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.
Leif Svalgaard (11:34:51) :
To give me an idea of what level you are capable of understanding may I ask you first give me a physical description of that favorite object of yours: the electron at the level you think you can manage, then I’ll be happy to return the favor for a singularity to the same level.
I can’t physically describe an electron, but I can show you a photo of an electron shell cloud:
http://insidescience.org/polopoly_fs/1.918!image/671260397.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_490/671260397.jpg
Got any photos of singularities? 🙂
Ah, the wordpress URL munger doesn’t like exclamation marks. You’ll need to cut’n’paste the link into a browser.
http://insidescience.org/polopoly_fs/1.918!image/671260397.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_490/671260397.jpg
Dr. Svalgaard:
Again, you’ll have to take your objections up with Dr. Mark Morris, a UCLA professor of physics and astronomy, and lead author, he seems to take a different view than you do.
As for plasmoids, Dr. Anthony L. Peratt of Los Alamos National Laboratory, a former close associate of the late 1970 Nobel Prize winner in physics, Hannes Alfven takes a different view.
Readers, Dr.Svalgaard is a talented and well known helio-astrophysicist, I respect his work in that specialty.
But when he steps out of his specialty and casts his opinion farther afield and provides the impression that his opinion is the only one with any merit, it is misleading, as his opinion is only one of many in the astrophysical scientific arena.
” photon without a Higgs (09:31:47) :
supercritical (06:17:17) :
You can learn almost anything through the internet. Here’s a huge tip for you, go to these links and start watching:”
Thanks for your huge tip. I value your patronage.
What I am really interested in, however, is not particularly the cosmology of black holes, but the metaphysics. Those who work in the Universities on such things require funding, which is generally from the State. And the nature of the transaction in interesting. In exchange for the wherewithal, what does the worker have to deliver as his part of the bargain? What use is made of his work, when delivered into the hands of others?
One thing in common between cosmology and climatology is that there seems to be a subsequent generation of metaphysical concepts, ‘spins’ if you like, mainly by the MSM. A good example is the spin given to Black Holes as mysterious pac-man gobblers who will eat up everything. Harmless enough, as they are no more a danger than any other star, but the State gains kudos and will continue to fund such infotainment studies.
What is interesting is the that those administering such scientific programmes are well-aware of the erroneous spins, yet will not disabuse the public, despite the necessity for utmost objective honesty that is the very definition of the scientific method. One gets the feeling that the potential for such spins is in fact an integral part of the process; and so much for the objectivity of science!
But while the public knows that Cosmology has no real-world consequence, and the resulting metaphysics /metaphorics have entertainment value on several levels, the same cannot be said for Climatology. Here, the deliverable was direct to the politicians themselves. There really is a constituency for totalitarianism as the last century showed us, and the administrators of the various Climatology progammes were happy to go along with the metaphysics that would produce totalitarianism.
Personally, I suspect that in the UK at least, the Universities will soon be forced to scale down all such ‘meta-science’ programmes ….. perhaps in favour of cosmetology instead?
But ‘photon without a Higgs’, let me patronise you a little;
What are your thoughts on the societal effect should the LHC not come up with the Higgs particle?
James F. Evans (12:26:33) :
Anybody, who knows anything about the scientific discussion of so-called “dark matter” or “dark energy” and responds in good faith, knows that a vigorous debate rages in scientific circles about the existence of “dark matter” and “dark energy”
The debate is not about the existence, but about the nature of dark matter. As I have commented, dark matter can be [and has been] observed and mapped by gravitational lensing.
