Slashdot Mirror


Colliding Galaxies Reveal Colossal Black Holes

Matt_dk writes "New observations made with the Submillimeter Array of telescopes in Hawaii suggest that black holes — thought to exist in many, if not all, galaxies — were common even in the early Universe, when galaxies were just beginning to form. Astronomers have found two very different galaxies in the distant Universe, both with colossal black holes at their hearts, involved in a spectacular collision."

134 comments

  1. Apparently. . . by smooth+wombat · · Score: 5, Funny

    the web site has become a black hole as well.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    1. Re:Apparently. . . by drerwk · · Score: 3, Informative

      I saw it. It is a press release. I even googled for a image of the spectacular collision; no joy. You be better off reading Finnegan's Wake. Though I prefer Conrad's Heart of Darkness.

    2. Re:Apparently. . . by Warhawke · · Score: 5, Funny

      Two colossal voids at the edge of the universe, you say? It seems that they've found the former locations of the RIAA's and MPAA's heart.

    3. Re:Apparently. . . by somersault · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It was particularly evil to have the link in the words 'spectacular collision' :/

      --
      which is totally what she said
    4. Re:Apparently. . . by Emb3rz · · Score: 3, Funny

      Would it really be fair to say they ever approached colossal?

    5. Re:Apparently. . . by gnick · · Score: 5, Funny

      I wanted pictures of the black holes. Black hole photography can be pretty tricky - None of my pictures ever seem to come out. Just can't seem to get enough exposure on the film...

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    6. Re:Apparently. . . by Coldmoon · · Score: 5, Informative

      Found a site with an article about this and it even has a picture...

      http://www.stfc.ac.uk/KE/Ind/SubArrBH.aspx

      --
      Coldmoon over Dark water...
    7. Re:Apparently. . . by danieltdp · · Score: 5, Funny

      You can always get closer for better pictures.

      --
      -- dnl
    8. Re:Apparently. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      pics or it didn't happen...

    9. Re:Apparently. . . by cmacb · · Score: 1

      Many amateur photographers have difficulty not to letting their thumb rest on top of the lens.

      Although in this case that might actually be the best place for it.

    10. Re:Apparently. . . by MikeDirnt69 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Would it really be fair to say they ever approached colossal?

      They have to approach 'heart' first.

      --
      Am I eval()? - http://www.monst3r.com.br
    11. Re:Apparently. . . by prgrmr · · Score: 2, Informative

      The picture is not a photograph, it is an artist's imagining of the event, and not a very good one at that.

    12. Re:Apparently. . . by fireboy1919 · · Score: 2, Informative

      And for anyone else who was fooled, when the parent says "picture" he means it.

      It is not a photograph. It is a rendition of what some artist thinks it'd look like.

      --
      Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
    13. Re:Apparently. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see you are working with the idea-ball system like the family guy writers.

    14. Re:Apparently. . . by danieltdp · · Score: 1

      Cmon guys, I meant closer to the black hole. This is not insightful at all!

      --
      -- dnl
    15. Re:Apparently. . . by jd · · Score: 1

      Nono, it is a picture. Rassilon is holding the camera, photographing Omega (you can see him waving in the distance) as he plunges into the merging singularities, the energy from which will be tapped for time travel purposes, and for powering the data centre holding Rassilon's intergalactic pron archive.

      --
      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)
    16. Re:Apparently. . . by Kippesoep · · Score: 1

      What would a "spectacular collision" between those two be? Whatever it is, it can't be good for us.

    17. Re:Apparently. . . by Candid88 · · Score: 1

      Nah, Heat have all the exclusive photos for this collision.

  2. Re:First Post muhahahahaha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    You could have at least made a goatse reference. Damn it man, it was right *there*.

  3. "spectacular collision" with no photos = FAIL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Pictures please!
    Or would that be considered "galaxy pron" ?

    1. Re:"spectacular collision" with no photos = FAIL by jemtallon · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah! Where's the pictures of the huge black holes from which light doesn't escape!

    2. Re:"spectacular collision" with no photos = FAIL by Xorlev · · Score: 5, Funny

      There was an excellent picture taken before the light was all sucked up, however the photographer got a bit too caught up in his subject and is stuck in the moment.

    3. Re:"spectacular collision" with no photos = FAIL by tcoder70 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Pictures??? Video is better! Ok a simulation is better than nothing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVgPplOgB1g

    4. Re:"spectacular collision" with no photos = FAIL by Erris · · Score: 1, Informative

      Look for Xrays and you will see them.

      --
      DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
    5. Re:"spectacular collision" with no photos = FAIL by daem0n1x · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Will goatse do?

    6. Re:"spectacular collision" with no photos = FAIL by kungfugleek · · Score: 1
      "spectacular collision" -- the root word of "spectacular" being "spectacle", which implies something you can see...

      thought maybe two swirling pools of stars merging together would make a good desktop wallpaper. alas....

    7. Re:"spectacular collision" with no photos = FAIL by jemtallon · · Score: 1

      Stop fighting me with your relentless logic!

    8. Re:"spectacular collision" with no photos = FAIL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah! Where's the pictures of the huge black holes from which light doesn't escape!

      Right here.

    9. Re:"spectacular collision" with no photos = FAIL by hypergreatthing · · Score: 0, Redundant

      I have been able to, with much effort, photograph this collision in all it's glory and wonder.

      http://img366.imageshack.us/my.php?image=blackholecollisionhy5.jpg

      You can clearly see the larger black hole in the upper right hand portion and the slightly smaller one in the bottom left hand side.

    10. Re:"spectacular collision" with no photos = FAIL by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Cool! Yeah, I had trouble finding them at first, but then I realised I needed to click to show it at the original size.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    11. Re:"spectacular collision" with no photos = FAIL by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      That's so black hole collision. That's a picture of a black cat in a barrel of oil at night... trough the eyes of a blind man!

      By the way... a beautiful picture. I have it as a screen-saver when my PC is on standby.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  4. Re:First Post muhahahahaha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    The opportunity was left wide open!

  5. It doesn't seem that surprising. by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't think that discovering early black holes is all that surprising given that concentrations of matter were much greater early on.

    What I want to know, is how did the universe expand beyond its own swartzchild radius?

