Slashdot Mirror


Black Hole At Center of Milky Way Confirmed

Smivs writes "The BBC are reporting that a German team has confirmed the existence of a Black Hole at the center of the Milky Way. Astronomers tracked the movement of 28 stars circling the center of the Milky Way, using the 3.5m New Technology Telescope and the 8.2m Very Large Telescope (VLT) in Chile. Both are operated by the European Southern Observatory (Eso). The black hole is four million times heavier than our Sun, according to the paper in The Astrophysical Journal. According to Dr Robert Massey, of the Royal Astronomical Society (RAS), the results suggest that galaxies form around giant black holes in the way that a pearl forms around grit."

392 comments

  1. I guess that... by AltGrendel · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...dark matter makes a black perl?

    --
    The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination

    - Douglas Adams

    1. Re:I guess that... by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 4, Funny

      I guess that the black hole formed a long time ago around some hot grits, way back when that was funny.

    2. Re:I guess that... by zish · · Score: 2, Funny

      I knew it! Science is trying to Knack^h^h^h^h^hNacre us!

      --
      Spork.

      P.S. Spork.
    3. Re:I guess that... by Centurix · · Score: 5, Funny

      I've seen Black Perl, it was ALL regular expressions. So many that there was a regular expression event horizon, with only preceding elements escaping and at the center was a nondeterministic finite automata. Quite a sight.

      --
      Task Mangler
    4. Re:I guess that... by Ikcor · · Score: 5, Funny

      Most Milky Ways have a creamy nougat center.

    5. Re:I guess that... by AkaKaryuu · · Score: 1

      If dark matter makes a black perl I think I know of a great way to cheat in Hexic.

    6. Re:I guess that... by camperdave · · Score: 1

      I've seen Black Perl, it was ALL regular expressions. So many that there was a regular expression event horizon, with only preceding elements escaping and at the center was a nondeterministic finite automata. Quite a sight.

      ... and here I thought it was a pirate ship.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    7. Re:I guess that... by theaveng · · Score: 1

      "Shut up dingy."
      "Kiss my grits!"

      (Now we'll find it how old the slashdot readers are.) I'd like to know where this blackhole came from? Was there a previous iteration of stars that predates the Milky Way, and this black hole used to be a star? Was that star part of another galaxy? Where is that galaxy now?

      Ya know all of this would be so easy if someone invented a chronoscope to view past time periods (reference Isaac Asimov's "The Dead Past"). Then instead of guessing what happened 10 billion years ago, we could just look and see with our own eyes.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    8. Re:I guess that... by danieltdp · · Score: 1

      Depends. If it is in elongated form it will form a python

      --
      -- dnl
    9. Re:I guess that... by The+Yuckinator · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I miss Mel. I was far too young to understand why He and Flo were funny, but they were still funny to me!

    10. Re:I guess that... by Thiez · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > Ya know all of this would be so easy if someone invented a chronoscope to view past time periods (reference Isaac Asimov's "The Dead Past"). Then instead of guessing what happened 10 billion years ago, we could just look and see with our own eyes.

      We have such a thing, but we call it a 'telescope' instead of a chronoscope. Want to know what happened 10 billion years ago? Just look at something 10 billion lightyears away (or at least, something that was 10 billion lightyears away 10 billion years ago).

    11. Re:I guess that... by StikyPad · · Score: 5, Interesting

      When viewed from Europe and Australia, the Milky Way has only nougat at the center. When viewed from the US, it has nougat and caramel. Discuss.

    12. Re:I guess that... by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 1

      That's the Lady Washington.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    13. Re:I guess that... by Lachlan+Hunt · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's because what American's call Milky Ways are much more similar to what we in Australia and Europe call Mars Bars. Also note that the nougat in the middle of European Milky Ways (at least those I've tried in Norway) is different from that found in Australian Milky Ways. The Australian nougat is brown and chocolaty, European nougat is a lighter creamier colour and tastes more like Vanilla.

      --
      By reading this signature, you hereby agree with the content of the above comment.
    14. Re:I guess that... by BobW56 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      The only way to see a black hole being formed 10 billion years ago is to BE 10 billion light years away, looking where the black hole is going to be. You can't look at something and see "back in time" at something else. This is the very core of the Law of Relativity. Point A looking at point B. If you're looking at something that's 1 light year away from you, you're looking at point B as it was a year ago because it took the light (or the reflection of light, as the case may be) a year to get to your position, point A. Everything is relative to where YOU are, not to what you're looking at.

    15. Re:I guess that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      What are you, a sixth grade science teacher? I think we all get it, thanks.

    16. Re:I guess that... by Kingrames · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't doubt that someday we will find a way to travel at faster than light speed, and when we do, we'll be able to travel out to space, faster than light, then take a 90 degree turn, travel a bit longer, and point some telescopes at earth. (or in the direction of where it was). Then we will have at our disposal, a complete chronology of all human history under the sun.

      Those that do this, I'd call them Light-Scholars. Because it sounds cool.

      And it would be awesome to be there, when they do this.

      --
      If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
    17. Re:I guess that... by fifedrum · · Score: 2, Informative

      You will be there! You'll be the "they" when they do this, the ones they're looking at... if that makes any sense. So hold up a sign.

    18. Re:I guess that... by b0ttle · · Score: 1

      It would be great if we could make a giant telescope and send it travelling faster than light to intergalactic space and then see how the milky way formed, or even the solar system.

      Of course that's not possible and probably never will be, but we can look to the past through our telescopes and watch how other galaxies similar to our formed.

      That's the beauty of astronomy, the further our tecnology advances, the further we look into the past.

    19. Re:I guess that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol. ;)

    20. Re:I guess that... by Kagura · · Score: 1

      When viewed from Europe and Australia, the Milky Way has only nougat at the center. When viewed from the US, it has nougat and caramel. Discuss.

      Have you ever tried eating asian snacks, like those of Japan or Korea? They are bland and devoid of tasty sugar, while Japanese and Korean folk say that American snacks are far too sweet. :)

    21. Re:I guess that... by flink · · Score: 1

      I think it's from the sitcom "Alice". No I'm not that old, I've just seen the reruns :)

    22. Re:I guess that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, like yourself and everything around you ;)

    23. Re:I guess that... by theaveng · · Score: 1

      Yes fine, but how do you look at the Milky Way's black hole, circa 10 billion years ago, when it's distance is only 100,000 lightyears away?

      QED you can only view the black hole as it existed 100,000 years ago, and therefore my goal has not been achieved, unless someone invents a "chronoscope".

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    24. Re:I guess that... by habig · · Score: 1

      Yes fine, but how do you look at the Milky Way's black hole, circa 10 billion years ago, when it's distance is only 100,000 lightyears away?

      Take advantage of the power of statistics. Find a lot of other galaxies that are a lot like the Milky Way, then look at the ones that are 10by away.

      Not perfect, of course, but there are zillions of galaxies out there and so long as you're careful with how you answer the question "which ones are like our own galaxy" it can actually work out quite well.

    25. Re:I guess that... by theaveng · · Score: 0

      I think your idea just gave me a cool idea for a Star Trek story.

      "Captain Picard: You will travel 1975 lightyears from earth. You will then direct your long-range telescope towards Earth and record the events of Christ's crucifixion.* Next you will do the same for Vulcan and record the Peace of Surak. Good luck." I'm surprised no Trek writer ever thought of this. Picard and his colleagues don't have to muck-about digging up old bones or shards of pottery. They can just capture an image at a sufficient distance and SEE what happened.

      * For a surprise ending, we could have Picard report back that Christ was not crucified, but instead lived a happy and long life with his disciples, writing Bible stories.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    26. Re:I guess that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While Asians are also getting fatter, somehow Americans have a much higher rate of obesity. Could that be partially linked to the massive quantities of sugar in American snacks? Yeah. American snacks need to be sweeter because substantial quantities of sugar are added into nearly every pre-packaged food product in the US, so desert snacks need to be even sweeter to register on palates overloaded with sugar.

      Besides, if you think Asian snacks are bland, you clearly haven't tried wasabi peas.

    27. Re:I guess that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah American pre-packed food is teh suck of all pre-packed food. Take salad dressing for example. I spent some time out of country then came back to visit my parents. I couldn't figure out if I was supposed to put "italian" dressing on my salad at dinner, or wait until tomorrow to put it on my pancakes. Why the flaming fucking hell do american food manufacturers think salad dressing should be sweet enough to put a diabetic in a coma?

    28. Re:I guess that... by TheLink · · Score: 2, Insightful

      One of the reasons is the average portion size has increased.

      Two "asian sized" people can share one US sized meal and still be rather full at the end.

      If you keep finishing double sized portions (or at least attempting to finish), you're more likely to grow bigger.

      Bonus growth for snacking and drinking large sugary drinks (huge lattes, smoothies etc) between those huge meals.

      I think drinking large sugary drinks to quench your thirst is also a big problem. I doubt it's easy for your body to absorb just the water and let the sugar stay in your stomach and pass out in your feces (well it might be easier if you have bacteria that help ;) ).

      If vast quantities of sugar enter your bloodstream, and you don't burn it up by being active (or super inefficient) then either it gets stored ASAP as fat, or you effectively have type II diabetes.

      --
    29. Re:I guess that... by Gyga · · Score: 1

      I don't their long range sensors could pick up one person from that distance.

      --
      I don't preview or spellcheck.
    30. Re:I guess that... by TommydCat · · Score: 1

      "Captain Picard: You will travel 1975 lightyears from earth. You will then direct your long-range telescope towards Earth and record the events of Christ's crucifixion.* Next you will do the same for Vulcan and record the Peace of Surak. Good luck." I'm surprised no Trek writer ever thought of this. Picard and his colleagues don't have to muck-about digging up old bones or shards of pottery. They can just capture an image at a sufficient distance and SEE what happened.

      Due to limitations in time tech, we cannot record data from anything previous to 1970...

      --
      This comment does not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the author.
    31. Re:I guess that... by Bryan+Ischo · · Score: 0

      Faster than light travel is not possible in this universe, so your idea is bunk.

      Furthermore, time travel is a ridiculous concept that belongs only in bad science fiction, not serious discussion.

      I'm not even going to bother trying to explain to you WHY these two facts are true, just try THINKING a little bit about what you are saying, inevitably you will come up with a whole host of logical impossibilities that result from your idea.

    32. Re:I guess that... by Bryan+Ischo · · Score: 1

      You think dressings are bad in the USA? Come to New Zealand. As an American expat in NZ I am constantly disgusted by the Kiwi need to put tons of sugar in every condiment. Their "tomato sauce" is basically ketchup with about 2x the sugar. They love "sweet chili sauce" which is basically sugar syrup with a tiny bit of hot pepper in it. All salad dressings are as sweet as candy. I had a Subway sandwich with "italian vinaigrette" here and it tasted like it was dressed with maple syrup. I tried to get a sausage sandwich at a farmer's market but they didn't have mustard - all they had was "honey mustard", which was just as disgustingly sweet as you'd expect.

      Kiwis can't even eat MUSTARD without tons of sugar in it! I guess I know to some degree how Japanese feel about American condiments now ...

    33. Re:I guess that... by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

      Yaaarrrrr, there be only one Black Pearl and she belongs to Cap't Jack Sparrow!

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    34. Re:I guess that... by Prof+Dodecahedron · · Score: 3, Funny

      Faster than light travel is not possible in this universe, so your idea is bunk.

      Furthermore, time travel is a ridiculous concept that belongs only in bad science fiction, not serious discussion.

      I'm not even going to bother trying to explain to you WHY these two facts are true, just try THINKING a little bit about what you are saying, inevitably you will come up with a whole host of logical impossibilities that result from your idea.

      APPARENTLY YOU HAVE NOT HEARD OF TIME CUBE TECHNOLOGY!! TIME CUBE ALLOWS FASTER THAN LIGHT TRAVEL THROUGH 5TH DIMENSIONAL ROTATION OF TIME CUBE!!

    35. Re:I guess that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nougat and caramel... isn't that a Mars bar?

    36. Re:I guess that... by Arterion · · Score: 1

      I think a chrono-smelloscope would be much more useful!

      --
      "That which does not kill us makes us stranger." -Trevor Goodchild
    37. Re:I guess that... by Arterion · · Score: 1

      Wormholes? An Alcubierre drive? Teleportation?

      You don't really have to MOVE faster than light to travel a distance further than light could have traveled in the same span of time.

      --
      "That which does not kill us makes us stranger." -Trevor Goodchild
    38. Re:I guess that... by Samah · · Score: 1

      I think that if we're to design any such kind of "travel", it's going to be something more along the lines of wormholes and what not. Jump from one point in space to another without traveling the space between.

      --
      Homonyms are fun!
      You're driving your car, but they're riding their bikes there.
    39. Re:I guess that... by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised no Trek writer ever thought of this.

      Check out the plot to the TOS episode The Squire of Gothos. The main adversary is an alien whose knowledge of Earth comes from telescopic study which is out-of-date due to light speed lag.

    40. Re:I guess that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, Black Perl doesn't contain any regex use at all. :)

    41. Re:I guess that... by Baton+Rogue · · Score: 1

      Find a lot of other galaxies that are a lot like the Milky Way, then look at the ones that are 10by away.

      The problem with that is that the farther away you're looking, the less you can see. You'll see a lot more detail at 100,000 light years than you will at 10 billion light years away, unless you can get a telescope that is 100,000 times more powerful.

    42. Re:I guess that... by evilbessie · · Score: 1

      "...time travel is a ridiculous concept that belongs only in bad science fiction, not serious discussion." This is slashdot, last time I checked there wasn't all that much serious discussion.

    43. Re:I guess that... by AmigaMMC · · Score: 1

      I did it on Spore, it wasn't even fun.

    44. Re:I guess that... by Samah · · Score: 1

      Yeah well Spore wasn't exactly a game, was it. :)
      It was a waste of time more like it.

      --
      Homonyms are fun!
      You're driving your car, but they're riding their bikes there.
    45. Re:I guess that... by treeves · · Score: 1

      But they're often salty and/or shrimp-tasting, and usually beautifully packaged with individual desiccant packs!

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    46. Re:I guess that... by AmigaMMC · · Score: 1

      No kidding, I played about 5 hours in 2 days, got to the space age and got bored.

    47. Re:I guess that... by Bryan+Ischo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Good points.

      Also, magic genies that come out of bottles can probably move you between two points in space faster than light would travel without actually violating any laws of physics.

      I am pretty sure that Santa Claus also moves faster than light, in order to travel to all houses in the world in the span of 24 hours, so perhaps scientists can figure out a way to harness Santa Claus technology and solve this problem.

      There may be a few other ways to travel faster than light that both you and I have missed. It's really hard keeping track of absurdities, don't you agree?

    48. Re:I guess that... by Bryan+Ischo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why limit your imagination to wormholes and other pseudoscience fantasy constructs?

      I think that if we're going to design any such kind of "travel", it will be accomplished by magic spells. Scientists right now ought to be working on coming up with the right incantations, don't you agree?

