Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA Announces Discovery of 30-Year-Old Black Hole

Posted by Soulskill on from the give-or-take-50-million-years dept.

broknstrngz tips news of an announcement today from NASA about the discovery of a black hole in the M100 galaxy, roughly 50 million light-years from Earth. The discovery is notable because, if confirmed, it's now the youngest known black hole, born from the remains of a supernova we observed in 1979. Bad Astronomer Phil Plait explains why scientists think it collapsed to a black hole, rather than a neutron star: "The way a neutron star emits X-rays is different than that of a black hole. As a neutron star cools, the X-ray emission will fade. However, a black hole blasts out X-rays as material falls in; that stuff forms a flat disk, called an accretion disk, around the black hole. As this matter falls onto the newly created black hole, it gets heated to unimaginable temperatures — millions of degrees — and blasts out X-rays. In that case, the X-rays emitted would be steady over time. What astronomers have found is that the X-rays from SN1979c have been steady in brightness over observations from 1995 – 2007. This is very strong evidence that the star’s core did indeed collapse into a black hole." He also warns that we're not certain quite yet, and we'll have to keep our eye on it to make sure it's not a pulsar.

195 comments

  1. Because everyone else will say it too... by richdun · · Score: 1, Informative

    It's not a 30 year old black hole unless it's merely 30 LY from us... and I'm pretty sure we'd have (not?) seen / felt it by now if that were the case.

    1. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      The Earth is a black hole, you insensitive clod!

    2. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not that hard to figure out. We're looking at what a 30-year old black hole looks like, regardless of how long it took that light to get here.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    3. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by lennier · · Score: 2

      But a "50,000,030 year old black hole" doesn't have quite the same ring.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    4. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by blueg3 · · Score: 5, Informative

      From our point in space, it is 30 years old.

      But, more to the point, what we're observing now is a 30-year-old black hole. It's just that over where the black hole is, it's no longer 30 years old. That's not particularly relevant to us on Earth.

    5. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Black hole? what about a white hole you racist GNAA honkey!

    6. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by hoshino · · Score: 1

      It is 50 million and 30 years old. Problem solved. You can check my workings.

    7. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I modded you informative so that nobody else has to make this stupid pedantic comment. It is implied that what we are observing is the light from a 30 year old object that traveled for 50 million years. Spelling out every trivial detail is annoying. I'm going to mod down everyone else that makes a post to the effect of "guh huh, well technically it's 50,000,030 years old" or something equally stupid.

    8. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by AuMatar · · Score: -1, Troll

      No, it's 50,000,030 years old no matter where you are. The measurable effects only just hit Earth 30 years ago. But the fact that it's only now observable from this particular point in space now doesn't make it any less old. Nor does the fact it actually happened 50,000,030 years ago make the data any less valuable.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    9. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by Fluffeh · · Score: 1, Redundant

      It's not that hard to figure out. We're looking at what a 30-year old black hole looks like, regardless of how long it took that light to get here.

      Yeah, totally agree. Can even remove the actual age of the object by saying:
      We are looking at the birth and first thirty years of data after the black hole formed.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    10. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by Kohath · · Score: 1

      It's not that hard to figure out. We're looking at what a 30-year old black hole looks like, regardless of how long it took that light to get here.

      But since it's a black hole, that means the light is actually going the other way, from here to there.

      And the most important thing to know in these situations: stop digging.

    11. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by MightyMartian · · Score: 0, Redundant

      It's 50,000,030 years old now, but what we're observing is a 30 year old black hole.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    12. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      And so you should, because they are wrong. We would have to be 50,000,030 years in the future to observe that black hole at the age of 50,000,030. Not only are they being pedantic, but they're also just plain wrong.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    13. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by ksatyr · · Score: 1

      Err... Happy Birthday?

    14. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by MadnessASAP · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It all depends on your frame of reference doesn't it, and in the absence of an absolute universal reference I shall accept earths as a reasonable and practical substitute. And seeing as from earth that black hole is 30 years old thats the age I'll accept, anything else is pointless pedantry.

