Slashdot Mirror
The Milky Way's Black Hole Is Not So Quiescent
esocid writes in with a followup to the recent discussion about the possibility that our galaxy's central black hole could reignite. "Using NASA, Japanese, and European X-ray satellites, a team of Japanese astronomers has discovered that Sagittarius A* let loose a powerful flare three centuries before the time at which we are observing it (i.e., 26,000 years in the past). X-ray pulses emanating from just outside the black hole take 300 years to traverse the distance between the central black hole and a large cloud known as Sagittarius B2, so the cloud responds to events that occurred 300 years earlier. 'By observing how this cloud lit up and faded over 10 years, we could trace back the black hole's activity 300 years ago,' says team member Katsuji Koyama of Kyoto University. 'The black hole was a million times brighter three centuries ago.'"
has discovered that Sagittarius A* let loose a powerful flare three centuries before the time at which we are observing it (i.e., 26,000 years in the past)
That's a bit of a confusing sentence but I think I understand. What they really meant to say is that if Sagittarius A's flare produces a 26,000 Hz tone, it
will interfere with GT&T's subspace carrier signal and allow you to send free messages to the gamma quadrant.
How bright is a million times brighter than black?
In theory, practice and theory are the same. In practice, they're not.
Warning: that expression does not quite meant what it seems to. The "timeline" under discussion here is from our point of view as light from that area arrives here, after about 26,000 years. On the other hand, that doesn't quite mean that the events actually happened "26,300 years ago" -- there's no good global notion of time that is applicable here.
In Larry Niven's old Known Space story "At the Core" (collected in Neutron Star , he conjectures that because the stars at the core are so close together, one supernova-ing could cause a chain reaction that would bring killing radiation to all reaches of the galaxy. What do astrophysicists today think of this possibility? All the hype now seems to be on black holes.
Damn global warming!
To all those confused about black holes being bright - you need to learn the "two things rule" proposed by a colleague of mine - it runs like this:
There are two things you need to know about black holes: They're not black, and they're not holes.
There are two things you need to know about parallel universes: They're not parallel, and they're not universes.
There are two things you need to know about the big bang: It wasn't big and it didn't bang.
Sadly it extends way beyond just physics, but it does give an insight into why physicists have trouble communicating with the public - names come from the very early days of an idea and as often as not end up being misnomers.
You may refer to it as "the hole who so recently was known as black".
Ni.
Yeah? Well I think you're overrated too.
The black hole itself is, indeed, black for all intents and purposes. However, matter falling into the black hole (but still outside the horizon) heats up as it accelerates, emitting thermal radiation, typically in the X-ray spectrum. Thus one talks about "brightness", the brightness of the region right around the black hole.
An illustrative example: for an outside observer, the "temperature of the sun" can mean the temperature of the part one sees, that is the surface temperature (roughly 6000 kelvin). This is not the same as the core temperature of the sun (roughly 1.5x10^7 kelvin).
The term black is offensive to some, We say African American Holes
That's one of my favorite movies.