Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Discover Teeny Tiny Black Hole
AbsoluteXyro writes "According to a Space.com article, NASA scientists have discovered the smallest known black hole to date. The object is known as 'XTE J1650-500'. Weighing in at a scant 3.8 solar masses and measuring only 15 miles across, this finding sheds new light on the lower limit of black hole sizes and the critical threshold at which a star will become a black hole upon its death, rather than a neutron star. XTE J1650-500 beats out the previous record holder, GRO 1655-40, by about 2.5 solar masses."
They measure it at where light can no longer escape its gravity, so they measure the "blackness".
Cheers, Jared
http://phoenix-network.org
While black holes is not my area, I can tell you that when someone talks about the size of the black hole, they refer to the event horizon, since you can't really measure anything going on inside it.
The mass of the black hole is the most defining characteristic.
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
Would it be more correct to say this is a measurement of the event horizon?
Yes that's what astronomers mean when they say how "big" a black hole is.
The enemies of Democracy are
A black hole, conventionally, consists of an event horizon surrounding a region of space from which you can't send information to the external world. This region of space is not a point, it has a well-defined circumference. (Because of the non-euclidean nature of general relativity, it doesn't actually have a well-defined radius (since you can't measure across the middle!) but people usually just consider the radius as if it were defined as the circumference divided by 2 pi, and don't worry about the fact that you can't actually measure it.)
At the center of the black hole is, according to general relativity, a point singularity, which indeed has no dimensions.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Fortunately those crazy atom smashing mad scientists don't have the power to do that. Someone hears the term mini-black hole and everyone freaks out. The artificial kind blinks out almost immediately. We just can't generate a sustainable singularity.
I believe they are referring to the diameter of the event horizon
For those of you who haven't done any Astrophysics...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrasekhar_limit
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Possible, but I believe they evaporate over the course of trillions of years via Hawking radiation. Based on recent evidence, the universe is only old enough for it to still have been the smallest yet discovered.
At least, if I were a scientist and not someone pulling this directly out of my ass, that might be what is happening here.
I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
But!
The temperature of a black hole can be defined by the rate at which Hawking photons are streaming away from it. In the case of a black hole of a few solar masses, this temperature will be in the nano-Kelvin (I think -- don't hurt me if I'm wrong by a few orders of magnitude). Now remember everything in the Universe is sitting in a bath of cold photons from the Big Bang (i.e. the microwave background). These photons have a temperature of ~4 Kelvin.
Therefore, black holes whose Hawking temperature is above the microwave background will be net *gaining* mass.
Which is all a long way of saying, no, this isn't a normal size black hole that has decayed over time. It must have been created at this mass (or smaller).
LHC = Large Hadron Collider: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider
001 = First black hole created by LHC
Some people are afraid the LHC-001 is going to destroy the Earth.
Anyone else think the comments just weren't rendering right before they turned off ABP and saw ads?
Actually, that's only true of a non-rotating (or Kerr) singularity. All natural black holes will be rotating (the black hole maintains the rotational momentum of the pre-collapse mass). In a rotating black hole, the singularity is actually a ring (or torus). Inside that ring/torus, there is a tear in space.
It was this tear that lead, if I recall, to the original conjectures of a white hole, and the Einstein-Rosen bridge.
"Stumble before you crawl"
There are going to be a near-infinite number of quantum-scale black holes and wormholes in whatever volume of space you care to imagine. They evaporate almost instantly. As for stellar black holes, the Chandrasaker Limit is 2.5 solar masses, with a relatively small margin of error. Absolutely nothing of interest will be learned until we're within 2.75 solar masses, because then we can define sensible confidence limits on what the value actually is.
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)
Sorry, but no. It's called black hole evaporation, and black holes lose energy (hence mass), through this mechanism.
What you've described is a way that energy can be created from nowhere. If what you suggest were right, we'd all be doomed, as any small black hole would get bigger through Hawking radiation, and would then consume everything.
From the objects' points of view, they don't know when they cross the event horizon.
From an observer's point of view, the objects never reach the event horizon. They just appear to move slower and slower.
Black hole's really do mess up any concept of Euclidean distance. The best way of picturing it, is that it is a hole in space-time; for all intents and purposes, the space inside the event horizon simply doesn't exist.