      --
      I may agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to face the consequences of saying it.
    15. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by Cyberax · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "No, it's 50,000,030 years old no matter where you are."

      Uhm. I'm moving at 0.8c. It looks very much like 25000015 years old to me.

      Are you suggesting that there's a global frame of reference?

    16. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      No, it's 50,000,030 years old no matter where you are

      And this is where you failed modern physics.

    17. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by guyminuslife · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I thought the whole point of relativity was that it's not just observation that's limited by the finite and constant speed of light in a vacuum, it's that time itself is relative based on relative velocity and acceleration. E.g., we might well be seeing a 50,000,029 year old black hole, based on the way that time passes over there relative to us.

      I also was under the impression that time slows down to a crawl within a black hole. (Some sci-fi I read once, aliens cooped themselves up in one to not have to deal with the rest of the universe.) So if you're going by how the black hole feels about time, depending on the coefficient there, we might be looking at a black hole that's only a couple of weeks old.

      --
      I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
    18. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by guyminuslife · · Score: 1

      Any astrophysicists around?

      --
      I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
    19. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's all relative anyway.

    20. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When people say "Honkey," I don't think they realize that white people laugh our asses off when we hear it. It's kind of silly, and like the reverse of a racial slur, insofar as it just shows ignorance, and (in my observations at least) reinforces stereotypes.

    21. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not an astrophysicist but I can tell you that what you are thinking is correct:

        Special relativity showed that there is really no such thing as "simultaneity" and so you cannot claim this black hole was created simultaneously to some event on the Earth 50 million years ago. For all intents and purposes it really did happen 30 years ago.

      In addition, someone traveling at .99c would say its only 7 million LY away and it collapsed 4 years ago instead of 30.

    22. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      time slows down approaching the event horizon, where it stops completely (which is why it's called the "event" horizon). time has no meaning beyond the event horizon.

    23. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by Surt · · Score: 1, Troll

      There's an obvious universal frame of reference: measure everything relative to the place where the big bang happened. Your choice of axes is somewhat arbitrary, though.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    24. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by Surt · · Score: 1

      Indeed, the black hole is actually zero years old, not 30, and not 50M+30.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    25. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Except that the Big Bang happened everywhere simultaneously. There is no "place" where it happened.

    26. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by xigxag · · Score: 1

      Maybe you were kidding but, "the place where the big bang happened" is located in the past, and everywhere on the expanding bubble of the spacetime manifold that is our observable universe is equidistant from it. So you can't point to the big bang -- any point could arbitrarily be the center of the universe.

      --
      There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
    27. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by bertok · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There's an obvious universal frame of reference: measure everything relative to the place where the big bang happened. Your choice of axes is somewhat arbitrary, though.

      This is a common misunderstanding of the big bang theory.

      There is no center. It didn't start at a "location". The entire universe is evenly expanding, from everywhere.

      They common analogy is to reduce the 3D space of the universe to a 2D example. Imagine two points on the 2D surface of a balloon. One point is you ("the observer"), the other point is something distant, like a star, that you are observing. Now inflate the balloon. The result is that the two points move apart, because space (the rubber of the balloon) is expanding. A line drawn between the two points would be longer and longer. Note that neither point is "special". Both points observe the same symmetric effect: the other point moving away.

      The real universe is a lot like this, except instead of a 2D surface expanding, it's a 3D volume expanding. There's no "center", all of the points move away from each other. From the point of view of each observer, they are the center.

      More accurately speaking, each observer is the center of their own private spherical "observable" universe expanding away from them. The center of the universe is your own head. 8)

    28. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      There's an obvious universal frame of reference: measure everything relative to the place where the big bang happened.

      The big bang happened right here, for any value of "here".

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    29. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by FrootLoops · · Score: 1

      Try hanging a picture relative to such a frame of reference. You'd say "I measured it and the holes should be exactly 3 inches apart but they won't fit!" because of distance contraction. The grandparent just meant there's no preferred inertial reference frame inasmuch as the speed of light is the same in all of them. They didn't mean there was no reasonable frame, such as (approximately) the one we're in right now.

