From Columbia University and the “that’s heavy” department:
New Study Suggests Tens of Thousands of Black Holes Exist in Milky Way’s Center
A Columbia University-led team of astrophysicists has discovered a dozen black holes gathered around Sagittarius A* (Sgr A*), the supermassive black hole in the center of the Milky Way Galaxy. The finding is the first to support a decades-old prediction, opening up myriad opportunities to better understand the universe.
“Everything you’d ever want to learn about the way big black holes interact with little black holes, you can learn by studying this distribution,” said Columbia Astrophysicist Chuck Hailey, co-director of the Columbia Astrophysics Lab and lead author on the study. “The Milky Way is really the only galaxy we have where we can study how supermassive black holes interact with little ones because we simply can’t see their interactions in other galaxies. In a sense, this is the only laboratory we have to study this phenomenon.”
The study appears in the April 5 issue of Nature.
For more than two decades, researchers have searched unsuccessfully for evidence to support a theory that thousands of black holes surround supermassive black holes (SMBHs) at the center of large galaxies.
“There are only about five dozen known black holes in the entire galaxy — 100,000 light years wide — and there are supposed to be 10,000 to 20,000 of these things in a region just six light years wide that no one has been able to find,” Hailey said, adding that extensive fruitless searches have been made for black holes around Sgr A*, the closest SMBH to Earth and therefore the easiest to study. “There hasn’t been much credible evidence.”
He explained that Sgr A* is surrounded by a halo of gas and dust that provides the perfect breeding ground for the birth of massive stars, which live, die and could turn into black holes there. Additionally, black holes from outside the halo are believed to fall under the influence of the SMBH as they lose their energy, causing them to be pulled into the vicinity of the SMBH, where they are held captive by its force.
While most of the trapped black holes remain isolated, some capture and bind to a passing star, forming a stellar binary. Researchers believe there is a heavy concentration of these isolated and mated black holes in the Galactic Center, forming a density cusp which gets more crowded as distance to the SMBH decreases.
In the past, failed attempts to find evidence of such a cusp have focused on looking for the bright burst of X-ray glow that occurs when black holes mate with companion stars.
“It’s an obvious way to want to look for black holes,” Hailey said, “but the Galactic Center is so far away from Earth that those bursts are only strong and bright enough to see about once every 100 to 1,000 years.” To detect black hole binaries then, Hailey and his colleagues realized they would need to look for the fainter, but steadier X-rays emitted after the initial bonding, when the binaries are in an inactive state.
“It would be so easy if black hole binaries routinely gave off big bursts like neutron star binaries do, but they don’t, so we had to come up with another way to look for them,” Hailey said. “Isolated, unmated black holes are just black — they don’t do anything. So looking for isolated black holes is not a smart way to find them either. But when black holes mate with a low mass star, the marriage emits X-ray bursts that are weaker, but consistent and detectable. If we could find black holes that are coupled with low mass stars and we know what fraction of black holes will mate with low mass stars, we could scientifically infer the population of isolated black holes out there.”
Hailey and colleagues turned to archival data from the Chandra X-ray Observatory to test their technique. They searched for X-ray signatures of black hole-low mass binaries in their inactive state and were able to find 12 within three light years, of Sgr A*. The researchers then analyzed the properties and spatial distribution of the identified binary systems and extrapolated from their observations that there must be anywhere from 300 to 500 black hole-low mass binaries and about 10,000 isolated black holes in the area surrounding Sgr A*.
“This finding confirms a major theory and the implications are many,” Hailey said. “It is going to significantly advance gravitational wave research because knowing the number of black holes in the center of a typical galaxy can help in better predicting how many gravitational wave events may be associated with them. All the information astrophysicists need is at the center of the galaxy.”
Hailey’s co-authors on the paper include: Kaya Mori, Michael E. Berkowitz, and Benjamin J. Hord, all of Columbia University; Franz E. Bauer, of the Instituto de Astrofísica, Facultad de Física, Pontificia, Universidad Católica de Chile, Millennium Institute of Astrophysics, Vicuña Mackenna, and the Space Science Institute; and Jaesub Hong, of Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
Now we know where the hidden heat has gone from the Earth’s atmosphere!. I hope the climate alarmists have read this piece.
Oh, starts getting up to hanky panky now , is it? And I suppose white stars and black holes produce lots if little brown baby stars, hence the brown dwarfs.
There goes the neighborhood. [ Sarc to the 3rd power please, I live in the same building with two black families.]
A lot of signals, certainly, which may or may not be sourced from “black holes”, which may or may not have fidelity. As we approach the source, accuracy will increase. In the meantime, we observed at the solar fringe, and infer what lies beyond.
A bone for the black hole settled science pack to ravage
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2017/12/10/black-holes-behaving-badly-space-news/
Your objection to the demonstrated existence of black holes is based upon an oversimplification.
It’s not true that “nothing” can escape a black hole’s gravitational field.
Stephen Hawking’s fame was based upon his realization (not original to him) that, on the microscopic, quantum mechanical level, things can and do escape from black holes. Hence, quantum mechanics refutes one of the alleged basic tenets of black holes: that nothing can escape.
I don’t know if Hawking radiation, as formulated by the late physicist, has in fact been observed or not, but energy and matter have indeed been observed “escaping” from even supermassive black holes, as reported in links below.
Hawking came up with a “theory” of stuff escaping black holes.
I would not even give it the credibility of theory, as there is no way to test it given.
So, lets think clearly about a quantum particle escaping a black hole. It happens to quantum jump outside the black hole event horizon. Great, it now has to have momentum of moving at least the speed of light to escape. How did it get momentum moving at the speed of light away from the black hole?
It also has to argue that there is no singularity whatsoever. It requires that all that mass that can now quantum jump out of the black hole is at the surface and makes up the surface of the black hole. Otherwise, the particles would bee too deep inside the black hole make a quantum leap to the other side of the event horizon.
Asteronii,
Light has been seen escaping from a black hole, so we know that energy can do so. That energy and matter can escape was predicted before the observations.
For answers to your questions, please read the following:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/01/20/ask-ethan-how-do-hawking-radiation-and-relativistic-jets-escape-from-a-black-hole/#22b3258f2ce1
Chimp Not turning off add blocker to read an ethan article.
Thus far it has very clearly been stated and is a well known fact that a black hole has never been observed. Do you deny this? Or are you an anti science zealot?
Following on, I never claimed that black holes do not or do exist. Just that, if they do exist, that I do not see any possible ability for Hawking Radiation.
And to the other person who said it had a 50/50 chance of escape, that is complete garbage. Maybe you could give me the calculations on how a photon at a few plank distances from the event horizon of a super massive black hole has that 50% chance to be going at the speed of light immediately at what would need to be near perfectly perpendicular to said event horizon. My guess is that at the very most, if it miraculously inverted its momentum to head out, it still would be less than one in a billion chance it still escapes. I still do not see how it gains that momentum. It was being dragged inward at a force greater than the speed of light.
Astonerii.
You don’t need to turn off ad blocker to read it.
I most certainly do deny that black holes have never been observed. I’ve posted links here to some instances of their having been so.
Besides which, gravitational waves have been observed, confirming the general theory of relativity, on the basis of which black holes were predicted.
Chimp, I could put a car cover up in my driveway and argue, see, I have a Ferrari! Black holes still have not been directly observed. Period.
By the way, I should know if they will let me see the web page or not without turning off my add blocker. They very clearly state to whitelist them all the while blurring the image and locking the scroll.
Maybe you could try to be more honest in your debate.
Astonerii,
I am honest. I accessed the article without turning off my ad blocker.
Observations have repeatedly been made which confirm the existence of black holes. An event horizon itself will be seen this year.
General relativity has also been repeatedly confirmed. There are no valid arguments against the existence of black holes. They are a scientific fact, ie a phenomenon predicted by a well-supported theory, inferred by observations and never shown false.
astonerii – I’m merely an interested ignorant observer in this argument, but are there are mixed Einsteinian and Newtonian concepts in your statements, and does it matter (NPI): “It happens to quantum jump outside the black hole event horizon.” (Einsteinian). “Great, it now has to have momentum of moving at least the speed of light to escape.” (Newtonian). NB. I’m not saying you’re wrong, just querying. I’ve always had trouble with the Einsteinian stuff because I haven’t put enough time and effort into understanding when you can still use the Newtonian stuff and when you can’t.