    49. Re:I guess that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, but I'd call them fucking idiots, for traveling all that distance; guaranteeing their death before return; losing any earth that they knew when they left; all for the purpose of documenting the history of what they left behind.

      Ok, I'm not sorry.

    50. Re:I guess that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      So hold up a sign.

      "Hi Mom!"

    51. Re:I guess that... by elronxenu · · Score: 1

      However, Unix time_t is a signed quantity. It has no trouble going back to December 1901 on 32-bit systems.

    52. Re:I guess that... by Samah · · Score: 1

      REAL wizards travel by portkey. :)

      --
      Homonyms are fun!
      You're driving your car, but they're riding their bikes there.
    53. Re:I guess that... by mako1138 · · Score: 1

      That Hi-Chew stuff is seriously addictive though.

    54. Re:I guess that... by bruceslog · · Score: 1

      Arrrr ! The Black Perl was a good ship.

      --
      If it has tires or tits, it will give you problems.
    55. Re:I guess that... by PingPongBoy · · Score: 1

      If you can move faster than light, surely you can reassemble reality into the reality you want instead of being forced to take the reality you're given.

      --
      Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
    56. Re:I guess that... by Xest · · Score: 1

      In Europe the Milky Way with nougat and caramel is Mars!

    57. Re:I guess that... by Artem+S.+Tashkinov · · Score: 0

      You'd better have a telescope that is billion times better than those which exist nowadays.

      Just to look back a hundred years you have to be a hundred light years away from Earth (if you were able to travel in a matter of seconds) - now good luck trying to "see" anything from that distance.

    58. Re:I guess that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looking at something 10 billion lightyears away doesn't give you something thing that occured 10 billion years ago.

      Since the universe is expanding an object that is 10 billion lightyears away now, was alot closer 10 billion years.

      So since the speed of light doesn't change, what happens when you start adding chucks of additional space that the light has to travel through along it's path?

      Just a little something to think about and keep you occupied for the evening. . .

    59. Re:I guess that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The model is simply wrong.
      They are fitting data in a erroneous model.
      There is another model.
      Your job is to find the correct model already posted in the net.

    60. Re:I guess that... by eonlabs · · Score: 1

      Might be interesting if you could look at a giant mirror five billion lightyears away reflecting back on us. You have to wonder what sort of bizarre lensing or TIR based effect would be needed to allow us that.

      --
      I wouldn't consider the mad hatter mad. Just reality impaired. He sure can make a mean cup of tea.
    61. Re:I guess that... by Cazekiel · · Score: 1

      Have you ever tried eating asian snacks, like those of Japan or Korea? They are bland and devoid of tasty sugar, while Japanese and Korean folk say that American snacks are far too sweet. :)

      In Japan it's considered girly to eat sweets, from what I've heard. Most men will avoid patisseries because of it. Pocky--which comes in different flavors and IS a yummy, sweet treat--even has a specific 'manly' flavor, which is basically very dark, bitter chocolate. I've gone way OT, haven't I?

      --
      You want to know how to help your kids? LEAVE THEM THE F*&K ALONE. --George Carlin
    62. Re:I guess that... by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

      It's Time Cube. Duh.

    63. Re:I guess that... by krenshala · · Score: 1

      So, you think gravity is an absurdity?

      --

      krenshala

    64. Re:I guess that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, there is (in the standard cosmology) the surface of last scattering, which forms a mirror at the Hubble radius; we can't see beyond it, and it presents a reflection of the entire contents of the Hubble Volume at a time when it was much much much smaller.

      Sadly the information is pretty chaotic because of the nature of this chunk of the whole universe at the time which was a long long time ago (~ 1.37e10 years).

      Closer mirrors are feasible, and probably less chaotic, but the photon flux will be very small (think in terms of photons per steradian at the radius of the mirror at the time the initial signal reaches the mirror, and the photons per steradian reflected back in this direction from that point, bearing in mind that the metric expansion of space has been happening throughout the round trip), necessarily limiting the information content quite a bit.

      (There are also Lyman-Alpha Forest like absorption, reflection and scattering problems with objects (gas, dust) in the two-way path that are e.g. transparent on the outbound and opaque on the return path, because of the redshift experienced by the photons (or relatively speaking, by us as an observer of them, being accelerated away from the mirror by the metric expansion of space)).

      What is clear however is that the information content reflected from distant objects of the distant past of our local patch of space is almost certainly non-zero, but it's probably small, noisy, and difficult to extract from other information introduce by objects embedded in (gas, dust mentioned earlier), near (lensing, including by dark matter), or beyond the spacetime geodesics (such as attractors along a longer geodesic extending through the source/mirror/target "lines" that accelerate photons or emitters along the same extended geodesics that redshift down to the frequency range we expect to see "in" what amounts to a two-way mirror).

      As an analogy, one can use the surface of the moon, or meteor bursts, as radio frequency mirrors for communication between distant points on the Earth's surface; the mirrors aren't very optimal, but they are sufficient for observing a useful signal in the noise scattering off the mirror surfaces. Some very stable low-noise signal (e.g. strong pulsars) could probably be detected off distant objects that reflect in the (redshifted) frequency range. Astronomers certainly do exactly that with respect to strong X-Ray pulsars which "reflect" off nearby gas clouds (or which shift the frequency through astronomical ASE or other reemission mechanisms). We "see" sorts of reflections of many things we are off-axis to that way.

    65. Re:I guess that... by Bryan+Ischo · · Score: 1

      No, gravity is not an absurdity.

      Moving a physical object faster than the speed of light via some effect of gravity would be an absurdity.

    66. Re:I guess that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you can't spell pearl properly ha

  2. Let me be the first to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Boy, that sucks.

    1. Re:Let me be the first to say by CRCulver · · Score: 5, Funny

      I agree. This is conclusive proof that the human race is circling the drain.

    2. Re:Let me be the first to say by schon · · Score: 4, Funny

      The black hole is four million times heavier than our Sun

      Don't worry, I hear black is a very slimming colour. :)

    3. Re:Let me be the first to say by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 2, Funny

      I, the Big Clam, must state on behalf of the spirit of the Great Mollusk, creator of all galaxies, that your utterance has doomed you to boil in the Eternal Bouillabaisse of Damnation! Please repent, and join us for an eternity of bliss, wrapped in the warmth of the Great Chowder In The Sky.

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    4. Re:Let me be the first to say by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Circling, maybe. But you can never go down, can never go down, can never go down the drain.

    5. Re:Let me be the first to say by beluv · · Score: 0

      I am certain the next game in the Star Control franchise will be based on this comment.

    6. Re:Let me be the first to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Boy, that sucks.

      Our entire galaxy sucks.

    7. Re:Let me be the first to say by rubah · · Score: 1

      Someone else read that Funky Winkerbean strip?

    8. Re:Let me be the first to say by LordVader717 · · Score: 1

      That's what they say. But children must also be taught that if they get too close, they'll be spaghettified to a stream of nucleons, by which time they will easily fit through a drain.

  3. We're living in an accretion disk by John+Hasler · · Score: 5, Interesting

    n/t

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    1. Re:We're living in an accretion disk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maths time!

      m1: Mass of the sun: 1.9891 * 10^30 kg.
      m2: Mass of the black hole: 4 * 10^6 * 1.9891 * 10^30 ~= 8 * 10^36 kg.
      r: Distance Sun->Black hole ~= 2600 lightyears = 9.461 * 10^15 m.

      F = G * m1 * m2 / r^2 = 6.674 * 10^-11 * 1.9891 * 10^30 * 8 * 10^36 / (9.461 * 10^15)^2 ~= 1 * 10^25N.

      Hmmn that is way more impressive than I had imagined.

    2. Re:We're living in an accretion disk by cromar · · Score: 1

      WTF's force are you calculating? Accretion disks what are those? Ugh I need more tea... it's too early. Oh wait it's 11am.

    3. Re:We're living in an accretion disk by nevillethedevil · · Score: 4, Funny

      You're right...time to hit the gin.

      --
      Be gone from my sight or prepare to feel my flaming wraith!
    4. Re:We're living in an accretion disk by sidyan · · Score: 1

      r: Distance Sun->Black hole ~= 2600 lightyears = 9.461e15 m.

      More like 26000ly (± 1400ly), which ~= 2.45e20 m. That leaves 1.7e16 N.

      Still respectable, but peanuts compared to the effects of the other 200-400 billion stars in the Milky Way.

    5. Re:We're living in an accretion disk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      per google
      2600 lightyears = 2.45973739 * 10^19 meters

      so you value is off by at least 8 orders of magnitude.

  4. About time! by Jugalator · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Seriously (surely no one missed the bad relativity joke in that title :-p) though, are black holes really still considered theoretical constructs? For example, Wikipedia starts with "A black hole is a theoretical region of space in which the gravitational field is so powerful that ...". And for Wikipedia haters, this is repeated in literature too.

    Meanwhile, in this article -- "the best empirical evidence that super-massive black holes do exist". And besides, I thought many scientific articles bring up black holes now and then without questioning, anyway.

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    1. Re:About time! by jonnythan · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, they are. We still have no proof of their actual existence.

    2. Re:About time! by pionzypher · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I was more surprised that no one jumped on the statement: "four million times heavier than our sun".

      --
      I'll believe in corporations having personhood when Texas executes one... - advocate_one
    3. Re:About time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well... how can we prove black holes exist ?
      (I mean... the astrophysics thing)

    4. Re:About time! by danbert8 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You mean how it should read "four million times as massive"? Because you know, everything weighs more near a black hole... Even light.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    5. Re:About time! by smallshot · · Score: 0

      I didn't know black holes are considered theoretical. I'm no astronomer, or physicist, or anything like that, but I was pretty certain we had concluded there are black holes in our universe, due to these voids we view that appear to suck up all light passing them. I thought the only theoretical part was that we can only speculate on the actual make up and physical properties of them since we can't see or touch them. I'm fairly certain they are not actual, physical, holes, but I thought we had proved something existed that we labeled as "black holes."

      just my public school powered opinion.

    6. Re:About time! by zaxus · · Score: 5, Funny

      >"four million times heavier than our sun"

      Can we please stop with the "yo mama" jokes? Please? :-)

      --
      /. zen: Imagine a Beowulf cluster of Beowulf clusters...
    7. Re:About time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep in mind, when physicists talk about 'theories' they are talking about something that at least has something to back it up. If we had absolutely no proof, or means of testing it, it would be considered a 'hypothesis'.

    8. Re:About time! by Andr+T. · · Score: 4, Funny

      We'll have a proof as soon as the CERN guys turn on the LHC. Just wait!

      --

      Any life is made up of a single moment, the moment in which a man finds out, once and for all, who he is.

    9. Re:About time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      black holes are mainly mathematical constructs. In science, whenever you have a singularity (division by zero, computer fella...) you have a problem in your theory.

      Quantum physics frameworks address this singularity removing the possibility of having the zero in the first place, still this is seen as cheating by the scientific community, as mathematics and formulas and tricks doesn't explain anything.

      Black holes are very real, by the definition of region of spaces where the gravity is so strong that even light could not escape, but at the same time very theoretical, "mathematical", constructs.

    10. Re:About time! by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well... how can we prove black holes exist ?
      (I mean... the astrophysics thing)


      Good thing you put the 'astrophysics thing' on there. Otherwise we might have seen one of the few instances where a goatse link would be considered ontopic.

      --
      This guy's the limit!
    11. Re:About time! by glaswegian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      are black holes really still considered theoretical constructs? ... I thought many scientific articles bring up black holes now and then without questioning, anyway.

      Black holes do have a solid foundation in theory, and we can observe the gravitational effects they have on their neighbours. However, as far as I know, Hawking radiation is the only way to detect them directly and I don't think that this has been observed.

      The authors of this article are showing observational evidence for a supermassive (millions of solar masses) black hole in the centre of our Galaxy - something that was thought to be at the centre of many galaxies but was still in open question. The observations made during this study have shown that our Galaxy has one, using techniques that are not an option for galaxies further away, thus giving us the best evidence that supermassive black holes exist.

    12. Re:About time! by S.O.B. · · Score: 4, Funny

      If we had absolutely no proof, or means of testing it, it would be considered a 'hypothesis'.

      You mean 'religion'. Oooops, did I say that out loud?

      --
      Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
    13. Re:About time! by Analogy+Man · · Score: 4, Funny

      We'll have a proof as soon as the CERN guys turn on the LHC.

      And if so we will have a remarkably short period of time to write a paper about it.

      --
      When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
    14. Re:About time! by Xelios · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's the nature of an unobservable object. All you can do is infer its existence through its effects on other objects, in this case through the gravitational effects on stars. But then all you've *proven* is that something is causing those effects. The simplest explanation is a black hole, but it could be something else, and that's why black holes are still considered theoretical.

      Dark matter is in the same boat. Same with dark energy and strings. Physics seems to be moving toward explanations involving unobservable objects, whether that's right or not remains to be seen. Question is, can it ever be seen? See?

      --
      Murphey's fighting Occam, and we're in the stands.
    15. Re:About time! by Sanat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A new theory still being explored is that each galaxy has two black holes. One is intake and one is output. In addition it appears that these galaxies are strung on a cord of high dimensional energy with each end looping back to or near what may be the Universe's center. This is much like a loose strung string of pearls with each pearl being a galaxy.

      The two black holes are not like the two holes in a button but rather like a button with one hole on each side. What occurs where the two black holes meet is not understood.

      A car analogy... One side of the galaxy is like the intake valve on an engine. The other side of the galaxy is like the exhaust valve... what is not understood is how the engine works and how it apparently takes little or no space in the galaxy itself... as if it resides in a much higher dimension that needs virtually no space.

      I wonder what would we see if our planet resided on the other edge of the galaxy?

       

      --
      And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make
    16. Re:About time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Or a remarkably long period.

    17. Re:About time! by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      Nah a scientific hypothesis can be proved false.

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    18. Re:About time! by Kagura · · Score: 5, Informative
      The concept of white holes is not new. As far as black holes are concerned, they are naturally dense and occupy very little space with no foray into a "much higher dimension" needed. From the event horizon article on wikipedia:

      For the mass of the Sun the event horizon is approximately 3 km, and for that of the Earth about 9 mm.

      That means the entire mass of the sun or the earth, if compressed down into a black hole, would have a radius of 3km or 9mm, respectively. The rest of your post is very silly and doesn't seem to be based on any facts or reputable research/researchers. :(

    19. Re:About time! by drerwk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I suggest that gravitational waves might be a way other than Hawking radiation. And depending on what you mean by directly detect; if we get a nice image of something behind the black hole that would be good too. ASAIK the only issue remaining was could the mass be some exotic form of matter like quark soup. And I thought this had been resolved already, so I'm not sure what is supposed to be new in the report.

    20. Re:About time! by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 1

      Seriously (surely no one missed the bad relativity joke in that title :-p) though, are black holes really still considered theoretical constructs? For example, Wikipedia starts with "A black hole is a theoretical region of space in which the gravitational field is so powerful that ...". And for Wikipedia haters, this is repeated in literature too.

