Slowly Pulling Facts from Black Holes

lee1 writes "Astronomers have proven the existence of the event horizon, the 'point of no return' that surrounds black holes. An MIT and Harvard team said they showed its existence by looking for X-ray bursts from neutron stars and more compact objects thought to be black holes." Relatedly beuges writes "IOL is reporting that by tracking the death spiral of cosmic gas at the center of a galaxy called NGC1097, scientists figured that material moving at 177 000km an hour would still take eons to cross into a black hole. 'It would take 200 000 years for gas to travel the last leg of its one-way journey,' Kambiz Fathi of Rochester Institute of Technology told reporters at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society."

Comments

Slowly Pulling Facts from Black Holes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not another story about SCO...

Great!

[Voltageaav]

So even if God does answer my prayers and my boss gets sucked into a black hole, it'll take forever.

orbit?

[HermanAB]

Actually, I don't understand it at all. Why would the matter spiral in. Why won't it stay in orbit? What is slowing the matter down to make the orbit decay?

Re:orbit?

[HermanAB]

Makes me think of this little ditty about high falutin English:

"Father, I have spilt some butter. What shall I do?"

"Rub it briskly with a woollen cloth my son. For friction generates heat which quickly volatizes the sterine matter."

Re:orbit?

[Gaccm]

Hmmm - So friction in the revolving gas could will cause it to heat up and possibly glow, while slowing down its rotation, causing it to cross the event horizon and fall in?

Yes. The only way something can fall into a black hole is by losing energy to fall it. If it doesn't lose any energy it will keep revolving around the black hole. Same thing with Earth, if Earth was in the middle of a cloud of gas that could eat away at very large amounts of the Earth's momentum, then the Earth could spiral into the Sun. Since that gas isn't there our Earth keeps revolving around the Sun, which is good for us.

Re:orbit?

[DiamondGeezer]

Because there's a critical distance away from the black hole below which matter cannot orbit because the orbital speed would be greater than the speed of light. So anything orbiting that reaches the critical orbital radius (which depends on the black hole's mass) will be sucked in.

In that sense, it shows how differently General Relativity is compared to Newtonian Mechanics.

See this site for a visual demonstration and an explanation.

By the way, I've no idea where "the 200,000 years to hit the event horizon" comes from. According to GR, from our frame of reference it would take an infinite amount of time to hit the event horizon.

Re:orbit?

[Phanatic1a]

Relativity.

The closest stable orbit around a black hole is at a distance three times the Schwarzchild radius. Closer orbits exist, but they're unstable, the slightest perturbation in them will result in either an escape to infinity or an intersection with the event horizon. At 1.5 Schwarzchild radii, you have the photon sphere; at this distance, orbital velocity equals c, and it's unstable so nothing stays there. Anything closer than 1.5 radii, there are no orbits possible.

Re:What is inside a black hole?

[LordNightwalker]

I wouldn't be too sure about that. For centuries man thought it impossible to prove the existence of atoms, things so small one could never discern them not even with the best of microscopes. Right now we know about the existance of even smaller things in our universe...

So what makes you think that we'll never be able to prove the existence of places we could never visit in physical form, not even in the strongest and most powerful of spaceships? ;)

Re:orbit at greater than c

[Harmonious Botch]

You can't orbit a black hole inside the event horizon without going faster than the speed of light.

Facts

[Anonymous Coward]

A few interesting facts about black holes that some people aren't aware of:

• Black holes emit x-ray radiation and get smaller and smaller until they disappear, or "evaporate".

• Most black holes are formed from the death of large stars (larger than the sun) that run out of fuel and cannot sustain its nuclear reaction. The star loses the force pushing itself outward and is overcome by the force of its own gravity pulling inward. Eventually, the star has so much gravity and is so compacted that it "eats itself" until there is nothing left but a hole in the "fabric" of space-time, created by the gravity left over from the star.

• The gravity around the "hole" of a black hole is so strong that NOTHING can make its way back out after a critical distance.

• Even before crossing the event horizon, though possible to travel away from the black hole, it is not easy. Even light has a hard time getting out, so light being emitted from something almost at the Event Horizon but not yet inside the threshold takes a much longer time to escape and be seen by someone then it would in normal space going at 186,000 miles per second.

