusingplanet.com AnandTech http://www.anandtech.com Android Police http://www.androidpolice.com aNewDomain http://anewdomain.net anonhq.com http://anonhq.com AntiWar.com http://original.antiwar.com APOD http://apod.nasa.gov ArchDaily http://www.archdaily.com Architizer Blog http://architizer.com Arms Control Wonk http://armscontrolwonk.com/ Ars Technica http://arstechnica.com astrobites.org http://astrobites.org astroquizzical.com http://astroquizzical.com Autoblog http://www.autoblog.com AvaxNews http://avaxnews.net Aviation Safety Network News http://aviation-safety.net </pre>