      Meanwhile, in this article -- "the best empirical evidence that super-massive black holes do exist". And besides, I thought many scientific articles bring up black holes now and then without questioning, anyway.

      Sure, they're still theoretical constructs in as much as the laws of gravity as we understand them are theoretical constructs.

      --
      If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
    21. Re:About time! by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      Why can't the same be said about nebulae though?

      Empirical evidence and theories seem to work there.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    22. Re:About time! by xmousex · · Score: 1

      We'll have a proof as soon as the CERN guys turn on the LHC.

      And if so we will have a remarkably short period of time to write a paper about it.

      what the hell, they already turned it on!!! well in my reality they did a few months ago
      interesting....

    23. Re:About time! by Endo13 · · Score: 1

      I would assume it's considered "theoretical" as in the scientific definition of the word (ie. gravity is theoretical) as opposed to the layman's definition (that's "just a theory").

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
    24. Re:About time! by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Interesting

      We have as much proof of their existence as one would have of, say, an electron. That is, we have theories that make predictions about the effects of such entities, and thus far those predictions have panned out. There's no 100% in any branch of science, that's not how science is played.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    25. Re:About time! by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Quantum physics frameworks address this singularity removing the possibility of having the zero in the first place, still this is seen as cheating by the scientific community, as mathematics and formulas and tricks doesn't explain anything.

      What exactly do you mean? in my lectures on quantum mechanics 0 was a very real answer, and if you got a 0 out in the wrong place it meant your wave-function was invalid.

      I also disagree that mathematical tricks cant give you a very real value for situations when you have to divide by 0 if you don't use them.

      For example the integral of [ e^nx * e^-mx dx] is 1/(m-n)[e^nx * e^-mx] when n=m this requires dividing by zero but if you spot the mathematical trick that m=n is a special case when you are integrating [0 dx] and so get x

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    26. Re:About time! by Metasquares · · Score: 1

      Do photons have mass? I was under the impression that they didn't, and thus no amount of scaling could make them weigh more, but I am not a particle physicist.

    27. Re:About time! by Masami+Eiri · · Score: 1

      That may not even work. I'll admit, my knowledge of astronomy and astrophysics isn't exactly comprehensive, but I'd think a black hole would create a lensing effect. Essentially, we'd be seeing what's behind the hole. I suppose the distortion this would cause could be observable, however.

    28. Re:About time! by popeye44 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Ok, Your SUN is so heavy a black hole wouldn't suck him.

      ba dum dum.

      --
      Inane Comments are Generously Disregarded
    29. Re:About time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, they are. We still have no proof of their actual existence.

      They're notoriously difficult to photograph.

    30. Re:About time! by glaswegian · · Score: 1

      but I'd think a black hole would create a lensing effect

      Indeed it does; it is called Gravitational lensing

    31. Re:About time! by Sanat · · Score: 1

      I agree that we have a lot to learn yet.

      It was not so very long ago that mankind knew that the Sun orbited Earth and perhaps even Earth was the center of the Universe...some people died for this belief... yet now we know differently.

      Can you imagine if Louis Pasteur was on Slashdot and he said he thought milk went sour because of invisible bugs in it... he would have been heckled and probably marked a troll.

      Or perhaps Sir Issac Newton who had a brilliant insight of the attraction between two bodies and developed the idea of gravity. What would the Slashdot crowd say to him if that was a new theory he just promulgated? Maybe it would be considered just silly.

      --
      And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make
    32. Re:About time! by drerwk · · Score: 1

      Have a look here: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/htmltest/rjn_bht.html Regarding the gravitational wave detection, that would be for colliding black holes. The "ringing" that would result should distinguish between black holes and other high density objects. The upgraded LIGO might see these collisions.

    33. Re:About time! by blue+l0g1c · · Score: 1

      Yeah, how could a hole be heavy? Shenanigans are afoot!

    34. Re:About time! by conspirator57 · · Score: 1

      but not as hard to see as ninjas.

      now all we need is a pirate comment to complete the circle.

      --
      "If still these truths be held to be
      Self evident."
      -Edna St. Vincent Millay
    35. Re:About time! by mazarin5 · · Score: 1

      We have plenty. I think the problem that a lot of people have is that they are not directly observable, but there is a magnificent amount of indirect observation. I would be surprised to find even an undergraduate astrophysicist who doubted the existence of black holes.

      --
      Fnord.
    36. Re:About time! by conspirator57 · · Score: 1

      a *well constructed* scientific hypothesis can be demonstrated to be false. there are many hypotheses that are postulated by scientists or those emulating them that do not meet the criteria. e.g. much work in social and economic "sciences".

      --
      "If still these truths be held to be
      Self evident."
      -Edna St. Vincent Millay
    37. Re:About time! by digitig · · Score: 4, Informative

      No. In scientific terminology religion would be an "interpretation", in the way that the Copenhagen Interpretation and the Many Worlds interpretation are interpretations of QM. It's non-falsifiable, but helps some people cope.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    38. Re:About time! by xonar · · Score: 1

      no

    39. Re:About time! by B3ryllium · · Score: 1

      A white hole? :)

      So what is it?

    40. Re:About time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would guess they do, since they're affected by gravity.

    41. Re:About time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What exactly do you mean? in my lectures on quantum mechanics 0 was a very real answer, and if you got a 0 out in the wrong place it meant your wave-function was invalid.

      exactly, a singularity, as an invalid wave function, are indicator that you're doing something wrong. with math tricks I intended that results are generally valid, but with no insight or explanations, not tricks to force correct answer out of wrong parameters; math is, indeed, unambiguous.

    42. Re:About time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I'm an astrophysist, you insensitive clod." -signed the goatse man...

    43. Re:About time! by ari_j · · Score: 1

      You mean "a radius of less than 3km or 9mm, respectively," don't you? As long as the event horizon is outside of the object's physical radius, the object will not be observable, is what I've been led to understand.

    44. Re:About time! by frodo+from+middle+ea · · Score: 4, Funny

      A 6 Digit /. ID trashing a 3 Digit ID. For goodness sake man where are your manners ?

      --
      for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
    45. Re:About time! by FiloEleven · · Score: 2, Funny

      Pirate walks into a bar. Bartender nods hello, then does a doubletake.
      "Hey friend," says the bartender, "you know you got a steering wheel attached to your crotch?"

      "Aye," says the pirate, "it's drivin' me nuts."

    46. Re:About time! by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Funny

      And if so we will have a remarkably short period of time to write a paper about it.

      Academic paper writing... you're doing it wrong!

      The way it works is that the paper is written in advance, with blank spots for the data and the graphs that can be plugged in, and then they do the experiments. With mocked-up data and graphs as backup. So don't worry, they should be able to have the paper out very quickly. :)

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    47. Re:About time! by glaswegian · · Score: 2, Informative

      A new theory still being explored is that each galaxy has two black holes

      By who? You can't just throw out some far fetched idea like that without any reference. I think that you may have misunderstood something that you have read elsewhere. Could you point me to your source? Or your dealer :)

    48. Re:About time! by Ravon+Rodriguez · · Score: 1

      photons, by definition, have zero rest mass.

      --
      Jesus loves me, he loves me a bunch, because he always puts Jiffy in my lunch.
    49. Re:About time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well... how can we prove black holes exist ?
      (I mean... the astrophysics thing)

      Well... first, let's presume that no black hole does exist... erm, no!

      I think, therefore... no, not that one, either!

      (...*cricket*, *cricket*...)

      All right then, so give me an F! Whatever!

    50. Re:About time! by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      I was more surprised that no one jumped on the statement: "four million times heavier than our sun".

      Didn't much bother me. If they'd said 'weighs four million times as much as the Sun' I'd complain - but 'heavy' to my mind doesn't specifically refer to weight as opposed to mass. If I find that a bag full of shopping is difficult to lift, I'll call it heavy. If I find that a trolley full of shopping is difficult to stop or to steer, I'll call that heavy too. One is weight, the other inertia, both called 'heavy'.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    51. Re:About time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The modern understanding of gravity, as described by general relativity, is that it's a curvature of spacetime.

      It's vaguely amusing to see a few people trying to understand astrophysics in terms of Newton, when they should at least be working from Einstein's base.

    52. Re:About time! by Ravon+Rodriguez · · Score: 1

      They turned it on, but didn't do the universe-destroying stuff yet.

      --
      Jesus loves me, he loves me a bunch, because he always puts Jiffy in my lunch.
    53. Re:About time! by Markrian · · Score: 1

      I've not heard of this twin-black-hole theory... Any references?

      As for black hole mergers, progress is being made: http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/gwave.html .

      And what of the 'sides' of the galaxy? Are these the two ends of the galaxy's axis, or on the disc on opposite sides? In either case, due to the symmetries involved, I don't think what you say makes any sense.

      Why is this modded +5 Interesting?

    54. Re:About time! by meringuoid · · Score: 3, Insightful
      That's the nature of an unobservable object. All you can do is infer its existence through its effects on other objects, in this case through the gravitational effects on stars. But then all you've *proven* is that something is causing those effects. The simplest explanation is a black hole, but it could be something else, and that's why black holes are still considered theoretical.

      That's the nature of an unobservable object. All you can do is infer its existence through its effects on other objects, in this case through the reflective effects on sunlight. But then all you've *proven* is that something is causing those effects. The simplest explanation is the moon, but it could be something else, and that's why the moon is still considered theoretical.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    55. Re:About time! by Ravon+Rodriguez · · Score: 1

      Another example, Sqrt(-1). WTF is an imaginary number, anyway?

      --
      Jesus loves me, he loves me a bunch, because he always puts Jiffy in my lunch.
    56. Re:About time! by bsane · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Both of those guys plenty of observational and/or experimental evidence that supported what they claimed.

      The whole 'A new theory still being explored is that each galaxy has two black holes. One is intake and one is output.' has neither.

      It'd be interesting if it did, but some work in the backyard with a mid-sized telescope can poke some pretty serious holes in the idea.

    57. Re:About time! by Ragzouken · · Score: 1

      I think we've experienced this point in time before.

    58. Re:About time! by zehaeva · · Score: 1

      There was a time before that that people thought the earth revolved around the sun. I believe that the whole geocentric thought of the universe was more religiously motivated than any kind of rational exercise.

    59. Re:About time! by Yunzil · · Score: 1

      In addition it appears that these galaxies are strung on a cord of high dimensional energy with each end looping back to or near what may be the Universe's center.

      Um, what? The universe has no center. The universe needs no center.

      What occurs where the two black holes meet is not understood.

      They merge into a bigger black hole.

      what is not understood is how the engine works and how it apparently takes little or no space in the galaxy itself... as if it resides in a much higher dimension that needs virtually no space.

      Have you ever thought about galaxy engines... ON WEED?

    60. Re:About time! by Ravon+Rodriguez · · Score: 1

      I don't believe that the Copenhagen and Many Worlds interpretations are non-falsifiable, we just don't have the technology or insight as of yet.

      --
      Jesus loves me, he loves me a bunch, because he always puts Jiffy in my lunch.
    61. Re:About time! by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 1

      A new theory still being explored is that each galaxy has two black holes. One is intake and one is output. In addition it appears that these galaxies are strung on a cord of high dimensional energy with each end looping back to or near what may be the Universe's center. This is much like a loose strung string of pearls with each pearl being a galaxy.

      The two black holes are not like the two holes in a button but rather like a button with one hole on each side. What occurs where the two black holes meet is not understood.

      A car analogy... One side of the galaxy is like the intake valve on an engine. The other side of the galaxy is like the exhaust valve... what is not understood is how the engine works and how it apparently takes little or no space in the galaxy itself... as if it resides in a much higher dimension that needs virtually no space.

      I wonder what would we see if our planet resided on the other edge of the galaxy?

      Cute theory, of course you have to first establish that the universe actually has a center. And from my understanding is that it doesn't. Consider the current estimations of size of the universe, ~93 Billion LY diameter is considerably larger than the observable universe, ~27 billion LY diameter, and the age is ~13 billion years. There is no way for a black holes to communicate information at a distance greater than 13 billion light years.

      --
      If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
    62. Re:About time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember, there's a difference between "hypothetical" and "theoretical".

    63. Re:About time! by digitig · · Score: 2, Informative

      Then they would be the Copenhagen and Many Worlds hypotheses. It's actually written into the Many Worlds interpretation that it's not falsifiable, so the very act of showing it to be falsifiable would falify it! I'm pretty sure the same applies to the Copenhagen interpretation, because it hinges on what happens when there's no observation; falsifying that is more than a question of the technology!

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    64. Re:About time! by JustinOpinion · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's the nature of an unobservable object.

      I wouldn't say a black hole is "unobservable". It emits no light, but has a measurable gravitational field. Conversely consider something like light, which has no mass but can be measured by its electromagnetic interaction (e.g. using a camera).

      Different subatomic particles interact in different ways. Four fundamental forces have been identified: electromagnetic, weak nuclear, strong nuclear, and gravitational. A particular particle may interact via 1 or more of these modes. Just because it is "invisible" with respect to a given force does not make it "unobservable": as long as it interacts via at least one force, it can be measured/observed using that force.

      All the examples you've given are of things that are observable: black holes and dark matter and dark energy are all observable via the gravitational effects they produce. Just because they are not observable via light doesn't make them unobservable. (Strictly black holes do emit low-levels of measurable radiation (Hawking radiation), and could also be detected in this way.) The "strings" of string theory (if they exist) should in principle be measurable by studying the interactions of particles via the four forces (whether or not we will ever achieve the energy scales required to do so is a separate question). For that matter it is difficult to "see" air, but it is easy to observe/measure it in other ways.

      You have falsely equated "interact strongly via the electromagnetic force" to "observable". It's a natural mistake for humans, since our visual sense is so well-developed. However just because it is invisible to our eyes does not make it an "unobservable object". A truly "unobservable object" would be one which doesn't interact via any force. Such an object isn't merely "unobservable", it is simply "nonexistent" by any physical definition (since it cannot interact with anything else in the universe).

    65. Re:About time! by fzammett · · Score: 1

      "Black holes do have a solid foundation in theory, and we can observe the gravitational effects they have on their neighbours"

      No, to be pedantic and at the same time accurate: we can observe the gravitational effects (OF SOME OBJECT THAT MATCHES WHAT THE MATH SAYS A BLACK WHOLE WOULD BE LIKE) they have on their neighbours.

      Black holes are still 100% theoretical, no one can say definitively they exist. It could be that there is some other physical construct that exhibits the same behavior as a black hole.

      Now, don't get me wrong: I'm with the rest of the crowd, there's enough empirical evidence to say that black holes are pretty well a fact of life. I have no doubt whatsoever they exist. But we shouldn't ever lose sight of that fact that until we have direct, irrefutable evidence, they are stil only theoretical consequences of mathematics. True, that's been good enough in the past, and probably is here too.