Chimp
The explanation of Ethan Siegel is good. It is essentially the proposed mechanism of Hawking. But I don’t buy it. Something is terribly wrong with it. They are talking about virtual particles. Unlike real particles, they have extremely short lifetime dictated by the Uncertainty Principle. The probability of them interacting with each other or with other particles before they disappear is extremely low. And the photons that will be created by such interactions are also virtual photons with short lifetime that will also disappear.
If by some unknown physical law the virtual photons become real photons, their energy came from vacuum energy, not from the gravitational energy of the black hole. They will not affect the black hole’s mass. The black hole did not create the virtual particles. These particles are everywhere including laboratories where they have been studied.
Dr. S,
Glad you found Ethan’s discussion worthwhile, if unsatisfying.
But the photons aren’t virtual. They are actual, observed photons. Light has been seen emanating from black holes.
No. There’s no evidence for Hawking radiation. Those are relativistic jets which are explained by Penrose’s frame dragging. It’s for rotating black holes. The energy comes from rotational kinetic energy. It doesn’t affect the rest mass of black holes.
Dr. S,
I guess I haven’t been clear enough. I said I knew of no instances of observed Hawking radiation. But light has indeed been observed emanating from black holes.
Ok. The physical mechanism proposed by Hawking is problematic. You need real particles with negative energy inside the black hole. Real particles with negative energy are not in the Standard Model. You have to invent first a new model to replace the Standard Model. Or you need virtual particles with indefinite lifetime inside the black hole. Virtual particles with indefinite lifetime are also not in the Standard Model. In short, to accept Hawking radiation, you have to reinvent the Standard Model.
Dr. S,
I’m not a fan of Hawking radiation or indeed of Hawking, who ripped off other scientists.
But the fact is that light has been observed emanating from sources which can only be, or at least are best explained by, the black holes predicted by the repeatedly confirmed General Theory of Relativity.
I have no objection with relativistic jets – “those light emanating from black holes.” They have been observed and the physical mechanism proposed by Penrose is sound. But general relativity cannot fully explain all the features of black holes. In particular, singularities are a breakdown of general relativity. This is one of the reasons why physicists are searching for a quantum theory of gravity.
astonerii – April 8, 2018 at 2:47 pm
Astonerii, ….. give it up, ….. those persons who can’t think for themselves will simply mimic what that have read or are told. Those same persons who claim one can see “something” in the per se Black Holes in galaxies …… are the same ones who will claim one can see “something” in the per se Black Holes of cave entrances and/or in the per se Black Holes of drilled/dug water wells.
You would think that astronomers would be more consistent with the naming of their imaginary space entities.
Black Holes, …… Dark Matter, …… Dark Energy, …… gimmmee a break. Maybe they have a problem with their Gray Matter.
All my life I have been taught/told that galactic Black Holes are for “sucking”, ….. not “blowing”.
“DUH”, gravitationally “sucking” in anything within range of their attraction.
”HA”, now they want to tell me that said Black Holes are “spitting” out some of what they “sucked” in and are also engaging in anti-gravity attraction “dances” with willing space neighbors.
Political Correctness in galactic space, ……. who would have thunk it?
Since there are seven models for black holes and none of them agree with the known universe, there is a problem. Einstein, Oppenheimer and even NASA agree that black holes do not exist. Most seem to ignore that EM forces are 10 to the 38th times stronger than gravity and that gravity may very well be a simple residue of the EM force. It is impossible to have mass in this universe without having charge—quarks.
The Big Bang modelers are wedded to gravity running the universe, completely ignoring the evidence of current flows at all scales. Current flows in our solar system are described but not recognized for what they are and how they truly effect their surroundings and Earth.
Higley,
You completely ignore reality. There is no evidence whatsoever for your imaginary “electric universe”, and all the evidence in the universe for gravitation.
Black holes behave as predicted and their effects have been repeatedly observed. I don’t know which seven models you imagine exist, but observations of reality support the General Theory of Relativity.
The “electric universe”, not so much. As in, not at all.
Higley
Current flows in the universe are recognized. They are responsible for the magnetic fields of Earth, sun and our galaxy. Galactic magnetic fields are thought to accelerate cosmic rays. But they don’t affect the motions of stars and planets because atoms are electrically neutral. Cosmic rays are positively charged.
higley7 – April 8, 2018 at 6:43 pm
Chimp – April 8, 2018 at 6:49 pm
OH, … MY, MY, ……. “Houston, me thinks we have a problem.”
Houston, do ya pose the reason that the “expert” astronomers can’t see, hear or detect anything when studying and/or observing those Black Holes in galaxies is simply because they are only emitting Dark Energy?
You know, …. Houston, …… this kinda Dark Energy, ….. to wit:
So, Houston, you get those space “experts” working on a way to detect that Dark Energy outflow radiation from galactic Black Holes.
It will be worth a Nobel Prize for the “winner” idea.
I just found a bunch more…
http://i1.wp.com/www.knowledgeorb.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/senate_blackhole.jpg
So, that is where our tax money goes.
Link to original source?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/nofiriantirani.wordpress.com/2013/10/22/scientists-find-new-black-hole-located-in-washington-d-c/amp/?source=images
There must be big ones under the (not)federal reserve buildings.
They should have hired a couple of climate scientists and the whole thing would have been “settled” years ago. I’m sure Mikey Mann knows which tree to chop down to get the cosmic goods. Doesn’t matter if he gets the wrong one anyway. His algorithm spits out the “right”answer regardless.
I don’t believe in them. But then, they, if they do exist, probably don’t believe in me. So, we’re even.
I’m with you on this.
It’s the black holes that may be circling the drain.
The galactic core is a Super Massive Black Hole, surrounded by and gravitationally bound to 10,000 smaller isolated black holes and another 500 stellar-binary black holes, all within 6 light years of each other.
My mind struggles to grasp the immensity of matter and forces embodied in that summation…….
Think CO2 times two.
No. On the scale of the galactic core discussed above, CO2 isn’t even a rounding error 10 decimal places to the right.
Think of the tangled web of gravitational forces represented by the black hole menagerie at the GC, the tortured and ever changing paths of time dilational relativity…… mass, force, time, and mind bending to contemplate.
Draining the swamp ?
Tens of Thousands of Black Holes Exist in Our Galaxy’s Center
So do tens of thousands of stars. Consequently, no net increase — the stars cancel out the holes. You know, like, in an engine, when a piston goes up, it has to go down, hence no net work. Or I bicep curl up and then I bicep curl down — no net work. Black hole postulated, star postulated — no net realization. It’s a flawless argument. (^_^)
Epicycles on epicycles … turtles … all the way down.
Dark matter is inferred from galaxy (or galaxy cluster) scale gravitational effects that cannot be explained by observed visible matter alone. Black holes are not visible, although when they ‘feed’ on visible matter they briefly become visible just beyond their event horizons. I have long thought that black holes by themselves could account for ‘dark matter’ without resort to more exotic speculations for which there is neither theoretical nor observational support. This study would support that notion, especially since it does not give a mass distribution of the newly inferred additional 10000 around Sag A. And many black holes should also have formed away from the galactic center. And more would have formed earlier in the galaxy’s history (to influence what we now observe) when there were more sufficiently large stars depleting themselves more rapidly. But we would have almost no way of detecting any of these as they would feed very infrequently given the galaxy’s stellar density distribution, which declines away from the center.
From our reference frame time stops at the event horrizon of each one of these black holes so from our reference frame, with a significant enough number of black holes, would this not also explain the apparent discrepancy in observed rotational velocity of those objects which we can see? V=m/s, seconds last longer from our reference frame, more distance covered per second. Length in the direction of movement contracts. Looks faster from our reference frame. I don’t know about black holes accounting for all the missing mass but do feel there is probably an enormous amount of baryonic mass of all kinds we cannot see. Dark matter, bring me a spoonful and I’ll buy the theory.
I used to think that most, if not all, dark matter might simply be baryonic matter too dim to be detected, but apparently now that’s thought not to be the case.
