gnimmel (![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} gnimmel) wrote,@ 2006-07-24 12:34:00 |
|
An Open Letter to Muse
Dear Muse,
I write concerning your recent work, Supermassive Black Hole. Whilst I am sure that it represents a valuable contribution to the field, I (and I am sure many others) remain a little confused by your use of non-standard terminology and the sparse manner in which you have presented your main arguments. If you could clarify some of these matters for me, it would be much appreciated.
First, and most generally, whilst you refer throughout to an individual supermassive black hole (SMBH) you do not specify which one. Am I to assume you are discussing Sgr A*, which, due to its location in the centre of the Milky Way, is by far the most commonly-discussed individual SMBH? If so, you would do well to mention this fact. In addition, I feel that referring to Sgr A* as 'baby' and opening your argument with reference to its tendency to make you suffer and moan detracts somewhat from the scientific rigour of the work. Far be it from me to pry, but are you spending too long in the office?
Your second argument, beginning You caught me under false pretences, is most interesting. Are you referring to the high level of obscuration which blights most attempts to observe the Galactic Centre? If so, this seems to be a rather roundabout way of saying so. Combined with your earlier statement, don't you know I suffer, you almost appear to be suggesting that Sgr A* has some degree of sentience. This is a radical departure from current theory and I feel it may have some trouble gaining acceptance in the current scientific climate. Also, to cover some of your minor points:
-the gravitational pull of the earth on you rather outweighs that of Sgr A* on you, so speculation about the timescale over which Sgr A* will 'let you go' is, I feel, unfounded.
-It is unlikely that Sgr A* can hear you moan, as sound cannot travel in the vacuum of space.
It is always gratifying to see researchers expressing genuine enthusiasm for their work; however, given the sparseness of the rest of the work, do you really need to reiterate so many times that it sets your soul alight? Alternatively (I am afraid your unusual audio-based presentation allows for potential misunderstanding) you mean supersolar. In which case you should be aware that, though the common assumption is that the Galactic Centre is of supersolar metallicity, recent work (e.g. Najarro et al. 2004; Carr, Sellgren & Balachandran 2000) has suggested that solar metallicity is more appropriate for this region.
However, it is your main conclusion which I find particularly fascinating. I myself have done some work on Sgr A*'s consumption of massive and intermediate-mass stars (see Dray et al. 2006, astro-ph/0607470). Whilst 'superstar' is unconventional terminology, given the probable top-heavy IMF in the Galactic centre region I suspect you are referring to massive stars. Are you implying that their interactions with the black hole generally lead to the entire star being sucked in? If so, this is of the utmost importance for my work and I would value some further information about the processes by which you have come to such a conclusion. In addition, you claim to link this process with glaciers melting in the dead of night. Are you suggesting that Sgr A*'s consumption of loss cone stars is a cause of global warming? This would be a staggering result with profound implications for humanity, if proven. Whilst I confess I cannot see any potential mechanism by which such a link could be established, I would have no objection to the dramatic increase in funding for Galactic Centre research which might come about on the back of such a claim. The fact that your research is being so widely distributed is therefore, I feel, cause for cautious optimism, despite the peculiarities of your arguments. Perhaps you could play up the global warming aspect a little more in future papers?
Finally, given the above points, I may wish to cite you at some point. Given your unconventional distribution method, I am unsure as to the correct way to word such a citation. Would
Bellamy, M. et al. 2006, in Black Holes and Revelations, ed. R. Costey, Warner, # 3.
be sufficient?
yours in confusion,
Lynnette M. Dray (Dr.)
Dear Muse,
I write concerning your recent work, Supermassive Black Hole. Whilst I am sure that it represents a valuable contribution to the field, I (and I am sure many others) remain a little confused by your use of non-standard terminology and the sparse manner in which you have presented your main arguments. If you could clarify some of these matters for me, it would be much appreciated.
First, and most generally, whilst you refer throughout to an individual supermassive black hole (SMBH) you do not specify which one. Am I to assume you are discussing Sgr A*, which, due to its location in the centre of the Milky Way, is by far the most commonly-discussed individual SMBH? If so, you would do well to mention this fact. In addition, I feel that referring to Sgr A* as 'baby' and opening your argument with reference to its tendency to make you suffer and moan detracts somewhat from the scientific rigour of the work. Far be it from me to pry, but are you spending too long in the office?
Your second argument, beginning You caught me under false pretences, is most interesting. Are you referring to the high level of obscuration which blights most attempts to observe the Galactic Centre? If so, this seems to be a rather roundabout way of saying so. Combined with your earlier statement, don't you know I suffer, you almost appear to be suggesting that Sgr A* has some degree of sentience. This is a radical departure from current theory and I feel it may have some trouble gaining acceptance in the current scientific climate. Also, to cover some of your minor points:
-the gravitational pull of the earth on you rather outweighs that of Sgr A* on you, so speculation about the timescale over which Sgr A* will 'let you go' is, I feel, unfounded.
-It is unlikely that Sgr A* can hear you moan, as sound cannot travel in the vacuum of space.
It is always gratifying to see researchers expressing genuine enthusiasm for their work; however, given the sparseness of the rest of the work, do you really need to reiterate so many times that it sets your soul alight? Alternatively (I am afraid your unusual audio-based presentation allows for potential misunderstanding) you mean supersolar. In which case you should be aware that, though the common assumption is that the Galactic Centre is of supersolar metallicity, recent work (e.g. Najarro et al. 2004; Carr, Sellgren & Balachandran 2000) has suggested that solar metallicity is more appropriate for this region.
However, it is your main conclusion which I find particularly fascinating. I myself have done some work on Sgr A*'s consumption of massive and intermediate-mass stars (see Dray et al. 2006, astro-ph/0607470). Whilst 'superstar' is unconventional terminology, given the probable top-heavy IMF in the Galactic centre region I suspect you are referring to massive stars. Are you implying that their interactions with the black hole generally lead to the entire star being sucked in? If so, this is of the utmost importance for my work and I would value some further information about the processes by which you have come to such a conclusion. In addition, you claim to link this process with glaciers melting in the dead of night. Are you suggesting that Sgr A*'s consumption of loss cone stars is a cause of global warming? This would be a staggering result with profound implications for humanity, if proven. Whilst I confess I cannot see any potential mechanism by which such a link could be established, I would have no objection to the dramatic increase in funding for Galactic Centre research which might come about on the back of such a claim. The fact that your research is being so widely distributed is therefore, I feel, cause for cautious optimism, despite the peculiarities of your arguments. Perhaps you could play up the global warming aspect a little more in future papers?
Finally, given the above points, I may wish to cite you at some point. Given your unconventional distribution method, I am unsure as to the correct way to word such a citation. Would
Bellamy, M. et al. 2006, in Black Holes and Revelations, ed. R. Costey, Warner, # 3.
be sufficient?
yours in confusion,
Lynnette M. Dray (Dr.)