      --
      If a pion (n-) collides with a proton in the woods & noone is there to hear it, does lamdba decay into the source pa
    66. Re:About time! by dpilot · · Score: 1

      I read one article suggesting that even if a black hole was formed, it would be so small that Hawking radiation would cause it to evaporate before it even had a chance to leave the beam, much less interact with any solid matter. The only evidence that it had ever existed would be a peculiar shower of particles caused by it's "death." The author was looking forward to the search.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    67. Re:About time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...If we had absolutely no proof, or means of testing it..."

      I believe he covered that. If it isn't testable, then it really can't be considered a hypothesis (yet people call them theories?), so religion isn't such a poor classification.

      'The biggest hypocrisy of our day is the blind faith people put in 'science'.

    68. Re:About time! by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's the nature of an unobservable object. All you can do is infer its existence through its effects on other objects, in this case through the gravitational effects on stars.

      But on a deep level, that true of every object. I can only infer the existence of this pen through the effects of light that is (theoretically) reflected off it and absorbed by my retinas, and through the effects it has on the various nerve receptors in my skin. The simplest explanation is a pen, but it could be something else (impluses fed to a brain in a vat, the dream of a butterfly).

      So at what point do we consider a thing no longer theoretical.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    69. Re:About time! by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Actually, what occurs when two black holes meet is pretty well-understood, from a theoretical standpoint at least. A huge amount of energy is released, particularly in the form of gravity waves, which should be detectable over intergalactic distances. (I visisted LIGO Hanford over the summer and they're still waiting for the upgrades that'll bring them up to being able to confirm this experimentally.)

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    70. Re:About time! by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      I'd argue that something's gravitational effects on stars are as viable a form of observation as something's radiative effects on eyes or telescopes. Anything else is electromagnetic chauvanism! ;)

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    71. Re:About time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you have to be fucking kidding me. plaeeze.

    72. Re:About time! by Ravon+Rodriguez · · Score: 1

      Well, for example, if we developed the technology to travel between parallel universes and discovered that there is a universe for each outcome of a quantum event, that would be good evidence of the Many Worlds interpretation... The definition of it being non-falsifiable would have to be rewritten.

      --
      Jesus loves me, he loves me a bunch, because he always puts Jiffy in my lunch.
    73. Re:About time! by sexybomber · · Score: 1

      The rest of your post is very silly and doesn't seem to be based on any facts or reputable research/researchers. :(

      Don't trash him dude, he's got a PhD in Psychedelic Freakonautics.

    74. Re:About time! by digitig · · Score: 1

      If we could travel between them then they would become part of the same world for Many Worlds purposes. The Many Worlds interpretation depends on interaction between the worlds being impossible. Don't believe everything you see on Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    75. Re:About time! by Stormx2 · · Score: 1

      Why is this modded down? I was about to post the same thing. Black holes are no less observable than the moon o.O

    76. Re:About time! by Xelios · · Score: 1

      If I could mod in stories I've posted in, I'd mod you up. That's a big flaw in my comment that I hadn't considered when I made it :)

      --
      Murphey's fighting Occam, and we're in the stands.
    77. Re:About time! by sexybomber · · Score: 4, Funny

      For example the integral of [ e^nx * e^-mx dx] is 1/(m-n)[e^nx * e^-mx] when n=m this requires dividing by zero but if you spot the mathematical trick that m=n is a special case when you are integrating [0 dx] and so get x

      SAAAAAAAAAAVED BY ZEROOOOOOO

    78. Re:About time! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      A car analogy... One side of the galaxy is like the intake valve on an engine. The other side of the galaxy is like the exhaust valve...

      That's why a smell of petroleum pervades throughout.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    79. Re:About time! by Xelios · · Score: 2, Interesting

      See my reply to post above. Though I'd offer a question, could you prove the existence of a pen through ink written on paper?

      --
      Murphey's fighting Occam, and we're in the stands.
    80. Re:About time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Both of those guys plenty of observational and/or experimental evidence that supported what they claimed."

      Well, I'm not arguing for the parent, but I do argue for an open mind. Scientists with closed minds are poor scientists. On that note... What evidence did Einstein have when he originally presented his theories? "Thought experiments", aka, imagination. The critical observational evidence that actually proved them began trickling in AFTER he proposed his theories, and it continues to trickle in today.

      Don't forget to take a walk away from the camp fire from time to time.

    81. Re:About time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it appears that these galaxies are strung on a cord of high dimensional energy with each end looping back to or near what may be the Universe's center.

      The center of the universe is precisely (not near, or approximately) where you're standing right now. And where I'm standing. And where Pluto is. Where Alpha Centauri is at. Where Andromeda is.

      Everything in the universe is at its center (or, if you wish to put it another way, the universe has no center). Current theory is that the universe started as an infinitesimally small point and after the big bang, it expanded into the universe. That doesn't mean it expanded out into an existing universe mind you. All of the spacial and temporal dimensions are part of the universe and they were part of the infinitesimally small point, there was no space to expand TO. Space itself got bigger, the distance between particles increased.

    82. Re:About time! by AkiraRoberts · · Score: 1

      I'm not an astro-physicist, or even a scientist, but I vaguely recall reading somewhere (perhaps even on Slashdot) that, if one imagined that electrons were singularities, it actually fit the observed behavior not all that badly. Which I suppose would tend to collapse proof of electrons and proof of black holes into one another. If you bought into the notion, that is.

      --
      words, words, words, lemur, words, words words
    83. Re:About time! by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      They turned it on, and it immediately broke (shouldn't have used the lowest bidder, folks!).

      It won't be fixed until next year.

    84. Re:About time! by Jesus_666 · · Score: 2, Funny

      We're talking about nonphotonic light, of course.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    85. Re:About time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      > And if so we will have a remarkably short period of time to write a paper about it.

      depending where our audience is

    86. Re:About time! by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      He must be new here.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    87. Re:About time! by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 1

      I need to qualify myself.

      That doesn't actually qualify as a theory; without any math to back it up, its just a crackpot idea that should be listed on crank.net.

      --
      If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
    88. Re:About time! by dimeglio · · Score: 1

      This depends if you're on the Susskins or Hawking side of the conjecture. According to the article, all black holes accrete (ie suck) big time and will continue to do so for a long time. We should call this the Jonas brothers effect at it relates to matter the same way they related to teenage girls.

      --
      Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
    89. Re:About time! by Kagura · · Score: 1

      You mean "a radius of less than 3km or 9mm, respectively," don't you? As long as the event horizon is outside of the object's physical radius, the object will not be observable, is what I've been led to understand.

      I like to consider the radius of a black hole to be exactly equal to its event horizon. Don't you? ;)

    90. Re:About time! by noidentity · · Score: 1

      Yes, they are. We still have no proof of their actual existence.

      Exactly. Once we've sent a probe into one, retrieved samples, and have it return, then we will have proof.

    91. Re:About time! by Kagura · · Score: 1

      A 6 Digit /. ID trashing a 3 Digit ID. For goodness sake man where are your manners ?

      I actually thought about this and made my reply nicer. Heheh...

    92. Re:About time! by mog007 · · Score: 1

      There is no center to the universe. None. Nowhere. It doesn't exist.

      Black holes do not output anything, either. There's the massive amount of radiation coming from the shit that's falling in, when a particle falls into a black hole, sometimes the sheering forces of the event horizon produce anti-matter that annihilates the particle, producing x-rays and gamma rays, but the black hole itself, anything inside the event horizon, is gone from the universe.

      Unless the "output" black hole you're talking about is a "white hole". Which is just silly. The concept of a white hole violates the first law of thermodynamics, AND it would have to be made out of a material with anti-mass.

    93. Re:About time! by Patersmith · · Score: 1

      Shampoo, is that you?

    94. Re:About time! by Hanyin · · Score: 1

      >"four million times heavier than our sun"

      Can we please stop with the "yo mama" jokes? Please? :-)

      Obligatory xkcd

    95. Re:About time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's vaguely amusing to see a few people trying to understand astrophysics in terms of Newton, when they should at least be working from Einstein's base.

      Ahhhh intellectual snobbery. Slashdot, how I love you!

    96. Re:About time! by Kagura · · Score: 1

      Or a remarkably intermediate period.

    97. Re:About time! by bpkiwi · · Score: 1

      Photons carry all their mass as energy (m=e/c^2).

    98. Re:About time! by ari_j · · Score: 1

      Nope. I like 0 better. :P

    99. Re:About time! by Kagura · · Score: 1

      A related question that I'm curious about, how do "cost overruns" happen in contracted programs? Why isn't it a case of "I pay you $100-million dollars to build this weather satellite, and if you promise you can do it for that price, You agreed beforehand that you could build this weather satellite for $100 million dollars, so if it costs you more than your calculations showed beforehand, tough luck for you." ? Why isn't it as simple as that?

      I'm confident there are legitimate reasons the world operates this way that aren't only due to "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" business theory, and I'm wondering what they are!

    100. Re:About time! by dimeglio · · Score: 1

      There is no center to the universe. None. Nowhere. It doesn't exist.

      Well there could be center but relative to what? A balloon has a center but if your frame of reference is the surface of the balloon, then there isn't one. Especially if it expands forever. However if you're the one which blew the balloon (no creationism intended) you know very well that there is a center.

      Black holes don't output anything yet as the temperature of the universe is higher than the temperature of blackholes. When the reverse is true, as the universe expands and cools, then the blackholes will start to emit radiation [ref. Leonard Susskind]. That being said, black holes might have a similar purpose as batteries do. Just nor sure what they will power in a few hundred billion years.

      --
      Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
    101. Re:About time! by Kagura · · Score: 1

      1/n as n-->inf does not equal 0! Calculus be damned* :(

      Well anyway, how do you intend to demonstrate from our frame outside of the black hole that it has 0 or approaching 0 width? The event horizon is the effective radius of a blackhole. From our frame of reference perhaps it is its actual radius, but I'm not a physicist so I am unqualified to make this last sentence except for the part of this last sentence that I am typing out now in which I detail how I'm somewhat not qualified to state that with certainty.



      * Just kidding. It equals 0 under calculus. The rest of my post is fine, though.

    102. Re:About time! by Kagura · · Score: 1

      Yup, that's correct, but what if Hawking radiation doesn't occur? I find those scenarios and the estimations about how long it would take to even interact with a single other particle far more interesting. God help the black hole if it swallowed a non-neutral particle.

    103. Re:About time! by mpcjans · · Score: 1

      On that note... What evidence did Einstein have when he originally presented his theories? "Thought experiments", aka, imagination.

      Not quite, Einstein did have access to previous work by Maxwell, Poincare, Lorentz and others who derived the transformations under which the Maxwell equations were invariant. The genius of Einstein was to state that the speed of light was a constant for all observers to explain these transformations (instead of trying to impose some kind of preferable reference frame). Together with the fact that the laws of physics should be the same for all observers this lead to general relativity.

    104. Re:About time! by Kagura · · Score: 2, Funny

      I don't know what this "rest mass" hub-bub is all about. My photons never hold still when I put them on the scale. Jesus Christ the Holy Savior of Our People help me if I ever try to give them a bath, I'm usually lucky to get out of there alive.

    105. Re:About time! by David+Gould · · Score: 4, Funny
      --
      David Gould
      main(i){putchar(340056100>>(i-1)*5&31|!!(i<6)<< 6)&&main(++i);}
    106. Re:About time! by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Well, my point was basically that there are plenty of phenomena out there which cannot be directly observed; whether it's electrons or even many murders. We infer their existence, that is we use indirect means to demonstrate that these phenomena exist and (hopefully) how they work. Science even builds multiple layers of inference, and providing the theory all the way down sticks to the evidence and makes meaningful predictions, there's no problem.

      That being the case, black hole theory makes specific predictions about what we would expect to find if we were observing the matter and energy surrounding such an object. The black hole itself is not directly observable, but its effect is very much so. The theory makes predictions, the predictions lead to the conclusion that there is a supermassive black hole at the center of the galaxy. To be sure, we could never say with absolute and permanent certainty that it is a black hole, and perhaps, further down the road, we'll find some other class of object that explains the observations better.

      But then again, that applies to electrons, too.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    107. Re:About time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think your original comment still makes a good point.

      We can observe the gravitational effects and the Hawking radiation emitted, but I'm not sure we can say that it's really an arbitrarily-dense collapsed star, even if it seems to fit the equations. It's just the only theory we've found so far.

      The fact that so little information escapes from a black hole makes it difficult to observe, although as JustinOpinion insightfully pointed out, not completely unobservable.

    108. Re:About time! by Kagura · · Score: 1

      Certainly given billions upon billions of years and extremely thorough surveys, we could come up with the relative location of the center of the universe? Surely somewhere in the universe, there must be some particles that are on the "outside" of the universe that have half of their sky extremely dark and the other half filled with the usual assortment of stars and galaxies.

      I have no doubt that some or most of this post is wrong, but it's more of a probe to seek out more knowledgeable people to reply. Thanks. ;)

    109. Re:About time! by Kagura · · Score: 1

      Essentially, we'd be seeing what's behind the hole.

      You'd also be seeing what's above the blackhole and yourself and whatever's behind you that's not blocked by your presence from the black hole's point of the view. Basically, everything the black hole sees essentially has a path back to an observer no matter which side of the black hole he looks at. Light can loop around a black hole, just barely missing the event horizon cut-off, and come back at the camera. Similarly, light can exactly hit the event horizon and be in a perpetual orbit around the black hole at exactly the boundary of the event horizon, until the black hole eats something and causes the event horizon to slightly increase, causing the previous "shell" of photons to fall inward.

    110. Re:About time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The concept of white holes [wikipedia.org] is not new"

      So, what is it?

    111. Re:About time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it's not necessarily a black hole. It could be any object which has 4M x Sun mass and is too small to see and is not radiating.

    112. Re:About time! by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 1

      You're getting into the topology an curvature of of space.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_Universe

      The best metaphor I've seen is an ant walking along the surface of a balloon, he will never find the edge, if he's lucky he might get back to where he started.

      So it has no edge, and there is no point at which there is an outside, nor is there some location where you can look up into half nothing, and half stars.

      --
      If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
    113. Re:About time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      They turned it on, but didn't do the universe-destroying stuff yet, only the destroying itself stuff.

    114. Re:About time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't much bother me.

      Well, thank CHRIST for THAT!!!

    115. Re:About time! by Sanat · · Score: 1

      Thank you for your consideration and compassion. I knew you were a kind person.

      We all are in our reality prisons of our own making... some larger than others but still a prison. The idea that I presented is not mine but one that a friend has put together and says that I am free to share the general idea so that others might add their wisdom/insight/criticism as well.

      I did not write the original comment for self aggrandizement for I do not not need that... I tend to be a quiet scientist that keeps to myself and I enjoy interacting with equipment rather than individuals... just who I am.

      I do often though gain great insight of ideas... some by a small movie (in color even) that plays in my head that gives me understanding of new concepts, other times it is like a fresco or picture of a situation that I can gain valuable insight from reflecting upon it.

