Scientists Find Giant Black Hole

ACamp1900

Counting my ‘bet against ND’ winnings
Messages
48,950
Reaction score
11,234
Contrary to Notre Dame football fans belief it is not the ND Goal Line Offensive Playbook.



Scientists discover black hole 12 billion times more massive than the sun - CNN.com


12 BILLION times larger than the Sun.


fcae4283a9fd45029c8a1162314c4d5773a8e36694c50cd901d806ca4540d5ca.jpg

On a serious note ( not really) though,... If its so damn big, and they're so smart, why'd it take them so long to find it??
 
Last edited:

Rhode Irish

Semi-retired
Messages
7,057
Reaction score
900
On a serious note ( not really) though,... If its so damn big, and they're so smart, why'd it take them so long to find it??

The universe is rather large. Also, for obvious reasons, black holes are somewhat harder to find than other objects in space.
 

IrishInFl

Back in Florida
Messages
5,288
Reaction score
424
I didn't see where they said it was. I assume the Milky Way, but I hope I'm wrong.
 

Irish#1

Livin' Your Dream!
Staff member
Messages
44,605
Reaction score
20,082
They obviously didn't use a Stanley tape measure from Home Depot to measure it.
 

BGIF

Varsity Club
Messages
43,946
Reaction score
2,922
I didn't see where they said it was. I assume the Milky Way, but I hope I'm wrong.

Monster black hole found in tiny galaxy : Nature News & Comment

Anil Seth of the University of Utah in Salt Lake City and his colleagues report the findings on 17 September in Nature1. The team became intrigued by the ultra-compact dwarf galaxy M60-UCD1, some 16.6 million parsecs (54 million light years) from Earth, in part because its X-ray emissions suggested that it might house a black hole. Images taken with the Hubble Space Telescope showed that the galaxy harboured a high concentration of mass at its centre, but the team had no idea how heavy the putative black hole might be.
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
Yep it is over 12 billion light years away which means, according to current established understanding, the black hole formed close to the beginning of the universe. The big question is how it formed and then became a quasar so quickly (relatively speaking) and its immense size.
 

phork

Raining On Your Parade
Messages
9,863
Reaction score
1,019
Just watched Interstellar. And with this discovery just bends your brain. I love it.
 

IrishLion

I am Beyonce, always.
Staff member
Messages
19,128
Reaction score
11,077
I can't even comprehend in my mind how something could be 12 BILLION times larger than our Sun.

I have a hard time comparing the size of Earth to the size of the Sun in my head as it is.
 

Old Man Mike

Fast as Lightning!
Messages
8,978
Reaction score
6,469
Perhaps no one really cares, but just in case: the reason why such as monster could occur is that it happened in the very early stages of the Universe after the expansion had begun. The universe was much denser in mass then, affording great potential for gravitational collapse of matter into the supercompressed state of a "singularity". The word "singularity" indicates that according to Einstein et al, the mass would be compressed into a zero-volume state --- i.e. it would occupy NO space, just a point-of-force-focus. Paradoxically, the biggest things in the universe mass-wise, are also the smallest space-occupying-wise.

The second reason why we would expect such monsters way back then, is that the hyperdynamic state of early expansion would have been a chaotic situation, creating all manner of "unequal distributions" of mass in given space volumes --- "heavier" volumes creating earlier Black Holes, which would get a head start gobbling up more mass. {and forming cores of early galaxies}. As those galaxies continued to grow with their attracted matter swirling about, that matter would tend to drift to the center feeding the early monster.

Black holes, as I guess everyone knows, SEEM to have spatial size only because the force they project is so gravitationally "steep" that light cannot reflect or in any way traverse the nearby space, at a distance which is greater or lesser depending upon how much mass has been "swallowed" into the core point-of-force-focus. More mass swallowed means a wider radius of space surrounding it from which light [and all else] cannot return. But if true, what are the scientists talking about when they speak of measuring X-radiation, which is just a form of extremely shortwave light?

X-rays of extreme energy are thought to be a signature of the existence of a black hole which is still in a dynamic "feeding" process, but the X-rays do not come from the BH itself. As the gravitational force of the focus point attracts surrounding matter towards itself, that matter swirls about an axis and "down-the-drain" {one of the peculiarities of Creation is that every fundamentally physical object has "spin", even the BH}. During this swirl down the ultimate toilet, the matter [still on the outer edge of the disappearance point] interacts with its fellow doomed particles producing nuclear fusion quality heat and beyond. This action alters the matter to produce light of all kinds, thus the high energy X-rays --- some of which "escape" into space since they're not yet inside the "event horizon" [the "nothing escapes" radius boundary]. These X-rays sail across space at light velocity, finally telling us what has gone on, in this case almost 13 billion years ago.

