Slashdot Mirror
Black Hole Swallows Star
Thorfinn.au writes "The New Scientist writes a conjectural piece to explain the light pattern of SCP 06F6 in what was first identified as a supernova — but observations show a skewed and stretched light curve not fitting with an current theoretical explanation of exploding stars. Also, the discussion in the comments is interesting."
over 50% of black holes in the western hemisphere are clinically obese. It's though that the high availability and low cost of stars is to blame. Ejection of gas is one of the many unfortunate side-effects.
*creepy smile* black hole sun, black hole sun
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
The star says "Shine shine shine!"
The black hole says "NOM NOM NOM!!!!"
"I hope you know how very lucky you are to know me, because I am so incredibly incredible."
Looks like the inhabitants of the nearest planet just switched on their brand-new LHC...
I'm not educated in astrophysics and everytime I read something like this I wonder, how does anything manage to get "blasted away" from a black hole? I was under the impression anything that got close to it was absorbed?
Simple, black holes are very messy eaters - they radiate a significant fraction of their food as photons. Keep in mind you are accelerating much of the star to a significant fraction of c, letting it collide with itself. This goes double for stellar mass black holes - you have a million+ kilometer star getting 'swallowed' by a twenty kilometer black hole. Even a perfect landing is going to result in most of the star's mass getting flung back out into space if only because the hole is smaller than the core of the star.
I am a science fantasy fan
Anything that crosses the event horizon is absorbed. Anything that does not interacts gravitationally with the black hole as it would with any other massive object. Black holes don't have any sort of magical ability to suck things in. All they have is gravity (Well, ok. They also have charge and spin.)
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
The common view that a black hole has a definite "boundary" beyond which nothing can escape, although essentially true, overlooks several important factors.
Yes, the "event horizon" (EH) is the boundary beyond which nothing can escape the gravitational pull of the black hole.
However, it's not a physical boundary (black holes do not have a physical surface), it's the mathematically-calculated boundary beyond which events inside the EH cannot affect an outside observer. As a particle gets closer to the EH, its chances of escape shrink to infinity, and once the EH is crossed, it's effectively gone from the outside world.
That being said, under certain conditions, particles can be radiated outward from a black hole:
1.) If an object inside the "photon sphere" (Schwartzchild Radius X 1.5) but still outside the EH emits photons, those photons can still escape. (Photons coming inbound are screwed, though. Approaching on a tangent, have a slim chance to "bounce off" due to rotational gain.).
2.) If the black hole is rotating, and a particle is approaching the black hole at a tangent, it may also escape via "stealing" some of the rotational energy.
3.) Rotating black holes also emit particles via Hawking radiation, which is more of a particle-antiparticle explanation that I want to get into here.
So, yeah, it's sort of an issue of semantics - if you consider the zone right outside the EH a part of the black hole, then yes, things can escape from a black hole; if you take the common (and incorrect) view that a black hole has a definite "border", and discount all the fun stuff that's going on around the black hole, then no, nothing can escape.
(Of course, this is a ridiculously simplified explanation, and I do expect at least one Slashdot astrophysicist to poke it full of holes (pun intended).)
We are in the earliest stages of undesrtanding how the universe works. For the first 8-10 thousand years we have looked what that which is in our universe and how it functions within our universe. Only in the last 3000 years have we started to look at how the universe (or if you prefer reality) itself works.
Based on our understanding the very fundamental laws of our universe at some point has changed. The laws, as we call them, 5 seconds before the big bang may have been very different then at the time of the big bang and vastly different a billion years afterwards.
We look to oddities like black holes to try and grasp and dredge out what additional laws that may exist to better understand how to exist within a system of laws. We must be ever so careful though as we go forward in collecting and looking at data. Who knows, perhaps we will find a white hole adding mass to our universe potentially signalling an escape from heat death or the big rip. Perhaps the graviton will be found... perhaps not.
The question all this begs is crucial to the core of our own existence, and is the harbinger to the meaning of life. The question must be asked after observing this article:
How could we miss an opportunity for a sexual joke with this?
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
I don't seem to grasp that black holes can become mobile. I can not imagine something would be able to exert enough force on the black hole to actually accelerate it.
Other than the obvious everything-attracts-everything-else, also remember that black holes don't magically appear from nothing. Whatever matter initially created the black hole was most likely moving, and that momentum doesn't go anywhere.
after the original. Posted less than an hour apart, right next to each other on the front page!
Has Bing Already Overtaken Yahoo? Posted by CmdrTaco on Monday June 08, @08:54AM
Black Hole Swallows Star Posted by CmdrTaco on Monday June 08, @09:38AM
And Taco posted both of them. Getting old, Taco?
The scientists gave a number of possible interpretations. The journalist who wrote the article, or his editor, picked the most interesting-sounding explanation for the thrust of the article.
I think anyone familiar with Slashdot summaries should be aware of this distinction.