This Theory Suggests Our Perspective of Galaxies Could Be Wrong

This Theory Suggests Our Perspective of Galaxies Could Be Wrong

We’re always staring up into space, trying
to figure out what we’re seeing. We like to think we know what’s going on,
but what if we’ve been seeing it wrong this WHOLE TIME. Ok, a little context here. Almost all normal galaxies have a supermassive
black hole at the center, including ours. (That’s not freaky at all.) BUT we can’t actually see the black holes
themselves–they’re so dense and their gravitational field is so strong that nothing can escape
them, not even light. So we observe them instead by seeing how the
matter around them behaves. All of the ‘stuff’ in these galaxies is
verrrrry slowly falling in toward the black hole, causing the galaxy to spiral and form
into a disk shape. Some of these galaxies are special: the supermassive
black hole is consuming more than the normal amount of the galaxy around it, and faster–it’s
greedy. These are called active galactic nuclei, or
AGN for short. As the matter in the galaxy gets closer to
the black hole, it heats up and produces all kinds of radiation: we’ve got radio, we’ve
got infrared, X-ray, gamma ray–it’s a big party. This is called an accretion disk, and even
though we can’t ‘see’ the black hole itself, the accretion disk around it is one
of the things we can observe when we’re looking at AGN. Accretion discs are one of a few characteristics
that form our standard model for what AGN might look like. Other typical features include gigantic jets
that eject stuff, and a torus (which is a big donut of galactic material). Depending on the circumstances though, we
may not see all the features we’re expecting, and different AGN appear to have different
properties. We’ve currently classified tens of different
kinds, based on observations of things like brightness, size, jets, lack of jets and type
of radiation emitted. They’re divided into radio-quiet and radio-loud
nuclei, and each of these types contains categories of their own, like Seyfert galaxies, quasars,
and blazars, and each of these categories has their own subdivisions as well. But there’s a theory that posits something
a little radical, called AGN unification theory. First proposed back in 1993, it claims that
essentially, all AGN are the same, but they just LOOK different to us based on their orientation
in space. I mean we’re limited, right? We can’t exactly go out and fly around them
to see them in 360–we only have our perspective from here from Earth. However, supercomputers may be able to help
us figure this out. With simulations, we can model AGN, allowing
us to twist and turn them, seeing what they look like and what signals they gives off
from different angles. Buuuut these models aren’t the perfect answer
to figuring out if AGN unification theory is right. We probably don’t even have all the necessary
data to make the most accurate models of galactic behavior. As we continue to get better at detecting
the signals coming from them, building more powerful telescopes and asking even better
questions, hopefully we’ll get there soon. It’s kind of awesome and mind blowing to
think about this. Because the many different kinds of AGN have
been meticulously observed and grouped by attribute, it can be easy as a non-astrophysicist
to say–”yep. There they are, all the different kinds of
active galactic nuclei, aren’t we good at looking at and labeling things”. But then something like the AGN unification
theory comes along and suggests that this may all be irrelevant because we haven’t
taken into account something as seemingly simple as perspective…and it really makes
you feel like there’s so much more to be discovered. And our understanding of our universe is so
much more malleable than we may think. Science isn’t a set of hard and fast rules,
it’s changing all the time. And that might be my favorite part. Make sure to subscribe down below to be the
first to know if AGN unification theory turns out to be right, and check out this video
here on what happens when galaxies collide. Also, quasars are AGN whose cores are so bright
that they outshine all the stars in their galaxy. And quasar stands for quasi-stellar radio
sources. I always wondered how they came up with names
like that. I’m Maren, thanks for watching Seeker.

100 thoughts on “This Theory Suggests Our Perspective of Galaxies Could Be Wrong”

  1. Cuz there not there they don't exsist do ur research and check out the Thunderbolts project and discover the electric universe!¥

  2. a black hole swallow's light but also burbs light ?
    light is = time. so are black holes frozen in time ?
    if a black hole is frozen in time dos it exsis ?

  3. Is it a theory or a model? Because those are two different things. A model is what some would commonly call a "theory", whereas a scientific theory is kind of a "king of the hill" of the current models, with evidence supporting it and nothing yet disproving it.

