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.
photon without a Higgs (20:27:03) :
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.
Of course, every nut thinks he is Einstein [or better]. That is part of what makes him a nut.
photon without a Higgs (20:27:03) :
When Einstein came out with General Relativity and its ideas of black holes, curved space, etc, some thought he was completely nuts.
It seems that there are several tedious posters here that still thinks Einstein was a nut… So, perhaps that was a bad example. How about Eddington: “”The great Arthur Eddington gave a lecture about his alleged deviation of the fine structure constant from fundamental theory. Goudsmit and Kramers were both in the audience. Goudsmit understood little but recognized it as far-fetched nonsense. After the discussion, Goudsmit went to his friend and mentor Kramers and asked him, “Do all physicists go off on crazy tangents when they grow old? I am afraid”. Kramers answered, “No Sam, you don’t have to be scared. A genius like Eddington may perhaps go nuts but a fellow like you just gets dumber and dumber.”
hotrod (16:05:23) : “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.”
One of the most far-out articles I ever read was a short news report (over a decade ago) in Scientific American. Some cosmologists far more ambitious than the IPCC had “projected” our universe to the year 10^116. Even then there would be no “heat death of the universe” (as famously depicted by Isaac Asimov in his short story “The Last Question”), because evaporation of the plentiful black holes would still be providing a trickle of energy.
Perhaps this view is no longer valid because of more recent discoveries, but I fondly recall it as the epiphany that gave me the strength to go on. 🙂
—
After writing the above, I decided to use that other wonder of our universe, the InterGore, to check my memory. This may be the paper in question, although I don’t see the year 10^116 anywhere in it:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9701/9701131v1.pdf
DocattheAutopsy (12:33:38) :
Looks like I’m not the only one who’s eating less for the New Year!
Witty.
Theres a couple of themes running through this thread;
ONE – Black Holes & Big Bang Theory is BS
TWO – People who don’t accept the peer reviewed material that Black Holes and Big Bang Theory are idiots.
Theres a turn up for the books.
Apply the same rigour to Cosmology and Astrophysics, that is demanded by AGW skeptics, and we have a repeat of two old issues; Over reliance on computer modelling and Strong personalities riding over the top of counter arguments.
List one prestigious University strongly funded to research counter theories to the big-bang theory, black holes, dark matter or dark energy. Anyone?,…
If we are open minded, surely a theory or theories that counter consensus cosmology are also worthy of funding and research?. Or, have we reached two dead ends in science – Climate science and Cosmology?
Are we to accept that consensus in Cosmology is not the same as concensus in Climate science? What are the odds that accolade, wealth and status are absent as motivators in the field of Cosmology? Climategate surely, has removed the hubris that allows for sacred cows in any field of science, no matter how elegant the equations.
Just my three cents worth.
mdjackson (12:37:03) :
“It is a well known fact that there is a supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy,
Maybe I’m not up to date but isn’t it two?
kadaka (12:38:27) :
So we will have enough time to evacuate this galaxy and head off to the next?
They’ll just get on Michio Kaku’s space fabric bending machine and take the short cuts to other parts of the universe that it creates.
actuator (19:33:47) :
Interesting in so far as I have actually had the exact same thought occur to me after I read a story in which two black holes came together.
Leif, I noted your response to the above comment and another in which you had said that a universe of infinite size had been debunked (I may be wrong as to exactly what you had said, but I believe that was it). I was wondering something. Do scientists now view the universe as something that will simply continue to expand, never to recede? If the universe is not infinite in size, what would be beyond the edge?
Not putting any theories together here, really just curious.
Deadman (12:59:34) :
Eating Our Galaxy More Slowly Than Previously Thought”?
Black holes and what they do is not well understood now. So using the word ‘eating’ today will be replaced with something more elegant and interesting in the future.
But, today, black holes are believed, by some, to be ‘eating’ everything around them—even light— because of their overwhelming gravity.
“Eating’ is a primitive word to use—IMO.
And i am in no way criticizing Anthony Watts for using the word in the post. Black holes ‘eating ‘ everything in their path is the commonly accepted concept.
Dave F (21:25:07) :
Leif, I noted your response to the above comment and another in which you had said that a universe of infinite size had been debunked (I may be wrong as to exactly what you had said, but I believe that was it).
I didn’t say or meant that [perhaps I included some other comment by mistake]. The current dogma [well supported by observations and theory] is that the Universe is flat, thus does not curve in on itself. Since it is not the matter in the universe that is expanding, but space itself, I think that most would say that indicates an infinite Universe. Perhaps some people have a semantic problem: if the Universe is all there is how can it be finite if flat?
Maybe the comment was just deliberately sloppy: ‘infinite space/age universe’ or some such, and THAT is a good straw man, because most believe that space is infinite, but age is not, so how to interpret the clause?
mikelorrey (13:21:18) :
“If this is so, why shouldn’t black holes be visible?”
Black holes in orbit around stars do tend to accumulate matter in accretion disks, which do generate infrared as well as xray emissions that are observable by scientists.
