Slashdot Mirror
Black Hole Observed by X-Ray Satellite
eldavojohn writes "Scientists at JAXA and NASA used the Japanese Suzaku satellite to collect data and observations at a distance nearer to a black hole than we've ever been. From the article: 'The observations include clocking the speed of a black hole's spin rate and measuring the angle at which matter pours into the void, as well as evidence for a wall of X-ray light pulled back and flattened by gravity. The findings rely on a special feature in the light emitted close to the black hole, called the "broad iron K line," once doubted by some scientists because of poor resolution in earlier observations, now unambiguously revealed as a true measure of a black hole's crushing gravitational force.' Suzaku also has been providing images and data of super novas and their activities. It's always nice to see national space agencies working together, it almost gives me hope that the world might one day be united in space exploration."
The X-rays aren't coming "out of" the black hole; they're emitted by the incoming matter getting crunched to oblivion just outside of the event horizon.
In some sense, you have to trust that physicists know what they're doing. Absent an understanding of the math, it really is an act of faith that black holes are not one big practical joke.
That being said, you may remember the Exclusion Princple from high school chemistry, which basically says particles like electrons and neutrons can't occupy the same (quantum) states. When you try and push them together, they push back. It is possible to calculate the maximum force (pressure actually) that such a system can produce. After that, there's nothing can keep a star from collapsing.
If you're interested in reading, check out "Electron degeneracy pressure" in an undergrad quantum mechanics textbook or on the Wikipedia.
Actually, you could. Get a massive object on the opposite side of the black hole. Get it close enough that you can maintain a thrust that will keep you at a steady point relative to the black hole. Make sure thrust is angled so it will not "strike" the black hole.
Using this process, gravity will pull the black hole away.
Now, this would take one hell of a lot of energy to do, but it is possible.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Good question. Short answer: we don't know.
Long answer: According to the General Theory of Relativity, black holes have all their mass contained in a geometric point called the "singularity". This singularity is surrounded by a finite-sized spherical boundary called the "event horizon" which is defined as the locus of points where not even light can escape the gravity of the singularity. Because nothing (that we know of) can travel fast than light, the event horizon is a seemingly impenetrable barrier to any investigation of the singularity itself.
So we're unlikely to view a singularity directly and measure its size. On the other hand, most physicists are convinced that the General Relativistic description of the singularity as a literal geometric point most be wrong. They believe this because very small objects are governed by quantum mechanics, and a new theory (which does not exist yet) called "Quantum Gravity" must take over at densities like those found in singularities.
I'm generally a fairly skeptical chap, and it took a long time to even convince me that event horizons exist. For the longest time, all "proofs" of black holes basically said "here is something that is more dense than a neutron star, and since the ONLY THING more dense than a neutron star is a black hole, this object must be a black hole." I was never really convinced that there weren't other objects denser than neutron stars that didn't actually have event horizons, so this argument never swayed me. These recent observations seem to conclusively prove that event horizons exist, but singularities are an entirely different matter. We'll have to wait for the final word on that subject...
Because Hawking radiation scales inversely to the area of the event horizon, the Hawking radiation from anything but extremely small black holes (which we don't even know actually exist) is negligible and far below what we have the ability to detect. It is literally less than the background radiation of space.
For practical purposes, the grandparent is correct, if a little simplified.
You may find it interesting though, that if small black holes actually do exist (they would have to be incidental products of the Big Bang), we may be able to detect their last moments of evaporation by Hawking radiation as x-ray/gamma ray bursts. Some researchers are plan to look use data from one of NASA's upcoming x-ray observatories to look for such flashes that can not be attributed to other known sources.
It's conventional to treat the event horizon as the surface of the black hole - in which case, yes, it has a shape. The mathematically simplest black hole is the Chandrasekhar black hole, which is nonrotating and spherical. Realistically, however, a black hole will be formed by the collapse of a star, and conservation of angular momentum implies that it will be spinning very rapidly, at least to begin with. This is the Kerr black hole, and it has some very peculiar effects on the region of spacetime around it. There's a zone called the ergosphere, from which it is possible to escape, but in which it is completely impossible to stand still...
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Your arguments were wrong the first time you posted them, as you would know if you read the responses to them.
I will repost my response:
The black hole will not form in any finite time since time there just stopped!
This is wrong. There is a finite set of events at which the horizon forms; we can just never see it form. See this FAQ.
For the observer falling towards the "hole", time in the rest of the universe just speeds up. In a matter of minutes the universe will age billions of years,
This is also wrong. A similar misconception is described in this FAQ.
Yes, I know many scientists disagree with me. Just think for yourself for a minute.
Ah, the old "if you disagree with my crackpot theory you must be a closed-minded conformist" argument.
Have you ever bothered to investigate whey "many scientists disagree with you"?
it almost gives me hope that the world might one day be united in space exploration
I guess you missed yesterday's story documenting the US' clear intention to be the single entity with control over access to space; 'The policy calls upon the Secretary of Defense to "develop capabilities, plans, and options to ensure freedom of action in space, and, if directed, deny such freedom of action to adversaries."'
Interestingly, from the perspective of a star collapsing into a black hole, it never actually quite makes it, as time slows down as gravity becomes stronger.
No. Time flows normally from the perspective of the star. It's for the outside observer that time appears to slow down (it never really would appear to *stop* it would just approach infinitely slow.)
But for a hypothetical observer on the star, time would appear to proceed normally. Also, if I'm remembering right, for the star observer the *rest of the universe* would appear to slow down, as well, if there was some way to observe it. (I know that applies to high-percent of c velocities but can't remember if it applies to gravitational effects as well)
*snark*