    --
    Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    1. Re:It doesn't seem that surprising. by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      If one considers the law that matter/energy can neither be created or destroyed, the answer would have to be that the universe is just the exit point for the blackhole preceding it. And so on. You've heard of the infinite loop? ;)

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    2. Re:It doesn't seem that surprising. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think that discovering early black holes is all that surprising given that concentrations of matter were much greater early on.

      What I want to know, is how did the universe expand beyond its own swartzchild radius?

      if the universe didnt expand beyond it's schwarzschild radius it wouldnt be expanding would it

    3. Re:It doesn't seem that surprising. by pokerdad · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What I want to know, is how did the universe expand beyond its own swartzchild radius?

      Depending on what you take the mass of the universe to be (and age too), we may not have hit it yet.

    4. Re:It doesn't seem that surprising. by Relic+of+the+Future · · Score: 1
      I know it's really easy to, after the fact, say "I knew that all along," but now it's +5 Insightfull? Guess what? Saying "that was obvious" is not how science works! There were lots of scientist who thought it was "obvious" that there would be black holes, and a lot who thought it was "obvious" that there wouldn't be; so this result, despite your dismissive attitude, is news. But even if that WEREN'T the case, it's still good science to find out for CERTAIN something we, thusfar, were only able to ASSUME.

      And to answer your question, by expanding faster than light. Obviously.

      --
      Those who fail to understand communication protocols, are doomed to repeat them over port 80.
    5. Re:It doesn't seem that surprising. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think that discovering early black holes is all that surprising given that concentrations of matter were much greater early on.

      What I want to know, is how did the universe expand beyond its own swartzchild radius?

      How do we know it did?

    6. Re:It doesn't seem that surprising. by JustinOpinion · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What I want to know, is how did the universe expand beyond its own swartzchild radius?

      It didn't.

      To compute the Schwarzschild radius of the universe, we need to know its mass. Recent measurements suggest that the universe is flat, and so may have infinite mass. However at a minimum we can count up the mass within the observable universe. The observable stars in the universe have a mass of ~2*10^52, but they are overwhelmed by dark matter, which brings the total mass within our observation volume to ~4*10^53 kg. So the Schwarzschild radius for the universe is:

      r = (2*G*m)/(c^2) = 2*(6.7E-11 m^3kg^-1s^-2)*(4E53 kg)/(3E8 m/s)^2 = 6E26 m = 60 billion light-years.

      Since the observable universe is ~46 billion light-years in radius, this means that the Schwarzschild radius of the universe is bigger than what we consider to be "the universe." In other words, we are well within the Schwarzschild radius, leading some people to describe the universe itself as a massive black hole that we are actually inside of.

      The universe probably has a mass larger than what we can observe, making the radius even larger than the above estimate. If the universe truly has infinite mass, then the radius is infinite. In other words, the universe may not have a Schwarzschild radius at all.

      This is also a decent description.

    7. Re:It doesn't seem that surprising. by gnick · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Schwarzschild radius:

      The Schwarzschild radius (sometimes historically referred to as the gravitational radius) is a characteristic radius associated with every mass. It is the radius for a given mass where, if that mass could be compressed to fit within that radius, no known force or degeneracy pressure could stop it from continuing to collapse into a gravitational singularity.

      Thanks a lot... Before I was peacefully ignorant, but now you've tossed out a perfectly good question and revealed to me yet another topic for my List of Things I Know That I Don't Know...

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    8. Re:It doesn't seem that surprising. by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      I'm not following you at all - matter going into a black "hole" doesn't get destroyed. There's no need for it to "come out" anywhere It's not literally a "hole" - it's just an indredibly (unfathomably) dense object.

      Technically the black "hole" in the center of our galaxy is still a little spherical ball of matter and energy just like any other object - it's just that the density is high enough that gravity starts to behave strangely close to it.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    9. Re:It doesn't seem that surprising. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OOPS that's not an answer because it explains NOTHING.

      Throughout human history we have had morons such as yourself declaring 'GOD DID IT' 'IT WAS CREATED!!!' 'SUPREME BEING!!!' and they have been proven wrong time and again. But not without first delaying the progress of human knowledge by CENTURIES with their bullshit, lies, torture, and homocide.

    10. Re:It doesn't seem that surprising. by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      What I want to know, is how did the universe expand beyond its own swartzchild radius?

      Man, for a moment I thought you were making a Spaceballs joke, instead of a physics reference. :-P

      Cheers

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    11. Re:It doesn't seem that surprising. by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      Exactly.

      Compress it all into a neat little ball, and at some point, that ball will go bang. Maybe a Big Bang. What do time and other dimensional characteristics look like after the event? Something like us?

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    12. Re:It doesn't seem that surprising. by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Since the observable universe is ~46 billion light-years in radius, this means that the Schwarzschild radius of the universe is bigger than what we consider to be "the universe." In other words, we are well within the Schwarzschild radius, leading some people to describe the universe itself as a massive black hole that we are actually inside of.

      Not according to the Wiki...

      The Schwarzschild radius (sometimes historically referred to as the gravitational radius) is a characteristic radius associated with every mass. It is the radius for a given mass where, if that mass could be compressed to fit within that radius, no known force or degeneracy pressure could stop it from continuing to collapse into a gravitational singularity.

      If the universe is smaller than its Schwarzschild radius, it should collapse into a singularity. It hasn't, so it apparently isn't.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    13. Re:It doesn't seem that surprising. by Wavebreak · · Score: 1

      Give it time.

      --
      Nobody expects the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal.
    14. Re:It doesn't seem that surprising. by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      The universe is supposedly expanding, not collapsing.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    15. Re:It doesn't seem that surprising. by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      Thanks a lot... Before I was peacefully ignorant...

      As long as you don't learn what you do not know about something "abnormal, non-Euclidean, and loathsomely redolent of spheres and dimensions apart from ours" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cthulhu, perhaps we may all remain peacefully ignorant. :)

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    16. Re:It doesn't seem that surprising. by MBGMorden · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Compress it all into a neat little ball, and at some point, that ball will go bang.

      Actually the evidence suggests that you if you keep compressing the ball a bang becomes very unlikely. Once matter is pile onto the singularity, about the only way it seems to come back off it through Hawking Radiation, which is more of a "Little, Slow, Trickle" than a Big Bang.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    17. Re:It doesn't seem that surprising. by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      The universe is supposedly expanding, not collapsing.

