Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

oicura_geologist t1_je8f819 wrote

"in human history"???? Um... Not happy with that. Best to say brightest recorded gamma-ray burst" vs. just being the brightest in all of human history.

46

Understands-Irony t1_je8kn38 wrote

The article says that it’s based on the odds of black hole emitting GRBs directly at Earth like this one did. So the statement isn’t based on the fact that we haven’t recorded one before, but on the astronomical estimate that it will occur only once every 10,000 years

34

nichogenius t1_je8kxv6 wrote

Well clearly the odds are probably higher than we realized

2

aris_ada t1_je8z94j wrote

On one side we have a statistical model based on our knowledge of the universe till now and on the other side we have n=1 empirical data. I'm siding with the theoretical model.

15

nichogenius t1_jeadg48 wrote

The first GRB was only detected in 1967. Assuming we have documented every GRB since (we certainly haven't), that means our observational history only covers 0.5% of that 10,000 year expected frequency of occurence.

Assuming our models are accurate, the odds we were just lucky to see this one in our limited observational history are roughly 0.5%. The odds that our models are underestimating the frequency of these events is quite a bit higher.

Time will tell.

3

oicura_geologist t1_je9x1pi wrote

Considering humans (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) evolved between 90,000 and 160,000 years ago, that would, on average, allow for up to 16 possible occurrences. I would still have to stand by my statement. Secondly, a 500 year flood does not simply happen once every 500 years, it is a statistical average, and I have seen records of 3 consecutive 500 year floods within one year. Statistics is, over the long term, useful, but useless to the individual.

2

bluesam3 t1_jeabd9a wrote

"Human history" generally means "the time in which humans have been recording history" (often implicitly "in a way that has survived to the modern day"), not "the time in which humans have existed".

2

oicura_geologist t1_jef1r1o wrote

Not being an anthropologist myself, I can't say what the field considers. I am a geologist and note that history is not just that which is recorded in anthropomorphic records. Otherwise, history is only the last 5k years, and everything else was just mystical fun to note.

0

bluesam3 t1_jef763l wrote

Yes, "history" only generally refers to that period. I don't know where you got the idea that knowledge of the past is divided into "history" and "mystical fun to note" - that's just outright nonsense. Indeed, everything prior to written records is generally called "pre-history".

2

oicura_geologist t1_jefqqm4 wrote

Geology is a historic science. Perspective, to a geologist; pre-history is anything that happens prior to creation of the planet 4500 Ma. To a Cosmologist, pre-history is prior to the inflationary period 1x10^-32 sec post big bang. The article itself quotes "Scientists say the gamma-ray burst (GRB), the most powerful type of explosion in the universe, was 70 times brighter than any previously recorded event. So the title of THIS reddit forum claims "The brightest gamma-ray in human history hit our planet this past Fall" is not precise enough. Especially if one considers that Gamma radiation was not detected until 1903 by humans, and thus, the title is patently wrong considering the perspective of the historical argument.

Your opinion that "History" is only what is written, is a fallacy as many sciences see "history" in very different ways.

1

bluesam3 t1_jefsff4 wrote

That is just not how the word "history" is used by literally anybody else I can find. In particular, it's not how it's used by historians, who I rather think get to decide what they study.

2

statistacktic t1_je9w6x5 wrote

I think for non-critical thinkers, human history implies recorded history.

0