Slashdot Mirror


Black Hole Particle Jets Explained

Screaming Cactus writes "A team of researchers led by Boston University's Alan Marscher have apparently worked out the physics behind the particle streams emanating from many black holes. According to the researchers, 'twisted, coiled magnetic fields are propelling the material outward.' By watching an 'unprecedented view' of a black hole in the process of expelling mass, they were able to confirm their theory, predicting where and when bursts of energy would be detected."

26 of 201 comments (clear)

  1. The scatological aspects of astronomy. by Kenja · · Score: 4, Funny

    an 'unprecedented view' of a black hole in the process of expelling mass

    Ok, so its juvenile and stupid. But it still made me laugh.
    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    1. Re:The scatological aspects of astronomy. by oodaloop · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ok, so its juvenile and stupid. Not really. You may not be aware, but one of the reasons the term Black Hole stuck around was to annoy French astrophysicists (the term translates to a bodily orafice in French). The question was later posed (by Wheeler, I believe) as to whether black holes have 'hair', meaning do they give off observable radiation or other phenomena, much to the chagrin of his French counterparts. The question was posed, FWIU, mostly just so American physicists could snicker while French physicists had to talk about black holes and hair in public conferences. And it turns out that yes, black holes do in fact have hair.

      Now we have black holes expelling mass. I'm sure you're not the only one finding this humorous.
      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    2. Re:The scatological aspects of astronomy. by The+Only+Druid · · Score: 4, Informative

      Didn't he say that matter could NOT escape a black hole? This isn't matter escaping a black hole. This is matter, outside the black hole, being accelerated and hurtled outwards by the forces of the black hole.
      --
      "Stumble before you crawl"
  2. This is how science works by smooth+wombat · · Score: 5, Insightful
    'By watching an 'unprecedented view' of a black hole in the process of expelling mass, they were able to confirm their theory, predicting where and when bursts of energy would be detected."


    Note to all ID supporters, this is how real science works. Propose a theory which can be tested, then go about trying to disprove the theory.

    Now go ahead, flame me. My karma can take it.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    1. Re:This is how science works by jav1231 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, except global warming, obviously. That just gets accepted as is, since anyone who suggests otherwise is probably an oil company shill. It's called "climate change" now. That way if the current trend of lower temps continues and we go into another mini ice age (as some are predicting) they're still right!

      BRILLIANT!

    2. Re:This is how science works by smooth+wombat · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Evolution is a good explanation of "accepted" evidence. One cannot test it, therefore it isn't science.


      Right. Because the fossil record of both horses and humans do not show examples of intermediate changes from non-horses and non-humans to todays creatures.

      And I suppose astrology is a science because it's so well "tested".

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    3. Re:This is how science works by macemoneta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's called "climate change" now. That way if the current trend of lower temps continues and we go into another mini ice age (as some are predicting) they're still right!

      It's called "climate change" now because people had problems understanding the concept of global warming; they concentrated on the terminology instead of understanding the process.

      Energy is being added to the Earth's outer layer, including the atmosphere. This additional energy is like turning on a blender - everything is going to get mixed up. Places where it was cold may turn warm. Places where it was warm may become cold. Deserts will form where there was arable land. Dry places may get wetter. The ice caps act as a thermal buffer (like the ice cubes in a drink), and the additional energy is causing them to melt. This in turn raises sea levels.

      Things get complicated because of the political boundaries; people can't just move to where things are becoming nicer. If the farm land in the U.S. turns to a dust bowl for example, we can't just pick up 300M people and move to another country - just as the U.S. doesn't open its borders to tens of millions dying of thirst and starvation in other countries.

      A secondary complication is the delicate balance between airborne particulates and greenhouse gases. Reducing pollution levels reduces both, but not at the same rate. As the two have opposing impacts, and tend to be politically controlled by local goverments, it's and extra monkey wrench in the calculations.

      In this context, the term "climate change" is easier for people to grasp. It doesn't change what is happening.

      --

      Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.

    4. Re:This is how science works by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I do not understand the irrational knee-jerk reation to evolution that "Good Ol' Righteous God Fearing Folk" have.

      I'm agnostic, but let me take a stab at an answer to your question...