True. This is why to compare black holes to co2 controlling climate is wrong.
There is no evidence that co2 controls climate. There is evidence for black hole existing.
If some people here are having trouble getting their heads around the idea of Einstein’s black holes try this quote from Einstein on for size:
“Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.”
supercritical (13:16:58) :
Just wondering about Black Holes and the conservation of angular momentum. Lumps of matter in orbit around them ought to whizz around faster and faster as they get closer and closer, and so would they emit visible radiation?
If this is so, why shouldn’t black holes be visible?
Forgive me if my physics seems a bit rusty boot when I were lad we were told that matter aproaching a black hole excelerates to a velocity whereby it starts to emit gamma rays and x-rays and the like. At this point the radiating matter is still outside the event horizon and therefore the “light” can escape and be seen futher out in the galaxy.
Has there been any update on this?
Today I’ve eaten 1.5% of my body weight. Ian 1 black hole 0
I dont know alot about black holes but how does a star with a set mass when it goes nova it must still have about the same mass why does its gravity increase ?.
Fitzy (21:10:49) :
Theres a couple of themes running through this thread;
ONE – Black Holes & Big Bang Theory is BS
——————————————-
Einstein didn’t think there was a big bang (as it was first thought to have happened). Lemaître thought there was.
The big bang may have not been the beginning but happened right after. Guth’s inflation, if it’s right, is Lemaître’s Big Bang.
Mike McMillan (20:07:29) :
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
—————-
Of all the things one might object to in this headline, “Slower” instead of “More Slowly” is the easiest to justify. It is completely unambiguous and the interchangeability of adverbs and adjectives has a strong tradition in German, which is one of the parents of English. Pedants used to insist on “quickly”instead of “fast”, but they got over it eventually.
My own confusion arises from not knowing who Black Hole and Previously are.
From the post: “It is a well known fact that there is a supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy, the Milky Way.”
Bunk!
So-called “black holes” are theoretical constructs based on dubious mathematical assumptions such as “singularities”.
So-called “singularities” don’t have a physical equivalent — nobody really knows what a “singularity” is — It’s no better than string theory — meaning nobody has directly observed & measured a “black hole”.
And notice how the descriptions of supposed “black hole” have changed over time, from sucking all light (and everything else) into it, to propelling all manner of energies and matter out into the Universe.
It’s like the scientists at the Large Haldron Super Collider who wrote when it broke down: (paraphrase) “A higgs particles from the future sabotaged the collider because it didn’t want to be discovered.”
I kid you not! These scientists even wrote a “scientific” paper about it.
And about Einstein: He never subscribed to the “black hole” hypothesis.
So what is at the center of the Milky Way?
At this point it’s a black hole masquerading as knowledge…
So we’re good to create a micro black hole with the LHC for sequestering the hot air from the alarmists then? It should just about do the trick although we might need two micro black holes to get the job done… [:)]
Ah I hate to be the one to ask, what does this have to do with the climate on Earth? Auroras I can get the possible connection, black holes? They mediate cosmic rays?
photon without a Higgs (21:20:45) :
They’ll just get on Michio Kaku’s space fabric bending machine and take the short cuts to other parts of the universe that it creates.
But will the pulsar-based Galactic GPS know where we are? Or will we have to upgrade to the Uni-Galactic model? They get pricey.
Dirk H (above) touches on a serious question I don’t recall ever
seeing addressed in the published or peer-reviewed liturature:
Do black holes (assuming they exist) consume dark matter
(assuming that exists) and how can the process be observed or inferred?
The science isn’t close to being settled in this area !
kadaka (23:13:26) :
But will the pulsar-based Galactic GPS know where we are? Or will we have to upgrade to the Uni-Galactic model? They get pricey.
Just drop bread crumbs.
Leif Svalgaard (21:51:17) :
No, I am not setting up a strawman, I thought I actually read a comment from you along those lines, but I can’t find it anymore. Usually, I will quote someone exactly to prevent context issues and such, but the comment is eluding me. I wasn’t even arguing anything, just wondering how the Universe could be everything, yet have an edge.
In your response, you say:
because most believe that space is infinite, but age is not
I recently read that the Hubble telescope was trained on the “oldest parts” of the universe. Were they carbon-dated? 😉
When I read this, I assumed that age was relative to distance, but then found myself wondering how you could be sure what you were looking at was as old as you think it is. What if that object you think is 40 million light years away is actually just newer and closer than you thought? How do you guys at NASA determine the age of stuff in far space?
TheGoodLocust (14:00:59) :
Black holes are visible when enough matter is being fed into them – they are called quasars then and are the brightest objects in the known universe.
Making the next best and brightest look dim.
speaking of off topic
[snip] is going on with Tiger Woods?
http://static.thehollywoodgossip.com/images/gallery/tiger-woods-shirtless_387x556.jpg
James F. Evans (23:03:17) :
And about Einstein: He never subscribed to the “black hole” hypothesis.
————————————————–
Huh? Is there an Einstein I don’t know about?