    For example evolution is a theory, but that doesn't mean it's just a neat idea, it means you'd need a lot to try and disprove it.

  4. That was funny.

    -All galaxies have super massive black holes at the center.
    -But…we actually cant see them.

    So I should believe you on a word? Well. You are pretty and have nerdy glasses. Ok I believe you.

  5. There is so much wrong with the so-called standard model. Since it's not actually testable, it's not a theory, it's only an hypothesis. So you shouldn't say that a galaxy HAS a black hole. There have been valid objections to this specific hypothesis ever since it was suggested. The stars are NOT hurtling toward the core, the matter they emit is. The rotations are not applicable with the whole plug hole analogy.

  6. Seriously?… the idea of perspective was the first thing to come to mind while talking about the classifications… If scientists took so long to think of this…
    It's like re-classifying the sun, everytime the weather changes….

  7. Black holes are utter nonsense; in a rational universe, singularities cannot exist! The centers of galaxies are actually "white dwarf cores." Study the Reciprocal System and prove it for yourself.

  8. That's a very phallic t-shirt you've got on there.
    Also, to have a theory that basically says all subdivisions, categorizations, and 'things' are superfluous to requirements, kinda hits the nail on the head. Unified field theory of the whole universe? "From the first, not a thing is" – Hui Neng

  9. If quasarS are quasi-stellar radio sources, then why are they grouped with radio-quiet galaxies in the classification the woman showed us?

  10. What we are seeing you say? Consider this and try to imagine what we may not be seeing.
    "Researchers have long known that the mantis shrimp eye contains 12 color receptors, but they had no idea why. Humans and most other animals use three color-receptors to see the spectrum of light. In these animals, each of the three receptors gets excited by a different hue: red, green or blue light" also " Butterflies can see light that humans cannot see. They see in the ultraviolet wavelength."

  11. Quasars are galaxies that are receeding faster than allowed by cosmological expansion they attracted by the black hole belt that's around the universe belt is convex therefore making the Galaxy appear the size of a solar system with the energy of a Galaxy. The phantom effect would you normally occur when an object falls into a black hole the photon day on The event horizon forever old Swartzchild radius

  12. What if you're a freaky galaxy like me, with no observable black holes at my center? How many licks would it take?

  13. I like how she says "we" like she was there as she reads this 9th grade text book to us. Stop talking with your hands.

  14. It has not even been 100 years since we even knew that such a thing as a galaxy existed. And we think we know everything? As the Wicked Witch of the West said, "Far? You think that you have gone far? Your journey has just begun!"

  15. The truth is the curent cosmological theory has fallen apart. Galaxies don't move the way they should. Black holes emite radiation and stars are most likely to be found in multiple star systems. Oh and stars found in the same general area seem to share polar orientation. Last but certainly not least we have seen a star go super nova more than once, twice in a span of only 50 years.

  16. our brains are a supercomputer.
    every human bring can process science. every. even those who are business fanatics that don't know shit about science.
    we are smart, but stupid aswell.

  17. If that’s true couldn’t we just measure a bunch and see if the ones that we see at similar angles have continuity of output. Meaning if viewed at similar angles do they have similar emissions?

  18. I would be cool if you could make a simulation of
    colliding galaxies colliding with the song halleluiah
    from Roy and Rosemarie's album once upon at time.

  19. Scientists were all wrong the moment they put gravity as a dominating force and ignored electric force which is billion times stronger than gravity.

  20. Hey look at all these different kinds of black holes, oh wait they are probably all the same kind just from different perspectives and stages.

  21. i would have enjoyed this clip if the bish was naked, but as she isn't i gave thumb down… fukn wize up bish. get your gear off or fuk off home.

  22. "AGN unification"… aka "holy crap it IS all electric… we better modify our theories and try to rewrite history."

    Yeah… it's already been predicted that MSS would try to co-opt and steal others' (pioneers') work.
    You can read about it here:

  23. Okay question here, if nothing can escape a black holes gravity, why can there be things being ejected from the centre?

