From NASA Goddard:
Behemoth black hole found in an unlikely place
Astronomers have uncovered a near-record breaking supermassive black hole, weighing 17 billion suns, in an unlikely place: in the center of a galaxy in a sparsely populated area of the universe. The observations, made by NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope and the Gemini Telescope in Hawaii, may indicate that these monster objects may be more common than once thought.
Until now, the biggest supermassive black holes – those roughly 10 billion times the mass of our sun – have been found at the cores of very large galaxies in regions of the universe packed with other large galaxies. In fact, the current record holder tips the scale at 21 billion suns and resides in the crowded Coma galaxy cluster that consists of over 1,000 galaxies.
“The newly discovered supersized black hole resides in the center of a massive elliptical galaxy, NGC 1600, located in a cosmic backwater, a small grouping of 20 or so galaxies,” said lead discoverer Chung-Pei Ma, a University of California-Berkeley astronomer and head of the MASSIVE Survey, a study of the most massive galaxies and supermassive black holes in the local universe. While finding a gigantic black hole in a massive galaxy in a crowded area of the universe is to be expected – like running across a skyscraper in Manhattan – it seemed less likely they could be found in the universe’s small towns.
“There are quite a few galaxies the size of NGC 1600 that reside in average-size galaxy groups,” Ma said. “We estimate that these smaller groups are about 50 times more abundant than spectacular galaxy clusters like the Coma cluster. So the question now is, ‘Is this the tip of an iceberg?’ Maybe there are more monster black holes out there that don’t live in a skyscraper in Manhattan, but in a tall building somewhere in the Midwestern plains.”
The researchers also were surprised to discover that the black hole is 10 times more massive than they had predicted for a galaxy of this mass. Based on previous Hubble surveys of black holes, astronomers had developed a correlation between a black hole’s mass and the mass of its host galaxy’s central bulge of stars – the larger the galaxy bulge, the proportionally more massive the black hole. But for galaxy NGC 1600, the giant black hole’s mass far overshadows the mass of its relatively sparse bulge. “It appears that that relation does not work very well with extremely massive black holes; they are a larger fraction of the host galaxy’s mass,” Ma said.
Ma and her colleagues are reporting the discovery of the black hole, which is located about 200 million light years from Earth in the direction of the constellation Eridanus, in the April 6 issue of the journal Nature. Jens Thomas of the Max Planck-Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics, Garching, Germany is the paper’s lead author.
One idea to explain the black hole’s monster size is that it merged with another black hole long ago when galaxy interactions were more frequent. When two galaxies merge, their central black holes settle into the core of the new galaxy and orbit each other. Stars falling near the binary black hole, depending on their speed and trajectory, can actually rob momentum from the whirling pair and pick up enough velocity to escape from the galaxy’s core. This gravitational interaction causes the black holes to slowly move closer together, eventually merging to form an even larger black hole. The supermassive black hole then continues to grow by gobbling up gas funneled to the core by galaxy collisions. “To become this massive, the black hole would have had a very voracious phase during which it devoured lots of gas,” Ma said.
The frequent meals consumed by NGC 1600 may also be the reason why the galaxy resides in a small town, with few galactic neighbors. NGC 1600 is the most dominant galaxy in its galactic group, at least three times brighter than its neighbors. “Other groups like this rarely have such a large luminosity gap between the brightest and the second brightest galaxies,” Ma said.
Most of the galaxy’s gas was consumed long ago when the black hole blazed as a brilliant quasar from material streaming into it that was heated into a glowing plasma. “Now, the black hole is a sleeping giant,” Ma said. “The only way we found it was by measuring the velocities of stars near it, which are strongly influenced by the gravity of the black hole. The velocity measurements give us an estimate of the black hole’s mass.”
The velocity measurements were made by the Gemini Multi-Object Spectrograph (GMOS) on the Gemini North 8-meter telescope on Mauna Kea in Hawaii. GMOS spectroscopically dissected the light from the galaxy’s center, revealing stars within 3,000 light-years of the core. Some of these stars are circling around the black hole and avoiding close encounters. However, stars moving on a straighter path away from the core suggest that they had ventured closer to the center and had been slung away, most likely by the twin black holes.
Archival Hubble images, taken by the Near Infrared Camera and Multi-Object Spectrometer (NICMOS), supports the idea of twin black holes pushing stars away. The NICMOS images revealed that the galaxy’s core was unusually faint, indicating a lack of stars close to the galactic center. A star-depleted core distinguishes massive galaxies from standard elliptical galaxies, which are much brighter in their centers. Ma and her colleagues estimated that the amount of stars tossed out of the central region equals 40 billion suns, comparable to ejecting the entire disk of our Milky Way galaxy.
###
For more information, visit:
http://www.nasa.gov/hubble http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2016/12/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
NASA still does space science? I would never guess 🙂
Muslim outreach.
You mean GISS!?
Maybe that’s where the missing heat is.
/snark
Seriously, it’s a reminder of just how small we are in this grand universe.
Well, certainly some of the missing matter if they are often one magnitude off in black hole mass estimates.
What does Pa say about it?
..You better ask Ma, she’s the real boss !
It sounds like Ma has found a different Kettle of fish.
That’s billion with a B.
g
Now we know where that missing Malaysian Airlines plane is…
Not in area of small towns, probably the rest was already eaten up.
Indeed. Why would a black hole not clear out a large area of space.
I don’t recall hearing about the velocity of a black hole but everything in space moves at some velocity. Is it possible that it moved from somewhere else?
And of course the Puppeteer fleet of worlds – five planets arrayed in a Klemperer rosette – are fleeing therefrom at just under light speed using the reactionless, inertialess drive they’d purchased from the Outsiders.
But they said this galactic core is imploding, not exploding.
THEY HAVE NOT DISCOVERED A BLACK HOLE, they discover effects they interpret as a black hole.
A world of difference.
Sorry for shouting
Mark,
What interpretation would you put on the stellar velocity measurements? Is there another plausible explanation?
It is a mark of arrogance (and maybe fear) to think we have all the answers. Sometimes, the most appropriate response to an observation is to admit we have no explanation. But there are those who are desperate to have an “explanation,” no matter what, no matter how dubious, no matter how speculative. These people are psychologically incapable of accepting that, on some point of life, they are ignorant.
Michael,
When physical observations confirm predictions, science is being practiced. When surprising results are found, that too is science.
I wouldn’t characterize Ma and her colleagues as desperate for an explanation.
So when they see a dozen or so stars in orbit around an invisible optical object that has a mass of over 4 million solar masses , in a space that’s not much bigger than the solar system, all in orbits they could trace out in a couple decades, what would you actually call it?
From the caption, “This computer-simulated image shows a super massive black hole”.
does that explain it?
” does that explain it?”
There’s been some good discover channel shows that discuss the hunt for the smbh at the center of the milky way, and how they came to the conclusion a very massive object there, that is not visible, as compared to the stars they can see orbiting said object.
Such a scene might look like the picture.
I think modern scientists could take some pointers from Newton who refused to try and explain something he did not know. He gave us the tools to predict gravity, but did not try to create a mechanism when he had no basis for one.
Newton was an alchemist who believed aether transmitted light particles. He probably believed in phlogiston too. Check your history, dude.
The theoretical basis for black holes is much more sound, based on a couple centuries of scientific inquiry yielding knowledge of the fundamental interactions. Perhaps you think there’s no basis for the strong and weak nuclear forces too…
He also believed the Earth was only about 6000 years old. Wrote a whole book on the topic of biblical chronology.
If we use Newton’s very own Laws, we would conclude (using micro6500’s example) that “a dozen or so stars in orbit around an invisible optical object that has a mass of over 4 million solar masses , in a space that’s not much bigger than the solar system, all in orbits they could trace out in a couple decades, what would you actually call it? [that invisible object]”. Whatever name you decide on, it’s an incredibly intense gravity source which fits the classical model of a …. black hole.
Considering we (currently) can only account for 4% of the visible universe’s mass and energy I’d say we’ve a long way to go. Naming something black doesn’t really cut it does it? Personally I’d call it the fudge factor. Be more accurate. When future physicists finally do figure it out they’ll cal this period the Dark Ages.
The replies to your comment notwithstanding, as time passes we see more credence given to Newton’s theories than Einstein’s. I don’t expect that trajectory to change. Black holes are placeholders for a purported relativistic phenomenon that, for the last century or so, defied science’s ironclad insistence on testability, falsifiability, and uniformity, not to mention common sense, none of which “black holes” – or cultish relativism – are particularly faithful at. There are simpler, better explanations for a variety of phenomena, among them black holes, creation myths about spontaneous existence, red shift, and more. We used to remember that there are a profound differences between science and scientism.
Rob,
“Newton was an alchemist who believed aether transmitted light particles.”
Whereas you believe . . ? What? What’s your solution?
“More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it…”
“Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense.”
~ Albert Einstein
“Newton was an alchemist who believed aether transmitted light particles”, against which official religious Science! of hundreds of years of further Scientific! experience believes that the non-entity of “spacetime” can be bent, warped, and possesses refractive properties as though it were transparent putty! And through which relativistic theory, also highly Scientific!, says “spooky” actions occur at vast distances virtually instantaneously. So which is it: Is the mad alchemist on to something speaking of aether, or are we daft ascribing it properties our own theories claim it cannot have?.
JohnKnight,
I’m no Einstein, but that quote seems to me little more than an equivocation saying “space is space” and not devoid of it’s own physical properties. I don’t disagree with that. Newton clearly was on to something, but relativity doesn’t require all space to be filled with an aetherial substance of varying density.
And John,
I certainly do not believe in alchemy. Do you?
Rob,
You must be young . .
“I’m no Einstein, but that quote seems to me little more than an equivocation saying “space is space” and not devoid of it’s own physical properties.”
What does that mean; “space is space”? That’s not not scientific anything . . seriously . . read his words again;
“According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time …”
“Space” is not empty . .
‘”I certainly do not believe in alchemy. Do you?”
Sure . . you’ve heard of fission and fusion, right?
” “According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time …”
“Space” is not empty . .”
A two’fer!
There’s no evidence of an ether.
Light, is an electric and magnetic field that will charge a vacuum. The Michelson Morley Experiment, explains things.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Michelson-MorleyExperiment.html
No insult intended, but I’m inclined to believe Mr.s Newton and Einstein, micro.
” No insult intended, but I’m inclined to believe Mr.s Newton and Einstein, micro.”
None taken, but Einstein proposed an aether, not an ether, and it seems to me Relativity iirc, did away with ether.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_aether_theory
“There’s no evidence of an ether.” Then there’s no evidence of black holes and a half dozen other completely speculative or downright conjectured “scientific” phenomenon, all of which placehold – using varying wild, fanciful notions like imaginary matter and spooky actions – either. You can’t say there’s no evidence of something that only you or your cohort lay claim to when you haven’t sufficiently defined what that is. Given the wild notions that modern cosmology hinges on, by the same rules there certainly is an aether which lends properties to relativity. If magical space-time, which is a word-play construct, can connect disconnected bodies in instantaneous communications, or which can be “bent”, or which can delay information, then it certainly has both evidence and properties.
@ten
” spooky actions”
Particles are being entangled and spooky action at a distance is being experimented on at universities all over the world.
Your denial of its existence does not make it true (that it doesn’t exist).
John,
I do appreciate the ad hominem jab, but it’s you who needs to reread it. He makes no attempt to hide the equivocation:
That’s not not a terrible attempt a writing a sentence… And for the reason that I’ve now emboldened for you, the Einstein quote isn’t particularly scientific either.
Furthermore, you misunderstand what he is trying to say. He is saying our universe doesn’t work without the relativity of spacetime. He is not saying, as Newton did:
Inquiry needs to start somewhere and Newton may have got the ball rolling, but since he was invoking the density of a mystery substance instead of the cosmic speed limit it appears that he was mistaken and guilty of the very sin that JeffinCalgary said he refused to do.
I never said space is empty.
Perhaps I should have been more specific. Newton didn’t know about neutrons and had no other basis for believing that base metals could be turned into gold. Do you believe in other tenets of alchemy besides transmutation? Do you believe in the elixir of life, or that metals precipitating from solution are alive?
Getting back to the beginning of this thread, the main point is that Newton used placeholder names just as modern scientists do. “Aether” is a placeholder name, no more specific than saying “mystery fluid”.
I, for one, prefer to say there’s a “black hole” at the center of our galaxy instead of “a super-massive body of incredible density which we predicted might be there, but can’t name because we don’t know everything about it yet”.
John,
Your arguments consist almost entirely of logical fallacies. I count four of them. The first one is appeal to authority. As I’ve demonstrated, your authority figure is guilty of committing the fallacy of equivocation. Next you call me young as a pejorative. Finally, you erect the tiny strawman “space is not empty”. Admittedly, I could have said something like “space is spacetime” instead of “space is space”, as Einstein is clearly referring to the implications of relativity. Considering that relativity is the subject of your authority’s conjecture, I believe my meaning should have been obvious to you, if not perfectly articulated.
Cheers,
Rob Morrow the Younger
“Particles are being entangled and spooky action at a distance is being experimented on at universities all over the world. Your denial of its existence does not make it true (that it doesn’t exist).”
I didn’t deny it, Rather, I challenged relativist universe types to reconcile it in a lightspeed “spacetime” universe where space had no properties but yet bends light while constraining its speed.
Rob,
I didn’t mean that “must be young” as an attack/slight . . It is simply that current/recent teaching is effectively crippling, as I see the matter, in terms of understanding the writings of earlier times, and I really have no way to undo in a comment or two the “damage” it seems to me has been done to many young people in this regard.
“He makes no attempt to hide the equivocation:”
Right, but that does not mean that anything which happens to pop into one’s mind at that moment, is the reason he “equivocated”. One can see a bit further on that he clearly and unequivocally indicates that he (like Mr. Newton) believed that some form of something pervasive (ether) makes it possible for light to propagate . . so any potential reason for the “equivocation” that may have popped into one’s head earlier, which does not conform to that clear indication, is pretty much irrelevant to the matter you initially “faulted” Mr. Newton about.
I believe you have been trained to not understand things that contradict your “reactive” mind . . kinda like third wave feminists/SJWs and such. You can see that question mark in this Newton quote for instance;
“Doth not this aethereal medium in passing out of water, glass, crystal, and other compact and dense bodies in empty spaces, grow denser and denser by degrees, and by that means refract the rays of light not in a point, but by bending them gradually in curve lines?”
… but don’t seem to recognize that the author is not declaring his beliefs . . He explains in the book that comes from that he is mearly putting forth questions that might lead to further understanding, questions that occurred to him . . but you have (apparently) been trained to react quickly, if it suits your momentary situation/argument. Trained not to understand therefor, if that reactive mind stuff is misleading/erroneous.
“John,
Your arguments consist almost entirely of logical fallacies.”
Or, you didn’t truly understand them . . right?
John,
You’ve more than doubled-down on your ad hominem attacks. You’ve acknowledged that the only evidence for aether you’ve presented is an equivocation, and In your desperation you seem to have forgotten what this conversation was about.
Whether or not he believed his conjectures were perfectly accurate is immaterial to anything I’ve said, and it was never my point. I did not fault Newton for using the language he used. I asserted that:
This conversation was about whether or not it’s appropriate to use terms like “black hole” or “aether for theorized phenomena for which there is incomplete evidence. My belief is “yes” and I commend Newton for his use of the aether concept. Relativity has been confirmed in all sorts of ways. Aether, not so much. In fact there is substantial evidence against the presence and necessity of aether as described by Newton. You have presented no scientific evidence in favour.
And still you say, with zero refutation of the fallacies I illustrated for you:
Of course Einstein believes that the properties of spacetime are what makes light propagation possible. In your quote he doesn’t even describe the aether, except to say more or less that his concept of spacetime has something in common with the aether concept (space has properties of it’s own). When Einstein developed special relativity he showed that Maxwell’s equations are satisfied with no aether. My position all along has been that Newton was on to something, but it wasn’t as accurate a way of describing our universe as relativity. I have tremendous respect for Newton. He truly is one of the giants on whose shoulders Einstein stood.
If you think that young people are stupid because they can’t be bullied into believing fallacious conjecture, then ageism isn’t your true affliction as much as it is lack of self awareness in the quality of your arguments and perhaps a lack of intelligence in general. You have presented nothing of value in this conversation.
This will be my last comment on this thread. I would prefer not to drop to your level and turn this into a shouting match independent of logic.
Cheers,
Rob Morrow the Younger
“John,
You’ve more than doubled-down on your ad hominem attacks”
You’ve more than bored the chit out of me, judge ; )
Does Newtonian gravity lead to black holes given enough accreted mass to get past all of the thermonuclear fusions, leaving gravity to keep on sucking ?
It’s not clear to me that you need relativity to get black holes; not that I’m saying relativity does not give a more detailed explanation ?
G
Yes, they interpret it to be a black hole. In fact, Einstein and Oppenheimer both said that black holes cannot form, no matter that you can take physical equations to extremes. Einstein said that before a mass got even to neutron star density, it’s incredible spin would tear it apart; Oppenheimer agreed. Now NASA says that they do not exist.
There are seven or eight models for black holes; that many because all of them have features that disagree with the known universe. Black hole aficionados ignore these critical problems and go hunting for snarks everywhere.
Now, quantum mechanics, which has been completely ignored by black hole advocates, has been found to have its say, in that quantum mechanics obviates black holes due to quantum effects. They would not be stable and come apart.
Ignoring quantum mechanics completely when talking about black holes is just like the way those who support the Big Bang model ignore the fact that redshirted light can be caused by receding objects AND by the gravitational field of objects, which yields quasars to be simply dense objects in local space and not receding objects at huge distances.
You cannot have gravity apply to black holes, claim you can detect them because gamma rays are redshifted to X-rays, and then ignore gravity-caused redshift when looking at other objects and assume they are receding. This is such a conditional, blinders kind of science, it amazing that it persists. It’s full of contradictions.
That settles it, doesn’t it? I’ve been working 16 years alone and Einstien agrees with me?
On the contrary.
Completely ignored? You are talking about 1960’s.
It appears you have a model which predicts black holes are not stable. Congratulations! The next part would be finding conclusive evidence to show coming apart in a way predicted by the theory.
That would be a shame, wouldn’t it? To apply gravity on a black hole?
It is most revealing how people start pushing their pet not-a-black-hole theories every time real paid astrophysicists find a very massive and very small object called a black hole.
Well as they say; ” Gravity sucks ! ”
It powers the sun/
So gravity can compress hydrogen atoms together until fusion takes place and heats the material to create a pressure that stops the expansion; well until all the hydrogen has been fused. And then the contraction continues again until an even greater density starts fusing the helium atoms. Well we all know generally the concept that causes unremitting contraction.
So now what is it that supplies the heating energy that stops the contraction to the neutron star or black hole state.
Seems to me that even Newtonian gravity would still compress matter in large enough assemblages to the black hole density.
I don’t understand how Einstein gravity and Newtonian gravity differ in detail, but I also don’t know why Newton’s gravity could not also create black holes.
As I said, I don’t understand it, but some of you black hole scoffers, could explain what it is that stops black holes just from gravity sucking.
G
“Gravity sucks powers the sun”. No it doesn’t; gravity was held to be a component. Modern solar physics also regards that stars are empty bodies, whose interiors are cooler than their coronas, for one of a number of findings that refute the only-gravity model. The hydrogen furnace model is part of the same obsolete paradigm that gave us all sorts of place-holding “explanations” for otherwise unexplainable phenomenon. It takes a century to replace these ideas, much as it’ll take a century for AGW to be replaced by a far more comprehensive science.
George,
Not a scoffer, just a skeptical old biologist who has been around long enough to have been burned a few times. This article reads like a bed time story. I don’t mean to disparage this crew of Astronomers, only the author.
Gemini North began scientific operations in 2000. Hmm. 15 years of operation and they can measure the rotational velocity of a galaxy with a snap shot. How many RPMM (revolutions per mega millenia) did they observe? With such precision. From a moving platform (earth)? 17,000,000,000,000 suns. My. A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon it ads up to some real mass.** Not a hint of uncertainty or doubt? Just the need to publish Something to justify their existence perhaps?
(**Senator Everett Dirkson is quoted as saying ‘A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon it adds up to real MONEY!’)
Heck, I’m skeptical of satellite records that only go back 30-40 years, not to mention temperature records that only go back 200 years. Skeptical of the professed precision, Not the integrity of the observers.
I read these articles about black holes and gravity and dark matter, and I am impressed that these experts think they have the math skills and observational abilities to calculate these things. I admit that I sure don’t, so who am I to throw stones? But judging from the arguments that abound there seems to be plenty of room for skepticism, especially when such articles are leavened with words like ‘unexpected’ or ‘surprised’ or ‘back to the drawing board’. I have been reading about black holes since they were first invented to explain observing something inexplicable.
The author says “The newly discovered supersized black hole resides in the center of a massive elliptical galaxy…”. Yum, it sounds like it comes with large fries and a cola hovering hidden just beyond the event horizon. (Doubtful MickyD’s has made it that far yet.)
You conclude with: “could [you] explain what it is that stops black holes just from gravity sucking.”
I cannot explain, but I can pose questions I cannot answer: How does gravity overcome electromagnetic repulsive forces that are 10^34 times more powerful than gravity? That is a lot of zeros, George.
These articles give not a hint of a whisper of a mention of plasma that populates interplanetary/interstellar/intergalactic space with Electric and Magnetic fields. What is the nature/shape of the Magnetic fields that surely must accompany black holes? How does neutronium not self destruct long before it accretes into a neutron star?
I don’t dismiss black hole theory or modeling out of hand. Yet when I read of plasma physicist Anthony Peratt computer modeling plasma formations and Birkeland currents at Los Alamos and generating simulated spiral galaxy formation using Maxwell-Lorentz forces without the need for dark matter as a hedge for missing mass, likewise I don’t dismiss plasma cosmology out of hand.
I observe enough spirited disagreement about such things to reach my own conclusion: there is much that we do not know.
“It is not what you don’t know that gets you in trouble, it is what you do know that just ain’t so.”- Mark Twain
When I play the piano I like to have all the notes available to use.
Given it’s mass, what else could it be?
The article contends that usually super black holes are at the center of larger star clusters – maybe it WAS a larger star cluster before the black hole engulfed other entities.
Yes, interesting thoughts
I was thinking along similar lines… perhaps it just ate the neighbors already…
Cheers!
Joe
First thing that came to my mind, then I thought , how can it keep on existing when it doesn’t get more mass added? Or is there still matter available to it? The energy that it emits in the form of various other radiations would deplete it or am I way of the mark, as in confusing a black hole with a neutron star ? ( I am not in any way near this level of physics, just a interested reader but I wonder.)
” The energy that it emits in the form of various other radiations would deplete it or am I way of the mark, ”
No. Basically, QM postulates that vacuum is seething with virtual particles, Hawking postulated that these virtual particles, which normally annihilate each other (virtual particles are created out of borrowed energy as matter/ antimatter pairs), some of these pairs will form on both sides of the event horizon, half the pair is trapped, the other half is, wait for it, Hawking Radiation.
A black hole does not emit any energy, that’s why it’s called a black hole. Things go in but nothing ever comes out. Any radiation you see is emitted by stuff as it accelerates towards the event horizon. Also, because it has mass, you will see gravitic effects as radiation or mass passes nearby (lensing, spectral shifting, perturbations, etc).
Thanks, micro6500 and bregmata, micro, so according to Hawking there is radiation ( energy??) escaping but bregmata’s claim that the only thing we see actually happens on this side of the event horizon, so that still leaves me with the same question, simply put can black holes eventually “lose” mass and disappear? Or is that still an unanswered question. To me they need “fuel” but if the fuel is not within the gravity well of the black hole then it should not get bigger and if it loses “fuel due to Hawking radiation it should then get smaller and smaller and if it does get smaller it should then lose even more gravitational force and continue to get smaller and eventually disappear.
“Thanks, micro6500 and bregmata, micro, so according to Hawking there is radiation ( energy??) escaping but bregmata’s claim that the only thing we see actually happens on this side of the event horizon, so that still leaves me with the same question, simply put can black holes eventually “lose” mass and disappear? Or is that still an unanswered question.”
Hawking radiation happens on this side of the event horizon(the free half of the virtual pair), but the captured half of the virtualized particles add to the mass of the black hole.
micro black holes, are supposed to evaporate, but I don’t really remember how, it might be thermal.
So, I decided I could just use google, here’s a good explanation.
http://www.universetoday.com/119794/how-do-black-holes-evaporate/
“It comes down to perspective. From an outside observer watching the black hole’s event horizon, it appears as if there’s a glow of radiation coming from the black hole. If that was all that was happening, it would violate the law of thermodynamics, as energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Since the black hole is now emitting energy, it needs to have given up a little bit of its mass to provide it.
Let’s try another way to think about this. A black hole has a temperature. The more massive it is, the lower its temperature, although it’s still not zero.
From now and until far off into the future, the temperature of the largest black holes will be colder than the background temperature of the Universe itself. Light from the cosmic microwave background radiation will fall in, increasing its mass.
Now, fast forward to when the background temperature of the Universe drops below even the coolest black holes. Then they’ll slowly radiate heat away, which must come from the black hole converting its mass into energy.
The rate that this happens depends on the mass. For stellar mass black holes, it might take 10^67 years to evaporate completely. ”
Now, so my comment above , I keep seeing references that Hawking radiation actually decreases the mass, as the energy from creating the virtual pair has to come from somewhere, in QM, they can borrow the energy for their existence before returning it. While I haven’t seen this in any of the things I quickly read, the trapped particle, could pair with another trapped anti particle, and evaporate from inside the event horizon, that would reduce mass.
Micro black holes are suppose to be hot, which could be from the same source as the mass reduction inside the event horizon, free virtual particles on our side of the event horizon could also combine with a free anti particle, which since they are now virtualized are converted to heat.This is why they become hot, and if they are warmer than their environment, they emit more heat than they take in, and evaporate as heat.
No one has ever found a black hole, everyone talks as if they are physically real. They were created by abusing relativity. Even Einstein thought they were bunk
That depends on your definition of “found”. Unless you believe your eyes are deceiving you when you look at animations of orbital data of stars at the galactic centre, then there is most certainly a physically real object there consistent with what would be expected of a black hole.
By your definition “black hole” is indeed a placeholder: An untestable conjecture that as such has no reliable basis in the relativity it’s all but officially decreed to represent. That I can buy: “What else would we call it” is a good question because it honestly renders this a semantic problem and demotes it from the wholly “scientific” entity contemporary relativity cultism has projected upon it. There are manifestations of observed but unknown phenomena and then there are the claims of official science. They’re not the same thing.
Since one cannot theoretically see a black hole, except perhaps if you were inside the event horizon, how would you “find” one without first falling into one?
Mark,
Einstein predicted black holes in his general theory. You might be thinking of singularities, which did concern him, as so contrary to ordinary experience.
It took until 1971 before a black hole was actually “observed”, although the name dates to the ’60s.
Maybe it is these massive black holes that are causing our climate to change. Maybe they are a result of global warming as everything else is. So maybe it is Man’s use of fossil fuels that is causing these black holes to form and if we stop using fossil fuels these massive black holes will go away. Maybe we should be allocating money to solving the black hole problem.
The only black hole we know exists is found here on earth, it’s called Renewable
Mark i have heard of those black holes. they suck into themselves large amounts of taxpayer dollars.
Yes, and you don’t get anything out of them. Ever.
Have you forgotten the “Smart Grid?”
Nah, solar and wind is the smbh on earth. Hydro, geothermal, a *little* biomass are cost effective if you have the resource.
In a sparsely populated area of the universe? Exactly what does that mean in proper scientific language?
jsuther2013: “In a sparsely populated area of the universe? Exactly what does that mean in proper scientific language?”, it means the local population has had to flee because of sea level rise caused by CAGW, of course.
How many solar masses in a black hole would it take to break space time field lines and create say a big bang? What is the energy requirement to break the field, not just stir it up?
It’s just amazing what we are learning nowadays from our scientific endeavors. Lots of things I thought I would never see or know in my lifetime, are revealing themselves. Wonderful!
We’re not learning, we’re guessing. Educated guesses maybe, but still guesses. Aren’t all these space-calculations based on models? I mean, do they just accept whatever comes out of the computers running their space-models?
The stellar velocities are observed. The mass of the black hole is then computed based upon formulae repeatedly shown valid.
Gloateus: “The stellar velocities are observed. The mass of the black hole is then computed based upon formulae repeatedly shown valid.”
Yes but it’s still conjecture. Pure and simple. I mean, they ‘may’ be right. But then again, they may not be. So it’s inappropriate to state categorically that “they’ve found a black hole” blah blah blah. “They ‘might’ have found a black hole…” or “They’ve found something that ‘leads them to believe it’s a black hole…” These claims would be more accurate.
Or is this another case of “the science is settled!” and “the time for debate is over!”? And anyone who’s skeptical is a black hole denier. Where have I heard that before?
“Or is this another case of “the science is settled!” and “the time for debate is over!”?”
Yes, I believe it is. The scientific debate over the existence of black holes is pretty much over. There is still very much a debate about the detailed nature of black holes and the existence of singularities.
seaice1: “Yes, I believe it is. The scientific debate over the existence of black holes is pretty much over. There is still very much a debate about the detailed nature of black holes and the existence of singularities.”
You obviously haven’t learned anything from the AGW debate! Science is never “settled”! The great American physicist Richard Feynman pointed that out when he said “If you though science is certain, well that is just an error on your part!” We spend so much time and effort drying to drum this very point into the thick heads of the globull warmists and climate alarmist twits and here you are saying exactly the same thing they do: “the science is settled” “the debate is over!”. Bollocks!
Good question
Resourceguy on April 11, 2016 at 1:04 pm
How many solar masses in a black hole would it take to break space time field lines and create say a big bang? What is the energy requirement to break the field, not just stir it up?
It would just take the whole universe to prepare for a next big bang.
Regards – Hans
For a universe that is rapidly dispersing, there has to be a great anti-dispersant (concentrator) to do the opposite and set up conditions for my question above. Such opposite patterns are out there on a smaller scale with super novae in the dispersal mode and super massive black holes in the concentrator mode. We just need to scale it all up and model the gravity among other things.
Solar Panels that use rain to produce power !!…IMHO, I think CAGW research is the biggest black hole in the universe !
Link…
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2016/04/11/electric-rain-solar-panel-turns-raindrops-into-power.html?intcmp=hpbt4
1) how big is it in….feet?
2) something that big might have a twin or was a twin at one space.. With its diet of stuff, one would think that it would be quite the gravity pulse generator.
What is a black hole? It’s not really so clear…
http://www.nature.com/news/astrophysics-fire-in-the-hole-1.12726
http://www.nature.com/news/stephen-hawking-there-are-no-black-holes-1.14583
It ate the neighborhood.
Yes, another feature of the black hole in NGC 1600 is that the discoverers characterize it as “dormant”, meaning that it doesn’t have a huge accretion disk and high energy jets of matter streaming out of at near light speed. So, how long ago was it active, and if so, what happened to all the matter that was expelled in its jets?
Why “unlikely place?” There is a supermassive black hole in the center of every large galaxy.
jsuther2013
April 11, 2016 at 1:04 pm
Gus
April 11, 2016 at 1:16 pm
Until now, the biggest supermassive black holes – those roughly 10 billion times the mass of our sun – have been found at the cores of very large galaxies in regions of the universe packed with other large galaxies. In fact, the current record holder tips the scale at 21 billion suns and resides in the crowded Coma galaxy cluster that consists of over 1,000 galaxies.
“The newly discovered supersized black hole resides in the center of a massive elliptical galaxy, NGC 1600, located in a cosmic backwater, a small grouping of 20 or so galaxies,” said Ma.
Makes you wonder about dark matter.
They say this unseen monster ate all the gas in the galaxy it is alleged to be found in, now that is one giant leap of faith here, this is not science.
Getting the images, getting data, that is science, but the nonsense this science gets turned into in theoretical astrophysics is laughable.
The mere idea of infinite space-time curvature is a mockery of science. Near infinite is just as illogical, Astrophysicists dont understand that mathematical infinite is infinite numerical increment, so in order for anything to be near infinite, “near infinite” must also be an ever changing number that is, “near infinite” is actually infinity as well.
Black holes are static, yet the universe is isn’t. Doesn’t add up.
Think about it, for each alleged black holes they have claimed to find, how much infinite space-time curvature is that?
And nothing can escape, even though the escape velocity is c. Light travels at c but cant escape. Odd.
The big bang and resulting singularity. First of all, lets be clear, all this stuff we see around you came from nothing, that’s the theory, just appeared from (something, we have no idea what was before) and pop universe, but just before that universe popped out, everything was in a singularity.
Also, at that density, if there were particles, they couldn’t move at all, the temp would be absolute 0, not “infinitely hot” as Hawking said.
So by the very theory, it’s pants. I am not dissing Einstein here, or relativity, I am calling out the loonies who have taken his work and made fantasies of it because many cant accept they wasted their careers
I am nt saying anything stupid like the whole field is bunk, no, but things like Dark Matter, a magical non radiation emitting magical invisible matter that defies the laws of physics? c’mon 😀 More junk science created with models, ahh yes models.
The whole concept of 2 black holes merging was a play with numerical methods, it was never a physical reality! They did the maths and went looking, a bit like doing climate modelling and then looking for evidence.. remember there used to be a MWP 🙂 in science sometimes there is revisionism, astrophysics and climate science.
When evidence stares them in the face, ala a big Hydrogen cloud sailing by an alleged super massive black hole at the centre of our own galaxy, it was “mysterious”. A few fewered guesses thrown out, like “binary system in the gas cloud”, because they quickly did the maths to see what sort of magical gravity they needed, had it been farther away naturally the equations would have produced a single system, essentially this excuse could be adapted to any circumstances, and NASA call it science.
This is what Planck meant about waiting for new generations for science to move on. This generation coming through has many dissenters, I read so much of it now, some crank but other good stuff, that’s the beauty of it, dogma is for the intellectually weak.
Ask yourself, how many respected institutions have spend real money on trying to break Relativity or mainly theories that stem from it?
Rant over 😀
Well let me supplement the rant with one about physics/physicists in general:
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/the-man-behind-the-curtain/99999
And also for something to physically exist in this universe, in my opinion it must be an exchange of information, not one way, so if a black hole just sucks everything in, it is receiving information but not exchanging anything, so to the outside world it does not exist if it does not exchange information.
Dark Matter apparently doesn’t exchange information either and exists to us lol.
I read somewhere recently a NASA article about black holes burping 😀
So we have how many types now, micro to super massive, white ones, and ones that don’t consume gas or distort light.
FYI given stars with a lot of helium can exist questions the theory that gives birth to stars and black holes alike 😉
[snip attack comment, unnecessary -mod]
Mark says,
“The big bang and resulting singularity. First of all, lets be clear, all this stuff we see around you came from nothing, that’s the theory, just appeared from (something, we have no idea what was before) and pop universe, but just before that universe popped out, everything was in a singularity.”
========================
Well Mark, welcome to the cosmological argument. (research it) What is your answer, everything that is always was, with no cause? (steady state) If that is true, and equally or more so, well beyond any laws of physics, then why has not everything already happened that could happen?
I believe that is nitpicking. Einstein and hawking said “you cant create energy out of nothing”.
Now if we look at the history of the theory, according to Hannes Alfvein, the Belgian Priest slash mathematician, brilliant as he was , admitted he set out to prove St Augustine’s dictum of Creation out of nothing” so the theory has a basis in religion.
Einstein tended to agree with what I am saying re black holes.
Besides make an argument, you basically said “ugh yeh the internet” 😀
It doesn’t need to be belligerent mate, just waffling here, it’s not a bad thing
“What is your answer, everything that is always was, with no cause? (steady state) If that is true, and equally or more so, well beyond any laws of physics, then why has not everything already happened that could happen?” ~ David
Western Religion with its “creator god” claims that some being outside of space and time created the universe. The “big bang” boys also claim everything came from outside the present universe. The steady-state fellows bypass all that and say it has all been here all along. (but where did it originally come from?)
We do not know where everything came from and we should just own up to that. The Taoists are much better at the explanation of their Tao. They don’t know!
Then there is the mystical strains of those like Alan Watts who see a “god” that is dreaming all parts of a giant play. You are “god” dreaming a part, so am I, and so on. But where did the dreamer come from???
We get to the place where you pick your favorite creation myth and I’ll pick mine, but for god’s sake don’t try to claim yours is more “scientific” than mine. (or rational for that matter)
Mark S,
The Big Bang boys don’t claim that everything came from outside the universe. One school of thought does say that it’s possible that nothing preceded the Big Bang, but that’s probably a minority among current cosmologists.
As noted, others think that the universe ran “backwards” before the Big Bang, while others, often String theorists, posit a multiverse. There are other schools of thought, as well.
Science may never be able to peer beyond the Big Bang, but I suspect ways and means will be found to do so.
Mark, Markstoval, and Gloteaus , please do not think I was being “nitpicking” or flippant, and certainly I was not claiming all the answers. Rather my message or argument if you will is the cosmological argument which presents the dilemma of duality.
All science is based on deductive logic and the arrow of time running in one direction, from past to resent, from cause to affect. Science is also limited to numbers, and infinity s not an option. Now I am not talking about the mathematical sign for infinity used in mathematics and utilitarian for many things such as feedback responses in certain system, but actual infinity, which is not thought of as a number. No number is closer to infinity, as it is, by definition, infinitely beyond any number. Science, to function however is limited by itself, it own internal cause and affect logic, to quantifying observations via numbers; The atom, like the earth is polar, positive and negative, to define “anything” the “everyTHING” must be “quantifiable” and exist in the chain of causation.
I was not intending to pick on anybody’s origin theory, be it “Big Bang, Steady State, Multiverse, etc… except to say THEY ALL suffer the same shortcoming; they are limited to the scientific method, self defined by the chain of time, or cause and affect; quantifying numbers, incapable of reaching finality. As Marconi said, “powerless to reach finality”. Science is the perfect tool for discovering the laws of an existing and function cosmos, but powerless to reach finality, or to put this in religious terms, powerless to detect ar define an infinite law framer, sole operator, or causeless cause, something infinite beyond the laws of cause and effect, unquantifiable.
Yet this infinite energy source, causeless cause, existing beyond the laws of cause and effect, appears to be the logically required answer. Certainly zero (all things come from nothing) does not appear to be the any answer. So to explain all THINGS quantifiable, something infinite and beyond the laws of cause and effect is required, as all things quantifiable require a prior cause, and this chain is then self defined, demanding not “ZERO” all things just are and have no number, but demanding infinity, not a number, but an infinite energy causeless cause, poetically phrased, “Colossal container, I of all things made” In short the existence of any quantifiable “anyTHING” demands an infinite first cause beyond the laws of science. Phrased differently, the existence of any numbers between one and infinity requires infinity, not zero.
Yes, Steady State demands that “everything” or all things finite and quantifiable (one to any number) come from nothing, they just are; affect, a rather large one, with no cause.
Mutltiverse only extends the cause effect problem, and so can never be a finale answer. It has other failings as well when one attempts to use it to explain everything as coming from nothing. We only have one observable, this universe. In this Universe all the fundamental forces appear to operate on laws formulated to allow structure and evolution. (Design) The everything from nothing view postulates that the other universes may have different random laws, which do not indicate an intelligent design of perfectly balanced fundamental forces allowing evolution, but may simply fall apart and never really form. However this is sheer speculation, and the one observable we do have indicates something quite different; so it appears, from our one observable universe, that if there are multiverses, then they may well all operate on the same or similarly perfectly balanced fundamental laws allowing structure, evolution, intelligence, consciousness, etc, to all develop.
Big Bang requires not nothing, but talking to Physicists, infinite energy. Not just the regressive ever shrinking of the singularity into progressively more dense energy, but actual infinite energy.
So Markstoval, while I am postulating that an infinite energy beyond the laws of cause and effect, by all observational evidence intelligent force, is more rational then an “everything comes from nothing, it always just is” process, I am however not engaging in debate about which human view of this infinite energy beyond the laws of cause and effect, causeless cause, is correct. In fact, according to both Christian and Hindu theologians, that Infinite energy First cause is not ever fully knowable. I am also asserting that science, while awesome, cannot not, due to its limitations of quantifiable numbers, ever have infinite solutions, yet those infinite answers do exist.
Aren’t there people trying to show that the universe, as we know it, is a giant simulation? In which case there is a cause. However, you have the next problem of determining where the simulators came from and how far nested in simulations we might be. And so on…
That we exist at all seems to be amazing.
I like guessing and speculating about all this stuff. Each guess or speculation gives us something to focus on and test. And we work from there. I think it is poor form to dis people because they declare their conclusions and take the risk that they might be wrong. If we just chill out a bit and take people stating things as fact and take their conclusions with a grain of salt, we have the flexibility to confirm or refine the thoughts or throw them out. It is when we are forced to agree to “settled science” on climate or other topics for the purposes of actual policy, when so much is unknown that scares me.
With regard to black holes, I’m puzzled. If an area of space is occupied by a mass large enough to keep light from escaping actually exists, then I think “black hole” is a good descriptor of it. The structure of what is inside the event horizon may be debatable, but regardless of what Einstein or Hawking have to say, it seems there are observations of things orbiting massive objects in that mass range. So you either have to debunk the observations or the calculations based on those observations to say the phenomenon doesn’t exist. So I think it is fine to label them as black holes for the time being. What the actual nature of what those objects are is still debatable. I think they exist, but we don’t really know much about them.