      What if you view it from the perspective of how objects would appear to have a redshift, if they were all accelerating toward a central point.

      Take a massive gravitational force: A
      Objects B, C, and D are arranged in a line extending from Object A. A to B is the same distance from B to C. Initially all points are at rest.

      If A were something massive, B, C, and D would all appear to have a redshift relative to each other. Although they are all accelerating toward A, because the distance between A and B is less than the distance between A and C and A and D, the acceleration due to gravity would look like this: B>C>D. Thus B would appear to be acclerating away from C and D from the perspective of C and D. Likewise, C and D would appear to be accelerating away from B from the perspective of B (Even though B,C,and D would all be getting closer from the perspective of A).

      That isn't intended to be anywhere near a scientific description of what it would 'look' like inside a black hole, but it is a fun little perspective brain teaser. (If I typed it correctly. It is much easier with a whiteboard)

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    18. Re:It doesn't seem that surprising. by DanOrc451 · · Score: 1

      Okay, err, not to be ignorant here, but where did the other black holes GO? How do they "die?"

      A quick look at the wikipedia article before my boss yelled at me to get back to work was not very enlightening.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une signature.
    19. Re:It doesn't seem that surprising. by Xcruciate · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have always thought that this might be the case. I think that space/time is infinite. In our little corner of this infinite void, we have our "universe" of matter and energy (galaxies, dark matter, etc.). A black hole forms and creates a singularity which sucks in matter and energy. One has to ask where that stuff goes. I surmise that the singularity just punches a hole in the fabric of space/time and dumps the matter/energy into another corner of the infinite space/time, thus creating a "big bang" and another universe somewhere else (another dimension, perhaps) and that this is a never ending cycle. I just think that "our" Big Bang is the result of this cycle.

      --
      It's like "looking busy" at your employment - it's actually easier to do real work than to fake it. - bmo
    20. Re:It doesn't seem that surprising. by JustinOpinion · · Score: 3, Informative

      If the universe is smaller than its Schwarzschild radius, it should collapse into a singularity. It hasn't, so it apparently isn't.

      As mentioned here, the concept of a Schwarzschild radius is one limiting case of Einstein's equations of general relativity. It is a useful concept with various rules-of-thumb, but one must be careful in applying it to all situations. In particular, the approximation breaks down, and a full treatment using the equations of general relativity is instead necessary, for "extreme" situations (like inside a black hole, during the big bang, when applied to the entire universe, etc.).

      More specifically (this site seems to explain it somewhat), the "Schwarzschild black hole" is just one solution to the equations of general relativity--it is a limiting case for nominally static matter (that is also non-rotating, spherically symmetric). Other solutions are required in other cases (e.g. the Kerr solution for rotating black holes). The Schwarzschild solution doesn't apply to dynamic systems (e.g. rapidly expanding matter). In particular the big bang and subsequent expansion of the universe represent a different solution to the equations of GR. This solution provides for a roughly flat space but massive expansion (hence highly curved spacetime, as one would expect for such high mass-density). Our best understanding suggests that inflation occurred (where space was expanding faster than the speed of light, although light/energy/matter/information was still constrained by c).

      In my previous post I was just pointing out that the expected size for the Schwarzschild radius is very large. However that is based on a naive application of the usual rules-of-thumb. The big bang, if you will, is extreme enough that it requires a more careful treatment. Moreover, our best data right now suggests that the universe is roughly flat and infinite (and thus with infinite or at least extremely large mass), meaning that there is probably no meaningful way to apply the "Schwarzschild radius" concept to it.

      Disclaimer: I'm not a cosmologist. Hopefully I didn't make a mistake.

    21. Re:It doesn't seem that surprising. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, "collapsing into a gravitational singularity" is the problem here. AFAIK, this just means that "nothing outside of the radius can interact with whatever's inside, except via gravity".

      You can try to apply physics to determine what happens to things inside, but that's a bit tricky because you can't verify it (see previous paragraph).

      So if you restrict the meaning of collapse to "you can't interact with it anymore", then you can apply that just fine for the Universe: by definition, things outside it can't interact with things inside (otherwise they would be _in_ the Universe).

    22. Re:It doesn't seem that surprising. by Requiem18th · · Score: 1

      Two words, Holy Shit!

        IANAA (I Am Not An Astrophysicist) but what if there never was a Big Bang? The Universe started as a continuum of random information that just suddenly came to existence (or suddenly started to physically interact, or was suddenly transported from another universe or leaked whatever)

        I mean, we AFAIK we have no other reason to suspect a big bang than the fact that the universe has a apparent center an that matter is running away from it.

        If the center was simply the "Schwarzschild center" of a large body of mass and the "run away" effect is caused by relativistic contortions... maybe there wasn't a Big Bang after all...

       

      --
      But... the future refused to change.
    23. Re:It doesn't seem that surprising. by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      You mean like that God thing? Nah, that's a myth.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    24. Re:It doesn't seem that surprising. by Requiem18th · · Score: 1

      Fuck no! No gods, fairies or thetans please.

        What I'm talking about is, what if instead of a finite universe with a clear beginning and initial shape -the Big Bang of a Singularity- the universe may consist of a stream of matter, constantly flowing from the edge and "falling into" a center? a kind of waterfall universe.

        In the words of Richard Dawkins, the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.

        Of course IANAA.

      --
      But... the future refused to change.
    25. Re:It doesn't seem that surprising. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I want to know, is how did the universe expand beyond its own swartzchild radius?

      if the universe didnt expand beyond it's schwarzschild radius it wouldnt be expanding would it

      ANSWER FAIL!

    26. Re:It doesn't seem that surprising. by LionMage · · Score: 1

      Recent measurements suggest that the universe is flat, and so may have infinite mass.

      OK, as a former physics major (got my BS in physics and then moved on to computer science for my MS), this bugs me. The Wikipedia article you cite is interesting, but about as opaque to the non-technical reader as you can make it. And I certainly take exception to the conclusion that "flat universe = infinite mass" (which conclusion I don't think even the Wikipedia article you cited supports).