• The Singularity is the true point of destruction, the actual hole part of the black hole, although any object, especially a person, would be long dead before they reached the Singularity.

• Some black holes are spinning and have several event horizons called the "Ergosphere", "Outer Event Horizon", and "Inner Event Horizon".

Stephen Hawking's recent concession that black holes do not irretrievably eradicate information after all has garnered much attention. In my opinion, it is refreshing to see the public focused, if just for a moment, on an important conundrum that has fascinated theoretical physicists for three decades, and prompted much conceptual progress. The scientific issues, however, remain much less settled than Dr. Hawking's celebrated wager on the question. He most recently pronounced: "If you jump into a black hole, your mass energy will be returned to our universe, but in a mangled form, which contains information about what you were like but in an unrecognizable state." These ideas are profound and will have a lasting effect on our scientific theories as well as life as we know it.

Re:Facts

[Shimmer]

so light being emitted from something almost at the Event Horizon but not yet inside the threshold takes a much longer time to escape and be seen by someone then it would in normal space going at 186,000 miles per second.

Not true. The speed of light is a constant, even near a black hole.

As I understand it, what actually happens to the light emitted by an object approaching an event horizon is that it gets increasingly red-shifted. So an observer at a safe distance would see the object "fade" into infrared and then into ever-longer radio waves until it crosses the horizon.

Re:Facts

[Anonymous Coward]

"Black holes emit x-ray radiation and get smaller and smaller until they disappear, or "evaporate"."

Don't confuse the x-ray radiation (emitted outside of a black hole) with Hawking radiation, which is the true cause for black hole evaporation.

Re:Facts

[Anonymous Coward]

> Black holes emit x-ray radiation and get smaller and smaller until they disappear, or "evaporate".

Not really. The black hole itself emits black body radiation and the temperature of a reasonably large hole will be very low, so it's emitting radio waves. As it gets smaller, the temperature goes up, so the emissions will pass through visible light, x-ray and so on. However most large black holes have gas streaming into them from their surroundings, which gets really hot while spiralling into the black hole and this is the part that usually emits x-rays.

> Most black holes are formed from the death of large stars.

Unknown. Unproven.

Re:Facts

[Black Parrot]

> The Singularity is the true point of destruction, the actual hole part of the black hole

No, the event horizon is the methaphorical "hole in space".

Lots of physicists doubt that singularities even exist. Singularity essentially means "the math broke", a result of applying GR at scales where QM effects almost certainly dominate. If we ever get a theory that unifies GR and QM, we might discern what actually happens at the center of a black hole.

Re:Facts

[strider44]

I think you and the grandparent are getting a bit confused here on this issue (though it has been a few years since I studied Cosmology, and I may be wrong here, but I *do* try to keep abreast of the journals and recent discoveries when I have time).

A black hole itself has no temperature and emits no light. It literally can't. Hawking radiation comes from particles from before the event horizon. The actual amount of radiation is insignificant for astronomical black holes since they absorb more radiation from just the cosmic background microwave radiation than is let go through Hawking radiation. It's only really important for quantum black holes.

Stellar-mass black holes pretty much have been proven to come from the death of larger stars, more than about 3-4 stellar masses. Whether it's proven depends on how strict you are with the word "proof". Supermassive black holes *probably* started as stellar black holes, a long long time ago, maybe not. I'm not sure if anyone knows or has given proof, but if they have then I haven't heard about it. I'd like to though!

Re:Facts

[Wolfbone]

It doesn't actually matter what direction the light is emitted in - the "slowdown" of light occurs along radial paths too. It is, as you say, due to the badly bent spacetime that this effect is observed, but it's because of the metric structure of the spacetime itself, not the path of the light. In a "normal" (t,r,theta,phi) coordinate system - appropriate to a far away observer - where the Schwarzschild metric describes the spacetime structure surrounding a massive body at the origin, the radial coordinate speed of light (dr/dt) turns out to be (c - 2GM/rc). You get a better picture of what is happening near black holes with more suitable coordinate systems but at least here you can see that if we describe spacetime with a set of coordinates appropriate to "normal", speed of light = c conditions, "the speed of light" really is affected by the massive body.