    30. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're talking about selecting a center to the position coordinate system. You're right that the big bang was "everywhere" so it can't be used to designate an origin to space coordinates.

      However, the cosmic microwave background has some reference frame in which it is motionless. There's nothing intrinsically special about this reference frame, since indeed everything is relative, but it's still a reasonable choice for "the reference frame of the big bang". If you wanted to pick just one reference frame as a standard, it would be a good one to use.

    31. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      It's 50 million years old over in the point in space where it's located, but it's only 30 years old over in the point in space where we're located.

    32. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by turbidostato · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "Are you suggesting that there's a global frame of reference?"

      No, but he could argue that there's in fact a *privileged* frame of reference with regards of age: the one centered on the object to be dated.

    33. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up. Now I know why I shouldn't run with scissors.

    34. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "I also was under the impression that time slows down to a crawl within a black hole."

      It really doesn't matter since the energy we are seeing comes from the outside of the black hole, it's not emited by the black hole itself (it is black, after all). On the other hand, it perfectly can be the case that Relativity simply doesn't work for black holes (so Relativity, both special and general are wrong/incomplete theories).

    35. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so...they were right many hundreds of years ago when they thought the earth was the center of the universe...

      i am being serious here.

    36. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by leonardluen · · Score: 1

      wouldn't the more important and more useful "privileged" frame of reference (to us) be the one that we are viewing it from?

      all the data we are receiving from this object is showing us what how it appeared 30 years after birth. so for all our purposes it is 30 years old. we can't see how it looks at 50 million years of age unless we wait 50 million more years, or learn how to break the speed of light barrier.

      another issue, from our perspective we know that it happened in 1979, so we know that from our perspective it happened exactly 31 years ago. however do we know for sure that it is exactly 50million light years away? or is it 49.431 light years away? or is it really 51.192 light years away? the measure of how far away it is, is only an estimate. but we know the exact date it happened in 1979.

      so saying it is 31 years old and is approximately 50million light years away would be the most accurate method of measuring its age. any intelligent person would realize it really happened a rough estimate of 50million years ago but they know the light reached us exactly 31 years ago.

    37. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by jc42 · · Score: 1

      ... seeing as from earth that black hole is 30 years old thats the age I'll accept, anything else is pointless pedantry.

      Ah, but to a lot of us, pointless pedantry can be a lot of fun.

      (I figured that was a better way to express it than "Whoosh!" ;-)

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    38. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you can argue about using the cosmic background radiation as a frame of reference.

    39. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by Thing+1 · · Score: 3, Funny

      He could argue, and argue and argue, that there really is a *privileged* frame of reference with regards of age; but, I'm not letting my daughter ("the object to be dated") out of sight of my shotgun.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    40. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by flyingkillerrobots · · Score: 1

      I knew it! The Earth is the center of the universe!

      --
      "It is a good thing for an uneducated man to read books of quotations..." -Winston Churchill
    41. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by bertok · · Score: 1

      so...they were right many hundreds of years ago when they thought the earth was the center of the universe...

      i am being serious here.

      It's not! Your own head is, not "the Earth", unless your head is at the center of the Earth!

      An interesting metaphysical concept is that if you define the universe as the "observable universe" around an "observer", then it's still not 100% clear where there "center" is, because the human brain is not a mathematical point, it is an extended object! That is, there's a distinct "observable universe" around each infinitesimal point in your brain, but your brain has a large volume of those with a significant distance between them. This may have deep connections to quantum mechanics and the many-worlds theorem. For example, it implies that we observe a some sort of "combination" of a small volume of nearby universes, because our stream of consciousness is physically spread across them.

    42. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We would have to be 50,000,030 years in the future to observe that black hole at the age of 50,000,030.

      To be pedantic, we would only have to be 50,000,000 years in the future, not 50,000,030 years.

