Slashdot Mirror
Monster Black Hole Busts Theory
Genocaust writes "A stellar black hole much more massive than theory predicts is possible has astronomers puzzled. Stellar black holes form when stars with masses around 20 times that of the sun collapse under the weight of their own gravity at the ends of their lives. Most stellar black holes weigh in at around 10 solar masses when the smoke blows away, and computer models of star evolution have difficulty producing black holes more massive than this. The newly weighed black hole is 16 solar masses. It orbits a companion star in the spiral galaxy Messier 33, located 2.7 million light-years from Earth. Together they make up the system known as M33 X-7."
They should name it Goatse.
Sturgeon's Law (paraphrased): 90% of everything sucks.
Just goes to show, that when you think it can't suck any worse, you find it can suck a LOT worse.
[
They mentioned that in the article. Mister Scientist thinks their are different mechacisms at work that produce the super massive black holes at the centre of galaxies. I was wondering though, is it possible that a black hole of this mass could me produces in a trinary solar system where two black holes merge, in this case leaving you with a 16 solar masses and orbiting the remain star?
500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
If theory says that black holes beyond 10 solar masses cannot form, how do they explain the conjectured supermassive black holes
Like This.
Or, more pedantically, black holes may never form at all from the point of view of an observer outside the event horizon.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
It orbits a companion star in the spiral galaxy Messier 33
It's not messy, it's got a lived-in, homey feel to it you insensitive clod!!!
For this discussion it's worth keeping in mind that current computer models have real problems actually getting supernovae to explode. At one point it was so bad that I heard someone say, "If it weren't for the fact that we occasionally observe one explode, I would assure you that they cannot." It's only been in the last couple of years that someone has made a computer model that actually did it.
I'm sure that there are ways to fudge things so that the desired mass can be reached. Or, there again, the simulations could be wrong. That happens, for all that Michael Fish wishes otherwise. Well, maybe not. He stands to make a lot of money from his new book because of that fiasco.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
The following may help to explain things (taken from an Slashdot post):
Never mind things like Goatse. Thanks to the internet, the only word in the title that doesn't yet have dirty connotations to me is "theory".
Heck, some are working to change that too.
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
Just FYI: after binary comes TERNARY, not trinary. Don't feel bad, though, it's a very common mistake which I myself have made before being corrected.
One black hole consumes another black hole creating one gigantic gravitational singularity. Case closed.
The game.
*Stellar* black holes are black holes that originate from the aftermath of a single star going supernova.
Super-massive black holes like what exist at the center of a galaxy don't have a well understood origin, but it is supposed that if a black hole is created in a region of space with a great deal of matter in the vicinity, it may gobble up a lot of it, adding to its mass until it becomes super-massive.
A stellar black hole that's so big it shouldn't be possible for it to have been created by the usual supernova, and in a region of space sufficiently vacant to rule out the gobbling theory, is what is being puzzled over.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Another issue is the unlikely chance of paired stars crashing into each other. After one partner blows its top at the end of life, it usually loses some mass such that the distance between them INcreases, making them even less likely to touch or enter friction zones. (Being a black hole by itself does not increase its gravitational pull over a star of the same mass). If they are going to merge, they would more likely do so during the regular life, and we'd see samples of such massive stars. But we don't, mainly because there is an upper limit to the size of a stable star.
Further, large stars have short lives, meaning that the time for friction to rub them closer to each other is shorter.
However, it is true that a collision of two big mid-life stars may itself trigger a supernova because the total mass exceeds a stable size, and thus a very large black hole is formed. This may result in a black hole that *looks* like it came from a star larger than the max stable size of a star because its exceeding the stable limit itself is what triggered the formation of the hole. In short, there may be a limit to stable star size, but not to unstable star size.
Table-ized A.I.
A stellar black hole that's so big it shouldn't be possible for it to have been created by the usual supernova, and in a region of space sufficiently vacant to rule out the gobbling theory, is what is being puzzled over.
The region of space is vacant now - it doesn't mean that it was when the black hole was feeling peckish.
Wouldn't it be : In Soviet Russia, you eat black holes ?
No, if they were making a joke, they would have mentioned the supermassive black hole shown at goatse.cx, which is far bigger than most nerds thought possible.
What if Tetris was invented by Nazis?