Our scientists' estimates of EXACTLY what is going on, though, are theoretical. This is because if we're honest we cannot say that we fully understand BHs [or, weirdly, if they even exist as we model them]. We trust our current theory for their formation and nature, plus we guess that they are the only likely things which could produce X-rays of these high energies at such a constancy of power and location. Frankly, we don't know any of that for sure, even though it's a pretty good guess. The SIZE [i.e. mass content] of any BH is also a best-guess situation. Measuring mass at a vast distance is trouble, not only in getting the decimals right, but it depends upon the measurement of other things about the light source that one CAN see. For all that guesstimation, and why we make it, you'll have to sign up for a modern astrophysics class.
 

Rhode Irish

Semi-retired
Messages
7,057
Reaction score
900
My brain just doesn't fully comprehend the massiveness of outer-space

I think you can only "get it" on paper. Like, you can intellectually understand it, but I'm not sure humanity is really equipped to understand it on a gut level.
 

dshans

They call me The Dribbler
Messages
9,624
Reaction score
1,181
Forces are at play.

The head is squeezed.

The mind is blown.





Please don't clog my personal "bit space" with any "mind blown" gifs. I've seen enough, already!
 

MNIrishman

Well-known member
Messages
2,532
Reaction score
481
Perhaps no one really cares, but just in case: the reason why such as monster could occur is that it happened in the very early stages of the Universe after the expansion had begun. The universe was much denser in mass then, affording great potential for gravitational collapse of matter into the supercompressed state of a "singularity". The word "singularity" indicates that according to Einstein et al, the mass would be compressed into a zero-volume state --- i.e. it would occupy NO space, just a point-of-force-focus. Paradoxically, the biggest things in the universe mass-wise, are also the smallest space-occupying-wise.

The second reason why we would expect such monsters way back then, is that the hyperdynamic state of early expansion would have been a chaotic situation, creating all manner of "unequal distributions" of mass in given space volumes --- "heavier" volumes creating earlier Black Holes, which would get a head start gobbling up more mass. {and forming cores of early galaxies}. As those galaxies continued to grow with their attracted matter swirling about, that matter would tend to drift to the center feeding the early monster.

Black holes, as I guess everyone knows, SEEM to have spatial size only because the force they project is so gravitationally "steep" that light cannot reflect or in any way traverse the nearby space, at a distance which is greater or lesser depending upon how much mass has been "swallowed" into the core point-of-force-focus. More mass swallowed means a wider radius of space surrounding it from which light [and all else] cannot return. But if true, what are the scientists talking about when they speak of measuring X-radiation, which is just a form of extremely shortwave light?

X-rays of extreme energy are thought to be a signature of the existence of a black hole which is still in a dynamic "feeding" process, but the X-rays do not come from the BH itself. As the gravitational force of the focus point attracts surrounding matter towards itself, that matter swirls about an axis and "down-the-drain" {one of the peculiarities of Creation is that every fundamentally physical object has "spin", even the BH}. During this swirl down the ultimate toilet, the matter [still on the outer edge of the disappearance point] interacts with its fellow doomed particles producing nuclear fusion quality heat and beyond. This action alters the matter to produce light of all kinds, thus the high energy X-rays --- some of which "escape" into space since they're not yet inside the "event horizon" [the "nothing escapes" radius boundary]. These X-rays sail across space at light velocity, finally telling us what has gone on, in this case almost 13 billion years ago.

Our scientists' estimates of EXACTLY what is going on, though, are theoretical. This is because if we're honest we cannot say that we fully understand BHs [or, weirdly, if they even exist as we model them]. We trust our current theory for their formation and nature, plus we guess that they are the only likely things which could produce X-rays of these high energies at such a constancy of power and location. Frankly, we don't know any of that for sure, even though it's a pretty good guess. The SIZE [i.e. mass content] of any BH is also a best-guess situation. Measuring mass at a vast distance is trouble, not only in getting the decimals right, but it depends upon the measurement of other things about the light source that one CAN see. For all that guesstimation, and why we make it, you'll have to sign up for a modern astrophysics class.

The fact that our capacity for experimentation is so limited in astrophysics is the reason why I left that path. I find untestable prediction to be highly bothersome. THAT's why I now do string theory.






;)
 

Old Man Mike

Fast as Lightning!
Messages
8,978
Reaction score
6,469
MN: I ASSUME that the last sentence is high humor... I wonder how many Americans would get the joke?

If it's not humor then my assessment of the predictability of String Theory deductions [if there are any] must be ready to receive a significant consciousness expansion.
 

Grahambo

Varsity Club Member
Messages
4,259
Reaction score
2,606
The fact that our capacity for experimentation is so limited in astrophysics is the reason why I left that path. I find untestable prediction to be highly bothersome. THAT's why I now do string theory.






;)

tumblr_murwap3W5u1r9ljhqo1_500.gif
 

dshans

They call me The Dribbler
Messages
9,624
Reaction score
1,181
Let's see:

– The General Theory of Relativity
– Quantum Theory
– String Theory
– Black Hole Evaporation
– Entropy
– The Theory of Everything
– Will Notre Dame win a National Championship before my Expiration Date?



Beats me!
 
Last edited:
B

Bogtrotter07

Guest
To me, the most amazing thing is that we have developed a way to observe and comprehend these things, (respective to incredible distances and mind numbing sizes and quantities.)
 
Top