“Thought not to be the case.” Key word, thought. The universe is also thought to be infinite in space and time based upon the acoustics of the big bang, which means there was no beginning in time of the universe but possibly a local event that caused the acoustics in an already existent infinite, eternal universe. Of course there is no time or space outside of the universe, you know space/time is one thing and it only exists inside of the space/time we call the universe. So, go figure.
Just because we can’t see the baryonic material does not mean it’s not there outside of the equations that say there is dark matter. Bring me a spoonful.
Jim,
The reasons why dark matter is currently thought not to be “normal” baryonic matter are pretty convincing. However, the possibility of vast numbers of very small, primordial black holes can’t be ruled out. It just isn’t supported by observations yet. Hard to see trillions upon trillions of tiny black holes.
JimG1 – April 8, 2018 at 11:57 am
JimG1, iffen one is looking into the “dark orifice” of a cave opening, ….. time stops at that event horizon also.
That is unless you are looking at that “dark orifice” when a bat comes flying in or out.
Huuummm, maybe I shuda referred to those thingys as Black Orifices …. to be consistent when associating them with Black Holes.
Which reminds me of a friend who owned a bar or pub in which he had installed a large garage door in the back wall that faced the hillside, …. which he would open up on warm nights for air circulation.
One really dark night a new customer came in and asked him what that “thing” was. And he said what “thing”. And she pointed to the opening and said ….“that big black thing back there”. He calmly replied, … “dark”.
And she irritatedly asked again, ….. “dark what”. Just “dark” he said, ….. that’s all it is, just dark.
Cheers
>>
JimG1
April 8, 2018 at 11:57 am
From our reference frame time stops at the event horrizon . . . .
<<
This is a common misconception. Time doesn’t stop at the event horizon. The only thing happening at the event horizon is the escape velocity equals the speed-of-light. Where time stops is at the singularity.
Jim
>>
Jim Masterson
April 9, 2018 at 11:39 am
This is a common misconception. Time doesn’t stop at the event horizon.
<<
After further review, the misconception appears to be mine–time does stop at the event horizon.
Jim
Stellar mass black hole candidates are presumed to form via collapse of more massive projenitor stars that have largely exhausted their fusible resources. There is a newtonian upper limit to the stable masses of these stars. Their collapse leaves objects with masses generally in the 7 to 15 solar mass range. Their mass distribution should be pretty strongly peaked in the neighborhood of 10 solar mass. Whether or not any are actual black holes would depend on whether or not they have event horizons. If they do not, then they are some kind of exotic compact mass, but not black holes. Calling them black holes without confirmation is sloppy language and definitely not Feynman style science. There is presently no evidence that clearly confirms the existence of event horizons. I am inclined to believe that they do not exist in nature. I don’t believe that singularities exist in nature. The magnitude of the acceleration of a freely falling particle would be divergent at an event horizon. When a physical scalar blows up, your theory is dead.
Stan,
Yes, there is abundant evidence for event horizons.
@Chump
How’s about the Emporer’s new duds though … clothes maketh the man … this dude’s a snappy dresser … he’s wearing an accretion disk of dark matter around his black hole … just amazing gear.
Stan
People don’t understand when physicists say general relativity breaks down at singularities. It means the math is giving unphysical answers. The theory is not working and you cannot take its prediction at face value. There’s good reason to doubt singularities. I take the position – false until proven true. Unfortunately, many theoretical physicists are Platonists. Math is the ultimate reality. If you can write its equations, it must be true. I say that’s magical thinking.
And an alternate view of dark matter.
https://ru-clip.com/video/lmROfjgViLE/forecast-gets-darker-for-dark-matter-space-news.html
@Rud Istvan
“… given the galaxy’s stellar density distribution, which declines away from the center.”
__
Yes.
So the BH distribution would thus be the inverse of the pattern needed to match with missing-mass needs in galactic periphery, to explain rotational velocity of galaxies.
Will ANY galactic gravity controlled orbital model produce a pattern where the highest BH distribution is in the galactic periphery?
So this “suggested”, and ‘might be reality’, still solves nothing, re missing-mass distribution requirement.
No cigar.
In fact it would aggravate the outer galactic margin’s missing-mass problem, even further.
They found 12.
12 black hole low mass binaries, in their inactive state, via X-ray signatures.
All of the rest of the “ten thousand” are a result of classic “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” calculations.
Well there’s room enough, is not great rationale.
12, and counting.
It would appear that the SMBH at the centre of the galaxy is accreting further material, whether that be smaller stars or smaller black holes that are spiralling in having been creating by a higher density of matter in general at the core region of the galaxy. It may be that this is the norm in galaxies that they are on the way to the “Big Crunch” whereby galaxies first devour themselves into giant invisible black holes quicker than they can evaporate. Who knows the time frame that this may take, assuming it is even a correct assumption. It is likely that our star’s destiny at some point is to spiral in closer to the centre over vast time scales, whether or not our Sun is still alight. What we see now is what has accreted since the Milky Way galaxy first formed after the Big Bang, assuming that too is a correct analogy.
There isno smbh at the center of the milky way, there is something there yes
” … who knows the time frame that this may take, assuming it is even a correct assumption. …”
_
omg … but more to the point … who cares?
So why you even make the effort to comment if you don’t care? Go troll somewhere else ahole!
Because pollution affects us all.
The Far Side’s cartoon of Carl Sagan as a kid….”Look Becky, there must be hundreds of them”
They extrapolated their findings of 12 observed binaries to conclude that “there must be between 300 and 500” binaries (somehow eluding observation) and about 10,000 isolated black holes. Why does that remind me of climatology?
Hehe, you said it mate, its junk science
In short, bahahaha
This crap just keeps on going, yet not one blach hole ever observed
Bh are the agw of astronomy
We have detected numerous and diverse signals. As we close the distance, inference transitions to deductions, philosophy becomes science, maybe, and replication promotes a theory. So far, we have not closed the distance, barely making near-observations at the edge of our solar system. Still, we hope, we dream, and, one day, we will confirm the existence of black holes, or something altogether different.
The existence of black holes has been repeatedly confirmed.
I think we all been sucked in.
What I want to know is how much the “tens of thousands of black holes” make up for the invisible dark matter. After this dark matter is moved of it’s perch of 80% of the entire Universe make up.
Plasma and EM force is the “missing matter”, doesn’t take a genius to figure it out
Dark Matter and Strange matter, the sooner these barnacles are scraped from the hull of the good ship Science, the flipping better
This junk science has led us astray for decades
Junk science or just incomprehensible math that no one dares question? Is math reality?
Mark, Helsinki
And don’t forget, that the original (honest) term/concept tyat these memes came from was;
“Missing Mass”
And it must be pointed out also, that it%s simply another gratuitous grand assumption that all mass is expressed by matter.
Really?
If matter is expressing emergent mass, charge and solidity, are these not emerging from the underlaying properties of space itself?
Which means empty SPACE is the repository of all these emergent properties.
So is therefore entirely possible that space could express mass effects on baryonic matter, due to space’s relativistic distortion, on all scales, without necessarily expressing mass via corresponding expression of matter.
Hence, “I can’t find any dark matter”, blah de blah blah.
There is no suitable emoticon for this stuff.
But no, we must always and everywhere assume, the “missing mass”, can only mean “missing matter”.
No, sorry, the original observation is of “missing mass” needed to explain galactic rotational velocity accross a galactic disk.
Only the spinners presume the mass is matter.
Look, the simplistic’s logic goes like this:
Where does mass come from?
Matter.
So where does matter pop out from?
Space … relativistic wave disturbance of space, actually.
So mass must therefore ultimately originate from?
Space.
So what if relativistic disturbance of space, with no matter created, was sufficent to express mass of otherwise ’empty’ space?
Gee, ya think a galaxy of baryonic rotating and exploding, etc, might relativisticly disturb and distort space?
Thus cause surrounding distorted space to express its ‘mass’ property, sans space’s ‘matter’ property?
Oh no! You crazy heretic! That could nevah heppen!
Oh wash your mouth out!