      The way I always understood this, posed in the least technical way possible, is as follows:

      • An open universe is one in which the total mass, M, is smaller than the threshold necessary for gravitational attraction to counteract the expansion. Such a universe continues to expand indefinitely.
      • A closed universe is one in which the total mass, M, is greater than the threshold necessary for gravitational attraction to counteract expansion. Such a universe will eventually stop expanding and will ultimately collapse (a so-called "big crunch").
      • A flat universe is one in which the total mass, M, is exactly equal to the threshold necessary for gravitational attraction to counteract expansion. Such a universe continues expanding, but the expansion decelerates over time, such that the universe approaches some asymptote beyond which it can not expand.

      Granted, this was what I learned before dark energy was even considered, and when dark matter was still a pretty new concept; furthermore, I note that the Wikipedia article makes some mention of dark energy and dark matter. Nevertheless, an infinite amount of matter (if that were even possible, which in a finite universe, is an impossibility) would indicate a closed topology for the universe, not a flat topology.

      As I said, though, the very notion of an infinite amount of matter simply doesn't agree with observation, nor with any of the currently popular cosmological models I'm aware of. (Yeah, I try to keep up on this stuff even though it's not my field anymore.) Everything we know and assume in physics is built upon the premise of the universe being finite (albeit large). An infinite amount of mass would require an infinite amount of energy during the Big Bang. That's just absurd.

      So yes, based on observation, the universe appears arbitrarily close to a flat topology. (I fondly remember attending an Alan Guth lecture about inflation in the early universe, and back then he was trying to explain the apparent flatness of the universe, so this is not exactly a new idea.) However, flat topology does not mean "infinite amount of mass." It means that the mass of the universe is almost exactly at some threshold value (which astronomical observations don't bear out, hence the search for dark matter), or else our local universe has been driven by early forces to appear topologically flat, while the universe at large is not really flat. And if you throw dark energy into the mix, then the consequences of the universe's topology that I enumerated above can go out the window, since dark energy provides an accelerating force for the expansion of the universe.

      (Also, as I review the last paragraph, I'm aware that on the one hand, I'm saying that observations tell us that the universe looks flat, while on the other hand, I'm saying that observations tell us that there can't be enough mass in the universe to make it "flat." Sounds contradictory, and it is, but those two conclusions are based on two different sets of observations. AFAIK, nobody has really satisfactorily reconciled the two.)

    27. Re:It doesn't seem that surprising. by Kagura · · Score: 1

      What I want to know, is how did the universe expand beyond its own swartzchild radius?

      How do you know it did expand beyond its schwartzchild radius?

      Sorry, that was a little zen. ;)

    28. Re:It doesn't seem that surprising. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Schwarzschild radius:

      The Schwarzschild radius (sometimes historically referred to as the gravitational radius) is a characteristic radius associated with every mass. It is the radius for a given mass where, if that mass could be compressed to fit within that radius, no known force or degeneracy pressure could stop it from continuing to collapse into a gravitational singularity.

      And yet, why does the theory of gravity say that gravity does not depend on density? Just mass and distance?

    29. Re:It doesn't seem that surprising. by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      IANAA (I Am Not An Astrophysicist) but what if there never was a Big Bang? The Universe started as a continuum of random information that just suddenly came to existence (or suddenly started to physically interact, or was suddenly transported from another universe or leaked whatever)

      Ignoring the fact that there's no evidence whatsoever for that, there is in fact no reason to believe it's even within the realm of possibility. E.g. quite on par with the so-called "supernatural".

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    30. Re:It doesn't seem that surprising. by Requiem18th · · Score: 1

      Could you please stop lumping me with the superstitious?

        Regardless of what direction the universe started moving to in the beginning, the statement "stuff comes from nowhere" is a given, weather matter comes from the center or the edge of the universe doesn't change that, and I don't see why "all the matter of the universe just so happened to be inside a volume the size of an atom" is inherently more logical and natural than just saying "matter happened".

        AFAIK, the motivation for the Big Bang theory is the explosion like shape of the universe but if any volume of matter arranges itself in the same shape under gravitational forces naturally, then The Bang might just be "optional" and under Occam's I might chop it off.

        IF there is a good reason to believe in a Bang and I'm not suggesting at all there isn't just tell me just please don't call me a Christian for Christ's sake.

      --
      But... the future refused to change.
    31. Re:It doesn't seem that surprising. by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Frankly I haven't heard a plausible explanation of "how it happened" yet... apart from "it just did". Which sounds very much like the God theory, but don't tell anyone I said that.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    32. Re:It doesn't seem that surprising. by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      Okay, err, not to be ignorant here, but where did the other black holes GO? How do they "die?"

      A quick look at the wikipedia article before my boss yelled at me to get back to work was not very enlightening.

      Black holes 'evaporate' through Hawking radiation.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    33. Re:It doesn't seem that surprising. by DanOrc451 · · Score: 1

      That's what I got from wikipedia too, but the section on evaporation seemed to indicate that a black hole would have to be less than a tenth of a milimeter in diameter in order to actually evaporate, because it's taking in more energy from background radiation than it's emitting.

      There didn't seem to be anything to explain how an actual sizeable black hole wouldn't just end up eating the universe.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une signature.
    34. Re:It doesn't seem that surprising. by JustinOpinion · · Score: 1

      I certainly take exception to the conclusion that "flat universe = infinite mass"

      By "flat" I mean space has no curvature and is thus effectively Euclidean. This means (as far as I understand it), that space continues on forever in each direction. It doesn't wrap back upon itself and reconnect (which is what would happen for a curved geometry like spherical space). So "flat universe" = "infinite space." Now, if the matter density of the universe is roughly homogeneous on large scales (which it is within our Hubble volume), then every region of space has some mass. So "flat universe" + "homogeneous matter" = "infinite mass".

      Our best measurements have not detected any curvature to the universe at large scales. It looks flat. The current consensus in cosmology, as far as I can tell, is that the universe is thus probably infinite in volume and mass. (Of course, it could be a spherical geometry with a very, very small curvature... in which case it would not be infinite, but just very, very large.) Quoting from an expert in the field, Max Tegmark:

      A generic prediction of inflation is an infinite ergodic universe, which contains Hubble volumes realizing all initial conditions

      In this paper he's discussing the implications in terms of "copies" of Hubble volumes, but the basic conclusion of "infinite universe" appears robust:

      ..the simplest and most popular cosmological model today predicts that [there are copies of our galaxy] about 10^(10^29) meters from here. This does not even assume speculative modern physics, merely that space is infinite and rather uniformly filled with matter as indicated by recent astronomical observations. Your alter ego is simply a prediction of the so-called concordance model of cosmology, which agrees with all current observational evidence and is used as the basis for most calculations and simulations presented at cosmology conferences. In contrast, alternatives such as a fractal universe, a closed universe and a multiply connected universe have been seriously challenged by observations.

      (Emphasis added.)

      And:

      Although the implications may seem crazy and counter-intuitive, this spatially infinite cosmological model is in fact the simplest and most popular one on the market today. It is part of the cosmological concordance model, which agrees with all current observational evidence and is used as the basis for most calculations and simulations presented at cosmology conferences.

      I believe you are correct that (absent dark energy) a flat universe should expand forever but with a continually decreasing rate. Of course dark energy modifies this, causing a negative pressure that accelerates the expansion at later times. Modern measurements indicate that the mass density of the universe is very close to the critical value, and that space is flat, but that dark energy is accelerating the expansion.

      The cosmological models relate not to the total mass of the universe, but to the density. If the density of the universe is at the critical value, then it is flat and expands forever (absent dark energy). If the density is above the critical value, the universe has positive curvature, is closed and will collapse. If the density is below the critical value then space has negative curvature, is open, and expands forever. The universe can have infinite volume and infinite mass while still having finite density.

      An infinite amount of mass would require an infinite amount of energy during the Big Bang. That's just absurd.

      Counter-intuitive, yes. But that's what the data suggest. (Strictly, the data simply don't rule out an infinite universe. A very, very large universe with curvature too small to measure is also consistent with observation. So I suppose on aesthetic grounds you could prefer one over the other. But the data so far do not rule out either.)

  6. "Spectacular collision"? by NoNeeeed · · Score: 4, Funny

    Much like the collision between a server full of astronomy pictures and slashdot.

    Nothing survives.

    Oh, and as the mass increases, time slows down in the vicinity. Or at least that's how it seems.

  7. Very simple, actually by djupedal · · Score: 0, Troll

    Upon following a river to the sea, ancient man may have thought, "Look! The blue blood of the Mother Earth flows in, but nothing comes out! There is no way to escape the giant hole in our world!"

    The concept of going out into such a massive and unyielding force would have seemed like welcoming death itself. "Don't go! You will never come back!"

    Today, we take the same myopic and uninformed view. "Don't go into the black hole at the center of our galaxy! You'll disappear forever!"

    1. Re:Very simple, actually by jdunn14 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Lead on, we're right behind you.

    2. Re:Very simple, actually by somersault · · Score: 1

      Feel free to go for a galactic swim, oh great enlightened one.

      You should be able to get there just by jumping, since gravity holds no power over you!

      --
      which is totally what she said
    3. Re:Very simple, actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, as his opinion holds no weight he can feel free to take a flying leap!

    4. Re:Very simple, actually by somersault · · Score: 1

      Eventually he will actually find out that black holes really do suck.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    5. Re:Very simple, actually by Aphoxema · · Score: 1

      At least the snuggle afterward.

      --
      "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
    6. Re:Very simple, actually by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      Upon following a river to the sea, ancient man may have thought, "Look! The blue blood of the Mother Earth flows in, but nothing comes out! There is no way to escape the giant hole in our world!"

      Well boy howdy, that would have been one unobservant ancient man to not notice driftwood, shells, crabs, and seaweed that gets washed up on the beach.

      Seen any driftwood coming out of black holes?

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    7. Re:Very simple, actually by eggstasy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would encourage you to study what a black hole actually is, rather than trusting some random sci-fi author's unsubstantiated notion that the layman's term "hole" must mean "magical portal to another dimension".
      Our present equations yield a value of "infinite" when solved for the conditions believed to exist at the center of a black hole. This is likely to only mean that our equations are buggy and need fixing.
      It is not the opinion of most scientists that anything special would happen inside a black hole. If you could somehow build an infinitely resilient spaceship that could somehow shield you from the effects of extreme gravity, and assuming we are wrong about the speed of light, and that you could possibly go faster than it, the most you would be able to do with a black hole would be to go in and out of the event horizon unscathed, or perhaps bang into whatever form of extremely compressed matter exists at its center. We have no reason to believe otherwise - wormholes, however prevalent they may be in the realm of science fiction, are just an unlikely hypothesis in the world of real science. For them to exist, strange forms of matter with negative density would have to be discovered, and nobody but the wishful thinkers seriously believes in that.
      (I am not a physicist, however, and as such I welcome factual corrections and additions to this post)

    8. Re:Very simple, actually by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Upon following a river to the sea, ancient man may have thought, "Look! The blue blood of the Mother Earth flows in, but nothing comes out! There is no way to escape the giant hole in our world!"

      No ancient man ever thought that. See, ancient man knew what fish were.

      Today, we take the same myopic and uninformed view. "Don't go into the black hole at the center of our galaxy! You'll disappear forever!"

      Well modern thinking is that you wouldn't necessarily disappear forever; the energy that used to be you would be released as Hawking Radiation at some point.

      But who really cares if you'd disappear forever or not when in the process of entering the hole in the first place tidal forces would rip you apart into a stream of particles? Or are you imagining that some miraculous force on the "other side" would put you back together?

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  8. The science by kinthalas · · Score: 5, Informative
  9. In those galaxies by johannesg · · Score: 1

    ...must be millions of inhabited worlds, each populated by beings that believed themselves to be the center of the very universe, each believing that their existence had so much significance on the cosmic scale that this would not happen to them.

    Instead they find themselves in the most sucky situation in the entire galaxy...

    1. Re:In those galaxies by daem0n1x · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I guess these events happen in the million year range, so they may have had enough time to evolve and escape.

    2. Re:In those galaxies by hvm2hvm · · Score: 1

      Or kill themselves like some idiots we talk about some times.

      --
      ics
    3. Re:In those galaxies by Kingrames · · Score: 1

      More like the frog in a pot of hot water comparison I'd believe. It's very doubtful that the life inside those galaxies would escape, with the rare exceptions of the few who are mentally deranged and paranoid, or willing to risk their lives and the lives of others to explore beyond the limits of what they can see.

