Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userWhy are there Seven Sisters?
76
0
0.0
(
0
)
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
There are two puzzles surrounding the Pleiades, or Seven Sisters. First, why are the mythological stories surrounding them, typically involving seven young girls being chased by a man associated with the constellation Orion, so similar in vastly separated cultures, such as the Australian Aboriginal cultures and Greek mythology? Second, why do most cultures call them Seven Sisters even though most people with good eyesight see only six stars? Here we show that both these puzzles may be explained by a combination of the great antiquity of the stories combined with the proper motion of the stars, and that these stories may predate the departure of most modern humans out of Africa around 100,000 BC.
rate research
Read More
In many professons employees are rewarded according to their relative performance. Corresponding economy can be modeled by taking $N$ independent agents who gain from the market with a rate which depends on their current gain. We argue that this simple realistic rate generates a scale free distribution even though intrinsic ability of agents are marginally different from each other. As an evidence we provide distribution of scores for two different systems (a) the global stock game where players invest in real stock market and (b) the international cricket.
We use numerical simulations to model the migration of massive planets at small radii and compare the results with the known properties of hot Jupiters (extrasolar planets with semi-major axes a < 0.1 AU). For planet masses Mp sin i > 0.5 MJup, the evidence for any `pile-up at small radii is weak (statistically insignificant), and although the mass function of hot Jupiters is deficient in high mass planets as compared to a reference sample located further out, the small sample size precludes definitive conclusions. We suggest that these properties are consistent with disc migration followed by entry into a magnetospheric cavity close to the star. Entry into the cavity results in a slowing of migration, accompanied by a growth in orbital eccentricity. For planet masses in excess of 1 Jupiter mass we find eccentricity growth timescales of a few x 10^5 years, suggesting that these planets may often be rapidly destroyed. Eccentricity growth appears to be faster for more massive planets which may explain changes in the planetary mass function at small radii and may also predict a pile-up of lower mass planets, the sample of which is still incomplete.
Yes. That is my polemical reply to the titular question in Travis Norsens self-styled polemical response to Howard Wisemans recent paper. Less polemically, I am pleased to see that on two of my positions --- that Bells 1964 theorem is different from Bells 1976 theorem, and that the former does not include Bells one-paragraph heuristic presentation of the EPR argument --- Norsen has made significant concessions. In his response, Norsen admits that Bells recapitulation of the EPR argument in [the relevant] paragraph leaves something to be desired, that it disappoints and is problematic. Moreover, Norsen makes other statements that imply, on the face of it, that he should have no objections to the title of my recent paper (The Two Bells Theorems of John Bell). My principle aim in writing that paper was to try to bridge the gap between two interpretational camps, whom I call operationalists and realists, by pointing out that they use the phrase Bells theorem to mean different things: his 1964 theorem (assuming locality and determinism) and his 1976 theorem (assuming local causality), respectively. Thus, it is heartening that at least one person from one side has taken one step on my bridge. That said, there are several issues of contention with Norsen, which we (the two authors) address after discussing the extent of our agreement with Norsen. The most significant issues are: the indefiniteness of the word locality prior to 1964; and the assumptions Einstein made in the paper quoted by Bell in 1964 and their relation to Bells theorem.
Aims. We develop, test and characterise of a new statistical tool (intelligent system) for the sifting and analysis of nearby young open cluster (NYOC) populations. Methods. Using a Bayesian formalism, this statistical tool is able to obtain the posterior distributions of parameters governing the cluster model. It also uses hierarchical bayesian models to establish weakly informative priors, and incorporates the treatment of missing values and non-homogeneous (heteroscedastic) observational uncertainties. Results. From simulations, we estimate that this statistical tool renders kinematic (proper motion) and photometric (luminosity) distributions of the cluster population with a contamination rate of $5.8 pm 0.2$ %. The luminosity distributions and present day mass function agree with the ones found by Bouy et al. (2015b) on the completeness interval of the survey. At the probability threshold of maximum accuracy, the classifier recovers $sim$ 90% of Bouy et al. (2015b) candidate members and finds 10% of new ones. Conclusions. A new statistical tool for the analysis of NYOC is introduced, tested and characterised. Its comprehensive modelling of the data properties allows it to get rid of the biases present in previous works. In particular, those resulting from the use of only completely observed (non-missing) data and the assumption of homoskedastic uncertainties. Also, its Bayesian framework allows it to properly propagate observational uncertainties into membership probabilities and cluster velocity and luminosity distributions. Our results are in a general agreement with those from the literature, although we provide the most up-to-date and extended list of candidate members of the Pleiades cluster.
Methods. We compute Bayesian evidences and Bayes Factors for a set of variations of the classical radial models by King (1962), Elson et al. (1987) and Lauer et al. (1995). The variations incorporate different degrees of model freedom and complexity, amongst which we include biaxial (elliptical) symmetry, and luminosity segregation. As a by-product of the model comparison, we obtain posterior distributions and maximum a posteriori estimates for each set of model parameters. Results. We find that the model comparison results depend on the spatial extent of the region used for the analysis. For a circle of 11.5 parsecs around the cluster centre (the most homogeneous and complete region), we find no compelling reason to abandon Kings model, although the Generalised King model, introduced in this work, has slightly better fitting properties. Furthermore, we find strong evidence against radially symmetric models when compared to the elliptic extensions. Finally, we find that including mass segregation in the form of luminosity segregation in the J band, is strongly supported in all our models. Conclusions. We have put the question of the projected spatial distribution of the Pleiades cluster on a solid probabilistic framework, and inferred its properties using the most exhaustive and least contaminated list of Pleiades candidate members available to date. Our results suggest however that this sample may still lack about 20% of the expected number of cluster members. Therefore, this study should be revised when the completeness and homogeneity of the data can be extended beyond the 11.5 parsecs limit. Such study will allow a more precise determination of the Pleiades spatial distribution, its tidal radius, ellipticity, number of objects and total mass.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