It’s an evasive answer because as Dr. Svalgaard knows a “singularity” is a mathematical construct
Everything in physics is at the bottom mathematical constructs. We understand nature by capturing it in mathematical theory, e.g. Maxwell’s mathematical equations express what we know of electromagnetism [at the level of classical physics]. Now, many people do not understand the mathematical formalisms [and no wonder as it takes about a decade of hard study to do that] so various images and hand-waving notions [e.g. the Bohr atom] are employed, but they are only crutches. Some of language that must be used will sound too strange so people write it off as unintelligible [which indeed it may be to them]. For example, Galilean space-time G is but a fiber bundle with base space E1and fiber E3 [ordinary Euclidean 3-space], and ‘time’ is just a canonical projection from G to E1 [Aristotelian time]. The next step up consists of Newtonian space-time N which is also a fiber bundle with base space E1 and fiber E3, but now there is a structure on N different from that of G, because the family of straight world lines that represents inertial motions is different. Moving on to Relativity, at any point [i.e. an ‘event’] p in space-time, we can envision the family of all different rays of light that pass through p, called the description of world lines through p. We can call such a description the family of ‘photon histories’ through p. In the neighborhood of p, this family describes a cone in space-time, sometimes called the light cone at p. At better name would be the ‘null cone’ for this structure in the tangent space Tp at p. The cone has two parts: a past cone and a future cone. Relativity sostulates that the speed of light is the same in all directions at p, so a light flash must have spherical shape around p. This means that the cone is given by an equation in the tangent space of the form g[ab]v(a)v(b) = 0 where g[ab] is the index form of some non-singular symmetric [0,2]-tensor g of Lorentzian signature. The ‘null’ in null cone now refers to the fact that the vector v has a zero length |v|^2 = 0 with respect to the pseudometric g. Now finally moving General Relativity we have the Einsteinian spacetime E. The difference with N is that in E null cones do not have to have a uniform arrangement, but can have a much more general distribution. Now, a pseudometric g determines a unique torsion-free ‘connection’ D for which Dg = 0. This tells us that Einstein’s concept of inertial motion is completely determined by the spacetime metric. This is good, because g is now non-degenerate, so that D is completely detrmined by it. The connection D has a curvature tensor R. We can now describe the collapse to a black hole. Matter collapses inwards, through the 3-surface that becomes the absolute event horizon, H. The null cones are tangent to the horizon and allow matter or signals to pass inwards, but not outwards. This can be seen to be an effect of the tilting of the cones inwards, so that find themselves to be tangent to H. Any world line that crosses from the inside to the outside of H would violate the causality defined by the cones [remember the past and present parts of the cones]. The event horizon is not a material substance. It is just a particular [hyper]surface in spacetime, separating those places from which signals can escape to infinity from places where they are trapped inside the horizon. The back hole is not a material [more correctly: ponderable] body. The tipping of the null cones is such that an observer would encounter rapidly increasing tidal effects from increasing spacetime curvature, R, that will diverge to infinity, and this is what we call a spacetime singularity.
“One of the most complex and intriguing astrophysical phenomenon…”
If it’s one of many, shouldn’t it be “phenomena” (plural)?
tallbloke (12:32:59) :
What is the physical mechanism proposed for this repulsive force Leif?
At this point is mainly an observational fact. But people are working on it 🙂 We have to go [like it or not] where the observations lead us.
tallbloke (12:40:51) :
Got any photos of singularities? 🙂
Here is one: [ ] between the two two brackets. Remember they cannot be seen because they are behind the horizon. Now, there are lots of photos of black holes drawing in stuff.
James F. Evans (12:49:00) :
Again, you’ll have to take your objections up with Dr. Mark Morris,
I have no objections to his paper, just to your nonsense.
But when he steps out of his specialty
I worked ten years at “The Institute for Plasma Research” at Stanford University…
Leif Svalgaard (12:32:38 wrote: “Gravitational lensing can be [and has been] used to detect and actually map the distribution of dark matter.”
Again, this is misleading, so-called “dark matter” has never been “detected”. Supposed maps of “dark matter” are conjecture based on where gravity would have to act to make spiral galaxies work as actually observed & measured.
Need some gravity, here, then postulate some “dark matter”, here; need some gravity, there, then postulate some “dark matter”, there.
This is the hight of poor science.
But because the models are so regularly falsified by observation & measurement this is what astronomy has come to.
Astronomers cling to outdated ideas.
James F. Evans
2010/01/09 at 1:48pm
Leif Svalgaard (12:32:38 wrote: “Gravitational lensing can be [and has been] used to detect and actually map the distribution of dark matter.”
“Again, this is misleading, so-called “dark matter” has never been “detected”. Supposed maps of “dark matter” are conjecture based on where gravity would have to act to make spiral galaxies work as actually observed & measured.
Need some gravity, here, then postulate some “dark matter”, here; need some gravity, there, then postulate some “dark matter”, there….
Astronomers cling to outdated ideas.”
Exactly what theories are causing dark matter to be ‘outdated’? From what I’ve seen, people who disbelieve the latest astronomical science tend to be those who embrace century old astronomical theories, and dark matter IS up to date science.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/12/091218-dark-matter-detected-mine-minnesota.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/11/081119-dark-matter-antarctica.html
There, two examples of proof of dark matter right here on earth. And they agree with astronomical observations and with theory.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/08/080827-dark-cluster.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/05/070515-dark-matter.html
Supercritical – could one not theoretically produce a Higgs, not because its naturally occuring, but because the LHC energies involved fabricate it?
If they produce a single positve result, but fail to repeat it, will it become the Yamal/Boson that proves there is no debate. A lot of money has been spent, I can imagine BIG results are being demanded.
How many positive results are needed to conclusively demonstrate the properties of a Higgs? And, since there’s only one LHC, how does one go about replicating the experiment? Will those scientists doubtful of the Higgs be allowed to run their own experiments on the LHC?
Genuinely curious.
Leif Svalgaard (13:45:20) :
tallbloke (12:32:59) :
What is the physical mechanism proposed for this repulsive force Leif?
At this point is mainly an observational fact. But people are working on it 🙂 We have to go [like it or not] where the observations lead us.