    43. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by chidorex · · Score: 1

      Except that the Big Bang happened everywhere simultaneously. There is no "place" where it happened.

      Exactly what I was going to say, probably less eloquently ;-)

      --
      "On a long enough timeline. The survival rate for everyone drops to zero." - Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club
    44. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

      Read it. Understand it. Galileo understood this principle almost 400 years ago. It's about time you understood it too.

    45. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hello, this is the Universe Simulator SYSOP. All subsystems are now up and running. Thank you for your patience during the scheduled maintenance. Restart process started Nov 18 20010 14:32:54:00 and took 34.7893569 seconds to complete. A black hole of 53,000,000 years old was installed to improve system stability during maintenance.

    46. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by prionic6 · · Score: 1

      Does that mean that the ends of the universe are connected to each other? So if the universe is small enough, we could see the same objects multiple times, from Light that went around a few times? Maybe there is only one Galaxy, ours.

      That is religion starting material. I claim copyright.

    47. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except now they DO think it might just be a 2D surface expanding.

    48. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by robertinventor · · Score: 1

      Yes, the frame in which the 3K background radiation has no dipole moment due to motion through the background.
      It's a Global Local frame to coin a word.

      The frame is defined locally, then to get a global frame you have to stitch together local frames for each point in the universe. No single global frame, but a globally defined time line so e.g. you can say what the age is of any point in the universe and give every event in the universe an absolute time since the big bang, to within the limits of accuracy of measurement of the dipole moment.
      But for distances of 50 million light years pretty much the same frame of reference for both points, to first approximation can just use the local frame with dipole moment vanishing in either location.

    49. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by sempir · · Score: 1

      So I am the centre of the universe,,,,,fucking A1!

      --
      A closed mouth gathers no foot.
    50. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      Exactly. It is, and forever will be, something that's about to become a black hole. Unless you happen to fall into it. In that case, as your watch joins the local reference frame, the black hole will actually form (from your point of view) and suck you in. Outsiders will just see you approaching the thing-that's-almost-a-black-hole, and your watch slowing to an imperceptible crawl, freezing you in time.

    51. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by qc_dk · · Score: 1

      Exactly. It is, and forever will be, something that's about to become a black hole. Unless you happen to fall into it. In that case, as your watch joins the local reference frame, the black hole will actually form (from your point of view) and suck you in. Outsiders will just see you approaching the thing-that's-almost-a-black-hole, and your watch slowing to an imperceptible crawl, freezing you in time.

      But then what happens when the black hole evaporates through hawking radiation and the event horizon disappears?

    52. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by dilvish_the_damned · · Score: 1

      This is a common misunderstanding of the big bang theory.

      There is no center. It didn't start at a "location". The entire universe is evenly expanding, from everywhere.

      If it has edges, it has a center. Hell, if its finite it has a center. Oh wait, did you do shrooms?

      --
      I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
    53. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by michelcolman · · Score: 2, Informative

      But then what happens when the black hole evaporates through hawking radiation and the event horizon disappears?

      That will only happen after the black hole has fully formed and matter has stopped falling into it. Which, in our reference frame, is never. It only ever evaporates in local time.

    54. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      Uhm. I'm moving at 0.8c. It looks very

      0.8c relative to what?

    55. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by PeterBrett · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If it has edges, it has a center. Hell, if its finite it has a center. Oh wait, did you do shrooms?

      A common (probably simplified) model for the universe is a 3-sphere (i.e. the set of points equidistant from a single point in 4 dimensions). A more familiar 2-sphere (e.g. a basketball) is the set of points equidistant from a single point in 3 dimensions. Imagine that you were a being that can only perceive 2 spatial dimensions. You would perceive a sphere as being a world in which you could travel in a straight line in any direction, and you would return to your starting point (i.e. either any point is the centre, or none of them are -- you can't visit the "real" centre). Similarly, we are beings who can only perceive 3 spatial dimensions. If the universe is a 3-sphere, then we could travel in a straight line away from Sol in any direction, and we would eventually return here. The universe may well have a geometric centre, but we can't visit it.