      I assume that many here on Slashdot gain insight in the same or similar fashion. In my life I am simply seeking peace. Yea, I've been in war... the 60's were not the especially good time as many have said or seem to remember. Lots of good friends died.

      I do ask thought that if you have a way of storing an idea for 5 years and then having it come forward again... I believe that you will be surprised by then (2013) at the shift in understanding of the galaxies and the new wisdom garnered.

      --
      And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make
    116. Re:About time! by Kane+Devaid · · Score: 1

      I'll believe it when I see it.

    117. Re:About time! by ari_j · · Score: 1

      There are three possibilities for radius: 0 (singularity, where God tried to divide by 0); positive but less than event horizon radius, or equal to event horizon radius. You are right, of course, that it doesn't matter at all which one of these is right, since it's impossible to observe anything at or inside the event horizon. And you are also right that calculus ought to be damned.

    118. Re:About time! by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

      Well, one thing we can observe is that when gas or dust falls onto a compact object which theory predicts is a neutron star, it makes a big flash of light as it smashes into the star's surface. On the other hand, when we see matter fall into what theory predicts is a black hole, it just disappears. (I'm not talking about the radiating matter in the accretion disk, I'm talking about stuff that actually falls in.) That's pretty good evidence, other than gravitational effects on orbits, that there really is an event horizon there. And it happens precisely for the objects that theory predicts are massive enough to be black holes. I can't remember the references to the papers which first found this, but they've been around for about 10 years.

    119. Re:About time! by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

      Similarly, light can exactly hit the event horizon and be in a perpetual orbit around the black hole at exactly the boundary of the event horizon

      Not quite.

      The only way for light to remain at the horizon is if it is emitted straight outwards at the horizon. It doesn't orbit around the hole, but "hovers". Of course, this is unstable: emitted slightly inside the horizon, it doesn't make it out; emitted outside, it radiates off to infinity.

      There is a location outside the horizon where light can orbit around the hole in a circular fashion. This is the "photon sphere", at 1.5 times the horizon radius. This is also unstable.

      Similarly, light can exactly hit the event horizon and be in a perpetual orbit around the black hole at exactly the boundary of the event horizon, until the black hole eats something and causes the event horizon to slightly increase, causing the previous "shell" of photons to fall inward.

      There's a slight difference between the event horizon and a "trapped horizon". I think you're describing a trapped horizon. An event horizon is defined according to whether light can escape to infinity at any time infinitely far into the future; in order to define its location, you have to know the entire future history of what might fall into the hole. A trapped horizon is a more local concept, and infalling matter can change whether you're at a trapped horizon or not.

    120. Re:About time! by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      WTF is an imaginary number, anyway?Sqrt(-1).

      For quantum mechanics (and AFAIK physics in general), it doesn't really matter what that means because its only the intermediary steps that contains i (IIRC its because the operators that give observables have to be hermitian operators).

      IANAM but From a mathematical point of view, i is important because it doesn't lie anywhere on the number-line, but if you were to expand the number-line to a number plane by adding an axis in the direction of i then nothing gives you an answer off the plane (well using the operators related to addition (+,*,^,etc) and their inverses (-,/,root) anyway)

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    121. Re:About time! by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      I believe that the whole geocentric thought of the universe was more religiously motivated than any kind of rational exercise.
      I don't believe that the geocentric idea was religiously based. I believe the clinging to the idea was religiously based. However, I think it is only natural to consider that the world revolves around you, until you learn otherwise. I believe that the geocentric ideas in books like the Bible were thought of long before they were set down in the Bible, as we know that the Bible does have some stories that predated the Jewish religion.
      Also, many of the supposed geocentric passages in the Bible are not supporting a geocentric view, just making a statement about the movement of the sun and planets without even trying to make some sort of point about it. We don't consider the weatherman to have a geocentric point of view when he says "the sun will rise at 6:37 A.M. tomorrow".

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    122. Re:About time! by Kz · · Score: 1

      photons, by definition, have zero rest mass.

      but they are rarely at rest

      --
      -Kz-
    123. Re:About time! by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Because after taking the 100 million, trying and failing, the vendor could say "OK, we give up, it'll cost us less to go bankrupt and risk being sued than to build the satellite for you, tough luck".

      Vendors you invite to participate in such a tender might say "We decline to participate", or say "1 billion dollars", and the one without a clue will say "100 million dollars".

      If nobody has done the thing before then there is a high risk of the estimates being off.

      Easier to guess how much it costs to build a second copy after building the first satellite of its kind :).

      As open source software spreads in usage, the amount of bad estimates might go up, because if something has been done before in OSS, you might just copy it for free, instead of rewriting it (even though you have a good idea of how long it'll take to rewrite it). Then again, much of what businesses need is just gluing stuff together and only rarely will you be making "really new" stuff ;).

      --
    124. Re:About time! by Kagura · · Score: 1
      Wow, the photon sphere is indeed 1.5 times the horizon radius. Thank you for your post.

      The only way for light to remain at the horizon is if it is emitted straight outwards at the horizon.

      What if the light is emitted at the horizon at exactly a tangential angle, assuming a perfectly spherical and unchanging event horizon?

    125. Re:About time! by _Hellfire_ · · Score: 1

      Dude, did you just compare yourself to Louis Pasteur and Sir Isaac Newton? :O

      --
      "And then I visited Wikipedia ...and the next 8 hours are a blur..."
    126. Re:About time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you got 100% OWNED in this thread. Ha ha ha! Go slink back to your cubicle. IT'S MUSTARD JAR TIME!

    127. Re:About time! by Sanat · · Score: 1

      No, Not at all

      More like Bozo in the other post.

      --
      And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make
    128. Re:About time! by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

      What if the light is emitted at the horizon at exactly a tangential angle, assuming a perfectly spherical and unchanging event horizon?

      It will fall in, instead of remaining at the horizon, in an inspiralling orbit.

      Think of it this way: shooting light straight out is the most effective way to get light to escape the hole. Any other angle and you're not aiming it as much away from the hole as you could be. The horizon is the threshold between which light can or cannot escape. If light that's headed straight out remains stationary, then light that's headed out at an angle will definitely fall in, and so will tangential light.

    129. Re:About time! by worthawholebean · · Score: 1

      You're actually integrating one, not zero...

    130. Re:About time! by dpilot · · Score: 1

      We also tend to be blinded by the "black holes are utterly massive!" meme. If the LHC achieves a black hole, it'll be because a whole lot of energy is squeezed into an incredibly tiny space. But remember that practically all of the mass going into that black hole came out of the European electric grid. We're not even talking asteroidal, moon, or Death Star mass, here. I don't really know, but I doubt if we've even created any sort of macroscopic mass, here. Maybe a dust mote? E=mc2 can be a real sonofagun, sometimes.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    131. Re:About time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unobservable objects are like christmas gifts, you can shake all you want and guess what it sounds like, but all you can do is infer from the weight and sound what it is.

    132. Re:About time! by zig007 · · Score: 1

      Can we please stop with the "yo mama" jokes? Please? :-)

      Not likely.

      Since your mother is at least four million times heavier(more massive) than the sun, it will just be too hard to resist for most.

      Dammit.

      --
      Baboons are cute.
    133. Re:About time! by skarphace · · Score: 1

      Didn't much bother me. If they'd said 'weighs four million times as much as the Sun' I'd complain - but 'heavy' to my mind doesn't specifically refer to weight as opposed to mass.

      Weight is to heavy as mass is to massive.

      --
      Bullish Machine Tzar
    134. Re:About time! by Kagura · · Score: 1

      Ah, thanks! That helps explain why the photon sphere is further out... although I don't quite understand why it's exactly 3/2 horizon radius instead of some other proportion. I've seen some calculations on a previous wikipedia edit for the page, but it didn't seem that simple. Thanks for your replies :)

    135. Re:About time! by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

      The 3/2 factor is not obvious. You have to get fairly deep into the spacetime geometry before it falls out of the equations. Or at least, I'm not aware of any "intuitive" explanation for the exact value of that factor.

    136. Re:About time! by Number14 · · Score: 1

      The thing that is still "theoretical" isn't so much that black holes exist- it's pretty clear that objects with their gravitational influence on the universe exist- but whether they have all the properties that we ascribe to black holes. Most importantly, whether or not they are true singularities. The singularity, if it's there, is truly unobservable, hiding behind its event horizon. An object that is just extremely dense and massive would look identical to us from the outside as an object that is infinitely dense and massive. By current understanding of the nature of the universe and relativistic and QM theories, that level of "extremely" dense is impossible (it has to collapse further into a singularity)... but if those theories someday get revised, we may find that the black holes all over the universe are not actually the mathematically ill-behaved singularities we currently think they are.

    137. Re:About time! by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 1

      Dude, nutjobs and weirdos come in all shapes, sizes, hairstyles, and UIDs.

      But here they're mostly round and large with beards and 3 digit UIDs.

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    138. Re:About time! by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      that's funny in my reality it self destructed

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    139. Re:About time! by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      It was not so much that as that it was believed that the geocentric model would be simplest. You had to apply all sorts of corrections, but the two models are equivalent---just depends on which frame of reference you pick.

    140. Re:About time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you prove the existence of something? You can only formulate ever-more-rigorous hypotheses about their existence, and fail to disprove them.

    141. Re:About time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the nature of an unobservable object. All you can do is infer its existence through its effects on other objects...

      Like elephants. All I can do is infer their existence from the photons which seem to have been reflected from them. And the electromagnetic repulsion of the particles of what may be their feet as they tread on me. (Ouch.)

    142. Re:About time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The integral of 0 is not x, unless by x you mean a constant.

    143. Re:About time! by Kagura · · Score: 1

      Well, that basically answers what I was looking for... thanks :)

    144. Re:About time! by reSonans · · Score: 1

      I know. Using the sun as a unit of weight? Give me a break.

      The Library of Congress has 30,011,749 books, and the average mass of a book, according to Google Answers, is 0.34 kg. The LoC, then, has a mass of 10,203,995 kg. So if they're saying the mass of this black hole is 7.9564 * 10^36 kg, then really, it should be 780 billion billion billion Libraries of Congress. :)

      --
      Light the blue touch-paper and retire immediately.
    145. Re:About time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We'll have a proof as soon as the CERN guys turn on the LHC. Just wait!

      i farted

    146. Re:About time! by bruceslog · · Score: 1

      "That's the nature of an unobservable object. All you can do is infer its existence through its effects on other objects,"

      Kinda like God, and Gods effect on the authors of the many bibles written in dozens of different cultures worldwide ?

      --
      If it has tires or tits, it will give you problems.
    147. Re:About time! by Mattsson · · Score: 1

      The moon is a bad example. We can travel there, take samples of it, etc.
      The moon is as observable as Earth.

      A neighbouring star is about as observable as a black hole, with the difference that we can take direct measurements of a lot broader spectrum of radiation from than what we can from a black hole.

      The part about "all you've *proven* is that something is causing those effects" is still true though...
      In that way of looking at things, we can not prove that Earth exists, just something that has all the properties of our theoretical Earth-construct.

      --
      /.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
    148. Re:About time! by shawb · · Score: 1

      Photons don't have a mass when they are at rest, but they do when they are moving. They move fast enough that relativity comes into play increasing their mass from nothing to something. Their mass can be derived from e=mc^2, so m=e/(c^2). To double check the units should make sense. Energy can be measured in kwhrs, and dropping the K we get (kg*m^2/s^3)*hrs/(c^2). Expending further and substituting seconds for hours, stripping out the constant -> m=(kg*m^2/s^2)/([m/s]^2) - kg(m/s)^2/(m/s^2) and velocity can be canceled out, leaving simply a mass unit left (give or take the constants that I pulled out earlier, which shouldn't affect the unit.)

      So the mass of an photon is its energy divided by the speed of light squared. By playing around with the mass of a photon being lim m->0 instead of simply 0, it follows naturally that acceleration approaches infinite, and so putting better judgment aside we can conclude that the acceleration of a photon under a force is infinite, meaning that any force applied will cause the photon to move infinitely fast... which in theory is exactly what a photon does from its own perspective. Or rather, the space between the "departure" and "destination" are collapsed such that the photon does not even move. To a resting observer, however, the photon instantly gains a mass, and so it's acceleration is reduced such that the photon's velocity indeed is measurable from the observer's point of view. Long story short - every time you turn on a light you are tearing numerous holes through the fabric of time and space. It just doesn't look like it from your perspective.

      --
      I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
    149. Re:About time! by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

      Photons are never at rest so it doesn't make sense to speak of their "rest mass" or "rest frame". Physicists speak of "invariant mass", which is zero for a photon, and is nonzero for particles which can be at rest. "Rest mass" is always positive and is a special case of "invariant mass", which can be positive or zero. The other concept is relativistic mass(-energy). That's the quantity which is nonzero (E/c^2) for photons.

    150. Re:About time! by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      "The simplest explanation is a black hole, but it could be something else..."

      For some reason when i read this sentence I got an image of bestial, slavering, Lovecraftian interdimensional creature of immesurable size and even more unfathomable appetites...with a straw.

      Gotta lay off the quad espresso in the morning.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    151. Re:About time! by mog007 · · Score: 1

      Using the balloon analogy, and trying to fit the Universe into a four dimensional framework, as a three dimensional object wrapped around it, is irrelevent.

      We're not fourth dimensional entities, and neither is the physical universe in which we live. Except for the dimension we call "time" of course, but that's not the fourth dimension I'm talking about.

      Our physical universe, the one that contains all those stars and planets and galaxies and black holes, and maybe aliens, does not have a center.

      However, because of relativity, we could say ANY point in that universe is the center, but there's no one point in the universe with any more significance than any other.

    152. Re:About time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if so we will have a remarkably short period of time to write a paper about it.

      I read somewhere, probably on /., that any black hole created by the LHC would take quite some time to become THAT big, let alone for us to notice it's existence.

    153. Re:About time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No; electrons follow the Fermi-Dirac statistics for fermions, are indistinguishable in an interial frame of reference in which they are at rest, and obey the Pauli exclusion principle. Black holes do none of these things.

      An actual black hole with the same charge and mass as an electron would appear to be very much like an electron (same Compton wavelength, same magnetic moment) but even point masses do not follow the Pauli exclusion principle (they merge) or the statistics for fermions (when exchanged they are not antisymmetric; and a black hole with a positive fundamental charge encountering a black hole with a negative fundamental charge will merge to a larger neutral black hole rather than annihilate like electron-positron pairs do).

      The reason 't Hooft, Williamson, van der Mark, Penrose and others explored the idea as a toy model was to further explore ways in which GR is incomplete in extremely small topologies (like the size of an electron), and QM is incomplete in extremely curved spacetime (like the region immediately around a black hole).

      In particular, the exploration of Hawking radiation and the limit space curvature laid open yet another fundamental incompatibility between GR and QM at electron scales, so while they are both known to be incomplete, at least one is also wrong at that scale.

