Slashdot Mirror
Supermassive Black Holes Can Abort Star Formation
cremeglace writes "Astrophysicists have found that when a supermassive black hole quickly devours gas and dust, it can generate enough radiation to abort all the embryonic stars in the surrounding galaxy. It's not clear what this means for life's ability to take hold in such a bleak environment, but the research shows that the process might have determined the fates of many of the large galaxies in the universe."
Is this even more effective than punching, stairs, or a coat hanger?
This reminds me of Larry Niven's short story "At the Core" (collected in Crashlander ) where an expedition to the galactic core finds that the density of stars in the area causes a chain of supernovas, whose radiation will eventually sweep over the outskirts of the galaxy and destroy life on Earth. Now that galactic cores are somewhat better understood, what's the current idea of how our neighbourhood could be affected by events in the center?
How long before Palin comes out against this? I am guessing it would go a little something like: 'Now the 'liberal elites' want us to think that God performs abortions?!'. Then she will follow up with various sentence fragments taken from a 'quote of the day' calendar.
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
As if we needed any more proof that black holes suck.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Who rated this +1 Insightful? WTF?
It's not clear what this means for life's ability to take hold in such a bleak environment
Really?
I think "Supermassive Black Hole" in fact turned Muse into huge stars. Wait, isn't that what you're talking about?
Seems pretty clear to me. No stars, ..no supernova's, ..no condensed matter, ..no planets, ..no life as we know it. Short of some kind of bizarre plasma based lifeforms you could not expect to find ET. I think I will stay out of that part of the Universe just the same.
Poor NASA. Now they're going to lose even more funding as Republicans and pro-life Democrats lobby to prevent NASA from using federal funds to investigate such phenomenon in the future.
That's the worst song on that album!
I struggled for days and days and all I got was this lousy sig.
> It's not clear what this means for life's ability to take hold in such a bleak environment..."
Please...who said anything about expecting life to 'take hold'...?
James Bond: Do you expect me to talk?
Auric Goldfinger: No, Mr. Bond. I expect you to die.
Pro light?
For once, the Slashdot post is better than the original article.
The cessation of star-making is not the same as the cessation of life. It might be good for life. It might be bad. All we really know right now is that this has not happened to the Milky Way galaxy, so we have a sample of one where it did not occur.
The other thing missing in the original article is that galaxies are active things, and can and frequently do "eat" other galaxies - which brings new gas into the galaxy, and thus could restart star making (or make the black hole active again, or both).
Here is an astrophysics prediction : this galaxies will have a high Mass to Light ratio, since gas and dust will be expelled, but not dark matter.
What sort of timescale are we looking at for such a galaxy to exhaust it's stars and become invisible to us? Could the void out there be full of "dark galaxies" that burned out fast and early and have no remaining active stars or are the supermassive galaxies being studies represent the first generation of such things to arise, presumably lingering on for many, many billions of years, dimming slowly as only the longest-lived stars remain?
No
There's more than one song on the album?
--- Do you believe in the day?
Who rated this +1 Insightful? WTF?
I dunno. Maybe Deepak Chopra has a slashdot account?
Are there any conflicts with the Einstein Field Equations as this would suggest?
Why do you think there would be conflicts, the article says no such thing?
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
Perhaps my understanding of physics is lax, but in what way does this suggest conflicting evidence towards the field equations any more than what we already know about singularity type constructs? We already know that the field equations break down when dealing with the infinities inside black holes, but as far as large amounts of cosmic radiation ripping apart the galaxy forming elemental seeds on the macroscale, I don't see the discontinuity (pun intended) with the field equations. What statement gave you the impression of 'suggested conflicts'? Any astrophysicist care to clarify? IMO, this supports the field equations in that the energies imparted the 'seed clouds' create explosive chaotic forces larger than their internal gravitational attraction, hence the 'ripping apart' that we observe; with energy of this radiation being a byproduct from the mass gobbled up by the black hole.
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
Doubtful, however this probably would allow for some guess at bounding values for several parts of the Drake Equation values*. Not only for star formation but the lack of star formation would mean less high elements which would mean less planets capable of supporting life (ie rocky planets). The lack of supernova also influences later star formation IIRC as the supernova shockwaves help jump start the next generation of star formation as well as provide elements higher than helium.
*ya, ya, the Drake Equation is for our galaxy but we can apply it to other galaxies also.
> a supermassive black hole quickly devours gas and dust, it can generate enough
> radiation to abort all the embryonic stars in the surrounding galaxy. It's not
> clear what this means for life's ability to take hold in such a bleak environment,
For life that can exist in space without matter (gas, dust, stars, etc.) but with a large dose of radiation, it wouldn't mean much at all. Except that life is made of matter and thus it would get sucked in too.
I would imagine that a supermassive black hole "can" do anything it wants. Let's see you try to stop it, you silly baryonic, self-organizing, endothermic, negentropic bipeds.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
We are spending way too much energy on stuff that is happening millions of light years away , how much is this costing us the tax payer to fund these discoveries that we can do without, seriously, have we come close to ending famine or curing cancer....i think those are the top 2 priorities, i understand we need to up to date to continue our moon missions and all, but what is happening so far away about these blackholes seems a bit to miss the point , no?