Slashdot Mirror
There's a Hole in the Middle of It All
Apparition writes "CNN is reporting that the star at the center of our galaxy is actually a super-massive black hole. The article then claims that it occupies a volume of space about 3 times that of our solar system. If my math is correct, about 230 million suns could fit into that same volume, so it doesn't impress me that the claimed mass of the black hole is only between 2.6 and 3.7 million times that of the sun. So what is up here? Since when do black holes occupy so much space (I thought they were points)? And how can something with a density only 1/100 of our Sun be called super-massive?" I think the article is talking about a maximum possible size of the object, due to limitations on the resolution of our instruments. Nature has a no-registration story about the research. Update: 10/16 23:44 GMT by M : There's an article with more information on space.com, and a press release from the European Southern Observatory.
According to my Astronomy course, Super-Massive black holes are less "violent" than their smaller brothers because most of the mass is concentrated at the center in a very very small space. Their event-horizons are very large because of this mass, which makes them seem not as dense as we would assume. With a small black hole, the event horizon is very small, and thus the effects near the point are much more drastic because mass that passes the event horizon is "consumed" immediately. I realize I am simplifying quite a bit, but hopefully you get the point.
The "size" of the black hole refers to the size of its event horizon (a.k.a the Schwarzschild Radius), which is R = GM/2c^2. For a huge value of M ("supermassive"), the event horizon is very large: once you cross this, there's no coming back, and our physics stops at the edge. But since R is so large, the tidal forces are small at the event horizon - much smaller than the tidal forces at the event horizon of a smaller black hole. (Chew on it for a second and it makes sense).
The "actual" naked singularity is in fact a point, but we have no way of probing anything inside the event horizon. So calculating the density of a black hole is misleading...
"I will take the Ring," he said, "though I do not know the way."
Theoretically the mass of the galaxy itself should be enough to hold it together. Even the black hole could have originally been formed from matter collecting at the center of gravity of the galaxy.
This would seem to imply that, in theory, a very large black hole could have rather low density inside the event horizon. It seems to me that a black hole could spontaneously form around a particularly dense cluster of stars if it was large enough and they all happened to clump together.
But my head starts to hurt thinking about what happens to physics when a region of normal space suddenly finds itself inside a black hole like that. I am definitely not a physicist, so I can't explain what goes on inside a black hole, or if my globular cluster black hole is even possible.
Crispin
----
Crispin Cowan, Ph.D.
Chief Scientist, WireX Communications, Inc.
Immunix: Security Hardened Linux Distribution
Available for purchase
It's true that often when the size of a black hole is mentioned, it is the Swartzchild radius or "Event Horizon" that is being mentioned, being it's apparent size to our instruments.
It is not however true that black holes are points. A black hole that became a point gravity source is what is referred to as a singularity. It was a singularity that became the big bang and if the "big crunch" theory is correct, it will probably be a singularity that the universe ends as, but under any other circumstances the creation of a singulairty would require a set of events so astronomically unlikely that it is not believed that any do have or will come into existence during the lifetime of the universe. So in fact black holes DO have a radius, but considering the tremendous size quoted here, I imagine they are in fact referring to the Swartzchild radius.
lysergically yours
Comets can orbit the sun for a really long time; some smack into an object (like the sun, for instance), some escape their orbit, and some just keep orbiting. There's nothing that guarantees the star will get sucked in; it all depends on the orbital path, really. It may experience a slingshot effect and leave the black hole altogether.
An object can orbit a black hole just like a planet can orbit the Sun (or a star). The Sun will not swallow or pull in the Earth any time soon. Black Holes are not cosmic vacuum cleaners that "suck" up everything around them. If you're in a stable orbit, it would be just like orbiting a Sun.