    154. Re:About time! by dimeglio · · Score: 1

      If you understand symmetry, and that a symmetrical object is derived from another symmetrical object (for example, a drop of water falls in a pond, generating symmetrical waves. This means that the drop is also symmetrical. By extension, our sun is symmetrical, therefore what ever created it also is.

      If you go back far enough, you'll find that the event that we call the big bang, was symmetrical and therefore likely had a centre. That centre is not in our universe the same way that this dude standing on the balloon can see its centre.

      My point is that you are correct in stating that our universe doesn't have a centre (or a place from where it grew) from our perspective. However, if you're in a higher dimension, you will see in fact this event as a simple drop of water falling in a cosmological pond and it will have a centre relative to other drops.

      --
      Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
    155. Re:About time! by mog007 · · Score: 1

      You sound like the guy from Timecube. What do you mean by "symmetrical"? How is the sun's "symmetry" related to a rain drop's? There's no evidence which suggests that the big bang was symmetrical, because there's no reference frame to view it from to grant it symmetry or non-symmetry.

  5. OMG we are all going to die by MosesJones · · Score: 3, Funny

    Come on folks its time to have fun with the arts students again. We are all going to die because as we know a black hole sucks everything into it and these guys have only just discovered it which means it must be new so it can only be a matter of days/weeks/months a year at most before our solar system is devoured by this giant black hole.

    Run for the hills, there is no escape.

    Ahhh arts students, the sort of people who fall for the "di-hydrogen monoxide is potentially lethal but the government are letting it into our water supplies".

    --
    An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
    1. Re:OMG we are all going to die by cjfs · · Score: 5, Funny

      Ahhh arts students, the sort of people who fall for...

      At least they make good venti iced soy mochas ;-)

    2. Re:OMG we are all going to die by Analogy+Man · · Score: 1

      so it can only be a matter of days/weeks/months a year at most before our solar system is devoured by this giant black hole.

      Unless Bruce Willis, Chuck Norris and Clint Eastwood heroically fly a rocket into it and blow it up...they will be missed.

      --
      When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
    3. Re:OMG we are all going to die by Bearpaw · · Score: 1

      Come on folks its time to have fun with the arts students again.

      Of course turnabout is fair play. I mean, most people here probably think the music they listen to, the movies they go see, etc, etc, is the good stuff.

      Heh. You should see the scenes backstage at the so-called award ceremonies. "My god, they fell for this crap again!?"

    4. Re:OMG we are all going to die by GMonkeyLouie · · Score: 5, Funny

      I swear to God, this one guy in a philosophy class I was in was telling some girl about the limits of science, and how there are just so many things we don't know for sure.... he goes:

      "Take water for example" ::air quotes with his fingers and sarcastic voice:: "H Two Oh?" ::exasperated superiority:: "We don't know that!"

      I spent an entire fifty minute lecture secretly pointing a laser pointer at his genitals, doing my part for the human race.

    5. Re:OMG we are all going to die by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Funny

      Only the ones with masters degrees.

      I cant stand the Soy Mochas from undergrads. Ick.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    6. Re:OMG we are all going to die by daigu · · Score: 3, Funny

      Your contempt for arts students doesn't say much about art students, but it sure says a lot about you.

    7. Re:OMG we are all going to die by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Come on folks its time to have fun with the arts students again.

      Do you really think that the relationship of arts to science students is analagous to that between nerds and the jocks who tormented you through high school?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    8. Re:OMG we are all going to die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      also the same whackos that believe algore's lies and the global warming hoax!
      http://www.discussglobalwarming.com/blog

    9. Re:OMG we are all going to die by VeNoM0619 · · Score: 1

      Of course... people in:
      Arts are more emotional
      Science are more logical
      Sports are more physical

      Rock-paper-scissors, it is the way of the world. Don't get upset because scissors cuts paper.

      --
      Disclaimer: I am not god.
      We may not be created equal
      But we can be treated equal.
    10. Re:OMG we are all going to die by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Ahhh arts students, the sort of people who fall for the "di-hydrogen monoxide is potentially lethal but the government are letting it into our water supplies".

      Well, it is and they are.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    11. Re:OMG we are all going to die by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      Indeed. The arts students are often female though. So the jocks torment you with physical things. You torment the art students with made up non-sense and frighten them. The arts students torment (or often, control) the jocks the the power of sex. The problem is while the system works, rock and paper are the ones fucking each other while scissors just gets to play pranks and hope that some good pictures from rock/paper escapades make it onto the net ;).

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    12. Re:OMG we are all going to die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and read slashdot, welcome your art studying overlords.

    13. Re:OMG we are all going to die by mmalove · · Score: 1

      That's good. Had you actually been procreating during that time period, we might have more people running around thinking that shining a light off your nuts had some long term effect on your reproductive system.

      --
      You can get 15 minutes of fame, but you can go down in history for infamy.
  6. ESO link by glaswegian · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here is the press release from ESO

    1. Re:ESO link by SoulRider · · Score: 1

      I cant see it!

    2. Re:ESO link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hah, loser! Failed joke, dumbass.

  7. when science fiction meets science fact. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Something bothers me about a huge black hole being at the center of our galaxy -- it's really, really AWESOME. Real science is much more boring.

    I think the scientists need to do more careful experiments.

  8. It always bothered me... by cjfs · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... that they have names (Antu, Kueyen, Melipal, Yepun) for the individual telescopes in the VLT, but could only come up with "very large telescope" for the whole array.

    Please include at least a transformers reference in the next one. Thanks.

    1. Re:It always bothered me... by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      You could always call them the Nahasapeemapetilon family...

    2. Re:It always bothered me... by One+Monkey · · Score: 1

      Surely one thing made up of smaller things would benefit more readily from some sort of Power Rangers reference...

      --
      www.nodicerpg.com - Some RP stuff for free, some not so for free, but still cheap.
    3. Re:It always bothered me... by aztektum · · Score: 1

      I'm glad someone is out there losing sleep over the important things in life.

      --
      :: aztek ::
      No sig for you!!
    4. Re:It always bothered me... by glaswegian · · Score: 4, Informative

      You're not going to be happy with the new generation of telescopes then. First of all there's the Extremely Large Telescope (ELT). What could be bigger than that? Wait for it ... the Overwhelmingly Large Telescope (OWL) of course!

    5. Re:It always bothered me... by Sockatume · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm convinced that the array names are an in-joke at this stagelike the Severe Gravitas Shortfall and the like in Iain M. Banks' work. I believe that the next European super-telescope was to be called the "Preposterously Large Array" or similar.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    6. Re:It always bothered me... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Obligatory Calvin and Hobbes:

      Calvin: You find it strange that scientists can imagine something as farfetched as all the matter in the universe exploding out of something the size of of the head of a pin, but can't imagine a more creative name than the big bang?!
      Hobbes: Well, what would you call it?
      Calvin: THE HORRENDOUS SPACE KABLOOEY!

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    7. Re:It always bothered me... by ericrost · · Score: 1

      Screw that, VOLTRON!

    8. Re:It always bothered me... by HertzaHaeon · · Score: 1

      But how to progress from there? It seems it would only be possible with cursing. Combine this with a generation of scientists who are gamers and the name of the ultimate telescope is already given.

      The BFT.

  9. Call from God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... yes, you guessed right, there is a black hole, I confirm it. ding!, ding!, ding!, ding! 5000 points for you...

    Now, onto our next riddle of the sky... guess where are the aliens.

    1. Re:Call from God by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      God is Netcraft?

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    2. Re:Call from God by zaxus · · Score: 1

      >God is Netcraft?

      ahem...Netcraft confirms it! :-)

      --
      /. zen: Imagine a Beowulf cluster of Beowulf clusters...
  10. That sucks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obligatory. Now that that's been said you can make intelligent comments in this thread.

  11. Heat death odds? by the+real+chahn · · Score: 0

    So does this discovery change the odds for the universe ending in a heat death or a big crunch? AANA astrophysicist, but I would guess that, if galaxies are more likely to form around black holes, it means that there's a large gravitational pull right at the center of the more mass-dense areas of the universe and thus increases the chance of the universe ending in a big crunch vis-a-vis heat death.

    1. Re:Heat death odds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah. The universe has already been weighed, including any supermassive black holes, and found wanting in the mass department for a Big Crunch.

      Doesn't mean local events won't send you spiraling into a singularity, but averaged over the visible universe, there's too little mass to counterbalance what we're calling "dark energy" and Einstein called a "cosmological constant" to allow for a closed (crunchy) universe.

      Latest data indicates the universe is actually accelerating apart at a faster rate than previous eras, making a "Big Rip" more likely, assuming the universe is not flat, or very nearly so.

    2. Re:Heat death odds? by FibreOptix · · Score: 1

      No. The big crunch model used to be popular (quite some time ago) but the current best evidence supports a runaway universe fated for a "big chill". At the end of time you and I will not be as one, we'll be unimaginably far apart from each other.... Thankfully.

    3. Re:Heat death odds? by RudeIota · · Score: 1

      I'm inclined to believe it'll be cold and lonely.

      It's theorized that the gravitational pull of a blackhole -- although incredibly strong immediately near it -- is severely limited in range. (comparatively speaking). It isn't unlike our own solar orbit. Sure, we gravitate around the sun, but we're slowly moving away from it. Granted, there are other reasons for that, but it shows you what little influence gravity has to 'pull' something toward it.

      --
      Fact: Everything I say is fiction.
    4. Re:Heat death odds? by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      So does this discovery change the odds for the universe ending in a heat death or a big crunch?

      No, they already knew it was there. The problems in cosmology are also unlikely to be solved by finding a piece of missing mass, as were currently about 625% short by mass and

      if galaxies are more likely to form around black holes

      This is a chicken and egg problem. Do stars form galaxies or do galaxies form stars?

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    5. Re:Heat death odds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a chicken and egg problem. Do stars form galaxies or do galaxies form stars?

      No it's not. Galaxies form stars, in the same way that a dust cloud leftover from the formation of the Sun formed this planet. The dust cloud left over from the formation of the galaxy collapsed into stars. The galaxy is basically a giant-scale solar system. Galaxies, in turn, are formed from dust clouds created by the formation of the universe.

    6. Re:Heat death odds? by smoker2 · · Score: 1

      This is a chicken and egg problem. Do stars form galaxies or do galaxies form stars?

      I don't think that's right. Galaxies ARE formed OF stars. Think of a shallow sea (the universe). As it dries out you get isolated puddles. Those puddles are galaxies, but they are formed of water (stars). The word galaxy is only a collective noun.

      Surely from what we know, stellar objects coalesce from clouds of gas, and a galaxy is therefore somewhat similar to a solar system where the most massive object is at the centre, merely because it has coalesced more. Naturally it becomes the centre. It would follow then that the stars in galaxies are the smaller coalescences surrounding the black hole which is naturally the most massive. For all we know, all the galaxies are lesser coalescences in the universe, which in turn is a lesser coalescence in the whatever. Maybe it is all fractal.

    7. Re:Heat death odds? by Ravon+Rodriguez · · Score: 1

      That's always made me wonder what room is left for religion; if every particle in the universe is scattered beyond imagination from each other, does that mean God can even exist? Or does God exist outside of the universe? What about us, in the context of our souls? If souls exist, will they be ripped apart, as well?

      --
      Jesus loves me, he loves me a bunch, because he always puts Jiffy in my lunch.
    8. Re:Heat death odds? by jweller13 · · Score: 1

      Gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental forces of Nature -- ElectroMagnetism, Weak Nuclear Force, Strong Nuclear Force, Gravity. Even with the entire mass of the Earth pulling on a paper-clip all it takes is a wittle tiny ant to overcome that gravity and pick it up off the ground. I heard this on Nova which really put it in perspective how weak gravity is, relatively speaking.

  12. The milk is running out! by flyingfsck · · Score: 0, Troll

    "There ain't no milk today, it wasn't always so. The company was gay, they turned night into day." The centre of the Milkyway must be a very inhospitable place, with lots of high energy radiation. That could explain why we are out here on a spiral arm.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  13. Cool, and some questions by chrelad · · Score: 1

    Wonder what the orientation of the black hole is... Are we on the same plane as the accretion disk? How close are we to the event horizon? How close is the sun to the event horizon? Is it possible to collect and examine the radiation from black hole by approaching it from the "top"?

    1. Re:Cool, and some questions by SBacks · · Score: 4, Informative

      Are we on the same plane as the accretion disk?

      Yes.

      How close are we to the event horizon? How close is the sun to the event horizon?

      Far. 40-50 thousand light years.

      Is it possible to collect and examine the radiation from black hole by approaching it from the "top"?

      Yes, hypothetically. However, the black hole is not "feeding" at the moment, meaning there is not much radiation coming from it. If it were in full quasar mode, we would have identified it a long, long time ago.

    2. Re:Cool, and some questions by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > Yes, hypothetically. However, the black hole is not "feeding" at the moment, meaning
      > there is not much radiation coming from it.

      Which makes it the optimum time to look for Hawking radiation. I don't think you'd be able to detect it, though. A hole that size is rather cold: the noise from even low-level accretion activity seems likely to drown it out.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    3. Re:Cool, and some questions by chrelad · · Score: 1

      Hey, thanks for the prompt reply. Very well thought out response. Do we know what caused the black hole to form in the first place? I was under the impression that a black hole was created from the death of a star. So, does that mean that a star died somewhere in our galaxy to cause the black hole to form? What are the potential implications of this discovery? Is there a chance that we could send probes to observe this thing (however we observe black holes) or what? I know that I heard something about a satellite that could gather information about gravity phenomena. Perhaps sending one of those suckers toward the black hole could yield some interesting results? Dunno, just thoughts. Thanks again for the great reply. Chrelad

    4. Re:Cool, and some questions by chrelad · · Score: 1

      Interesting... Does this mean that jump starting research on better detection of radiation from black holes is a good idea? Seems like this is a big deal to me... A black hole, no matter how "cold" or "young" it is presents a unique opportunity to observe some of the more exotic phenomena in our ever expanding universe. Never heard of Hawking radiation... Assuming it's something to do with Stephen Hawking?

    5. Re:Cool, and some questions by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

      Hell, the cosmic microwave radiation would drown out the Hawking radiation of a black hole that size. By a lot. Hawking radiation is weak for any astrophysical-sized object, and is even weaker for a supermassive black hole.

    6. Re:Cool, and some questions by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

      Does this mean that jump starting research on better detection of radiation from black holes is a good idea?

      No. Hawking radiation is far too weak to detect. I could work it out, but I just looked in Wikipedia. For a solar-mass black hole the Hawking radiation is only 10^-28 watts, and it decreases with the square of the mass (bigger holes emit less). For a multi-million solar mass black hole it would thus be even more ridiculously weak.

      Detecting the gravitational radiation from colliding black holes, on the other hand, may be feasible, since you have two massive bodies smacking into each other.

      Never heard of Hawking radiation... Assuming it's something to do with Stephen Hawking?