We can agree to disagree about whether the conditions for something being regarded as an ‘observation’ have been met here. However, my conclusion is that there is no conceivable repulsive force accelerating a universal expansion and we are being led up the garden path of Big Bang Bung here.
Maybe the turtle is on ice skates and has pulled it’s legs in. 🙂
tallbloke (12:40:51) :
Got any photos of singularities? 🙂
Here is one: [ ] between the two two brackets. Remember they cannot be seen because they are behind the horizon. Now, there are lots of photos of black holes drawing in stuff.
Cool, I’ll have hunt for the photos.
supercritical (12:54:50) :
What is interesting is the that those administering such scientific programmes are well-aware of the erroneous spins, yet will not disabuse the public, despite the necessity for utmost objective honesty that is the very definition of the scientific method.
A much more serious problem is the pseudo-scientists and ‘alternative’ science-nuts that misunderstand and misappropriate the spins for their own purposes. Just look up-thread [or almost any other one] so find glaring examples of such patent nonsense. One might wish for a tighter ship to maintain the credence of WUWT, but all such have failed in the past.
“”
Mike D. (08:52:29) :
You’re all a buncha flat universers.
“”
if the data fits, live with it.
Leif Svalgaard (12:32:38) :
Mike Ramsey (12:12:48) :
Alternative theories of gravity have not been ruled out to explain galactic rotation rates.
Gravitational lensing can be [and has been] used to detect and actually map the distribution of dark matter. Now, one can always posit alternative theories, but they seem ad hoc and, so far, General Relativity has passed a lot of good tests.
Yes, I’ll concede that something is gravatating out there that we can’t see.
Mike Ramsey
James F. Evans (12:02:09) :
I’m sorry, no additional papers,
In the one paper you posted it is interesting what he found. But with so little work done in that area it’s too hard for me to say where that finding lay in the grand scheme.
It will be on my mind though. The ‘gravity only’ thing will be too.
As with most topics on this so called science blog, words fail me when I read the bulk of these comments.
tallbloke (14:03:17) :
We can agree to disagree about whether the conditions for something being regarded as an ‘observation’ have been met here.
Not quite good enough. Take the specific papers [some referred to upthread] and criticize them as why they do not meet the conditions. Clearly you must have read these already, otherwise you cannot pontificate on whether they describe observations.
James F. Evans (12:02:09) :
Plasmoid, anyone?
It is interesting. But much more study has to be done.
Benjamin P. (14:19:41) :
As with most topics on this so called science blog, words fail me when I read the bulk of these comments.
Words didn’t fail you. You just gave the blog a slap backhanded.
supercritical (12:54:50) :
Thanks for your huge tip. I value your patronage
I wasn’t intending to be condescending. It must have come across that way. I really was trying to be helpful.
Leif Svalgaard (13:45:20) :
Now, there are lots of photos of black holes drawing in stuff.
I’ve found lots of artists impressions, but no photos of matter being sucked into blck holes so far.
There is this page on Nature Talk but the “photo” below the animation videos looks like a mock-up to me?
http://nature-talk.com/locations/space/black-holes/evidence-that-black-holes-exist.html
Centaurus A supermassive black hole, with jets:
Leif Svalgaard (14:34:26) :
tallbloke (14:03:17) :
We can agree to disagree about whether the conditions for something being regarded as an ‘observation’ have been met here.
Not quite good enough.
It’ll have to do, my reply has been binned.
supercritical (12:54:50) :
What are your thoughts on the societal effect should the LHC not come up with the Higgs particle?
I’m not one who thinks LHC was worth it in the first place. Whether a Higgs field is proven by it or not I already wish the money had gone in to getting electricity in to Africa, better agricultural methods and jobs creation for the Philippines, and well water for Haiti and certain locations in Africa and India.
——————————————
The societal impact? People won’t like it and maybe most think LHC is a huge waste in the first place. If nothing big ever comes from LHC no one would be surprised.
——————————
Now I’ll ask you: what if there is really a Higgs field? And i am not meaning what would the societal impact be. I am meaning the scientific impact.
I found this a very entertaining discussion actually. I followed some hints given by Leiff and mathman and some links from the plasma faction.
Zwicky must have been a rather outstanding person, fascinating. He seems to be behind the dark matter idea and black holes (together with others). Interestingly, he used the virial theorem which is also being used by Ferenc M. Miskolczi. Read up on Zwicky, it’s worth it.
OTOH, some people seem to disagree about the possibility of a singularity:
Abrams 1989
http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Abrams1989.pdf
and Crothers 2008
http://www.physicsfoundations.org/PIRT_XI/papers/CROTHERS%20PAPER%202008.pdf
I’m not taking a position, just wanted to share what i found while you kept arguing….
that beam in the second photo can poke an eye out
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/071217-death-star-galaxy.html
photon without a Higgs (15:58:27) :
that beam in the second photo can poke an eye out
So don’t run with it!
Didn’t your mother teach you anything?