      I think that bot Christians and Evolutionists have a spectrum of positions within their two camps; some are compatible, some aren't:

      • Some Christians believe that the book of Genesis was meant to be understood literally rather than metaphorically or poetically. So to them, all Evolutionist viewpoints are incompatible with things they already believe.

      • Some Evolutionists believe don't merely believe that natural variation and selection occurred. They go further to posit that any process (e.g., evolution) which appears random or capriciously cruel to them is surely not be guided by any God worth talking about. So to this subset of Evolutionists, all Christian believes are definitely wrong.

      • In the middle, you have Christians who are willing to concede that a literal interpretation of Genesis might be inaccurate, either because its conflicts with what seam to be clear indications in the natural record that evolution occurred, or for other reasons of Biblical scholarship. (I'm told that regardless of an apparent conflict with scientific conclusions, some Biblical scholars have other reasons to believe that parts of Genesis are meant metaphorically, such as the style of the prose.)

      Does that sound right?

    5. Re:This is how science works by steelfood · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wow, and this junk got modded insightful?

      Here's something that you can do and in fact has been done over a timeframe of the past 50 years:

      Take a large pool of bacteria, start killing them off with antibiotics, rinse, and repeat.

      Now, the bacteria is your organism, the antibiotics the selective pressure. Natural selection dictates that eventually through random mutations, there will be bacteria that will no longer be susceptible to antibiotics.

      Lo and behold, this has exactly happened. The overuse of common antibiotics has resulted in an outbreak of what doctors call superbugs--bacteria that are resistant to those same common antibiotics. And where are we most likely to find these superbugs? Hospitals, where antibiotics are most used. Why do you think they try to get patients out of the hospital as quickly as possible? It's not just because they need the beds. It's largely because, barring any need for specialized monitoring or equipment, the outside is a safer environment for the sick to heal than inside. 50 years ago when antibiotics just began to be used, the opposite was true.

      So if you've gotten this far, you now have proof of natural selection, proof you can see with your very own eyes. And this is just the most simple, most mundane case. There is a more extreme case involving frogs where natural selection has resulted in speciation within a hundred years.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    6. Re:This is how science works by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2, Informative

      You're making the very common mistake of using sloppy terminology. "Global warming" is not necessarily the same thing as "anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming". The former is directly observable; the latter is not. We can build computer models that predict how human activity causes (or at least contributes to) the warming; and, if warming continues over time, the chance that it is just due to natural variation goes down with every new year the trend holds. But just observing that the climate has warmed, in and of itself, is not proof that it's been induced by human activity.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    7. Re:This is how science works by glitch23 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Right. Because the fossil record of both horses and humans do not show examples of intermediate changes from non-horses and non-humans to todays creatures.

      You can fit your evidence to whatever theory you want as many people have already done. If you take a movie (which of course is just made up of 30fps still images) and delete enough frames (seconds or minutes worth) you can come up with lots of things that could fit back into those missing pieces and still make the final movie come out the same. In fact, directors do this for every motion picture because they film hours and hours of video but only ~2 hours worth make their way into the final cut. The movie came out the same though in many cases (except for some of those director's cuts with alternate endings).

      So goes the fossil record. There are too many gaps that need filled in to come to the conclusion that evolution is responsible. A different set of pieces that do not support evolution could be inserted to produce an entirely different movie that still makes logical sense (i.e. still produces existing observations), specifically a movie that does not use a few dozen unusual frames to tell the entire 2 hour plot which is what evolution basically is. It reminds me of Al Gore only taking video of chunks of ice falling off glaciers into the water, which happens all the time anyway, but filming a 30 second spot of a few and saying it is representative of all glaciers catastrophically melting is an outright lie. When, if other glaciers were actually filmed for comparison, it could easily be seen that selective use of Nature is not representative of Nature as a whole although it can be for those with an agenda.

      The real test is to use evolution to predict what comes next since change, based on the theory, is inevitable. It's easy to work backward and interpret data to fit theory. Let's try working forward before we assume evolution is 100% perfect. By the way, since ID does not predict future change to species there is nothing to test.

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
    8. Re:This is how science works by Medievalist · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, except global warming, obviously. That just gets accepted as is, since anyone who suggests otherwise is probably an oil company shill. It's called "climate change" now. That way if the current trend of lower temps continues and we go into another mini ice age (as some are predicting) they're still right! Look, I hate to interrupt your meta-scoffing... but...