      Yup. It's what he's perhaps most famous for. You can find it on Wikipedia.

    7. Re:Cool, and some questions by TheThiefMaster · · Score: 1

      Nope, black holes are caused by too much mass in one place, such as a collision between stars (they typically orbit each other as a binary or more system for a long while first). Black holes have a tendency to absorb anything nearby (including other black holes), so over time they tend to "grow". The galaxy is denser with stars near the centre, so it's natural for a HUGE black hole to form there.

      At least that's the theory. There's also some stuff about energy getting back out limiting their size, but that's a fairly recent addition to the theory.

    8. Re:Cool, and some questions by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

      Do we know what caused the black hole to form in the first place?

      I think that the currently favored theory is that galaxies grow from smaller galaxies with little black holes in them. When they collide and merge, so do their central black holes.

      So, does that mean that a star died somewhere in our galaxy to cause the black hole to form?

      In all, lots of stars go into forming a supermassive black hole.

      What are the potential implications of this discovery?

      It helps us to understand how galaxies and the black holes in them form.

      Is there a chance that we could send probes to observe this thing (however we observe black holes) or what?

      Not really. It's tens of thousands of light years away. It's hard enough to travel a few light years to the nearest star in a reasonable time.

      I know that I heard something about a satellite that could gather information about gravity phenomena

      LISA? Or Gravity Probe B?

      Perhaps sending one of those suckers toward the black hole could yield some interesting results?

      We can't send anything towards a black hole that would make a real difference in distance to the hole. We can make measurements within our own solar system of events happening outside of it, though: a gravitational-wave telescope like LIGO/LISA could detect colliding black holes.

    9. Re:Cool, and some questions by chrelad · · Score: 1

      Cool, thanks for the great info... I'll check into this :)

    10. Re:Cool, and some questions by mog007 · · Score: 1

      Not quite that far. The galaxy is about 50,000 ly across, and the earth is a bit more than halfway from the center. So, we're only around 25,000 ly away from this beast.

    11. Re:Cool, and some questions by SBacks · · Score: 1

      Not quite that far. The galaxy is about 50,000 ly across, and the earth is a bit more than halfway from the center. So, we're only around 25,000 ly away from this beast.

      The radius of the Milky Way is 50,000 light years, but in total it's 100,000 light years across.

      But, you're right, the Sun is about 26,000 light years from the center, not the 40-50 I stated earlier.

      http://www.bigsiteofamazingfacts.com/how-big-is-the-milky-way

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way

      http://members.fcac.org/~sol/chview/chv5.htm

    12. Re:Cool, and some questions by DynaSoar · · Score: 1

      Are we on the same plane as the accretion disk?

      Yes.

      Perhaps at the moment. We do not orbit in that plane. "In addition the Sun oscillates up and down relative to the galactic plane approximately 2.7 times per orbit." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way This is taken as evidence that we did not originally belong to this galaxy, but got trapped when our original galaxy got cannibalized by this one.

      --
      "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
    13. Re:Cool, and some questions by Repton · · Score: 1

      Are we on the same plane as the accretion disk?

      I was gonna say "yes, we're both on the prime material", but then it occurred to me to ponder this. Perhaps black holes are actually part of the negative energy plane? Any physicists out there know?

      --
      Repton.
      They say that only an experienced wizard can do the tengu shuffle.
    14. Re:Cool, and some questions by El_Oscuro · · Score: 1

      So that's why we are on an insignificant blue-green planet orbiting an un-regarded yellow sun in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable western spiral arm of the galaxy. Where is my towel?

      --
      "Be grateful for what you have. You may never know when you may lose it."
    15. Re:Cool, and some questions by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Sometimes I wonder what the relationship is with dark matter. One might consider that dark matter had some mass distribution, and the ordinary matter just got pulled into match. Perhaps a supermassive dark matter "black hole" of some sort existed all along and then formed an ordinary black hole in the same place. Then again, a "black hole" formed by dark matter would behave identically to an ordinary matter black hole for all intents and purposes (a black hole's only attributes are its mass and angular momentum, and presumably dark matter could have both of those).

      And, if an ordinary black hole forms, wouldn't it then tend to concentrate dark matter around it (since it would seem logical that dark matter would be as attracted to normal matter as normal matter is attracted to dark matter). Would that potentially prevent Hawking radiation from being emitted, since presumably those virtual particles with negative energy wouldn't have any impact on the dark matter in the black hole? Could all the ordinary matter in a black hole evaporate, and yet there is still a dark matter black hole in the same position?

      There is a big chicken-and-egg issue around galaxy formation. Did the galaxies form and then the black holes formed in their cores with all that extra mass concentration? Did the black holes form first and nucleate the galaxy? Did a dark matter concentration form first and nucleate the rest of the galaxy?

      Then you have some string theory variants that suggest that gravity can travel between branes in a multiverse of sorts. Perhaps a galaxy in this universe forms because the region of space is "close" to a galaxy that already exists in some other universe. Dark matter might just be galaxies in other universes. The recent dark matter observations in the bullet cluster might be a case of four galaxies semi-colliding - two in our universe and one in each of two different other universes. (The observation was that most of the mass was non-visible and non-interacting, but the visible matter did interact. If the visible matter was all in our universe, and the non-visible matter was in each of two other universes, then that might explain why they passed through each other with only gravitational interaction since within their universes there was only one galaxy present.)

      Obviously none of this is easy to measure - I'd be interested in the opinion of somebody more versed in astrophysics than I am. I'm always amazed by how little we know about gravity on these scales and the large-scale structure of the universe.

    16. Re:Cool, and some questions by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

      One might consider that dark matter had some mass distribution, and the ordinary matter just got pulled into match.

      You're right. Dark matter is thought to play an important role in "seeding" the distribution of galaxies in the early universe. I'm not sure that black holes have anything to do with it, though.

      Perhaps a supermassive dark matter "black hole" of some sort existed all along and then formed an ordinary black hole in the same place. Then again, a "black hole" formed by dark matter would behave identically to an ordinary matter black hole for all intents and purposes (a black hole's only attributes are its mass and angular momentum, and presumably dark matter could have both of those).

      A black hole is the same no matter what went into forming it, for the reasons you give (see the "no hair" theorem). So nobody talks about "dark matter black holes". It would be hard to think of dark matter as forming black holes in the first place, because it's not very strongly interacting and you probably can't make big clumps of matter like stars out of it.

      Did the galaxies form and then the black holes formed in their cores with all that extra mass concentration? Did the black holes form first and nucleate the galaxy? Did a dark matter concentration form first and nucleate the rest of the galaxy?

      I haven't kept up to date with these questions. I think small galaxies were nucleated around clumps of dark matter. Once the galaxies formed, small black holes formed within them and grew. The galaxies and the black holes within became larger when they collided and merged with each other.

      Then you have some string theory variants that suggest that gravity can travel between branes in a multiverse of sorts. Perhaps a galaxy in this universe forms because the region of space is "close" to a galaxy that already exists in some other universe. Dark matter might just be galaxies in other universes.

      I believe that has been proposed, but I don't know of any serious attempts to really work out the full implications of that idea. It's a lot more speculative than dark matter just being a different kind of particle, IMHO.

  14. So we've found life? by msauve · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...or the remants of it, anyway.

    Someone at the center of our galaxy obviously beat us to getting their Large Hadron Collider working before we did.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    1. Re:So we've found life? by Prof.Phreak · · Score: 1

      Nah, that's a time delayed reflection of ourselves in the future (yes, just like in that startrek episode).

      --

      "If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy

  15. Yes, that makes lots of sense. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Funny
    galaxies form around giant black holes in the way that a pearl forms around grit

    Exactly. The pulsars emit gamma rays like the dung beetle emit pheromones. The planets circle their star like insects circle a dome light in the porch. Analogies form in the mind of submitters and editors of slashdot the same way driftwood washes up in the beaches of South Carolina.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Yes, that makes lots of sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's not forget that correlation is not causation.

      There's as much evidence for what they said as there is for black holes fighting find a home inside already made galaxies.

    2. Re:Yes, that makes lots of sense. by snspdaarf · · Score: 5, Funny

      Analogies form in the mind of submitters and editors of slashdot the same way driftwood washes up in the beaches of South Carolina.

      Soaking wet, and surrounded by syringes and condoms?

      --
      Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
    3. Re:Yes, that makes lots of sense. by GMonkeyLouie · · Score: 5, Informative

      An analogy is a lot like a tangerine, in that you have to break through the tough outer rind of legitimacy before you get to the juicy center and realize that an analogy can never serve as real evidence in support of anything.

    4. Re:Yes, that makes lots of sense. by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      An analogy is a lot like a tangerine, in that you have to break through the tough outer rind of legitimacy before you get to the juicy center and realize that an analogy can never serve as real evidence in support of anything.

      Time flies like the wind. Fruit flies like pears.

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    5. Re:Yes, that makes lots of sense. by Socramon · · Score: 1

      Analogies form in the mind of submitters and editors of slashdot the same way driftwood washes up in the beaches of South Carolina.

      Now, you see, this is where a dung beetle analogy would be more appropriate.

    6. Re:Yes, that makes lots of sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like one of my old profs was fond of saying:

      "Opinions are like hemorrhoids: Sooner or later every asshole gets one and they all stink."

      Sheer poetry.

    7. Re:Yes, that makes lots of sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana." -- Groucho Marx

      With google around, you have no excuse to misquote well-known witticisms without an even better punchline.

  16. four million times heavier? by Low+Ranked+Craig · · Score: 0, Redundant

    four million times as massive, you mean?

    --
    I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
    1. Re:four million times heavier? by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's also four million times heavier too. Weight and mass are not the same thing, but everything has both. Naturally mass always remains fixed, while weight varies depending on what body is attracting it. HOWEVER, when expressed as a factor, weight remains constant too. So while 100lbs of nails won't remain constant on all planets, saying that 100lbs of nails will always weight twice as much as 50 lbs WILL remain constant so long as they're both being attracted by the same object (and for weight to have any meaning that's a given). And it just so happens that the ratio of weights between objects is the same is the ratio of mass between objects.

      SOOOO, long story short, if the object is 4 million times as massive as the sun, then it is effectively also 4 million times heavier as well.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    2. Re:four million times heavier? by Low+Ranked+Craig · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I understand all that, and honestly I did not see the other posts or I wouldn't have posted. I guess I do not get the point of discussing the weight of something that massive. Weight is the measurement of the force of gravity or acceleration (relativity speaking) on a given mass, therefore the weight is variable depending on the strength of the that force, and in the context of a planet, star or black hole is really quite meaningless.

      --
      I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
    3. Re:four million times heavier? by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Just to be pedantic, an objects weight is also relative to its orientation to the object that is attracting it, or more specifically the orentation of the two attracting objects to each other. Mass is not effected in this way.

      For instance, a tall building has a weight different than that same amount of mass laying on its side, or all in a perfect sphere assuming these objects are all at the same distance from the other object (or planet). The tall building 'weighs' less because the gravitational forces on the mass at the top of the building (or the point furthest from the other object) is lower than it is at the bottom of the building (or surface of the planet). This difference is minor at the scale we deal with on Earth, and if you're talking about something thats basically a sphere such as a planet or star it has little effect at all. Its just important to note that the relationship between mass and weight is only the same in a certain specific circumstance, specifically when all objects are perfect spheres of matching density. If two objects have a shape other than a perfect sphere or different densities, the ratio of weight and mass are no longer aligned and depend on the orentation or density.

      An object the size of the moon with a mass of X and a weight of 10 pounds, when laying on the surface of the earth, would weigh more than 10 pounds if it had the same mass in the size of a bowling ball. The moon sized object would be effected by less gravity at the top, centrifigal forces of the rotation of the planet, and all sorts of other things that real physists would love to tell you about.

      In short, while you may observe that mass and weight are consistently proportional, this is simply due to inaccurate measurements on your part, not because they are actually proportional.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  17. Re:I don't understand by kellyb9 · · Score: 1

    So God's in the black hole or what ?

    "What does God, need with a spaceship?"

    couldn't help it.

  18. black heart at center of man'kind' confirmed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just kidding. everyone knows that all we are/have is a gift from the creators, & that our only purpose here is to care for one another.

  19. Excuse me? Like a pearl? by SecurityGuy · · Score: 4, Funny

    So black holes are irritating to the Great Space Oyster which deposits stars, dust, and gas around it to prevent irritation?

    There's my nomination for worst science analogy this year.

  20. And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...they didn't even turn on the LHC.

  21. Really??? by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 0, Troll

    I am not Einstein, and I could have told you that, what gave it away, seeing all those solar systems slowly moving towards the middle, the fact that galaxies usually look like big black holes anyways, or just maybe when those 2 galaxies collided a few months back (last year maybe?)...they showed patterns of gravity towards each other.....too little too late guys.

  22. Isn't that old news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought it was confirmed that at the center of each galaxy is a super massive black hole.

  23. Time effects by jbeaupre · · Score: 2, Funny

    Due to the huge time distortion of such a massive black hole, PBS NOVA aired a show on the same subject 3 months ago http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blackhole/ Seems the German research got sucked back in time and used to show the orbits of the stars around the black hole.

    --
    The world is made by those who show up for the job.
  24. I'm scared now by arkham6 · · Score: 2, Funny

    When i heard that there were black holes in other galaxies, i was fine with that, since they are so far away. But now i hear there is one in OUR galaxy? That's kinda scary, since its so close to us!

    1. Re:I'm scared now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It IS awfully close to home, isn't it? Hmm... That must be what happened to USA's gigantic economic bailout...

    2. Re:I'm scared now by largesnike · · Score: 1

      yeah close, in a kinda far away sense...(40 - 50 kly)

      I don't think there's much to worry about in any near term. Firstly the hole is not drawing in much material, otherwise we'd have seen it already. In fact, it's hawking radiation probably exceeds the feed rate, so it's probably shrinking.

      --
      "Laugh while you can a-monkey boy!" - Dr Emilio Lizardo
  25. Real proof! by db32 · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Finally, we can all sleep soundly knowing that we are indeed circling the drain...

    --
    The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    1. Re:Real proof! by Voyager529 · · Score: 2, Funny

      All drains lead to the ocean!

  26. Just like filth in the flow of a draining bathtub. by ralfibex · · Score: 1

    Just like filth in the flow of a draining bathtub... So we're the filth... or tiny bits on larger pieces of filth actually... And the water is the matter we can't see... obviously. Hmm... I wonder... who's bathing?

  27. How big? by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 1

    I wonder what the diameter of its event horizon is. TFA didn't say.

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    1. Re:How big? by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      They gave you the mass. You can calculate the diameter from that.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    2. Re:How big? by Yunzil · · Score: 1

      The Schwarzchild radius is about 2.95 km/solar mass, so 4000000 * 2.95 = 11,800,000 km

  28. old, old, old news by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Slashdot editors are so out of it sometimes.

  29. No shit Sherlock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Errr... we knew this already (the problem is the quote from Genzel, not the original article).