There is no black hole at the center of the Milky way, and no light distortion from the stars that orbit it.
https://youtu.be/u_gggKHvfGw
gas cloud float past it
https://www.space.com/31524-black-holes-rejected-snack-becomes-science-goldmine.html
can we stop putting pseudo science on WUWT please
Light does NOT bend in space people, it refracts, you have to be a complete idiot to think it does
Refracts from what ?
“The measurement was repeated by a team from the Lick Observatory in the 1922 eclipse, with results that agreed with the 1919 results and has been repeated several times since, most notably in 1953 by Yerkes Observatory astronomers and in 1973 by a team from the University of Texas. Considerable uncertainty remained in these measurements for almost fifty years, until observations started being made at radio frequencies.” [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Deflection_of_light_by_the_Sun]
Thanks for pointing out the idiocy of believing in something repeatedly measured vs fantasy of refraction caused by fart gases of giant space unicorns… /sarc
and what does this mean…
surely the definition of a black hole is that nothing gets out, they only accrete ‘stuff’, be it mass or energy.
(Bit like what’s left of The Peasant in me innit, farmers *never* throw *anything* out)
Wait. Thanks to the galactic modesty of Stephen Hawking RIP and his ‘Hawking Radiation’, black holes ain’t black at all, the eponymous radiation makes them the brightest things around.
All things to all……..etc etc etc
Then and from this distance, how will me/you/anybody ever see inside there? All that mass inside such a small space will (gravitationally) bend the light, be X-rays, or the well-welling-radations we’re au-fait with, into such a mangled mess it’ll look like a climate model spaghetti graph.
Simply a mindblowing hall-of-mirrors in there.
sorry. nah. not buying
I thought that was gibberish myself.
Ok, officially we are now in a black hole runaway event, as per astrophysics.
Is this considered as anthropogenic yet or not, that is the question!
cheers
They cannot see black holes at the centre of our galaxy. The latest info I had was that they had mapped the path of several suns at the centre and found that they orbit a region where a black hole almost certainly is. The size and number of those suns suggests one massive black hole whose mass has bee approximated from the orbits and speed of the suns around it.
Yes, until recently, most information about the SMBH near the center of the Milky Way galaxy was derived from the motion of stars there. But in 2015, an observed gigantic X-ray flare reinforced the conclusion that the SMBH lies in the region Sagittarius A*.
Black holes are likely places where our model of the space-time manifold breaks down as well. This is similar to Newtonian relativity being quite sufficient until we investigated more extreme conditions where Einsteinian relativity was needed. “Dark matter” and “black holes” are today’s “science” — Einstein did not offer up “dark relativity” to fill the gap between observation and model, nor did Aristarchus offer up “dark flatness” to fill the gap between a round Earth and a straight one.
Dunno what you mean by “Newtonian relativity”. Newtonian mechanics aren’t relative, but absolute, which is what Newton got wrong. Space and time aren’t absolute, as Newton thought, but relative. The velocity of gravity isn’t instantaneous but at the speed of light. Einstein showed Newton wrong.
Aristarchus, like all other Hellenic scientists, knew that Earth is spherical (roughly), not flat. His departure from the standard model was in putting the Sun at the center of the “universe” (we’d now say solar system), rather than Earth. From well before Aristotle, Greek scientists rejected a flat Earth.
>>
Dunno what you mean by “Newtonian relativity”.
<<
Relativity dates back to at least Galileo. The usual term is Galilean-Newtonian Relativity. You basically add a velocity vector to your frame of reference–inertial frames as they are now called. The idea of relativity (the principle of relativity) is that our physical laws and theories are invariant with respect to location and velocity. Using Galilean-Newtonian Relativity, it’s possible to show that Newton’s three laws of motion are invariant–along with many other laws. Maxwell’s equations proved to be a harder nut to crack.
Jim
Jim.
Neither GG nor Newton had a theory of relativity, although they did understand frames of reference.
The fact remains that for Newton, time and space were absolute and gravity worked at a distance instantaneously. Einstein did indeed rely upon Maxwell to show Newton’s concept of absolute time and space false. Ditto instantaneous gravity.
>>
Neither GG nor Newton had a theory of relativity, although they did understand frames of reference.
<<
Sorry, Chimp, but you’re wrong on that point. You’re confusing Einstein’s solution with all forms of relativity. (In that case, what you mean is either “Special Relativity” or “General Relativity.”) Look up the “Principle of Relativity.”
Jim
Jim,
Thanks, but I don’t need to look it up.
While physicists before Einstein understood frames of reference, there was no specific or general theory of relativity before Einstein. Quite the opposite. As I noted, for Newton, time and space were absolute and universal gravitation worked instantaneously. In specific and general relativity, gravity works at light speed and space and time are relative. Pretty important differences.
If you think I’m wrong, please cite specific portions of the work of GG and Sir Isaac in which you imagine relativity to be proposed.
Thanks.
>>
Thanks, but I don’t need to look it up.
<<
Tsk, tsk, tsk.
>>
If you think I’m wrong, please cite specific portions of the work of GG and Sir Isaac in which you imagine relativity to be proposed.
<<
As a supporter of the Copernican system, Galileo had to defend this theory against those who preferred the geocentric system. One of the arguments against the Copernican system was that a moving Earth would leave a falling object behind. Galileo’s “Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems” was his version of relativity and explained that an observer onboard a ship (sailing smoothly) would be unable to tell if he was in motion or not. It’s called Galilean invariance or Galilean relativity.
Jim
We assume the theories we’ve adopted, Newton, Einstein, Quantum Mechanics, are invariant over all space and time. But what if they aren’t? What if the laws of physics aren’t laws at all, but are malleable? We know, at least, from the history of science, that what we believe is true is, at best, an approximation, and as we see more, the basics underlying them will change. Humility, please. All our observations are from a minor planet at the edge of an average galaxy in a blink of time.
“black holes” are today’s “science”
Willy
Black holes are not unique to Einstein’s theory of relativity. John Michell was the first to proposed the existence of black holes in 1784 based on Newtonian mechanics. Newton himself could have predicted it because the Schwarzchild radius can be easily derived by equating the escape velocity and the speed of light. Newton invented the formula for escape velocity and he also knew the speed of light.
Interesting that we believe in black holes even though none have been observed. I’m not saying they don’t exist – there is certainly “something” that is larger than a neutron star where our understanding of gravity breaks down – but that’s about all we know. There are plenty of alternative theories to black holes – such as quark stars, grav stars, black stars and elements of EU (yes, a lot of EU is junk science, but there is some of if that makes a lot of sense).
Supermassive black holes have been observed:
https://www.sciencealert.com/supermassive-black-hole-feeding-double-burp
“Then a black hole devours again, belching out a giant jet of particles. And now scientists have captured one doing so not once, but twice – the first time this has been observed.
The two burps, occurring within the span of 100,000 years, confirm that supermassive black holes go through cycles of hibernation and activity.”
Observation has a totally different meaning now.
Sheri,
The phenomena observed demonstrate the existence of the SMBH, in the same way as, for example, stellar parallax demonstrated the fact that Earth orbits the Sun, as predicted by the heliocentric hypothesis.
Observation meant the same thing in the past history of science as now, at least since the origin of modern science in 1543, and previously.
Unless to you the observations suggest a different inference, supported by prediction.
Chimp
April 8, 2018 at 1:03 pm
” stellar parallax demonstrated the fact that Earth orbits the Sun, as predicted by the heliocentric hypothesis.”
——————–
Chimp do you really think that actually applying “sexy” terminology like the “parallax’ thingy really do make a difference.
What the F@ck do you think the value of using a ‘sexed up’ terminology like ‘parallax ‘ will add to a science orientated conversation point…why some one like you would not use a more common and clear language when trying to make a point!!!
Beside that, I think you have a problem with your point and logic of it.
The ancients long before your claimed heliocentric hypothesis time, did run their civilization and societies in a time metric and calendars that clearly show that they had no any doubt or problem with the Sun been the center of their universe and world.
That was a fact to this people then, no need of any hypothesis there and then, what so ever, even when religiously they had, not all of them, but some, had to consider the suggestion that maybe Earth could actually be in some regard in the center of the universe.