Re:Facts

[Wolfbone]

"A black hole itself has no temperature"

Actually it is considered to have a temperature, though it's not the same thing as the temperature of ordinary matter. The analogy of black holes as thermodynamic systems (which I think arose from the study of rotating black holes and Penrose processes) is what motivated Bekenstein historically to suggest that a black hole /should/ emit black body radiation. Hawking set out to prove him wrong and - ironically - discovered that they do indeed.

Big distance but useless figures

[Red Flayer]

310316400000000 km is the last leg of the journey?

FYI, that's 2,074,335.22 Astronomical Units, or 32.8 Lightyears, or about the distance from Sol to the Cepheids. Dang.

Too bad they don't specify how far out (radially) from the event horizon the last leg starts. Or even loosely define what 'last leg' means in this case.

Re:Big distance but useless figures

[Hobbex]

You think so three dimensionally.

(Consider relativity...)

Wikipeding?

[bubulubugoth]

So, if there is a "googling" action, also is there a wikipedin action?
The Wikipedia entry about Event Horizon has an interesting "faq" about, orbitig the event horizon and sticking you hand into the event...
Also the wikipedia companion, talks about Stephen Hawking saying that no "event horizon" can be formed at a black hole... This article needs edition... :)
Good reading before a good sleep...
Btw, there is a neat animation about a neutron star X-ray burst


enough of karma whoring...

Re:It was never in orbit

[MillionthMonkey]

What makes you think it is in orbit in the first place? It's just basic gravity. Things fall down.

You're drawing a distinction where there is none. That's what an orbit is.

Re:It hurts less...

[pintomp3]

but then it's less fun. btw, the pull out method does not work.

Re:minor error

[DarkKnightRadick]

Light moves, generally, at c.

The problem is though, that light can be slowed down. According to several sources, light can be slowed down, although they all seem to agree that a photon travels at the speed of light no matter what, just the absorption/release/re-absorption process can slow down how quickly it crosses a given distance.

Reuters was only off by 99.99%

[xmark]

"The one-way journey from the heart of a galaxy into the oblivion of a black hole probably takes about 200,000 years..."

"...scientists figured that material moving at 177 000km an hour would still take eons to cross into a black hole."

Eons are the largest division of geologic time. There have been just four of them since the formation of the Earth. In rough terms, that's a billion years each.

Maybe the reporter can get a job working on unit conversion for the next Mars probe. (*cough*)

Re:Reuters was only off by 99.99%

[Phanatic1a]

From our frame of reference, matter moving at 177,000km an hour would still take eons to cross into a black hole. In fact, we'd never observe it doing so, by the time it crosses the event horizon any radiation from it will be redshifted to infinity.

From the frame of reference of that matter, entry into the black hole will take but an instant.

This is relativity. Always specify your FOR.

Re:What would happen..

[Gleng]

Or would they actually be destroyed by some force inside the hole itself?

Have a read about Spaghettification.

Scanning Tunneling Microscope

[Shashvat]

You can now take pictures of atoms with a scanning tunneling microscope.

Researchers at IBM even move individual atoms around to create artwork.

More here: http://www.almaden.ibm.com/vis/stm/corral.html

What they don't mention

[merlin_jim]

Is the scientific reason that gas can take 200,000 years to be pulled in by the most gravitationally massive type of object possible in the universe.

It is for two reasons; first off, gravitational time dilation - time gets slower the closer you get. The gas is orbitting the black hole, which also adds relativistic time dilation.

The gas, in fact, probably orbits at just under escape velocity - thanks to a fun little effect called (IANAA) relativistic frame dragging - basically the black hole drags the fabric of spacetime around itself - and objects within about 1.5 radii of the event horizon start feeling the effect - effectively locking them into a particular path. One way to look at this is to say that time is swallowed by the black hole same as mass - and therefore objects in the vicinity of the black hole fall in because their time arrow points to its dark, dark heart.

This frame dragging should happen at speeds approaching the speed of light - and require comparable amounts of energy to change your frame. There's even some theory that infalling matter will follow gravitational field lines, like you get around a magnet - but I'm not sure how much I believe that...

More to an orbit

[snowwrestler]

An orbit is not just things falling down, it also requires a tangential velocity within a specific range. Gas spiraling into a black hole does have a tangential velocity, but it's not within the range create a orbit. In other words, yes, it was never in orbit.