      I personally sat through a lecture nearly 20 years ago that was given at the Stroud Water Research Center by the guy who discovered "global warming". I remember he was introduced by Dr. Ruth Patrick of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. AT THAT TIME, he said the worst mistake he'd ever made in his career was allowing the name "global warming" to get attached to what he was studying. He said that the global average warming trend was an indicator that something was changing, and that it appeared to correlate with increased carbon in the atmosphere mostly likely caused by human pollution, and that talking about "global warming" was like (my words here, don't remember his metaphor) calling your baby's influenza "mercury rise" because the tyke had a fever. Get it?

      I suggested he should have called it "terrestrial albedo modification" but I was in a room full of biologists so they all looked at me funny. Really it should just be called "air pollution".

      Incidentally, he presented pretty conclusive evidence at that time - ice cores, the Mauna Loa data, etc. that carbon in the atmosphere is increasing proportionally to global mean temperature. He also suggested that the increased energy being absorbed from the sun might result in more energetic weather, and a bunch of other stuff that seems prophetic now, but he cautioned that these suggestions could not be supported by the data and that we should not assume that his reasoning would necessarily pan out.

      BRILLIANT! Oh, yes, quite right, carry on. Sorry to interrupt.
    9. Re:This is how science works by __aawavt7683 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      *sigh*

      Your argument has already been shot down. Dr. Dino uses the terms "micro evolution" and "macro evolution". Macro evolution is when a single-celled organism evolves into a mouse. Micro evolution describes the minute changes within an existing organism that vary its sense of smell, appendage length, scalieness of skin, whatever.

      I can't say I've heard anyone argue against micro evolution. Macro evolution, on the other hand, I have never seen shown to be true. As far as I know, even fossil records don't ever show a clear transition from one species to another. Thus, no one has ever provided much evidence for evolution. (I suppose it could be explained by one article I read that mutations are "stored up" and expressed all at once -- many smaller changes would be unworkable and the resultant creature being unable to survive or breed with either its own species or another mutated creature -- and when a great many of them all mutate drastically, then you may get a few that can survive. A leap, but I'd say it's better than magic. That, and the fact that even mass deaths (think black plague) don't show markedly..) ... where was I? huh. Well anyway, I just wish the damn ID people would stop taking lack of _proof_ of one theory as _evidence for_ another, completely unjustifiable theory (magic).

      My former employer once said to me, "Evolution is like throwing pieces of a watch into a drier, turning it on, and getting a watch out again. It's nonsense." I'd contend that if you gave it 15 billion years, not only would you get a fully functional watch out, but if you put in enough random matter and gave it enough energy, you would not only get _one_ watch, but you'd end up with an entire _industry_ of watches with different styles, qualities, ...

      So.. yeah.

      -DrkShadow

  3. Good science writing by ekstrom · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is a good article. It was complete enough to satisfy the casual interest of this old physicist who once worked for awhile as an astronomer, explained all of its terms in ways accessible to a more general public, but was never tedious about it. We need more science writing of that quality. Also good work, it would seem. Rarely do you get a chance to check astrophysical theory in such detail against observations.

  4. Re:Hawking Radiation by PhuCknuT · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yes, this is completely different, but it's not exactly the black hole emitting anything. The jets are from material that hasn't fallen into the black hole yet, being accelerated along the axis of rotation by the twisted magnetic fields outside the black hole.

  5. Re:Hawking Radiation by ekstrom · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is radiation from the accretion disk, which both supplies the material and twists up the fields which then accelerate the material. It's not from the hole itself. Of course it is all powered by the hole's gravitational field.

  6. Re:Hawking Radiation by Jugalator · · Score: 3, Informative

    These particle jets aren't emitted from the actual "depths" of a black hole, but as the article says, ejected due to twisted magnetic fields perpendicular to its accretion disk. Once you get closer, space bends even the magnetic fields inwards, and everything else. And what goes that far is later emitted as Hawking radiation, the only form of energy theorized to be emitted from a black hole, in time believed to "evaporate" the black hole itself.

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  7. Particles coming out of blackholes... by Whatanut · · Score: 3, Funny

    That's what's left of the poor alien souls that attempted to use a pair of them for travel...

    --

    yvan eht nioj
  8. Re:Hawking Radiation by evanbd · · Score: 4, Informative

    Well, large black holes don't evaporate -- even the cosmic background radiation is enough to add more mass than they lose to Hawking radiation. The CMB is at ~2.7K, and a 1 solar mass black hole has a temperature of 60nK from the Hawking radiation.

  9. Old hat by jessica_alba · · Score: 2, Informative

    From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current "A Birkeland current generally refers to any electric current in a space plasma, but more specifically when charged particles in the current follow magnetic field lines (hence, Birkeland currents are also known as field-aligned currents). They are caused by the movement of a plasma perpendicular to a magnetic field. Birkeland currents often show filamentary, or twisted "rope-like" magnetic structure."

    I wonder when they will discover that these "super massive destructive forces" are actually electric powerhouses that light up the cosmos.

  10. Re:Hawking Radiation by PhuCknuT · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's both, they radiate very slow and the CMB will be warmer than them for a long time. I just looked it up, a stellar mass black hole will take 10^67 years to evaporate. I was way off when I said trillions. :)

    The cool thing is, as they get smaller, they radiate faster. So they get smaller and hotter exponentially, and finally die (in theory...) in a massive burst of gamma rays. In the last second, they emit as much energy as a 5000000 megaton nuke. Would be a hell of a show (from a safe distance).

  11. Re:Does it even matter? by evanbd · · Score: 2, Informative

    There's a black hole. Quantum vacuum fluctuations create a particle-antiparticle pair near it, both with positive mass. One falls in, the other escapes. Thanks to quantum weirdnesses, the mass for the escaping one gets stolen from the black hole. Half the time it will be the antiparticle escaping, and half the time the particle. (Overall, though, they'll mostly do the same thing and both fall toward it or away from it, and annihilate each other with no net effect. But on the rare occasion when they get created in the right spot with the right energy, one will fall in and the other will escape.)

    Of course, you could just read the Wikipedia article.

  12. Re:Hawking Radiation by qeveren · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you have a spherical collection of particles randomly orbiting an object, collisions between particles tend to average out their angular momentum, eventually concentrating them into a thin disk. The oblateness of the rotating primary about which they orbit tends to force that ring into alignment with the primary's equator.

    --
    Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
  13. Re:Does it even matter? by teebob21 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Hawking radiation particles don't come from *inside* the black hole; that's impossible. Instead they are the "virtual particle" pairs that are constantly created (and almost always immediately destroyed) from vacuum fluctuations of the fabric of space time, specifically those pairs pop into existence straddling the infinitely thin line that is the event horizon. Due to gravitational acceleration, these particles become real due to the Unruh effect. If the antimatter particle, say an antiproton, is captured, it will remove mass from the black hole when it encounters a matter particle and releases energy. Coincidentally, the same amount of mass "radiated" is as the antiproton destroyed. Courtesy of the transitive property of addition, the net effect is the same as if the black hole had ejected one proton from within the event horizon.

    --
    khasim (12/9/06): In a blind taste test, more people preferred Coke over the Pepsi that I had previously pissed in.
  14. I am french that is not informative by aepervius · · Score: 4, Informative

    Black hole translate to "trou noir", which is as funny (or unfunny) as "black hole" is in english. I don't ever recall an astrophysicists in France which was annoyed, or amused. I would REALLY like to see a reference to this.And to the moderator, such an assertion would require at least a lnik or reference to be modded informative +5. Right now at best it is only +5 funny.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  15. Re:Hawking Radiation by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've always wondered whether magnetic fields inside a black hole are restricted to being within the internal boundary of the black hole, but not able to penetrate outside it? Does the event horizon also apply to them? Does the boundary established by the hole's gravitational field prevent a magnetic field from emerging? That would imply gravity can trump magnetism. I guess that makes sense if gravity warps space, and magnetism has to propagate through space, so if space is distorted the magnetic field lines are too. So does this mean one could somehow bottle up enormous magnetic fields within a gravity-compressed space? Does this operate in suns to contain their reactions? And why do my friends from Tau Ceti always look at me like I was crazy when I ask them this? Just because I'm human doesn't mean they have to treat me like a galactic retard. Although that explains the Slinky they gave me, claiming it was advanced alien technology.