  24. Why didn't you give us any of the data that they used to suggest that this is a possibility? Why would you bring up their reasons for proposing this hypothesis? Isn't that the more interesting thing? With the information in this clip I might assume thst someone simply said, " what if we are wrong because they are tilted different?"

    ALSO!!!! IT'S A HYPOTHESIS NOT A THEORY. Can we please stop misusing these terms? This is why people STILL say nonsense like, "evolution is just a theory. . . " please, just use the word hypothesis. . .

  25. Careful. Just because we can model it dosn't mean it's reality, it just means it has the possibility of being right within an estimated probability. The box with the cat is still closed.

  26. "All the stuff in these galaxies is very slowly falling into the black hole, causing the galaxy to spiral and form into a disk shape"

    What? NO! Galaxies form into disk shapes because of conservation of angular momentum, and the vast majority of the stuff in galaxies is not falling into the supermassive black hole in the center.

  27. So if I understood correctly: it's not our perspective of galaxies that is wrong but rather what is at the center of these galaxies?! The active galactic nuclei.
    At first I thought the shape of the galaxies as we see them might be wrong because of distorsion caused by black holes or something

  28. If you can’t observe dark matter then I assume it’s matter inside a black hole, how do we not know that collectively they’ve sucked 80% of mass

  29. "Our perspective from Earth could be distorting our understanding of space." … This is great wisdom not fully understood by even the most acclaimed astrophysicists.

  30. Looking at 1:20, I was wondering… How can there be a "Jet of energy" from an object that "Nothing can escape from. Not even light"?

  31. Standard teaching method : as your Professor taught you is always right . . . Never question any thing or you ll be cast out . No wonder we hear any real breakthroughs any more .

  32. The best question would be is are those things we can't observe really black holes… If you think it's worth asking than you're using your head.. and if you are look into "thunderbolt project"

  33. The arrogance of our species when it comes to the universe often baffles me. Especially baffling is the finite answers given to us by those in academia. Only to directly contradict themselves later and then proceed to say, "we were wrong….this is 100% the way it works and we've proven it". Only to directly contradict themselves again some time later with their newest "iron clad" explanation. It's dizzying.

  34. Galaxies don't rotate because of their central supermassive black holes. They're too far away and not massive enough to affect the entire galaxy. The galaxy's rotation is a remnant its formation and the spiral appearance of some galaxies is due to an entirely separate phenomenon.

  35. "Matter falling into a black hole is responsible for the Galaxy rotating" is provable false, refer to Electric Universe and the missing mass fallacy

  36. I think that Black holes are possibly two equal massive star's caught in a binary type push and pull curlicuing each other going maybe 30% the speed of light (that's why we can't see them)..and that's the donut feature/event horizon. they would then generate enough energy to not absorb each other. plus the massive magnetic fields would then have all other stars locked in orbit thru the galactic magnetic field. figure that out you get zero point..

  37. As always great show I've seen nearly every episode produced by you guys. Also, why does she look especially beautiful today. Hhhmm, idk but definitely best looking co-nerd out there lol

  38. What I simply imagine that those black-holes are just like whirlpool in the deep space! We can see the whirlpools emerge in water and atmosphere and change the motions of air and water and other matters. I think the black-holes work in the same way.

  39. THE JETS BEING SHOT OUT FROM THE BLACK HOLES ARE ESCAPING, CORRECT? So why does everyone say nothing can escape a black hole?

  40. It is not true that nothing can escape a black hole. If you want your statement to be accurate, you have to say that the escape velocity of a black hike is higher than the speed of light. Black holes are the only things powerful enough that we know about that can create particles energetic enough to exceed the speed of light. And I'm pretty sure that leaving the gravity well of a black hole will slow such particles down to less than light speed. That's the real cause of Hawking's radiation.

    Your statement about quasars is wrong also. Quasars are galaxies that are too young to look like galaxies.

  41. I'm skeptical of this theory. If a super massive black hole exists in the centre of each galaxy applies, then technically galaxies wouldn't exist as the black holes would have had several billion years to devour everything.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *