From Daily TechThe Milky Way’s black hole is causing a mess, but isn’t gobbling matter as fast as was thought
One of the most complex and intriguing astrophysical phenomenon is the supermassive black hole. A superdense cluster of mass, the supermassive black hole gobbles up surrounding matter, sucking it into its gravity well. Despite the tremendous importance of these celestial bodies to the structure of our universe, scientists still remain confused about specifics of how they operate.
Supermassive black holes help to shape our universe, but their behavior is still poorly understood
. (Source: PureInsight.org)
It is a well known fact that there is a supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy, the Milky Way. Dubbed Sagittarius A* (Sgr A*), the black hole is rather weak, due to its inability to successfully capture significant mass. The black hole is bordered by dozens of young stars. It pulls gas off these stars, but is only able to suck in a small percentage of this high velocity stream.
Past estimates put its consumption rate at a mere 1 percent of the gas it pulls away from the stars. Now a new study, using data garnered from the NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory, has determined that the black hole is likely eating far less than that figure even — new models indicate it to be consuming a mere 0.01 percent of the gas it sucks off.
Read the rest of the story here.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I do most sincerely wish that persons on this thread were familiar with basic physics. If one does not allow for relativity, sufficient matter put in the same place will accumulate to the point where the escape velocity at the surface exceeds the speed of light. This was posited by Fritz Zwicky in the 1930s. He wanted to use large objective prisms to detect the characteristic change in the spectra of stars occulted by black holes. The same conclusion was arrived at by Chanrasekhar, who was denied the freedom to publish by Eddington (who did not believe such objects existed).
Applying general relativity to the situation is difficult, but comes to the same conclusion. Black holes exist, as a consequence of the lack of an energy source to overcome gravity once the low point (iron point) of the nuclear packing fraction is reached. This happens when one exceeds the Chandrasekhar limit. Of course his results depend on quantum mechanics, as he computed that there would be insufficient separate quantum (Pauli exclusion) states above his limit.
I agree that there are many who do not accept quantum mechanics; Einstein certainly did not, even at the end of his life. If you do not accept quantum mechanics, there are a large number of laboratory observations which must be otherwise explained, for the purpose of consistency.
It is unfortunate that the center of our galaxy is wrapped in dust. That makes observations difficult. This is not house dust; it is molecular interstellar material which absorbs light and makes Sag A* hard to observe. There have been fierce arguments during the past 40 years about the nature of Sag A*. These arguments are in the scientific literature.
Stars and gas orbit Sag A*. Their spectra are red- or blue-shifted by their velocities. These stars and the gas are very difficult to observe. Simply because Sag A* is massive does not mean that the gravitational field is infinite; it simply means that the gravity field is very large. All stars vent gas; near Sag A* the gas interacts with the gravity field and swirls in toward the accretion disk, from which infall takes place.
Of course Sag A* is invisible; its event horizon does not allow any radiation of any form to escape. I am not counting Hawking radiation here; this (again) depends on quantum mechanics, quantum foam, and other esoteric theories.
To account for the observed flows of matter around Sag A* (most have been done with radio astronomy), the “simplest” solution is a black hole. All other theories have not explained the observed phenomena.
It is all scientific theories. If you can account for the observed phenomena by some other means, go ahead.
Both!
Once matter/energy (light etc.) crosses the event horizon it cannot get back out due to the high gravitation. However, material that is pulled toward the black hole almost always has some radial velocity (not headed directly for the center of the singularity. As a result it enters into a orbit and accumulates in an accretion disk (sort of like Saturn’s rings). This material orbits faster and faster as it gets closer to the event horizon, and is heated to very high temperatures. As a result of these very high temperatures, it radiates a great deal of energy that tends to blow other material away from the black hole due to the radiation pressure. This then limits how much and how fast new material can be drawn toward the black hole. Black holes can also eject some matter/energy from their poles as jets but the mechanics of this process is not fully understood (as are all the other details of black hole behavior).
http://www.physorg.com/news79361214.html
Black holes also tend to “evaporate” slightly as a small amount of material can leak across the event horizon, but this leakage is only significant as I understand it in very small black holes.
Larry
I should add that when i say ‘stars orbit around behind’, i’m referring to those stars mean orbits that travel the far side of Sag A, and not directly behind it.
There is term for that, just can’t remember what its called.
“Oliver K. Manuel (12:06:45) :
There are no black holes. But there are supermassive neutron stars.
Repulsive forces between neutrons prevent the collapse of a neutron star into a black hole.”
———-
Can someone briefly explain the “repulsive forces between neutrons” for me? I can understand the repulsive forces of like charges. I am unclear on the repulsive forces between neutral particles.
Thank you.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Peratt%27s_galaxy_formation_simulation.jpg
It’s worse than we thought!
A black hole that has been fasting for so long has got to be getting really hungry! You don’t want to be in or even in a nearby galaxy when there is a blackhole feeding frenzy going on.
The problem isn’t some risk of falling in and becoming dessert but rather the inhospitable climate that surrounds a galaxy containing a gluttonous blackhole.
It’s been known for some time now that there was a very heavy, very small object at the center of our galaxy. What’s interesting is that there is nothing there we can detect. Rather we can see and track the orbit of stars that orbit around this object. As it turns out, if you can determine the orbit of an object, you can calculate the mass of the object it is orbiting. The object turns out to be a few million solar masses. On the other hand, there are no stars observed which even approach several hundred solar masses and those very few stars over ten times the mass of the Sun are extremely bright and die very young.
Gravity, even that at a distance from a massive object or black hole is plain old gravity – just like Earth’s or for that matter, just like the gravity caused by a fruit on your kitchen table. We’ve all got it (it’s worse than we thought?). The difference is that for the Earth, the maximum gravity occurs at the surface and as you go down from there, gravity gets less. If the Earth shrunk to the size of a marble, you could get much closer to all the mass and the amount of gravitational force (classical) or warping of space (general relativity) would be far greater.
For small black holes, that means extremely high density – amount of mass per volume. A neutron star has the density of the nucleus of an atom. Neutron stars form when the mass is greater than the ability of the matter making it up to have atoms. This occurs when you have about 1.4 or more solar masses collapsed into a white dwarf star. Once you go beyond something between 3 and 10 solar masses, the neutrons can no longer oppose the gravity so they collapse. What happens then is called a black hole. There is nothing KNOWN that will support the matter against gravity.
Science being science is never settled, even when there is a significant concensus. Pretty much, everyone in astronomy, professional and amateur alike accepts the notion of the black hole as described by general relativity models with an event horizon (or two) where nothing including light escapes. Many also ascribe super high density to them in order to exist within the event horizon and potentially some other myths about them.
However, there are other alternative ideas, probably far less popular than climate skepticism, but they nevertheless exist and some have evidence to suggest they are real.
One possibility is the concept of a quark star. This assumes that a collapsing neutron star will be supported by the quark components. None have ever been detected, but then no one knows just what is going to happen here at the extreme.
Another possibility is the MECO, magnetospheric eternally collapsing object. This is something that never fully collapses because radiation pressure limits the collapse because of an Eddington limitation on how much radiation can escape due to its small size. There does appear to possibly be some evidence observed that suggest this could be the case associated with the magnetic field location of the object. It also been claimed that there cannot be both the black hole and the MECO (nonmagnetic version ECO) and that all must be one or the other. Essentially, you get an extremely small object but it never creates a true black hole with the matter inside of an event horizon.
It’ll be interesting to see just how this turns out. Which will be right and just how will that be determined – if it can be. Whatever the case, we can have extremely small objects – like a star twice the mass of the Sun collapsing into an object smaller in diameter than some cities and even something with several million times the mass of the Sun fitting into something significantly smaller than the size of our solar system.
While the neutron star has the density of a atomic nucleus, the super massive black hole achieves the condition of all mass within the event horizon with an average density of only that of liquid water – at least in the nonrotating original theoretical case.
Remember now, the one thing we do know is that there are stars we can see and measure that are orbiting an object that has the mass of millions of Suns and that the orbits come really close to this object – meaning it is tiny, and that we cannot see this object because it’s radiating very little.
Also, whatever it actually is, one might as well call it a black hole, even if it is not exactly what theory describes as a black hole.
“It is a well known fact”
This has to be one of the most over-abused phrases in the world.
MartinGAtkins (14:40:06) :
Oliver K. Manuel (12:06:45) :
A neutron star is not dense enough to form a black hole. Google “Schwarzschild radius”.
The strong force is what prevents neutrons from collapsing further. Remember that to get to a neutron star in the first place the electron degeneracy pressure had to be overcome by a gravitational force caused by greater than 1.38 solar masses. The electrons and protons are squeezed together into neutrons.
It takes something on the order of two solar masses to generate enough gravitational force to overcome neutron degeneracy pressure. After which there is nothing we currently know of to stop a collapse down to a singularity. Presto! The radius of the collapsing mass becomes less than the Schwarzschild radius and a black hole is born.
Proof that black holes exist was found as far back as 2002. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/blackhole_milkyway_021016.html
Of course since then we have also seen our central blac hole per the article at the top of this thread.
To be serious: If dark matter existed, shouldn’t it fall into the black hole and if not why not?
So, this is it. We’re going to die.
Oh, hang on. I mean , DON’T PANIC.
Whew, that was close. Carry on.
Um, now what was I doing?
Ok i found an answer on google or yahoo answers.
Because they can’t find each other.
UK readers of a certain age may remember this slogan: “Milky Way, the sweet you can eat between meals.”
A neutron star is not dense enough to form a black hole. Google “Schwarzschild radius”.
Better still just go here for the good news.
Schwarzschild solution and his so-called radius are as bogus as global warming theory. Schwartzchild’s solution is no ever Sshwartzchild’s it’s an error filled attempt by Hilbert.
The Black Hole, the Big Bang, and Modern Physics
It’s amazing how a basic error can be believed as sacrosanct by so many so-called geniuses because no one bothered to check the data. They just accepted it at face value and kept teaching it as a “fact”, denouncing anyone who dared to question the core belief.
http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/index.html
tallbloke (16:30:34) :
“It is a well known fact”
This has to be one of the most over-abused phrases in the world.
Yeah, I agree, it seems that most posters don’t know squat about anything.
I’m sure we could solve this problem by creating a huge gas trading market. We could buy gas offsets for those poor stars to keep them from going extinct. We should picket against gas steeling black holes and call them names and such. I am certain that this would nudge these nasty black holes into finally quitting this universe killing process all together. The author of this article is just a “gas eating” denier! We could literally be out of young stars by the end of the next 10 billion millennium or so, much sooner than we had previously thought. We need to build a one galaxy government to help us keep this under control.
just wait til it gets hungry.
A few solar masses a day keeps all living life forms far far away.
Quote: Rick K (16:19:06) :
quotes: Oliver K. Manuel (12:06:45) :
‘There are no black holes. But there are supermassive neutron stars.
Repulsive forces between neutrons prevent the collapse of a neutron star into a black hole.’
———-
“Can someone briefly explain the “repulsive forces between neutrons” for me? I can understand the repulsive forces of like charges. I am unclear on the repulsive forces between neutral particles.
Thank you.”
Hi Rick,
Good question!
The idea of black holes was proposed before repulsive forces between neutrons were discovered in rest mass data of the 3,000 types of atoms that comprise the visible universe.
Here are links to a few of the early papers:
1. “Attraction and repulsion of nucleons: Sources of stellar energy”, Journal of Fusion Energy 19 (2001) 93-98:
http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts/jfeinterbetnuc.pdf
2. “Nuclear systematics” Journal of Radioanalytical & Nuclear Chememistry 252 (2002) 3-7:
http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2001/nuc_sym3.pdf
3. “Neutron repulsion confirmed as energy source”, Journal of Fusion Energy 20 (2003) 197-201:
http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2003/jfe-neutronrep.pdf
Please read these and then ask if you still have questions.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
This is an opinion I’ve come to that can never be scientifically tested.
At the initiation of Universal Inflation (aka Big Bang) the universe is at its hottest. Those most basic quanta that form everything that exists in the universe are so hot that a balance of attractive and repulsive forces cannot exist and no structures can form. As the universe cools, these forces come into play and basic particles form and eventually there is a universe that is initially about 75 percent hydrogen, 24 percent helium, and 1 percent lithium with a few other minor players thrown in. Massive amounts of hydrogen coalesce at the center of what will become galaxies. The hydrogen fuzes into helium and the process continues through the normal fuzing order that leads to a supernova in massive stars. This leads to a collapse that results in the Singularity colloquially known as a “black hole”. These singularities have been described as having a temperature of a few billionths of a degree greater than absolute zero. Absolute zero is the more likely actual temperature. This is because the quanta in the singularity are locked in actual physical contact with one another and cannot move at all. The absence of all motion reflects a temperature of absolute zero, exactly the opposite of conditions at initiation of the Big Bang. The universe will eventually cool to absolute zero. When this happens all quanta in the universe will collapse to, or have become part of singularities. These singularities will coalesce into one and the next big bang will occur. This means, of course, that the universe is an infinitely repeating structure.
And this explains your deja vu moments, the things you “knew” were going to happen in your life, clairvoyance, and prophecy. A universe that infinitely repeats must eventually produce the same situation(s) that exist for us. How are they manifested in our minds? Probably coded by your DNA when it builds your brain are the memories of your previous existences. As to the massive amounts of time required for universal cycles, remember this. Your brain is the source of your awareness, which ends when the brain shuts down. You cannot be aware that you are unaware. Ergo, you can only be aware. Time does not exist for you while you are unaware.
Black Hole is Eating Our Galaxy Slower Than Previously Thought
What a relief !
.
As a side note, the line should be :
Black Hole is Eating Our Galaxy More Slowly Than Previously Thought
Regards,
Mike
humble grammar n*zi
Awww geez, now we’re not all going to die.
(that is a joke for those who didn’t know)
Mike Ramsey (16:39:51) :
You said to me.
A neutron star is not dense enough to form a black hole. Google “Schwarzschild radius”.
Please read what I said again.
No mention of a neutron star. However if two neutron stars should fuse then given sufficient mass a black hole may be the result.
Some people think the idea that cosmic rays can cause more cloud formation on earth is nutty.
Thinking a new idea is crazy is nothing new.
When Einstein came out with General Relativity and its ideas of black holes, curved space, etc, some thought he was completely nuts. One scientist thought he was a mad man and should be killed—literally.
========================================================
You may want to see this presentation to get some clues why black holes are so puzzling for “mainstream scientists”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_rwCUq_kSk
It’s a grand unification theory which was already successful in predicting some phenomena which is unexplainable by our current models. As far as I know is has been experimentally verified to be the right direction.
The site is http://theresonanceproject.org/
If you like the research and presentation, consider purchasing the DVD or small donation to the creators 😉 They deserve it.
========================================================
actuator (19:33:47) :
These singularities will coalesce into one and the next big bang will occur. This means, of course, that the universe is an infinitely repeating structure.
There should be no ‘of course’ here, as this does not follow from what you posted. Observations show that the universe’s expansion is accelerating, so no coalesce will occur. Be careful with what you state as impossible to prove or disprove. Just a few years before Kirchhoff discovered how to tell the chemical composition from spectral analysis of light, the French philosopher Auguste Comte stated that the chemical composition of the stars could never be known, as an example of something that was unknowable….