That said, there is evidence from general relativity that due to graviton radiation (gravity particles), large orbiting bodies slowly move closer to each other. The gravitons leaving such a system take energy out of the system slowly bringing the orbiting bodies together. This effect is (AFAIK) theoretical, although many people are currently working on ways to detect this graviton radiation and show that it is coming from systems like this. So in this case, yes, eventually (think eons) the star and the black hole would slowly move towards each other (the star would move more since it the least mass of the two) and in this type of collision, the black hole wins.
Who said Freedom was Fair?
- r = 2GM/c^2
where G = 6.67e-11 m^3/s^2*kg (the gravitational constant) and c = 3e8 m/s (the speed of light, of course). Plug in 3 million sun-masses (the sun weighs 2e30 kg), and you have- r = 8.9e9 m = 5.5 million miles = 0.06AU
So unfortunately, the event horizon isn't three times as big as the solar system. The earth's orbit is 1AU (that's how the unit is defined). The event horizon barely stretches past the surface of the sun (7e8 meters)!So much for that idea!
"but really, wtf could hold an entire GALAXY together but a black hole?"
I am (or rather, was) an astrophysicist. The answer is the rest of the galaxy holds it together, a bit like the gravity of the Earth is what holds the Earth together. The galaxy has the mass of billions of stars - so any stars not at the center are being pulled towards the center.
In answer to the original poster, the 'size' of a black hole is its event horizon radius:
R = 2GM/c^2
where
G = universal gravitational constant
M = mass of the black hole
c = speed of light.
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
Current theories in no way preclude the formation of a singularity.
;-)
True, but current theories also haven't proven that inside a black hole _is_ a singularity. Although it's been a while, I remember from an Astronomy class I took that due to the rate of spin outside the black hole, and that conservation of momentum would mean it would spin faster inside means that the odds of a true point singularity are relatively low.
But what do I know?
This is a small misunderstanding. Many people seem to think that a black hole has super gravity or extra strength power just because its a black hole. Actually, it all depends on the mass.
For example, if our sun suddenly turned into a black hole, we wouldn't get sucked in. We'd still orbit our new black hole sun the same way we orbited our old normal sun. Just because it became a black hole doesn't mean its mass changed. And since its mass didn't change, we would still orbit the same.
Ditto for our galaxy. If we didn't have this black hole at the center of the galaxy, but instead 3.7 million suns, everything would orbit just the same
---
A black hole is just God dividing by zero
The general theory of relativity predicts the formation of singularities, but when taken into consideration along with quantum theory as both Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose have, they become astronomically unlikely(but not impossible). The formation of a black hole would require a mass at least as large as the one in the centre of our galaxy to form a true point singularity and it would have to compress in a mathematically exact symmetrical fashion. Most black holes should have a radius according to modern theories which use both relativity and quantum mechanics rather than ignoring one in favor of the other. Mind you, that radius should by phenomenally tiny.
The discussion you refer to is the one about Hawking radiation. Stephen Hawking has demonstrated that Black Holes do actually(counter to intuition) radiate an extroardinarily small amount of energy. There is considerable debate as to whether it is possible for this radiation to ever cause the black hole to dissipate.
lysergically yours
"I think the article is talking about a maximum possible size of the object, due to limitations on the resolution of our instruments."
I'm sure this editorial comment was well-intentioned, but the article would have been much better off without it. What the article refers to corresponds closely quite nicely to the Schwarzschild radius of a supermassive black hole.
A very massive black hole will necessarily be much less dense than the Sun, and can even be less dense than the Earth.
The simple reason is that (assuming a static, spherically symmetric mass distribution) the mass of an object is directly proportional to its Schwarzschild radius. But density is proportional to mass divided by radius cubed.
So if you double the mass of a black hole, you must necessarily double its radius. By definition this increases its volume eight-fold, and so its density is decreased by a factor of four.
So as you consider larger and larger black holes, you must see that their densities are smaller and smaller.
If you are in the market for a comparatively easy textbook that will teach you more about general relativity, I recommend Exploring Black Holes by Taylor and Wheeler. If you have a firm grasp of calculus and freshman physics, you will be able to handle it. It is more expensive than a normal book, but cheaper than the average textbook.