If you keep stubbornly believe that the world and civilization really is about 1k year old instead of 6k years old at the very least, then you are entitled of propagating your own modern orientated religion.
The sundial time measurement and the ancient calendar of the ancients shows clearly that to them the Sun was the center of the world or solar system or the universe, factually, with no any problem or doubt what so ever, as that happens to have being one of their factual consensus then….period.
No idea what actual weight your approach from the hypothetical angle in this aspect can have when actually if you open your eyes and mind, you may see that it was already known with no doubt, as a proper matter of fact, for millennia before, that what the hypothesis you hold so high propagates what was then considered as matter of fact in ever day life activity… actually with a high accuracy and precision in the context of time measurement.
The wold of man does not start with Galileo…or captain Cook for that matter.
cheers
Whiten,
Observation of stellar parallax confirmed the heliocentric hypothesis. How can this fact possibly be out of place on a science blog, in comments about an astronomical post?
Many ancient civilizations had advanced astronomy, but none that I know of imagined a cosmos in which the earth goes around the sun and the stars were other suns.
I agree that the elements of civilization were in place in some regions thousands of years ago, but cosmology as now known dates only from the Scientific Revolution of the 16th century, et seq. A few Hellenic scientists did argue for heliocentric models, but the standard, consensus model was Ptolemy’s revision of Aristotle’s geocentric model.
Before Greek science, the standard Near Eastern model was as found in the Bible, Mesopotamian and Egyptian texts, ie a flat earth covered by a solid dome, the “vault of heaven” or “firmament”. The ancients made valuable observations, but their models were flawed.
Same applies to such civilizations as in the Indus Valley, China and Mesoamerica.
Chimp
April 8, 2018 at 2:18 pm
———–
Chimp, I think you have a problem in understanding a simple thing, a fact, that the 360 day calendar used for thousand of years is a proof that the people who used it had the Sun in the center of their world or universe, as the main time metric happens to be a pure clear sun dialing one.
In principle their calendars then happen to be more accurate and precise then ours now in the smart phone era, simply because then these people could not afford such errors.
Is so plain that in their time they knew the earth was round and circling the Sun, as they knew very well the oddity with, which to us today is clearly acknowledged by the odd 366 day year, which the odd year happens not to be a real thing actually.
They calendars address this oddity without creating a fake 366 days long year.
They could not address this if they did not know, but they did know it.
Beside this, please do tell me what do you mean by the “stellar parallax” please.
[?? .mod]
Whiten,
We know that the ancients didn’t know that the earth goes around the sun because their own myths tell us so, as do their art, sky charts and calendars.
Frame of reference matters. Ancient people could count the number of days between the same position and rising points of the sun, and the number of days between phases of the moon, without a model in which the earth goes around the sun.
Ancient calendars are not more accurate than ours today.
I guess I didn’t make the point about stellar parallax plain enough. My point is that scientists in the 17th century came to accept the heliocentric hypothesis without being able directly to observe the earth going around the sun. They inferred that conclusion from other observations, such as the fact that Galileo showed the Ptolemaic system false, thanks to his observation of the phases of Venus.
Stellar parallax was direct observational confirmation of the objective reality of the heliocentric theory, beyond showing geocentrism false. Now, in the space age, we have instruments which can actually see Earth going around the sun, but that this is the real case was known before satellites.
Chimp
April 8, 2018 at 3:17 pm
————
Chimp, first, thanks for your replies.
Second,without any intention to offend, I still must say, one of us definitely has no much of a clue about the basics and principals of time measuring and calendars.
And in the whole matter of it from ancients to present the only myth there is, is the odd 366 day long year, which in the prospect of the long term, makes our modern calendar less accurate and less precise than the ancient calendars.
If you understand this you will understand that in both these cases the time measuring and the calendars have the Earth circling the Sun. but please do not let this get in the way of you believing in myths and fairies as matter of fact.
No need for theories or hypothesis there when it comes to time measuring and calendars, either then in the long past, or now….unless no acceptance of fact happens to be the main point.
Anyway, thanks, and hopefully you do not mind my expression.
cheers
Whiten,
You are correct. One of us has no clue about what he’s talking.
There is no evidence whatsoever that any ancient people, who made valid astronomical observations, had any concept of a spherical earth orbiting a spherical sun, let alone in an elliptical path, as discovered by early modern scientists.
If you imagine that such evidence exists, please present it.
Even Paleolithic people could count the days of the lunar and annual cycles. That fact provides no evidence at all that they had a modern cosmology. If you imagine that such evidence exists, please present it. You won’t, because you can’t. It doesn’t exist.
The incontrovertible fact is that before a few Hellenic heretics proposed a heliocentric system, no one anywhere else in the world did so, in so far as evidence exists.
Clearly, you have never studied astronomy or the history thereof. But, please, show me as wrong as you suppose I am, by citing the pre-Hellenic heliocentric theories which you falsely imagine to exist.
Thanks.
Chimp
April 8, 2018 at 6:02 pm
Whiten,
You are correct. One of us has no clue about what he’s talking.
———————-
Chimp, this is no personal, and hope you cool with this conversation.
Let me try to explain my position in this, Ether it being wrong or right.
I stand by the position that states, no matter how beautiful sexy or luring a hypothesis or a theory or a hypothetical position is, it takes only one single ugly fact to to crush it.
I got in this conversation with you because I think your position happens to be biased by your eager ‘worshiping” of hypothesis, where one in the end does happen to keep hand waving the observations the records, the method of measurement and recording in an arbitrary way.
You ask me to offer evidence of any ancient hypothesis, when actually I was trying to show you that the record the data the knowledge as it stands is more like based in historical facts more than hypothesis.
Actually “fishing’ for ancient hypothesis is like “fishing” for myths, in an attempt to dismiss and hand wave the actual factual meaning of the history then, when one ends up to manufacture history according to his present world view regardless….
See, I actually, as far as I am concerned, tried to put up an assessment point , by point to a factual condition, of the odd 366 day year, and clearly stating that it factually is a fake construct in use in our calendars.
And in mean time stated that one of us has no clue about time measurement and calendars actually.
And regardless how straight forward my claim in that point was, you failed to respond to it, either by challenge it from your hypothetical or better knowledge in this matter, or even acknowledge it in some way.
If you actually know what you are talking about, why you do not make the simple effort to address it.
It is related to a very present modern time, you live in, no much ancestry knowledge required there.
So, either I or do know or don’t know, we need to know first the present before jumping and running after ancient theories, I think.
So, what would you say, is this calendar factual odd 366 day year a real natural thingy, or not, does it really exist in nature???
Again, all this conversation between us, as per this point, consist as per my position, simply to show that the astrophysical science as per this last research-study here happens to suffer from the same problem.
The problem of putting the hypothesis far above the observations, the measurements, the method of measurements, the analyses and the facts, in the way of bending all that to the might of the hypothesis and theories, regardless.
As per the context of this blog post, from my point of view, this latest astrophysical approach, shows clearly the immense problem these guys have with the observations, when and where somehow they have to mend Fermi GCR data to the light Hubble data in their light models.
A futile exercise I would say….for not saying silly. As futile as trying to pass through or to fit in “a Camel in to a needle’s eye”…
cheers
About 0.2% of stars are massive enough to form a black hole when they explode as a supernova.
If the Milky Way has 300 billion stars right now, that means there are something well over 500 million black holes in the galaxy. Given the fact these massive stars die much quicker than the rest of the stars, that means far, far more black holes were created since the Milky War formed and stars started forming which ended up in the Milky Way than the simple ratio indicates.
The black hole number would therefore be well over 1 billion, mostly stellar mass of 5 to 100 solar masses. So, they don’t make up the dark matter but could form a small fraction of it.
Scary stuff actually.
The possibility still exists that tiny, “primordial” black holes could account for dark matter:
https://www.space.com/23583-dark-matter-tiny-black-holes.html
@Chump.
In what computer simulated physics of gravitational galactic mutual orbits of baryonic mass, with blackholes, will the alleged black holes have their highest distribution in the galactic disk’s outer margin?
Where the actual missing-mass … is like, missing?
The simulation will instead produce the highest density distribution of alleged black holes toward the core.
Where more mass is actually not needed.