      The expanding universe can be modelled by increasing the radius of a 3-sphere with time. At t = 0, the whole universe occupies a infinitesmal point in 4D space. As the universe "inflates", the "area" of the 3-sphere's "surface" increases (or, if you like, the 3D volume of the universe increases). This volume increase occurs evenly and at the same rate at all points in space.

      The GP is entirely correct. You need to engage your brain.

      --
      Pirate Party UK
    56. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by PeterBrett · · Score: 2, Informative

      But then what happens when the black hole evaporates through hawking radiation and the event horizon disappears?

      That will only happen after the black hole has fully formed and matter has stopped falling into it. Which, in our reference frame, is never. It only ever evaporates in local time.

      The physics of cosmological singularities: breaking your brain since 1915.

      --
      Pirate Party UK
    57. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by millennial · · Score: 1

      ... No. It's the same age everywhere. It's the *light* that's been reaching Earth for 30 years, not the object itself.

      --
      I am scientifically inaccurate.
    58. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fuck you crackah

    59. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Time is pretty meaningless when you're talking about black holes. The closer you get to the thing, the slower time goes. The only frame of reference in regards to time that has any meaning is ours, observing it.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    60. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by bobbuck · · Score: 1

      Give it a rest Zaphod!

    61. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Relative to whatever is making that whooshing sound.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    62. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      The physics of cosmological singularities: breaking your brain since 1915

      My brain didn't exist in 1915! </pedant>

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    63. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by shentino · · Score: 1

      We would need to see the edge of the universe to pinpoint its center.

    64. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by shentino · · Score: 1

      The black hole is large enough that it swallows more matter than it burns in radiation.

      Think of it as a fat slob too tubby to exercise.

    65. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, actually cos the actual formation of a black hole's event horizon takes infinite time for any observer outside the event horizon, what we're actually looking at is an external observer's view of a body that is 30 years into the infinitely long process of forming a black hole.

      You wanna see a black hole? Well, you have to fall into it first :)

      Or maybe it's just a neutron star.

    66. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by hedpe2003 · · Score: 1

      "A little learning is a dang'rous thing;
      Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
      There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
      And drinking largely sobers us again. "
      Pierian Spring

      It's so easy to know a little about science (as well as anything) and think you know it all, isn't it? Don't let 'just enough knowledge to feel satisfied' be equivalent to 'feeling the need to correct someone'

      --
      Comprehensive solutions via a competition of ideas like no other.
    67. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      You are scientifically inaccurate, yes.

      There is no absolute clock. For a particular event, there is no defined point in time where all points in space agree on when the event occured. A separation in space is also a separation in time.

    68. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1

      Well, maybe not in your time frame of reference.... =P

      --
      Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
    69. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by Surt · · Score: 1

      Sorry, completely irrelevant to my suggestion, try reading and understanding it yourself.

      Hint, just because the frame can render in-frame measurement irrelevant doesn't mean we can't agree on a universal frame of reference. For example, we could decide that alpha centauri is the universally agreed upon fixed frame, and measure all velocities relative to that. In fact Galilean invariance GUARANTEES that we can do just that.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    70. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by Surt · · Score: 1

      Troll? Go get 'em metamods. I'd love to know how a logical argument relevant to the conversation qualifies as a troll.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    71. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by Surt · · Score: 1

      I'd say we could measure the motion of the mass of the universe, and pick the centrum.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    72. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're seriously fucking stupid. The star was 50 million light years away when it became a black hole, and we observed that 30 years ago. The light that we saw had been travelling for 50 million years. Hence, it is 50,000,030 years old. You have no fucking idea how relativity works.

    73. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by Surt · · Score: 1

      The big bang created a non-infinite amount of mass and momentum. Average either one, and select the center as the universal center of reference.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    74. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by Surt · · Score: 1

      This is a common misunderstanding of inflation.

      The big bang created a non-infinite amount of matter and momentum. As a result, there is a centrum of both mass and momentum.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    75. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't understand... since u are closer to the black hole, the light should travel faster to your place.
      e.g.
      there is a 0 year old new born star
      I'm 50m light years away from it
      and u are 25m light years away

      the light that you are watching right now is 25m year ago and the star should be 25m years old in your place
      and for me the light is 50m year ago and it should be 0 year old

      but we could do some calculation, for u that is 25 m(light travel) + 25 m(what it's look like now in your place) = the star is now actually 50 years old
      and for me it is 50m(light travel) + 0m(what it's look like now in my place) = 50 years old?

      so I don't understand why such difference will occur?

    76. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by qc_dk · · Score: 1

      But then what happens when the black hole evaporates through hawking radiation and the event horizon disappears?

      That will only happen after the black hole has fully formed and matter has stopped falling into it.

      What does that even mean? There is no such thing as a fully formed black hole. The evaporation can happen while matter is still falling into the black hole. The net evaporation just have to be more than zero.

      Which, in our reference frame, is never. It only ever evaporates in local time.

      Of course it will disappear in our frame of reference. Otherwise the black hole would violate all the conservation laws and the laws of thermodynamics, because we would see the evaporation products, and also still see the black hole. This cannot be allowed or else the basis for Einsteins theory of relativity is wrong(the basis is that the laws of physics are the same in all frames of reference) and the very basis for believing in black holes would be gone.

    77. Re:Because everyone else will say it too... by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      I would say the black hole is "fully formed" when the event horizon appears. But that never happens in our reference frame. The last bit of matter required for an event horizon, will take forever to fall in. Time around the black hole, as observed from our reference frame, appears to come to a standstill (asymptotically)

      The net evaporation of the black hole will only start when Hawking evaporation is more than the amount of matter falling in. In local time at the black hole, this will happen as soon as the hole has cleaned up its surroundings and sucked in all there is to suck. But in our reference frame, it will take an infinite amount of time before this happens.

  2. It was 30 years old, 50 million years ago. by fbartho · · Score: -1, Redundant

    It was 30 years old, 50 million years ago. I guess the claim re: young black hole is more due to the age apparent in the images we're capturing now, then the actual age of the black hole.

    --
    Gravity Sucks
    1. Re:It was 30 years old, 50 million years ago. by Kjella · · Score: 4, Funny

      We use the European version of "discover", it's new when it's new to us :)

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    2. Re:It was 30 years old, 50 million years ago. by olsmeister · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Of course. Unless you have some magical way of getting those images to us or us to the black hole faster than the speed of light, for all intents and purposes it is 30 years old, as viewed from our frame of reference.

    3. Re:It was 30 years old, 50 million years ago. by tpstigers · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course. Unless you have some magical way of getting those images to us or us to the black hole faster than the speed of light, for all intents and purposes it is 30 years old, as viewed from our frame of reference.

      What a typically anthropocentric way of looking at the universe.

    4. Re:It was 30 years old, 50 million years ago. by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      There is no such thing as 'actual age' or 'actual time interval' It is all frame dependent. In our frame, the black hole has existed for thirty years.

    5. Re:It was 30 years old, 50 million years ago. by fbartho · · Score: 2

      Why does *our frame* matter so? If we posit that it is in a galaxy 50 million light-years away, we can conceive of the frame of reference that contains both, no? We know it took 50 million + 30 years for the light beam and its information to reach us. To me that's a pretty definitive age. Should I not think of things that way?

      --
      Gravity Sucks
    6. Re:It was 30 years old, 50 million years ago. by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why does *our frame* matter so?

      Because it's the one we're observing it from. In a Relativistic universe, everything is relative to a frame of reference and you can't actually say anything about when things happen or their age outside of the context of a specific frame of reference.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    7. Re:It was 30 years old, 50 million years ago. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for clearing that up to us, completely stupid slashdotters, Einstein.

    8. Re:It was 30 years old, 50 million years ago. by Surt · · Score: 1

      Why not prefer the frame of reference of the hole itself, where the age is zero?

