Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Colliding Galaxies Reveal Colossal Black Holes

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the duck-and-cover dept.

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."

14 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 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.

    2. 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.
    3. 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...
    4. Re:Apparently. . . by danieltdp · · Score: 5, Funny

      You can always get closer for better pictures.

      --
      -- dnl
  2. 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!

  3. 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.
  4. "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.

    --
    Paul Leader
  5. The science by kinthalas · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.2188

  6. 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?

  7. 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.

  8. 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