In fact more mass concentrated within the core would just make the missing-mass rotational velocity problem for any disk galaxy, even worse!
So no, presumed numerous blackholes in the cores of galaxies does the OPPOSITE of accounting for galactic margin’s implied “missing-mass”.
Geez … cart before donkey much?
@Bill Illis,
” … So, they don’t make up the dark matter but could form a small fraction of it. Scary stuff actually. ”
—-
What’s scarier are the compounding number of underlaying theoretical assumptions behind such calculations. Any one of which can collapse the house of cards, let alone several such.
On top of this, theorists DEMAND one to glibly accepts their equally compounding many house of cards theoretical INTERPRETATIONS, of highly questionable, limited, partial and unclear fragments of observations.
Interpreting at length about a jig-saw panorama image but possessing just 5 jig-saw pieces of the scene.
I do wonder why these theory fanboys want to try to interpret and pontificate so much when a person in 2018 can not actually see enough to usefully interpret what is there.
Let alone recognise the inadequacy of thier noodle, to address it honestly, via their multiplicity of assumptions based tool set.
What I would prefer is, that we, standing at a scenic lookout, do not have to listen to the annoying useless droning of know-it-all but know-nothing theorist interpreters, who waffle absurd nonsense about the shade of green of the folliage in the panorama, and what it means, and are simply spoilng the magnificence of the view coming from the observing instruments, for all of us.
I don’t think I’m in the minority in wishing the interminable ignorant self-absorbed droning theorists could be kicked off the scenic lookout’s steepest aspect slope, and never be seen or heard from again.
The observing instrument imagery is not about their annoying anti-social INTERPRETIVE droning.
It’s about the VIEW.
I accept that it may not be possible to comprehend or understand it in any genuinely meaningful human-relevant way.
I’m really OK with not knowing, it that’s how it actually is, when you burrow under the house of cards.
Nor do I need to ‘know’ to thoroughly love the observing, Bill.
My theory is that excess CO2 escapes the Earth’s atmosphere and gets sucked down black holes. Prove me wrong.
And another university had already determined there wasn’t a black hole at the center of our galaxy.
The truth is very simple… there’s an entire galaxy located around the center of our galaxy and it has a MASSIVE gravitational pull on things that go into the center. Things that go into the absolute center run into the problem of there being NO GRAVITY at one precise line on the mass axis of the galaxy.
That’s what’s happening – dumb students making assumptions based on bad education.
Black holes don’t exist. They’re a fabrication by an [pruned].
Einstein and those who predicted black holes based upon solving equations from the General Theory of Relativity were assholes? The Reverend John Michell was an asshole? The Reverend Monsignor Georges Lemaître?
Are there any physicists whom you don’t deem assholes?
“Things that go into the absolute center run into the problem of there being NO GRAVITY at one precise line on the mass axis of the galaxy.”
Not a line but a center point. This is why rotating matter under gravitational attraction form accretion disk. And this require that center of galaxies are void. “Au contraire”, density at center of galaxies increase toward a singularity and serve as the gravitational “anchor” for the rotating matter. Else around what would all the matter spins if there would be no “anchor”?
Oh dear.
Ahhhh, we’re the SWISS CHEESE Galaxy! 🆒🆒🆒
And yet despite the presences of these gravitational ‘super magnets’ right in the centre of our galaxy, ‘astronomers’ can detect the faintest echoes of the Big Bang?
They’re good.
Charles,
The cosmic microwave background radiation was indeed detected in 1964. Why does that surprise you?
How do they differentiate a low power x-ray emitting black hole from another x-ray source?
“The lower-energy emission spectra that we observed in these binaries is distinct from the higher-energy spectra associated with the population of accreting white dwarfs that dominates the central eight parsecs of the Galaxy6. The properties of these X-ray binaries, in particular their spatial distribution and luminosity function, suggest the existence of hundreds of binary systems in the central parsec of the Galaxy and many more isolated black holes. We cannot rule out a contribution to the observed emission from a population (of up to about one-half the number of X-ray binaries) of rotationally powered, millisecond pulsars.”
Frequency spectrum, spatial distribution and luminosity function.
Actually it is the accretion disk around the compact object that produces the Xrays. Look under QPOs, quasi-periodic oscillations, for the spectral signature of those objects.
How many black holes does it take to make up the missing mass that astronomers are calling “Dark Matter”? Is all of the Dark Matter actually hiding in Black Holes? If each Galaxy the size of ours has multi thousands and there are trillions of galaxies then I think I have found the missing “Dark Matter.”
Why did it take this long for astronomers to think of this and start looking for this? It appears they never walked along a river or a dam where there are whirlpools, watched these eddies and noted that quite often there are several other eddies next to the largest ones. Similar phenomenon was discovered on another planet with a cyclone like shape at one of the poles and a set of five or six peripheral and even spaced around it. I have observes these things in water since I was a child and I am an my seventies, they are not uncommon, even seen them in the wake of a boat.
Just a small fraction of the missing mass I have read.
It has long been a hypothesis that black holes account for dark matter. The problem is that there weren’t thought to be enough of them massive enough to add up to so much mass.
Just science fiction
It’s not fiction, it’s philosophy. One day, we may make near-observations beyond the fringe of our solar system. In the meantime, we receive signals which may or may not have fidelity, which may or may not be accurate representations of their emitters. However, for the foreseeable future, people will see patterns in the “clouds”, and, unfortunately, they will mix precision and accuracy, and will conflate logical domains, and even inject extra-logical domains (e.g. evolutionary creation). And the assumptions, assertions, really, will become political/social victims in the service of peoples and factions’ secular ambitions.
Another result of untestable modelling.
The center of the galaxies – or creation centers – are spawning quasars – which are inconsistent with the current astronomical dogma.
They’re ejected in pairs perpendicular to the galactic plane.
If the author claimed they were “white holes” – which is the time reversal of a black hole – it would be closed to what is observe – but like a black hole, it would take an infinite amount of time for the event to complete. And the ejection would be one sided – it wouldn’t be in pairs.
But at least a white hole could be observed.
In 1991, when Margaret Burbidge measured the atomic spectra of the X-ray quasars in NGC 4258 using the 3 meter reflector dish on Mt Hamilton outside of San Jose – a measurement that all the other major telescopes refused to measure for 85 years prior to 1991, she effectively place the last rose on the graves of the Big Bang, dark matter, dark energy and black holes.
— Cinaed
Xray astronomy began in the 1970s (I should know, I was there). 85 years before 1991 was rather earlier. Unless mrs Burbidge knew in 1906 that Xray QSOs were going to be discovered 70 years onward and that she would want to get her spectra, your reporting makes no sense.
Today my browser juxtaposes an advertisement with this report on black holes: ‘will 2018 be a good year for shares?’ I don’t think I am interested.
The inference in this article has been deprecated for years, decades, and longer through pure scientific reasoning. The latest consensus (i.e. political/social agreement) is that black holes (i.e. God-constructs) do not exist; and instead, based on near-observations and replication (i.e. scientific method and logical domain), there do exist gray holes. In the same vein, there once was catastrophic anthropogenic global cooling, then there was catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, which gave way to catastrophic anthropogenic climate change, and, today, simply global warming or climate change that are politically congruent (“=”), which are all consensus samplings of chaos (i.e. evolution).
Chimp
April 8, 2018 at 3:18 pm
The existence of black holes has been repeatedly confirmed.
Not true. The existence of objects massive and compact enough to be black holes has been repeatedly confirmed, but the existence of the required event horizons has never been verified. Since these are singular regions of spacetime and imply the existence of central singularities they probably do not exist in nature.
Stan,
As above, yes, evidence for event horizons is abundant, as links I’ve posted make clear.
Mods,
May I respectfully ask why “Sl@yers”, who question the GHE, are banned here, but creationists and the raving lunatic, ignoramus morons who advocate an “electric universe”, contrary to all observed physical phenomena, are not only tolerated, but allowed to take over whole comment sections?
Thanks.
