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."

24 of 134 comments (clear)

  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 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
  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. 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!

  4. 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 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.

    2. 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.
    3. 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.

  5. "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.

  6. The science by kinthalas · · Score: 5, Informative
  7. 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?

  8. 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.

  9. 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

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

    Lead on, we're right behind you.

  11. 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)

  12. 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?

  13. 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.