The size issue: the companion star's orbit tells us the maximum possible size of the central object. If the orbit is 17 light hours across, the primary is at most that large. It can be smaller, just as our Sun's diameter is smaller than the orbit of Mercury.
The proof the central object is a black hole is that nothing else can fit millions of solar masses into a sphere 17 light-hours across. The black hole need not fill that volume. More precisely, the event horizon need not fill that volume.
Singularities, point masses, event horizons: the size of a black hole depends what you mean. The singularity is the postulated point of infinite density: outside observers can't see it because it's inside the event horizon. The event horizon is the point of no return; in classical terms, the escape velocity equals the speed of light at the event horizon. The gravitational force is finite at the event horizon, and need not be extreme if the black hole is very, very large. If the universe is closed, we are all inside a black hole now, and will experience singularity at the Big Crunch.
But it isn't useful to think about the inside of a black hole. Different physics might apply -- lots of smart people think so. From the outside, as another poster wrote, all you get to observe is the black hole's total mass, total charge and total angular momentum -- that's plenty to work with in astronomical observations.
As to matter 'spiralling in', or the entire galaxy being sucked in by 'infinite gravity': Earth isn't being sucked into our Sun, is it? Unless you're quite close to one, the gravitational field of a black hole essentially (asymptotically) follows an inverse square law, like the gravity from any object. (When you get close, in units of the Schwarzchild radius, you do indeed 'spiral in' because the field strength increases faster than inverse square. The precession of Mercury's orbit is used to measure the deviation from inverse-square near our Sun, and is one of the 'proofs' of Einstein's General Relativity.)
The other mechanism for 'spiralling in' is loss of orbital energy due to friction, as in the accretion disk around neutron stars, for example.
That is all. Return to your homes and families. :-)
je ne suis pas un fou
Please mod down all the people who are currently at +5 claiming that the size of the object is really the event horizon, which is very large due to it being a supermassive black hole. This is a true statement, but it still doesn't explain the claimed size of the black hole in the article.
If you work out the schwartzchild radius of the sun using r=2GM/c^2 it comes out to around 3000 m. For the upper limit of 3.7 million solar masses that would mean that the black hole had a schwartzchild radius of around 1 x 10^10 m. This is about a factor of 14 larger than the radius of the sun which is 7 x 10^8 m.
This is no where near as large as the "volume of space around 3 times larger than the solar system" which is in the article. The poster of the article was also correct that the density was way too low. It is correct that supermassive black holes have large event horizons which are larger than the radii of typical stars like the sun. However, the average density inside of that event horizon is still denser than a neutron star.
I wish I had the 5 moderator points I had last week, I'd go to town on this story...
Virtual particles pairs appear near the event horizon. Normally the particles would quickly annihilate each other (conserving energy) but at the event horizon sometimes one of the pair is pulled in while the other escapes. Since you can't create matter or energy, the escaping particle effectively 'steals' the energy from the black hole. These escaping particles are what they are talking about. Or something like that.
Some of the more avant guard sting theorists are advancing the notion that black holes are simply really really big (as in high energy) elementary particles (i.e. strings). It'll be interesting to see if this particular theory holds any water, because it might mean high energy physicists may one day be trying to sling black holes at each other ;).
BlackGriffen
Regarding discussions about whether the "volume" of the article implied the Event Horizon, that's what I thought it was at first also. But then I came up with some numbers that don't seem to correspond to those of the CNN article. I then checked out the original paper. The paper is formally on the observation of a star that seems to be orbiting the galaxial center, and this radius of orbiting is what they are pinning down as the a putative upper limit of the size of the supermassive object.
It would seem that the original poster's comment was correct in that this was the _Upper Limit_ of the radius of the supermassive object, and not the Event Horizon radius.