      And I can't wait to meet them.

      --
      If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
  10. Highlights from TFA by Emb3rz · · Score: 5, Informative

    4C60.07 - the first of the galaxies to be discovered - came to astronomers' attention because of its bright radio emission. This radio signature is one telltale sign of a quasar - a black hole, spinning rapidly, feeding on its parent galaxy. A new image captures the moment, approximately 12 billion years ago, when this galaxy ripped a stream of dusty gas from a neighbour.

    "This new image reveals two galaxies where we only expected to find one," said Professor Rob Ivison ... "Remarkably, both galaxies contain super-massive black holes, each capable of powering a billion, billion, billion light bulbs. The implications are wide reaching: you can't help wondering how many other colossal black holes may be lurking unseen in the distant Universe?"

    Due to the finite speed of light, we see the two galaxies as they collided in the distant past, less than 2 billion years after the Big Bang. By now the galaxies will have merged to create a football-shaped elliptical galaxy. Their black holes are likely to have merged to form a single monstrously large black hole.

    "These two galaxies are fraternal twins. Both are about the size of the Milky Way, but each one is unique"

    From the thats-a-lot-of-lightbulbs department?

    1. Re:Highlights from TFA by kjllmn · · Score: 1

      What does "super-massive" in "super-massive black holes" mean? It's the opposite of a black hole light (light as in Coke light)?

    2. Re:Highlights from TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remarkably, both galaxies contain super-massive black holes, each capable of powering a billion, billion, billion light bulbs. The implications are wide reaching...

      What a stupid comparison. Our sun is already capable of that hands down! And actually, a super massive black hole would power a zillion, zillion, zillion, zillion, zillion light bulbs. Of course, that wouldn't be of much use if the black hole sucks the light back...

    3. Re:Highlights from TFA by roman_mir · · Score: 2, Funny

      Remarkably, both galaxies contain super-massive black holes, each capable of powering a billion, billion, billion light bulbs. The implications are wide reaching

      - yes, the implications are wide reaching. Where exactly are we going to get that many light bulbs from? We can't just let all that energy go to waste. Did anyone notice Usama bin Laden in close vicinity to the black hole? If so, can we please notify Bush?

    4. Re:Highlights from TFA by mapsjanhere · · Score: 1

      It means a black hole of galaxy center dimensions, usually several million solar masses. There is a minimum mass for stable black holes, which was frequently quoted in the discussion on whether or not the LHC can produce an Earth-absorbing black hole. It's not near the energies available in the LHC, but you can have a "light" black hole of some solar mass as a result of the collapse of individual neutron stars if I recall
      What really got me in tfa was the "merged black holes" so. Do black holes actually merge, or do the two of them just circle each other endlessly behind their united event horizons?

      --
      I'm aging rapidly, I bought a new game and had no idea if my machine was good for it.
    5. Re:Highlights from TFA by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      From the thats-a-lot-of-lightbulbs department?

      Sounds more like the Eye of Harmony to me.

    6. Re:Highlights from TFA by Ollabelle · · Score: 1
      The whole analogy is absurd. Do they intend to imply ablack hole's energy can be harnessed?

      Pairing a black hole with light bulbs seems contradictory to boot.

      They drank too much kool-aid I'm afraid....

      --
      Ibid.
  11. TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    New observations made with the Submillimeter Array of telescopes in Hawaii suggest that black holes -- thought to exist in many, if not all, galaxies -- were common even in the early Universe, when galaxies were just beginning to form. Astronomers have found two very different galaxies in the distant Universe, both with colossal black holes at their heart, involved in a spectacular collision.

    4C60.07 -- the first of the galaxies to be discovered -- came to astronomers' attention because of its bright radio emission. This radio signature is one telltale sign of a quasar -- a black hole, spinning rapidly, feeding on its parent galaxy. A new image captures the moment, approximately 12 billion years ago, when this galaxy ripped a stream of dusty gas from a neighbour.

    When 4C60.07 was first studied, astronomers thought that gas surrounding its black hole was undergoing a burst of star formation, turning virgin gas into stars at a remarkable rate -- the equivalent of 5,000 of our Suns every year. This prodigious activity was revealed by the infrared glow from smoky debris in which the largest stars rapidly die.

    The latest research, exploiting the keen vision possible with the Submillimeter Array, revealed a surprise: 4C60.07 is not forming stars after all. Indeed, its stars may well be relatively old and quiescent. Instead, the prodigious star formation is taking place in a previously unknown companion galaxy, which is rich in gas and deeply enshrouded in dust, and has another colossal black hole glowing as its centre.

    "This new image reveals two galaxies where we only expected to find one," said Professor Rob Ivison at the Science and Technology Facilities Council's UK Astronomy Technology Centre in Edinburgh, lead author of the study that will be published in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. "Remarkably, both galaxies contain super-massive black holes, each capable of powering a billion, billion, billion light bulbs. The implications are wide reaching: you can't help wondering how many other colossal black holes may be lurking unseen in the distant Universe?"

    "It seems we were led to pluck the radio galaxy and its neighbour from the countless millions of objects in the sky because they are involved in a rare collision."

    Due to the finite speed of light, we see the two galaxies as they collided in the distant past, less than 2 billion years after the Big Bang. By now the galaxies will have merged to create a football-shaped elliptical galaxy. Their black holes are likely to have merged to form a single monstrously large black hole.

    "The superb resolution of the Submillimeter Array was key to our discovery," said Steve Willner of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, a co-author of the paper. "These two galaxies are fraternal twins. Both are about the size of the Milky Way, but each one is unique."

    Dr Glenn Morrison, an astronomer at the Institute for Astronomy and the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope in Hawaii, added "Understanding the prevalence of black holes in the early years of the Universe will rely on combining information from across the whole electromagnetic spectrum".

    Professor Ian Smail at Durham University said "The UK's revolutionary new submillimetre camera, SCUBA2, should find many more of these distant starbursts when it is commissioned later this year -- allowing us to track the growth of black holes and their host galaxies in much more detail".

  12. The article mentined glowing blackholes though!??? by SargentDU · · Score: 1

    WTH is that? Just a metaphor?

  13. Pictures of Black Holes... hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Look, a picture of a Black Hole!"

    "Where?"

    "Right there, on that monitor!! The computer on the left there! Look!"

    "But there's nothing there...it's...?"

    "No, really, that's a photograph, I swear, a real photo of black hole, a COLLISION of black holes! I just downloaded it now, took forever to get to the site."

    "Dude, that's my screensaver going into sleep mode"

    "Wait, you're right, it was the other computer screen on the right. Sorry. They look sort of the same."

    "The computer isn't on."

    "But it is really black, no? Amazing what science does these days. Gotta show my dad; he was always into astronomy."

  14. Re:The article mentined glowing blackholes though! by somethingwicked · · Score: 1

    I knew a girl once that I would say had a glowing blackhole...it really was spectacular. OHHHHH /andrewdiceclayvoice

    --

    ---"What did I say that sounded like 'Tell me about your day?'"---

  15. Highlights from TheF**kingAccident. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Something to think about. The presence of black holes could reduce the chance that there's life out there. Not just the "suck up everything" aspect, but the high amounts of ionizing radiation spewing out. Most people really don't realize just how harsh space is.

  16. Re:The article mentined glowing blackholes though! by dwye · · Score: 2, Informative

    The accretion disks glow. Actually, the black hole glows, but at a temperature far too low to care, thanks to Hawking Radiation.

  17. What I want to know. by AgentPhunk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is how to answer my 5-year old's question of: "Ok, but whats outside the universe?"

    She gets solar systems, and has a pretty good handle on galaxies and that there are lots and lots of them. I'm still trying to explain the Big Bang, and keep getting hung up on what the universe is expanding INTO.

    I know, even us Big People don't have a good answer, but what the heck do you tell a kid?

    1. Re:What I want to know. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=274

      seems a good explanation to me ( the stretching sheet rubber part at least, or how things can grow apart without adding more rubber )

    2. Re:What I want to know. by Darth · · Score: 1

      Don't worry. If she hasn't gotten the big bang by the time she graduates high school, she'll almost certainly get it in college.

      --
      Darth --
      Nil Mortifi, Sine Lucre
    3. Re:What I want to know. by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Oh, I don't know... you could always let her believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and God until she's old enough to decide on her own whether they're real?

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    4. Re:What I want to know. by SBacks · · Score: 1

      There is nothing outside the universe.

      And, I don't mean emptiness. I mean nothingness.

      So, the universe is expanding, but its not expanding into anything, it just is.

    5. Re:What I want to know. by AgentPhunk · · Score: 1

      My wife just called you a sicko, but man that was funny!

    6. Re:What I want to know. by Darth · · Score: 1

      please reassure your wife that i am well aware that i am a horrible person.

      --
      Darth --
      Nil Mortifi, Sine Lucre
  18. Re:Sing it with me by MikeDirnt69 · · Score: 1

    And now, for the headbangers:

    Hole in the sky, take me to heaven
    Window in time, through it I fly
    Yeah

    --
    Am I eval()? - http://www.monst3r.com.br
  19. Not Again! by tbully · · Score: 1

    Damnit. Who left the LHC turned on again!? How many times do I have to say it? When you leave the room please turn off the Large Hadron Collider.

  20. Layman's question by BCGlorfindel · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I know I aught be able to work this out myself, but I'm not sure if general newtonian calculations would be accurate. Is it possible to orbit a black hole from inside the event horizon if it is big enough? It seems intuitively obvious that if you can't achieve escape velocity you shouldn't be able to reach an orbital velocity either but I thought I'd see if someone was willing to give a more solid answer.

    1. Re:Layman's question by clone53421 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No.

      Maintaining an outward velocity = c would keep you at the event horizon indefinitely. Add a sideways component and you'd be able to orbit, but at velocity > c. Anything lower and you'd need velocity > c just to maintain height, much less to orbit.

      If you could go fast enough you might be able to make a few passes in some sort of collapsing orbit, but a stable orbit would be impossible.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    2. Re:Layman's question by BCGlorfindel · · Score: 2, Funny


      Maintaining an outward velocity = c would keep you at the event horizon indefinitely.

      The concept of standing still while having an enormous velocity makes my head hurt and my heart long for obedience to Newtonian physics.

    3. Re:Layman's question by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, reading it after I posted it made my head hurt too, but I still can't figure out if there's a better way of saying it... or even if it's correct... >.<

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    4. Re:Layman's question by Xiroth · · Score: 1

      No, it's sensible when you take into account the 'flipping' of time and space (radius) dimensions. Within an event horizon, the radius between the object and the centre of the mass becomes time-like - it can only ever increase, and doing so is pretty much inevitable. Time becomes vaguely space-like, although it's unclear if you can move in both directions along that axis, even in singularity conditions. In these conditions, the only way to move is to decrease radius (analogous to moving forward through time) - stopping is like taking a snapshot in time, and this is why you can't move tangentially to the centre of mass, as it would be like moving in space but not in time (instantaneous teleportation).

      Disclaimer: IANAP, just studied it a little during my university career, which has been a while now, so the science may have moved on or I may be remembering the physics wrong.

    5. Re:Layman's question by Scott+Carnahan · · Score: 1

      Is it possible to orbit a black hole from inside the event horizon if it is big enough?

      Einstein's equations predict that once an object is inside the event horizon, curvature and tidal forces necessarily strictly increase, and appear to diverge (i.e., go to infinity) in finite proper time. Physicists call this a singularity. Presumably, quantum gravitational effects dominate when things get beyond a certain threshold, but it's not clear what exactly happens then.

      If a black hole is nonrotating, the smallest stable orbit is at three times the radius. There are smaller unstable orbits, and light can (ideally) orbit indefinitely at 1.5 times the radius. If the black hole is rotating, the smallest stable orbit is smaller in the direction of rotation (approaching but not reaching the event horizon when rotational kinetic energy approaches the rest-mass energy, IIRC), and larger in the retrograde direction. I don't remember where I saw these numbers, but it might have been from Misner-Thorne-Wheeler.

      --
      "Your notation sucks!" -- Serge Lang (1927-2005)
    6. Re:Layman's question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In hindsight, I think I've hit upon an easier way of explaining it... although perhaps not technically accurate, I think it's faithful to the general idea at least. I'm pretty certain it's possible because of the massive time dilation caused by the gravity field... it's the only explanation that really makes any sense.