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    9. Re:It was 30 years old, 50 million years ago. by Amorymeltzer · · Score: 1

      Why does *our frame*

      Think of it like an old picture or video. Sure, the home video may be of you as a 2 year old, but the fact that you're significantly older now won't change the video.

      --
      I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
    10. Re:It was 30 years old, 50 million years ago. by hardburn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not at all. It's relativity. No frame of reference is special, but it's easier to talk about things within our own frame of reference for practicality's sake. It's only anthropocentric in the sense that we can't observe things in a reference frame other than our own.

      There are astrophysics professors who insist on the idea that if the light cone hasn't hit us yet, then it hasn't happened. No matter if you agree or not, it definitely makes sentence construction easier.

      --
      Not a typewriter
    11. Re:It was 30 years old, 50 million years ago. by t2t10 · · Score: 1

      Why does *our frame* matter so?

      It matters to us. In this case, we are interested in what happens to a black hole right after formation, so we're interested in black holes that are 30 years old in our frame of reference.

      We know it took 50 million + 30 years for the light beam and its information to reach us.

      That's still a statement relative to our frame.

    12. Re:It was 30 years old, 50 million years ago. by fbartho · · Score: 1

      That's still a statement relative to our frame.

      That was how I visualized it. The age (relative to our frame) was not 30 years, the age was 30 years + our estimate as to the distance of the ex-star from us.

      --
      Gravity Sucks
    13. Re:It was 30 years old, 50 million years ago. by jc42 · · Score: 1

      What a typically anthropocentric way of looking at the universe.

      Ah, but the anthropocentric frame of reference is as good as any other.

      And it's handy, so we might as well use it, until another frame of reference comes along that we like better.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    14. Re:It was 30 years old, 50 million years ago. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, so in our frame of reference it still happened 50 million + 30 years ago.

    15. Re:It was 30 years old, 50 million years ago. by dsanfte · · Score: 1

      No, it didn't.

      --
      occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
    16. Re:It was 30 years old, 50 million years ago. by moozoo · · Score: 1

      When the first light of the collapse hit us was when the collapse 50 million years ago became reality. Prior to that the future of its past was a superposition of possible states.

    17. Re:It was 30 years old, 50 million years ago. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We use the European version of "discover", it's new when it's new to us :)

      This isn't unusual... sometimes a "new work" is discovered that was created by a composer/writer/poet that's been dead for centuries.

      That's why copyright should be extended to 1,000 years! (ducks)

    18. Re:It was 30 years old, 50 million years ago. by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Why not prefer the frame of reference of the hole itself, where the age is zero?

      Actually, isn't the hole's rest frame the one where it is the oldest, since it's spending all its motion in time direction rather than space direction? Or, in other words, it's the only frame where time dilation doesn't slow the rate of time for the hole.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    19. Re:It was 30 years old, 50 million years ago. by zwarte+piet · · Score: 1

      To my frame of reference it didn't happen at all.

    20. Re:It was 30 years old, 50 million years ago. by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      The supernova did, yes. Well, roughly, if you consider that it was observed 30 years ago (actually... 31?) and assume it's "exactly" 50 million light years away, which of course it isn't.

    21. Re:It was 30 years old, 50 million years ago. by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Why does *our frame* matter so?

      Because I'm the center of the fucking universe - I post on /.!

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    22. Re:It was 30 years old, 50 million years ago. by t2t10 · · Score: 1

      Why prefer your relative statement to the one made in the article? We're interested in observing 30 year old black holes, hence the way of describing things in the article is a good one.

    23. Re:It was 30 years old, 50 million years ago. by fbartho · · Score: 1

      The relative statement in the article "age = 30 years" tells us less than "age = 30 years + 50million years travel time" -- effectively you need a second separate statement to get the same information. I guess I just preferred the information about the distance to be more local to the information about the age. I had to search to know if there was a chance humans would ever see it. It seems like 50million light years is just so far that it's unlikely something recognizable as humans will ever get to this black hole.

