This article was originally published a month ago here:<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/wtf-newly-discovered-ghostly-circles-in-the-sky-cant-be-explained-by-current-theories-and-astronomers-are-excited-142812" rel="nofollow">https://theconversation.com/wtf-newly-discovered-ghostly-cir...</a>
The wormhole paper mentioned in the article:<p><a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.15331" rel="nofollow">https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.15331</a>
paper: <a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.14805.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.14805.pdf</a><p>> Frequency range: 800 – 1088 MHz
> Total integration time: 100 hours<p>but then<p>> We observed ORC 1 and ORCs 2–3 (Project code C3350)with the Australia Telescope Compact Array (ATCA)on 9–10 April 2020, at 1.1–3.1 GHz (weighted centralfrequency after the removal of radio frequency inter-ference = 2121 MHz), over a period of 2×12 hours<p>and<p>> ORC-4 was found in archival 325 MHz GMRT data
The picture feels especially surprising because of the fuzzy contours and transparency that do not fit the sharp stars. Keep in mind that the image is a superposition of an image in some radiowave frequency range (fuzzy either because of different sensor/tech/frequency range), superimposed to a normal image in visible spectrum with very different actual resolution.<p>> The ghostly ORC1 (blue/green fuzz) on a backdrop of the galaxies at optical wavelengths.
I have a hard time understanding how radio emissions can be visualised like that. The sensors are ground based, the emissions are detected on earth from a point source which given the distances are effectively parallel. Or is it a visualization of a circular cloud of point sources, in which case the detector resolution must be fantastic.
This reminds me of the 'stellar rings' of Isserstedt and Schmidt-Kaler from the late 1960s and early 1970s:<p><a href="http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1973A%26A....29..277V&defaultprint=YES&filetype=.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_quer...</a><p><a href="http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1975A%26A....41..355L&defaultprint=YES&filetype=.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_quer...</a>
Objects exploding outward into a vacuum can be spherical.<p>Stellar explosions happen all the time in many corners of the universe.<p>As material from a stellar explosion expands outward and impacts gases in the neighborhood, radio waves are emitted from the molecules energetically impacting each other.<p>Naturally, the shape of the region from which such radio frequency emissions would originate would correspond to the spherical shape of the explosion.<p>I don't know why this is being written up as something mysterious. OK, maybe I do know why. Clickbait. Any time you can make astronomy look like there may be a hint of aliens, it's tantalizing and leads to clicks. I don't blame the scientists for this… it's the news headline writers.<p>Unfortunately working in favor of the clickbait is the fact that certainly scientists won't say that the above simple explanation is definitively what is happening, because it hasn't been tested yet. But you can bet they are looking into simple possibilities like this. And no aliens or Dyson spheres are required.
The article says that we’re not able to determine distance or put a size on whatever is radiating this, but doesn’t put a clear lower bound on that. What is the closest that this could be that is compatible with the data?
It's extremely unlikely the phenomena "can't be explained" and far more likely that it "hasn't been explained."<p>Science is like that. It's why discoveries are fun.
This all sounds very much like there is some reaaally simple solution and nothing fancy going on.<p>Expecially the "always circular" part threw me off. It looks like the blend effects you get when you make photos against the sun. There might be something similar with radio waves as well.