      Basically when you're at the event horizon, and supposing you're able to travel outward at c, your "velocity" doesn't actually cause you to move... it's entirely spent in causing time to stop and thereby preventing your inevitable fall toward the centre of the black hole. All the acceleration required to maintain that velocity keeps time stopped, which means you're at a singular point in time and therefore not moving.

    7. Re:Layman's question by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Whoops, forgot to login. ^^ was me.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  21. Who really wrote this article? by Parris · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Remarkably, both galaxies contain super-massive black holes, each capable of powering a billion, BILLION, BIIIILLLLLLIIIIIOOOOONNNNN light bulbs." Why do I feel like Dr. Evil coauthored this article?

  22. ripping dusty gas? by h.ross.perot · · Score: 1

    "this galaxy ripped a stream of dusty gas from a neighbour" Gee, and I got ticked when my neighbour nicked my cooking gas canister for his Bar b q.. Black holes and all that.. tsk, tsk ..

    --
    ... I'll have a Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster with a side of Plutonium Nyborg ...
  23. Re:Sing it with me by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

    Black Hole Sun... Won't you come... and wash away the rain?

    --
    Bow-ties are cool.
  24. billions and billions.... by Danse · · Score: 1

    âoeRemarkably, both galaxies contain super-massive black holes, each capable of powering a billion, billion, billion light bulbs."

    Most people couldn't possibly conceive of such a number. Maybe they should tell us how many Libraries of Congress that number of bulbs could light.

    Can we get a better frame of reference than that please?

    --
    It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
  25. chicken and the egg by petsounds · · Score: 1

    I think these findings start to beg the questions, is a colossal black hole at the center of every galaxy, and are galaxies created *because* of colossal black holes?

  26. We don't know by ynotds · · Score: 1

    This remains one of the more interesting open questions. Did galaxies aggregate central black holes or did primeval black holes catalyse the formation of galaxies? A definitive answer would be at least worth a physics Nobel. It's also why I bothered reading this thread to the bottom.

    --
    -- Our systemic servants do not good masters make.
  27. Galactic Gamma Ray Bursters by Blancmange · · Score: 1

    When two neutron stars collide within our own galaxy, the resulting gamma burst can be a serious threat to life on Earth.

    How bad would it be if two galactic black holes collided? Would they emit gamma ray bursts as colliding neutron stars do? Would the energy be released in particular directions? If suitably (and very unfavourably) directed, is there any minimum safe distance within the observable universe from such a collision?

    --
    Blancmange
    1. Re:Galactic Gamma Ray Bursters by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      When two neutron stars collide within our own galaxy, the resulting gamma burst can be a serious threat to life on Earth.

      Colliding neutron stars was, for a long time, one of the real contenders for an explanation for GRBs (Gamma Ray Bursts), but I believe that it has faded over the last half-decade or so, as increasing numbers of GRB afterglows have been imaged, and the fine detail of the bursts have become better constrained. The leading (by far) hypothesis these days is a "hypernova" which goes directly from very large star to black hole as one event. The far smaller event horizon (w.r.t. a neutron star's surface) makes more energy available for the fireball, and allows higher pressures and temperatures to be generated in the accretion disc. before it blows the star apart.

      How bad would it be if two galactic black holes collided? Would they emit gamma ray bursts as colliding neutron stars do?

      Good question. Since the conditions in a pair of merging neutron stars do not (initially) include an event horizon, one would expect to get a longer tail of low-energy photons etc coming out of the merger. But since these ultra-high-energy particles get degraded deep in the fireball, whether we'd observe that is an open question. (To me. IANA A-P.) I think we'd just see a small amount more energy, and somewhat higher peak power levels.
      Which begs a question - there are two classes of GRB, soft and hard, with differing energy release profiles and differing peak power levels ; I don't remember if one of those is particularly associated with hypernovæ and one still mysterious.

      Would the energy be released in particular directions?

      Seems a safe bet ; most things (on an astronomical scale) rotate, which generates an axis where conditions are going to be different to the off-axis areas. So, there may be directions of concentration, or planes of concentration, or directions of reduction, or planes of reduction ; I'm not going to even suggest a preference amongst those options.

      If suitably (and very unfavourably) directed, is there any minimum safe distance within the observable universe from such a collision?

      Take the anthropic principle - we ain't dead or non-existent. So, the likelihood of being hit by a planet-sterilising beam over a period of billions of years is low.
      I'm more worried about not having cooked that haggis properly.
      "Not impossible" covers a lot of unimportant considerations.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    2. Re:Galactic Gamma Ray Bursters by Blancmange · · Score: 1

      I'm more worried about not having cooked that haggis properly.

      Ah, good-o! I guess I shouldn't worry about looking into the pot and finding a neutron star made of haggis, either.

      [Sings a bit of Scotland's Depraved]

      --
      Blancmange
  28. re: Black Holes by movieman1942 · · Score: 1

    Didn't Disney make a "X" rated movie by the same name???

  29. Yes but... by wtansill · · Score: 1

    It's not only the number of light bulbs that's important here. One must also ask the wattage of each bulb in order to truly understand the amount of power represented. Are we talking 100 watt bulbs? Or 25 watts? Incandescent, LED, or CFL? The article is stunningly silent on this point...

    --
    The contest for ages has been to rescue liberty from the grasp of executive power. -- Daniel Webster
  30. Warning: Known troll and shill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  31. A billion billion billion light bulbs? by grikdog · · Score: 1

    Q: How many astrophysicists does it take to screw in a billion billion billion light bulbs?

    A: Two per bulb, but most of them prefer lava lamps.

    --
    ``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
  32. Warning: Known troll popularity booster and idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Am I not doing a good as captain obvious in my above post? Now don't be fooled to thing I did only state the obvious, because I also engaged in Slashdot-wide hate-speech and and pushed popularity of myself. Muhaha! Losers!

    I am SockDisclosure. I am a twitter sock puppet rottenführer. We got more... and we're coming for you... Resistance is futile, you will discuss it troll threads only

    Oh, and I love to be fisted with a foot real hard, until a part of your as is in my ass, and lick that foot clean afterwards.