Let me clarify,
The Schwarzschild radius (Or Event Horizon) is given by
r_SCH = 2 G M / c^2
where G is gravitational constant, M is mass of object, and c is speed of light. If we use, as per CNN article (yeah, I know, good source)
M = 3 x 10 ^ 6 * mass of sun
mass of sun = 2 x 10 ^ 30 kg
s.t. M = 6 x 10 ^ 36 kg
and G = 6.67 x 10^ -11 Nm^2/kg^2
and c = 3 x 10^8 m/s^2
then r_SCH = 12 x 10 ^ 36 * 6.67 x 10 ^-11/9 x 10^16
r_SCH ~ 1 x 10^10 meters.
I looked up some values of Pluto's radius, and got about 3000 million miles, or 5 x 10^9 km, or about 5 x 10^12 m.
So this galaxial blackhole seems to have a radius 100-1000 times less than the solar system radius.
And indeed, in the final page of the Schodel paper, there is a mention that the observed radius of the orbiting star is ~ 2000 times the Schwarzschild radius, and not the actual Schwarzschild of the star. i.e. the observed radius of orbit is much much larger than the putative Schwarzchild radius.
These researchers are popular here on campus at UCLA. Also, check out some nifty pictures here.
> if the "big crunch" theory is correct,
It's not. Astronomers have known for a while that the universe was expanding, but didn't know the rate. They recently discovered that the rate was accelerating!
Cheers
The Schwartzchild radius is the radius, for a given mass, that will form a singularity. For a ten solar mass star, that is about 30 kilometers.
The Chandrasekhar limit gives the size limit for a star to collapse and produce a white dwarf. Most stars end their lives with a gravitational collapse, but electron degeneracy pressure (from the Pauli exclusion principle) prevents further collapse. However, for stars above ~1.2 solar masses, the gravitational collapse will overcome fermion repulsion, and the collapse will continue. Once the star's density has reached a certain point, it will collapse into a singularity. That density times the star's mass determines the Schwartzchild radius.
The event horizon is delineated by those light rays that will neither fall in nor escape from, the black hole. However, just because you cross the event horizon does not necessarily mean you will strike the singularity. Instead, it depends upon the type of black hole you've encountered.
In actual reality, you'll be fried by the blue shifted radiation coming from the accretion disk around the hole, but let's ignore that quibble.
Black holes have mass, spin, and charge. No other properties are discernable behind the event horizon. The fact that the above properties can be determined without a world-line (that is, information also does not propagate faster than light, and hence cannot escape) says something fundamental about those properties.
An uncharged, unspinning black hole is called a Schwartzchild hole. Once you cross the event horizon, you will unavoidably strike the singularity and perish.
In the other types of black holes, such as the Kerr black hole (uncharged, spinning), Reisnner-Nordstrom (charged, zero angular momentum), and the Kerr-Newman black hole (charged, spinning) it is possible to cross the event horizon without striking the singularity. Instead, you can pass into another universe.
Indeed, it's theoretically possible that you will pass through many universes. This is a one-way trip, however. If you try to get back to where you were, you will encounter the singularity and die.
Actual solution of the Einstein field equations for the holes listed above, however, produce perturbations. These perturbations, so far, cancel out the ability to miss the singularity and enter another universe.
Moving on, Hawking demonstrated that black holes evaporate. Hawking radiation is produced when half of a virtual particle pair appears inside the event horizon. Since both particles are no longer available to disappear under the Heisenberg time limit, the remaining particle acquires real energy. This energy comes from the black hole.
Since the rate of evaporation is proportional to surface area/mass, smaller black holes evaporate explosively. Indeed, no black holes smaller than a proton could exist from the big bang.
Finally, recent research shows that the universe is inflating, due to Einstein's cosmological constant (which, he ironically labelled as his "worst mistake"). That is, Hubble's constant is increasing. There will be no Big Crunch. The universe will expand at a faster and faster rate into nothingness.
There are a lot of good books on cosmology. General Relativity is undergoing a renaissance right now because of all of this important, new information.
"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent." --Sun Tzu