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 say LHC-001 will be even smaller!
(But who will be there to measure...?)
HILARITY!
I see we weren't the first to build a large hadron collider.
It may look cute now. But they grow up.
While it may be possible that this black hole was formed from a relatively small (to form a black hole) star, couldn't it also be the case that it just a really old black hole? Hawkings told of how black holes can 'evaporate' over time with lack of surrounding matter, perhaps that could be the case here.
So, we've now discovered the biggest and smallest black holes known to exist within about a week of each other.
When we find the most average, space bears will come and blast us into porridge.
Astronomy kicks ass.
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
They can't figure out the "critical threshold" because there isn't one. It all depends on too many variables to set a universal limit (hehehe get it...universal :-P) It depends on how much nuclear activity there is still going on when it start collapsing and what the amount of heavier atoms is and the amount of other things orbiting the star and any other forces affecting the star at that time and how fast it's moving and spinning. Mass is a smaller part of the calculation than they're making it sound like. If they're going to factor everything in just to find some minimum mass, well duh, two particles and a hell of a lot of force. Haven't they suggested that in that big particle accelerator aka donut of doom. So yeah, a critical mass threshold doesn't exist.
Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
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
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"
ok, I am ripping most of the info from here: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=122375&page=6
"If they were able to make a small blackhole, and it got "loose" and fell to the center of the Earth, the pressures at the Earths core would force material into it so fast that even a very small one would gobble us up very fast. I am not sure what the exact pressure is at the Earths core but it could force material through even a very small "hole" very quickly. I do agree that once it gobbled up the Earth, it would just continue to orbit the Sun, and the Moon would still orbit the blackhole as if it were the Earth..."
No, you should read this thread.
First of all, a black hole that falls to the center of the earth, wouldn't stop there, but would continue falling up on the other side, just to plunge in again, and on and on, because there's no "friction" on the black hole.
Second, there have been posted in this thread a lot of calculations of the speed at which it would gobble up matter.
Don't forget that the black hole we're talking about here IS MUCH MUCH SMALLER THAN A PROTON. As such, pressures on *atomic* level (such as in the center of the earth) matter little: the black hole travels most of the time in the empty space between nucleae.
A way to calculate the probability of hitting a nucleus (and somehow imagining that it would gobble up the entire nucleus, which is MUCH MUCH bigger than the black hole itself - which is a worst-case scenario) is done by calculating the "cross section" of the black hole and its probability to cross a nucleus on its voyages through the earth. We know its speed (just falling), and knowing the cross section and the density of nucleae, we can estimate how many nucleae it could eat per unit of time.
For a classical black hole, the calculation is done in the link provided by Pervect in this post:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpos...4&postcount=12
for a MUCH LARGER black hole, about the size of a proton, weighting a billion tons (figure that! A black hole *the size of a proton* weights a billion tonnes ; we're talking here about black holes that weight 10 TeV or 10^(-24) kg - go figure how small it is !)
For more exotic calculations which are more severe, orion made some, and arrived at a time to eat the earth ~ 10^46 years.
All this in the following rather un-natural hypotheses:
- no Hawking radiation (which would make the black hole evaporate almost immediately)
- production of black hole EXACTLY IN THE CENTER OF GRAVITY of the collision (no remnant particles)
- very high production rate, producing billions of black holes per second.
I am not a physicist, but from what little physics I have had, and from reading threw the thread/flamewar, I dont think we have to worry about the LHC
If that happens, what are we going to do!? Capitan Picard hasn't been born yet! Hell, even Kirk isn't around yet....
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
This newly discovered Black Hole is the final result of a Large Hadron Collider, that caused a microsopic black hole on the third planet formerly circling the former star now known as 'XTE J1650-500'. So, this is not a naturally occuring black hole, but an alien-created one. Sadly this alien species is now extinct so they can't tell us how to avoid their mistake.
Well, maybe. Actually, rotating black holes radiate away angular momentum, and they also preferentially eat material that reduces their angular momentum, so it's an open question as to whether real black holes will be rotating. Probably, because the accretion disk is likely to be rotating, and it swallows up the accretion disk and gains the momentum from it, but I'm not sure you can necessarily say that all natural black holes will rotate.
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.
Actually, the Einstein-Rosen bridge comes from the maximum analytical extension of the Flamm embedding, way predating the Kerr solution. (It's a very trivial embedding, z = sqrt(r). The extension is z = plus or minus sqrt(r).) Turns out that the extended Flamm embedding is misleading, and a Schwartzschild black hole isn't a wormhole after all. But that wasn't obvious.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
for those wanting to find the article later, I strongly suggest Slashdot's own search instead of googling for the words "teeny", "tiny", "black" and "hole" :|
The value of the Chandrasekhar limit depends on how one performs the calculation, but typically it comes out to around 1.4 solar masses (not 2.5). But actually, this is not so much the interesting question, because the Chandrasekhar limit applies only to white dwarfs, whose mass is supported by electron degeneracy pressure. This is only one type of a much broader concept called fermion degeneracy pressure.
For example, a neutron star is much denser than a white dwarf, and is supported by neutron degeneracy pressure instead of electron degeneracy pressure and hence the Chandrasekhar limit does not apply to neutron stars. The equivalent limit for neutron degenerate matter is called the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit. Like the Chandrasekhar limit, this calculation is very dependent on the behavior of the degenerate matter, but UNlike the Chandrasekhar limit, we know very little about the properties of neutron degenerate matter, and so the uncertainty of the T-O-V limit is quite large; it is usually placed (as you can see in the wikipedia article that I link to) between 1.5 and 3.0 solar masses. And there are even denser objects that have been proposed (though not observed) made of quark degenerate matter, and the limit on the mass of these things is even more uncertain.
So the point is, there is still a good deal of physics that can come from the observation of a 3.8 solar mass black hole, as it can constrain various models of fermion degenerate matter.