Mods, I concur with Chimp. This interesting post was totally destroyed by a handful of trolls, to the point why bother reading anymore if a few trolls are allowed to take over a thread and denigrate others who try and make valid or at least original thoughts. It is one thing to make a valid point (as some have) that you don’t maybe believe what several generations of the keenest minds have arrived at at the forefront of Science, but to just wantonly allow some commenters to run amok and destroy most of entire post for no reason other than they don’t even want anyone else to think about it either, is wrong. If these idiots talked liked this in my living room, they would be shown the door in 9 nanoseconds, by the ear, and never be let back in. Sure would be nice to see some higher standards for comments here. And this was just a harmless article about the theory of black holes.
Chimp, I thought you made a pretty good case for the existence of black holes. I don’t think it is necessary to censor those who don’t agree. I know it does get a little frustrating arguing the same point over and over but I don’t think the mods need to intervene to fix it. Instead, make a better argument than the naysayers and let the readers decide. And I think you did just that.
Chimp, you are not well informed if you believe the electric universe model is “contrary to all observed physical phenomena”. I have been searching for a while for a cogent falsification of plasma cosmology and the electric universe, but I have yet to see one. Every post or article I’ve seen either distorts the Electric Universe theory, or dismisses its claims as far-fetched without offering any proof. You have made several assertions of things being “proved”, when in reality the observed phenomena are interpreted to fit the standard model. I’ve got to get to work, so I don’t have the exact cite handy, but i’ll come back later with it. The “missing neutrinos” problem is one of the assertions proponents of the Electric Universe make against the standard model: There are not enough neutrinos observed of the proper flavor to support the standard model of the sun. The response of standard model backers has been to propose that the neutrinos change flavor on their way to us from the sun. Two points: First, the only way to prove this is to observe the neutrino flavor distribution close to the sun and compare it with the distribution near Earth. Second, the latest experiment here on Earth did not detect any neutrinos changing flavor.
Your comment is typical of those I see from SJWs and leftist sites that will not refute someone’s points, but instead do the “bad man – I can’t hear you – la, la, la” routine. Get a grip.
….. along with other mathematical unicorns.
“New study suggests …”
oh boy … just love that.
Can’t observe the unobservable?
“Suggest” you’re right-ish regardless.
The never-ending-pudding of blackhole hoo-har.
The Chandra observations also reveal that the Milky Way galaxy has warmed 0.12 K since humans started observing it. Coincidence? I don’t think so!
Oh, dear. I didn’t close my italics properly. Here we go.
Don’t worry. You did not do so to great effect. 😉
I don’t know whether black holes exist or not, but if they do, we’re doomed.
And still doomed if they don’t.
I do like a bit of science fiction now and again, the general theme with AGW fits nicely.
Has anyone had a look at this (no joke!) highly relevant Hawking Paper from 2014?
Information Preservation and Weather Forecasting for Black Holes
https://arxiv.org/abs/1401.5761
Basically no black holes. I only wonder if he was going to say similar things about the BigBang…
I am not sure why Hawking mentioned Weather Forecasting in that bombshell paper – I did note he was a AGW advocate.
You have got to love astrophysicists. Talk about all hat and no cattle…
Presumably the effect they have on their surrounding stars can be no more than was the case before they became black holes. There is no extra mass being created at the centre of the galaxy regardless of how that mass is manifesting itself.
That said all the idea of a black hole does is explain the gravitational effect of something we can’t see. They are a useful idea as far as they go but rather like dark energy and dark matter they don’t take us very far do they.
How many black holes and now clusters of black holes have been discovered since Zwiky’s calculations suggesting dark matter?
What happens to a pair of entangled particles, photons perhaps, when one is dragged into a black hole and the other isn’t ?
Just curious
Spooky action at a distance become more spooky!
The verified concept of pair production- the spontaneous creation of , say, electron positron pairs from quantum fields, has been around since the early days of Paul Dirac. Essentially if such a pair is produced at the boundary of a singularity and one escapes from the black hole and one is absorbed then energy (and charge) changes within the black hole. This is more likely the smaller the black hole is- basically because the gravitational gradient is greater the smaller the hole is. As a result due to mass/energy equivalence the hole gets smaller, the chances of particles escaping increases and eventually the hole evaporates. Momentum is conserved in the creation of the pair, so if one returns to the singularity at close to c, the other can escape.
The LIGO/VIRGO collaborative proved that General Relativity is almost certainly correct as the polarization of the gravitational waves that were generated by black hole/neutron star mergers corresponded to the pattern expected from a tensor- that is a squeezing/expansion perpendicular to the direction of travel of the gravitational waves.
That’s Hawking’s proposed mechanism. Those are virtual particles. The big question is why aren’t they disappearing? The “energy changes within the black hole” means negative energy. You can imagine one of the particles having negative energy to obey the conservation of energy but that will not constrain their lifetime. They will exist indefinitely like real particles, which is a contradiction. The proper interpretation is they have positive energy but their lifetime is constrained by the Uncertainty Principle so there’s no violation of energy conservation. Or more precisely, the violation is allowed under the Uncertainty Principle.
The problem with theorists like Hawking and others is they interpret the equations literally (like a true Platonist). What Dirac found in his equations was an electron with negative energy. Of course the correct interpretation is a positron, the anti-particle of electron. It has positive energy and positive charge. Another example is the equation of potential and kinetic energy:
-G M m/R = 1/2 m v^2
The left side is potential energy. It has a negative sign. The right side is kinetic energy. To Platonists, this is a mathematical proof of negative energy. But the correct interpretation is the negative sign is inverse proportionality. It means any increase in KE must be balanced by a decrease in PE and vice versa. Both energies are positive. Some physicists interpret the equation to mean the total energy in the universe is zero since PE and KE are equal and opposite signs. This is wrong. If you transpose PE to the right side of the equation:
KE + PE = 2 KE = 2 PE > 0
It means the total energy is positive and constant, which is just a statement of the conservation of energy.
In short, Hawking’s proposed mechanism is a literal interpretation of math that contradicts physics.
Well, I’m not going to debate the details here, but it appears that you are a believer in the “Dirac sea” model which has some pretty obvious, practical deficiencies that even the great Paul Dirac couldn’t fully reconcile.
Also, please discard the idea that virtual particles are indeed virtual. They are real particles, in fact in a sense all particles are “virtual particles” in that they are merely fluctuations in the appropriate quantum field.
A good example of the reality of “virtual particles” is the Casimir effect- which allows force (i.e. the exchange of “real” particles) to be applied to material objects just due to the local constraint of vacuum fluctuations- i.e “virtual” particle generating fluctuations of the quantum fields that make up “empty” space.
Clearly, those “virtual” particles behave like real particles- exchanging momentum and energy from the vacuum to “real” objects.
Besides, Hawking was a brilliant man. Have you ever read his original Doctoral Thesis- “properties of expanding universes”? If not, perhaps you should. I believe that it’s now available free on line from Cambridge University Press.
In 2014 Hawking changed his mind about event horizons and radiation –
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/08/astronomer-tens-of-thousands-of-black-holes-exist-in-our-galaxys-center/#comment-2785370
I do not believe that Hawking changed his mind about whether or not Black Holes are perfect black body radiators. He changed his mind as to whether information is conserved or not in the “black hole information paradox”. In effect he proposed that black holes have “hair”, a concept that is still being researched, I believe.
The Casimir effect does not prove virtual particles are real particles. It proves virtual particles are real, BIG DIFFERENCE. They can interact with real particles but it doesn’t have indefinite lifetime and its from vacuum energy, not from gravitational energy. The black hole.isn’t feeding energy to the vacuum. It will not lose energy via virtual particles that draws energy from the vacuum. Instead of the matter annihilation imagined by Hawking, the virtual particles will just disappear as they always do.
Sorry I’m not a fan of Hawking. His other ‘brilliant’ ideas are the wavefunction of the universe LOL and the singularity theorems. If you were to believe Sabine Hossenfelder, she said nobody believes in singularity. I don’t know, maybe she’s too harsh 🙂
I’m sorry for, apparently, being obtuse, but I do not understand the distinctions you make. The particles at the black hole boundary are generated by vacuum fluctuations. The action of gravity is what modifies their world-lines, separating the pairs, their paths are described by the solutions to GR at the boundary. Effectively energy is exchanged from the black hole event horizon to the external universe and the loss of energy represents loss of mass within the black hole.
As for the Casimir effect, again, I do not follow your logic. Again, you seem to assume that real and virtual particles are somehow different and that you can arbitrarily decide which is which.
A semi plausible argument is that “virtual” particles become “real” once an interaction occurs. For example, how do you think electrons exchange electric force? How do they “know” that a force particle needs to be exchanged with a positively charged particle, for example, or that they need to be repelled from another electron. Do you think that there’s a “real” force particle just whizzing around hoping to hit something? Does that sound reasonable to you?
By the way, there are many legitimate physicists that consider Sabine Hossenfelder to be, well, how shall we say it, a delusional kook.
Sometimes scientists can be quite catty.
BH will not lose energy by drawing particles inside its event horizon. It will gain mass and increase its gravitational field strength. The energy loss proposed by Hawking is due to matter annihilation – positive energy particle meets negative energy particle. Of course you have to believe in negative energy. I don’t.
Distinction between real and virtual particles. That’s easy. The electron in hydrogen atom is perturbed by virtual particles. You can argue invoking Copenhagen interpretation that the virtual particles are exchanging places with the real particle when we are not looking at it. Maybe. But there’s only one real electron, the others are virtual particles. We cannot mistake one particle for a hundred particles.
Yeah Sabine is kinda kooky but your legitimate physicists who advocate multiverse and string theory are kookier and that’s a lot of kooks LOL
With all due respect, you need to do some reading on Quantum Field Theory.
Unfortunately using words always leads to misunderstanding and as you are somewhat derisive of the math it’s hard to see how to proceed.
In any case, what do you mean that the real electron is perturbed? Perturbed means that there is an exchange of momentum, does it not. How does that occur? Specifically, how does it occur and obey the inverse square law for electric fields when all you have are a near infinite number of “virtual” particles and two “real” particles? You’ve already admitted that only “real” particles can exchange momentum- so how do the virtual particles become real, and if they don’t become real when an interaction of virtual/virtual particles exists then how does a transfer of momentum occur? And, if a transfer of momentum occurs between these virtual particles how does that somehow change the motion of the two “real” electrons that you posit?
As far as Hawking radiation is concerned, again I beg to disagree. No particle/anti particle annihilation is required. When the particle pair is produced just beyond the event horizon the black hole (due to the action of GR) boosts the escaping particle, converting, if you will, gravitational energy (black hole mass) into some other form as it reifies the escaping particle. Meanwhile the remaining virtual particle is absorbed within the black hole but no mass is added because the particle is “virtual” and has infinitesimally small energy (mass).
So, in this process the black hole loses mass, not gains it, and the lost mass is, if you will, converted to Hawking radiation, which can, theoretically, be observed.
My apologies, but I think that I misinterpreted what you said.
I believe that the negative energy that you refer to is gravitational potential, and that in essence is what gives the virtual particle a boost to become real.
If the particle appears essentially from nothing, it will have a large negative gravitational potential at the event horizon, but as it escapes that gravity potential becomes more positive giving the gravity boost that was mentioned and under the correct circumstances, making the particle real and allowing it to escape the event horizon.
If so, not believing in having a negative sign on the gravitational formula is unfortunate.
I recommend a look at that Hawking paper (only 4 pages) – understated with almost no “heavy” maths :
No event horizons, only apparent, so no Black Holes in the usual sense of the term.
“The chaotic collapsed object will radiate deterministically but chaotically. It will
be like weather forecasting on Earth. That is unitary, but chaotic, so there is effective
information loss. One can’t predict the weather more than a few days in advance.”
Strangely enough this arises from gravitational quantisation, light years from Climate.
We have all been reading about how galaxies must have some unseen mass in order to rotate the way they do. And I don’t doubt that is true.
But I saw an interesting item in Astronomy magazine recently that claimed a small galaxy had been found that apparently has no dark matter incorporated into it.
We have a long way to go in our understanding of the workings of the universe.
This has got to be the most exciting time to be alive for human beings who are interested in understanding the universe. The only better time would be a couple of hundred years in the future when we know so much more than we do now. The advances in science in my lifetime have been just amazing and wonderful to behold. Thanks to all those curious humans out there.
Here’s what the Editor of Astronomy magazine has to say about CAGW skeptics:
“How did our universe give rise to tardigrades and Trump supporters and other bizarre creatures?”
Jeff Hester, Editor, Astronomy Magazine, May 2018, p. 11.
Hester preaches to be open to all possibilities, but doesn’t practice his own advice when it comes to some areas of science. A hypocrit, in other words.
I saw a few posts on WUWT criticizing Astronomy magazine as going the way of Scientific American and National Geographic in their blatant promoting of the CAGW speculation, but I don’t see that happening in Astronomy magazine just yet, despite Mr. Hester’s comments.
So far, comments like these have been limited to the comment or editorial section of the magazine and have not polluted the science in the astronomy articles in the magazine.
Note to Mr. Hester: If your CAGW/Trump propaganda ever does seep into the articles in your magazine, I will no longer subscribe to it, just like I no longer subscribe to all those other magazines that pretend to be unbiased science information purveyors while pushing the unverified claims for CAGW being real.
TA
About that galaxy without dark matter. Physicists think dark matter can be explained by either undetected particles or a revised theory of gravity, the so-called Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND). I’m in the particle camp (I have my own particle dark matter theory) Galaxy DF2 does not rule out particle dark matter. It probably rules out MOND. See Stacy McGaugh’s defense of MOND (and my comment and his troll-bot rant LOL)
https://tritonstation.wordpress.com/2018/04/04/the-dwarf-galaxy-ngc1052-df2/
A couple of comments on this and also your rejection of the concept that gravity does not have a negative sign.
I’ll specify my own “spherical cow”- a universe with only two massive objects, separated at infinite distance.
The kinetic energy of this system is zero, and the gravitational potential is also zero so the net energy is also zero. By definition, the objects do not come together due to the action of gravity. Next, separate the two masses by an infinitesimally smaller amount. Now there is gravitational attraction and acceleration occurs so that kinetic energy of the masses slowly, but inevitably, increases, until the objects come together . At that point the kinetic energy is not zero, but conservation of energy requires that the net energy is, indeed, zero, so the gravitational potential must be negative- the energy function requires it!
As for MOND. Tracey makes a number of good points, although the inability of MOND (and any of its derivatives so far) to preserve Lorentz Invariance means that most physicists discard it out of hand despite its predictive qualities.
Of course, there are other issues with it- such as its inability to correctly predict the CMBR acoustic peaks- that the lambda-CDM model handles brilliantly.
Otherwise, dark matter seems to be pretty arbitrary in its presence or absence and our inability to detect any candidates for its makeup is disturbing. Perhaps some modification to the gravity force law is not totally implausible, or perhaps inertia itself is variable.
“two massive objects, separated at infinite distance. The kinetic energy of this system is zero, and the gravitational potential is also zero”
Nope. Math says PE is zero. Physics says it’s infinite. Start with the two objects together and separate them to infinite distance. PE increases to infinity. Don’t take the math literally. The equation is for finite PE and KE
A quote from Hyperphysics.
“Gravitational potential at infinity
In this case we generally choose the zero of gravitational potential energy at infinity, since the gravitational force approaches zero at infinity. This is a logical way to define the zero since the potential energy with respect to a point at infinity tells us the energy with which an object is bound to the earth.”
I respectfully suggest that your redefinition of gravitational potential is the source of your confusion.
Black Hole Lives Matter
+100
How do we know Black Hole Lives Matter?
If you cross the event horizon, no one an hear you protest…..
Thanks — this is fascinating.
Agree – a truly fascinating topic!
Orbits of 50 stars around the 4million solarMass central Galactic object :
http://www.mpe.mpg.de/6590570/Stellar-Orbits
Something massive, dense is driving these orbits. Keplers law does visibly hold there. Problem is the 800 billion solar Mass galactic disk, totally opposite to Solar neighborhood ratios.
And to top it all the nearest galaxy Andromeda was 300% wrongly measured : it is the same size as ours.
https://www.icrar.org/cosmic-collision/
So dark matter estimates off by a factor of 3.
And I have’nt even mentiond red-shift, yet.