Mark,
I suggest you read “The 5 Ages of the Universe” (http://www.amazon.com/Five-Ages-Universe-Physics-Eternity/dp/0684865769/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1460407898&sr=1-1&keywords=5+ages+of+the+universe) for an excellent introduction to the science of black holes, the big bang, inflation, space-time curvature etc.
To address a single point: ‘And nothing can escape, even though the escape velocity is c. Light travels at c but cant escape. Odd.”
c is a finite number. As the mass of something increases, the spacetime curvature increases. At a given point, the escape velocity of this curvature exceeds c, and light can not excape (hence why these monsters are called “black holes”. Nothing odd; just simple physics, in much the same manner that there is a maximum incline of a road that a car cannot drive along.
C is the constant speed of light is it not?
As for mass, you are talking relativist mass yes? Which is energy mass, not mass, rest mass and momentum. It doesn’t actually increase the actual mass of an object, momentum and rest mass energy I thought. Photons have no mass,
Besides, I already pointed out an observed flaw in your argument, what you say is the result of equations, not something ever seen.
If these geoces are indeed so, how does this explain why stars can orbit close on our own SHBM and the geoces have no influence on light. This is observation vs theory
Plus, the people who have been pushing this theory also say photons have no mass, some disagree of late, personally if you can have mass energy conversion then you can have energy mass conversion but hey ho, I am no mathematician, I live in the actual world 😛
So a massless particle cannot gain relativist mass according to theory if it has no rest mass?
Mark, black holes have no hair? That’s an old model. The fact is that we have no idea about what happens inside a black hole. You do have a valid argument that it is quite possibly not a singularity, but has a finite, albeit extremely high, density. It’s not really provable either way that I can tell. However, they do have a temperature (it’s not infinitely hot, I don’t know where you got that one). Quantum jitters do occur that allow photons near the horizon to jump across and out of the horizon, and the result is Hawking radiation. For most black holes, it’s a fraction of a degree above 0K since it’s a very slow process, but it’s not that complex once you think about it.
However, what they are doing is seeing evidence, coming up with theories, making predictions, and then looking for verifying or refuting evidence. This is how science is supposed to work. True, they should couch their theories in less certain language, but that’s entirely different than claiming the whole field of astrophysics is nonsensical.
Mark,
That physics doesn’t have all the answers and raises new questions as understanding improves is a good thing. Some might be arrogant or trough-feeding time-servers, but most IMO genuinely try to find things out.
No one can presently know what came before the Big Bang from our observation point. Two hypotheses are 1) that, as you stated, nothing existed before it, and 2) that everything that now exists existed before it. In the latter case, time ran “backwards” as the universe contracted, until it had gotten much, much smaller than an atom, then time reversed to run “forward”, as now, and the universe expanded. Or we could live in one universe among others in a multiverse.
There is physical evidence for and against these conjectures and others. In 50 years, there may be some convincing answers. Or not.
A lot of Dark Matter is ordinary, baryonic matter that just happens to be too dim to detect. It’s not all “magical”.
” Some might be arrogant or trough-feeding time-servers, but most IMO genuinely try to find things out.”
You might be right, you might not be. My observation is that most are just lab rats doing time.
I once was talking to a professor who was reputed to be a world expert on “the gravitational constant”. He has some experiment of his design up in space as we talked that day. He told me that there were very few real scientists who pushed science ahead. Most were just workers replicating and checking; or else gathering data. I think he mentioned 1 in a 1,000 were real scientists.
I don’t know if the guy was right, or even if he might have been having a little sport at my expense. But, for some reason, I believed him.
Mark,
Maybe he was thinking about the majority of academic “scientists” who work as teachers rather than researchers. I excluded them. Then there is the majority of scientists who work in industry rather than academia. They need to produce results, regardless of a search for “truth”, as in basic rather than applied science.
So your impression and mine really aren’t that far apart. I just happen to have a lot of colleagues, friends and acquaintances who are academics motivated, it seems to me, by a desire to discover reality.
Government scientists are a special case of institutionalized academics.
I like your “rant”. I am not enamored with the BBT either.
Language is a mental construct that allows us sentences like ‘have you too been on the sun? ‘
And mathematics is a human construct that lets us deal whith Infinities when in the real existing universe everything is ending.
That’s how any lie comes into the World.
Now we know why that area is “sparsely populated” This big guy ate them all….
Before I forget, there was also a long study of stars orbiting the alleged SMBH at the center of our own galaxy. When those stars passed in close orbit, there was no effect on light from the stars. This again was “strange” and “mysterious” 🙂
interestingly, NASA did say that “magnetic ropes” connect the sun to the earth during northern lights events. Magnetic ropes are not possible without a current to create them, and the claim should be then electric current passing between the sun and earth when there are northern lights. The magnetic field is a consequence of the current, magnetic fields don’t just head off on their merry way, they are gradients unless being shaped by current surely.
I wonder how much energy passes along these “ropes” and in which direction?
Mark @ur momisugly 1:48 pm April 11, Didn’t NASA just send up 2 sats into the Van Allen belts to research just that? In a nut shell they are trying to find out why magnetic fields connect and disconnect from solar wind influences. AM I correct? It to me seems a really interesting and valuable effort to understand the way the Van Allan belts interact with our planet and from what I gather they are important in protecting life on earth.
Dr Mann dishonest, lying, dangerous..
Faked data, lied, put himself before his cause and played it as saving humanity
Wouldn’t listen to anyone, sold out his profession and his soul, truly the worst of humanity.
Of course I am talking about the Movie Interstellar.
“astronomers had developed a correlation between a black hole’s mass and the mass of its host galaxy’s central bulge of stars”
“It appears that that relation does not work very well with extremely massive black holes;”
And yet again, NASA is absolutely certain that Humans are cause of Global Warming, Climate Change, Global Climate Disruption ………………………
News Flash NASA: CO2’s relation does not work very well with claims of Man-made Global Warming either!
Not all of NASA. UAH is a shining counter example.