    This has provoked much mirth in my astronomy institute all afternoon. We will shortly be releasing new papers on "Sun powered by nuclear reactions", "Milky way a spiral Galaxy", and so on....

  30. Direct link to the paper by Ritorix · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.4674

    Amazing that a star they studied orbited the galactic center in only 16 years.

    The paper seems to assume the existence of black holes; it addresses their observations rather than any theoretical causes. Saying these observations confirm a black hole seems a bit of a stretch. It just confirms that stars are circling around the galactic center, which may or may not contain anything at all.

    1. Re:Direct link to the paper by filterban · · Score: 1

      In fact, this paper is just corroborating what other people have already proven in this Astrophysical Journal paper from 2005.

      So yes, this is an interesting topic, but really the only plus on this paper was that they further refined the size of the black hole at the center of our galaxy (and of course they are assuming black holes exist).

      Where is the revolutionary part of this paper? Anyone?

      --
      rm -rf /
  31. So is there one at the center of every galaxy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If there is that has GOT to be a solid foundation for reasoning how/why galaxies form...right? Well either that or they're formed after the fact; I like the first one better, though.

  32. Classical mechanics 101 by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1

    It just confirms that stars are circling around the galactic center, which may or may not contain anything at all

    I'm sure you didn't really mean to write that. The discovery that stars move in orbits where there is no central mass would be far more exciting and disruptive to physics than finding a black hole there.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:Classical mechanics 101 by Gabrill · · Score: 1

      Yeah that would completely throw out the Pluto-Charon orbital charts!

      --
      Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
    2. Re:Classical mechanics 101 by Ritorix · · Score: 1

      Yeah that was poorly worded. Point being that this paper did not prove a "black hole" exists at galactic center, but that stars are rapidly orbiting a central point. Classic mechanics dictates the central point must contain a huge mass, because only gravity moves stars, and only mass creates gravity. And that may be true, or we may find exceptions to the rule. Figuring that out either way would be a hell of a day for science. Studying the galactic center could be the best way to find out.

      Interesting bits from the paper:

      "Equally interesting is the nature of the mass
      responsible for the strong gravitational forces observed.
      While the measured mass makes a compelling case for a
      MBH, the exact form of the potential encodes answers to
      many interesting questions."

      And "In addition to the MBH a substantial amount of
      mass might reside in form of a cluster of dark
      stellar remnants around the MBH"

      Finally, "a single point mass potential is (still) the best description
      of the data."

      Amazing paper. And yeah its old, October, but ESO just got around to writing the press release with the usual science-news bells and whistles. "The most detailed view ever of the surroundings of the monster lurking at our Galaxy's heart -- a supermassive black hole", oh the drama! Hence it hitting the 'news' sites today.

  33. So that's where the goatse guy lives! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We're living in a galactic goatse and earth is just a mole!

  34. How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... the Hugh Jazz telescope?

  35. thousand, million, million miles by xpuppykickerx · · Score: 1

    The researchers from the Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics in Germany said the black hole was 27,000 light years, or 158 thousand, million, million miles from the Earth. Is that a real number?

    1. Re:thousand, million, million miles by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      158 thousand, million, million miles from the Earth. Is that a real number?

      'Billion' is ambiguous - in some countries it's one thousand million, in others one million million. 'Trillion' is only a household word if you're in Zimbabwe. This number requires 'quadrillion', at which point the average reader's brain shuts down.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  36. Is there a super star gate there as well? by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    Is there a super star gate there as well?

  37. Re:Excuse me? Like a pearl? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This sounds like a plot for a Futurama movie.

  38. Re:I don't understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    So God's in the black hole or what ?

    "What does God, need with a spaceship?"

    couldn't help it.

    To get the full Shatnerism, you need some, more, commas ;-)

  39. Re:Excuse me? Like a pearl? by DarthSensate · · Score: 1, Funny

    I for one welcome the Great Space Oyster and await the judgment of its Great Fleshy Foot!

  40. 28 Stars by pgn674 · · Score: 1

    Turn the 28 stars into planets and take one away, and you may be close to having a Reality Bomb, a la Doctor Who.

  41. I'm suprised that no one's noticed... by Salem+Willow · · Score: 1

    the results suggest that galaxies form around giant black holes in the way that a pearl forms around grit

    surely it's a bad analogy...they're talking about what's outside forming around object in the centre (galaxy to black hole) but making the analogy with what's formed in the centre with what's on the outside (pearl to grit).... how can a pearl be formed AROUND grit???? surely the grit is around the pearl once formed...

    --
    this is a virtual insanity that always seems to be governed by our love for this useless twisting of our new technology.
  42. Pasteur, Newton, et al. by Bemopolis · · Score: 3, Informative

    To quote Carl Sagan, "They laughed at Galileo. They laughed at Newton. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."

    And you can help the advancement of science by not drowning out the reasoned discussion of *actual scientists* by not blathering on about nonsense. Science is all about the signal-to-noise, you know.

    --
    "I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
    1. Re:Pasteur, Newton, et al. by harry666t · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, I wonder where would we be now if Newton's or Galileo's work was at the end considered noise.

  43. I hate to be pedantic, but... by sergeirichard · · Score: 1

    Pearls don't form around grit, do they? But around intruding organisms like nematode worms. Actually, I love to be pedantic.

    1. Re:I hate to be pedantic, but... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      So... you're saying that black holes form around giant space nematodes?

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  44. Figures... by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    THEY got their LHC running just fine, thank you. CERN can't get it done, or we'd have our own galaxy by now and phooey on the Milky Way thing.

    I tell ya, if ya want something done right...

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  45. Nigel, are you still in there? by dpilot · · Score: 1

    (obscure reference - see how many get it)

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  46. That's news to me! by Locke2005 · · Score: 1
    the results suggest that galaxies form around giant black holes in the way that a pearl forms around grit.

    You mean, pearls are formed by nacre spiraling in towards the grit, inexorably drawn by the forces of gravity??? All this time I thought they were formed by bivalves secreting the substance around the grit to protect themselves from irritation -- silly me! Can somebody please explain this with a car analogy instead?

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:That's news to me! by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      Can somebody please explain this with a car analogy instead?

      Black holes form by accreting matter, much like an accident on the Autobahn.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    2. Re:That's news to me! by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      This analogy is more appropriate because unlike pearls, both black holes and pile-ups on the Autobahn really suck!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  47. Re:I don't understand by Bandman · · Score: 1

    Damn. I was going to say

    "What does God need with a black hole?"

  48. By Neruos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yawn... So how many light years of light transmission did it take to get these readings? Does it account of objects in and out of the light source? The black hole may and maynot be there. The correct result would be, it appears a blackhole existed at this point in time (which may or maynot be there now).

  49. Just One? by sunny_skeptic · · Score: 1

    Just only one black hole? You don't say... And here I thought there's 2 of them. A male one and a female one, twisting and turning like a big ying-yang symbol...

  50. S2 by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

    Here are the stellar orbits around the hole: http://www.mpe.mpg.de/ir/GC/index.php

    The star closest to it (S2) approaches it at a distance of 3-4 Neptune orbit radii IIRC. I seem to remember once calculating the g force experienced by the star and getting something close to the moon's surface gravity, but that was when the hole was 2.6 Msun.

  51. Which one are we? by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    Are we the pearl or the grit?

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  52. Telescopes, more than meets the eye! by Yaotzin · · Score: 1

    "The BBC are reporting that a German team has confirmed the existence of a Black Hole at the center of the Milky Way. Astronomers tracked the movement of 28 stars circling the center of the Milky Way, using the 3.5m Starscream and the 8.2m Megatron (MGTRN) in Chile. Both are operated by the European Southern Observatory (Eso). The black hole is 397,820,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times heavier than an autobot, according to the paper in The Astrophysical Journal. According to Dr Robert Massey, of the Royal Astronomical Society (RAS), the results suggest that galaxies form around giant black holes in the way that Optimus and Ultra Magnus forms into Omega Prime."

    --
    Error: No error occurred
  53. One thing's for sure... by Dawn+Keyhotie · · Score: 1

    We're all gonna be a lot thinner!

    --
    "The only good windmill is a tilted windmill."
  54. ESO Official Release by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The official release by the ESO is here

  55. scientific evidence for black holes by tbrahe · · Score: 1

    Black holes are known to exist in our Galaxy, M31, and NGC 4258. The evidence for black holes is usually provided by ruling out all the other possibilities. An excellent example paper (for M31) is here: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0509839 Actually the slashdot.org crowd could look here for the most relevant science papers on astrophysics: http://xxx.lanl.gov/list/astro-ph/new The people working on this ESO project are all brilliant astronomers.

  56. Re:Excuse me? Like a pearl? by Luyseyal · · Score: 1

    /golf clap

    Well-played, sir.

    --
    Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
  57. Re:How big? = How Dense? by Dawn+Keyhotie · · Score: 1

    Hey, that's just the answer that I got!

    I also came up with an average density of just over 1.16 kg/cc or 41.7 lb/cubic inch. That doesn't sound so bad!

    --
    "The only good windmill is a tilted windmill."
  58. Sex by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... rock and paper are the ones fucking each other while scissors just gets to play pranks ...

    Stop it! You're making me cry!

  59. UCLA had this years ago.. by q2a · · Score: 1

    Wow this is old news. Our galaxy with the black hole center was identified at UCLA years ago; http://www.astro.ucla.edu/research/galcenter/ http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=18712 tag-redundant ;)

  60. Worlds without number by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Almost 200 years ago Joseph Smith stated that God created worlds without number. The astronomers of that day didn't know that there were 100 billion stars in the Milky Way. They also didn't know that there were more galaxies in the universe than there are stars in the galaxy. Hmmm. More than 100 billion x 100 billion stars. I think that is somewhere around 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars. Since our sun has at least 10 planet-like bodies (or worlds) and it is likely that at least one in a hundred stars is like our sun, that would make at least 1x10^24 worlds. A 64-bit integers can go as high as about 2x10^19. It would require an 80-bit integer to accurately count that many worlds, which is not even as big as the number of worlds that there likely are out there. The universe (since the big bang) is only 4.5x10^17 seconds old, which will fit in a 64-bit integer, with plenty of room to spare. Maybe Joseph Smith knew more than most people give him credit for.

    Speaking of black holes (I should tie this all together, right?), he also said that there was a place called "Outer Darkness" where Satan would be tossed one day, and he would never be able to escape. That sounds like a black hole to me, and I don't think any astronomers were thinking anything about black holes until many years after Joseph Smith's death.

    Makes you wonder just how much WE really do know about the universe, and how much we have YET to learn.

  61. yes, but. . . by jafac · · Score: 1

    How many Libraries of Congress BIG is it?

    Or is it some multiple of Volkswagens?

    --

    These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  62. yes? by revxul · · Score: 1

    This is similar to how stars may form around a black hole as well, no?

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14582

    --
    Truth, Just Us, And Hatred For All Mankind!
  63. Define "Confirmed" by DynaSoar · · Score: 1

    If the connotation is "discovered", as it seems in TFA, then TFA is wrong. If instead it implies the more accurate "providing additional data regarding that which is already known" then it'd be correct.

    "Final Proof Provided For Milky Ways Central Black Hole", Space.com, 16 October 2002. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/blackhole_milkyway_021016.html

    I can't reach his site now that it's on Discover Magazine's site; does Phil Plait ever take astronomers and/or "real" science media to task for doing and/or reporting bad astronomy? What TFA does provide is an improved estimate for the mass: 4 million suns vs. 2.6 million from the 2002 data.

    --
    "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
  64. Re:Excuse me? Like a pearl? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I suspect the Great Space Oyster is just plain old Flying Spaghetti Monster in a scientific dress for the masses.

  65. Car analogy, please! by mangu · · Score: 1

    Say, I can't understand this without a car analogy. Are you telling us that the black hole is like a drug dealer's Hummer? Or is it like a supermodel's Ferrari? Or is it like a two year old Volvo?

  66. is this where by mikerubin · · Score: 1

    all our credit went ?

    --
    I sat down to write a new sig tonight and all I did was make the chair warm.
  67. Oh great, just great... by 3seas · · Score: 1

    ... now I feel like I'm being flushed down a toilet.

  68. Re:Excuse me? Like a pearl? by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 1

    ...and I will nominate your post as Most Humorous Post That Is Mocking A Bad Science Analogy.

    --
    Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
  69. Re:Excuse me? Like a pearl? by Dirtside · · Score: 1

    the Great Space Oyster

    Uh-oh. I don't think the Flying Spaghetti Monster is going to like this.

    --
    "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
  70. Black Perl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess Jack Sparrow will go after the perl aye?

  71. Multidimensional compression ... by TransientAlias · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Multidimensional compression due to intense and increasing effects of gravitation. ...So, if we were being sucked into a black hole, would every object in the universe appear to be moving away from us. If the source of the gravity was sufficiently large would it appear that the effect locally would be minuscule, while causing us to believe in a non steady state every expanding universe because all distant observable phenomena appear to be moving away from us? Is it possible that the redshifts in the spectra are caused by us speeding away from the light as the space we are occupying gets stretched and twisted by gravity due to the effects of a spinning black hole? Just a thought.

    1. Re:Multidimensional compression ... by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

      Here is an applet which shows what the universe looks like if you're near or falling into a black hole. It lets you choose either a freely falling observer, or a stationary (hovering) observer. (The latter should only work if you're outside the hole, since there are no stationary observers inside a black hole. Nevertheless, the applet works for stationary observers inside the hole. I don't know what that means.) The applet only deals with a non-rotating black hole.

      As you can see, a black hole does not produce a uniform redshift which is the same in every direction, and so it's not an explanation for cosmological redshift. Black holes have weird optical distortions if you're facing toward or away from the horizon and can have both red and blue shift.

    2. Re:Multidimensional compression ... by TransientAlias · · Score: 1

      I guess you would have to be the black hole for the shift to appear uniform... barring possible ripples in space-time caused by it spinning. Is there anything in the universe that doesn't spin?

    3. Re:Multidimensional compression ... by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

      The shift won't be uniform either inside or outside the black hole; there's always a difference between looking toward or away from the horizon. Spinning makes the asymmetry worse; then there is a preferred axis too.

      Very old black holes or neutron stars probably don't spin much, as they've radiated away their angular momentum, but probably pretty much everything spins a little.

  72. Sigh. by Cazekiel · · Score: 1

    Oh well. 'Guess it's time to nail everything down.

    --
    You want to know how to help your kids? LEAVE THEM THE F*&K ALONE. --George Carlin
  73. Asimov knew about our black hole 45 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Interesting, it has taken 45 years to prove what Isaac Asimov knew when he wrote his Foundation series.

  74. Um.... by Jakeva · · Score: 1

    Um... duh? I thought we knew this like thirty years ago.

    --
    but if God created circular logic...
  75. so, i guess it's true ... by shnull · · Score: 0

    we ARE all going to die ...

    --
    beware he who denies you access to information for in his mind, he already deems himself to be your master (SMAC-ish)