      --
      Gravity Sucks
  3. This sounds... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    This sounds like the setup to an epic "Yo Mamma" joke. I almost don't want to read the article just because I know it won't be...

    1. Re:This sounds... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like this?

      "Yo Mammo is so black her asshole looks like a black hole" ;-)

      Posting as anon for obv. reasons...

    2. Re:This sounds... by zwarte+piet · · Score: 1

      No, her hole is so black......ow,. never mind....

  4. Old News by negatonium · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    Not to be pedantic but if the star is 50 million light years away then the "new" black hole is really 50,000,030 years old. Not exactly "news".

    1. Re:Old News by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1

      No, it's 30 years old, it's just 30 years old to us.

      Remember what the Big E said about time being relative to the observer, y'know.

      --
      Weaselmancer
      rediculous.
    2. Re:Old News by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      The news is that we are observing a 30 years old black hole. If you been all your life surrounded by old people, seeing for first a photo of someone of 30 years old could be news for you, even it was a very old photo.

    3. Re:Old News by Goaway · · Score: 1

      You are not pendantic, no, you are just wrong. There is no such thing as simultaneity, and you can not make an absolute statement of the age of the black hole. It will be between 30 years and 100 million plus 30 years, depending on your reference frame. It is pointless to bicker about it.

    4. Re:Old News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember what the Big E said about time being relative to the observer, y'know.

      I don't actually remember the Big E saying anything about relativity, but I do recall that he said stuff like "Elmo feels really ticklish in here! Hahahaha!"

  5. Don't you mean this instead? by Weaselmancer · · Score: 2, Informative

    He also warns that... we're not certain... quite yet, and... we'll have to keep... our eye on it to... make sure it's not a... pulsar.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  6. Relativity of Simultaneity by tylersoze · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To all the inevitable pedantic responses about it not "really" happening 30 years old, I'll be even more pedantic. :) Relativity of Simultaneity, look it up. It's absolutely meaningless to talk of the temporal ordering of space-like separated events. In some suitable reference frame, it "really" did happen 30 years ago.

    1. Re:Relativity of Simultaneity by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      Well, it would figure that most of the comments on Slashdot would be criticizing TFA and at the same time getting relativity wrong by reasoning as if there is some absolute clock.

    2. Re:Relativity of Simultaneity by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      Since you're splitting hairs, I will as well. You're taking the Newtonian physics point of view. General relativity would dictate that, relative to our reference frame, the black hole is, in fact, 30 years old. If, for example, aliens were to build a wormhole at that star at the current time (from our point of view) 30 years after the black hole was created, and then traveled here carrying the other end of the wormhole at the speed of light, and it were possible for us to traverse this wormhole, we'd arrive at the star/black hole 30years after it was created. Of course, traversing a wormhole is impossible, but since we're splitting hairs...

    3. Re:Relativity of Simultaneity by Ksevio · · Score: 2, Funny

      Obviously it's not 30 years old if we observed its creation in 1979, that would make it 31.

    4. Re:Relativity of Simultaneity by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Basically, we can only calculate based on our own local observations and infer "real time" in theory - at best. However, I'm perfectly fine with saying it happened 50 millions some odd years ago rather than the delay of an event propagating through space toward us as the frame of reference.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    5. Re:Relativity of Simultaneity by noidentity · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why not sidestep all that and say that they discovered that they can currently see images of a 30-year-old black hole? Whether it's happening live or is a stream from millions of years ago is irrelevant for their study.

    6. Re:Relativity of Simultaneity by tylersoze · · Score: 1

      More fun with simultaneity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda_paradox

    7. Re:Relativity of Simultaneity by khallow · · Score: 2, Funny

      Of course, traversing a wormhole is impossible, but since we're splitting hairs...

      Citation please.

    8. Re:Relativity of Simultaneity by bcrowell · · Score: 3, Informative

      To all the inevitable pedantic responses about it not "really" happening 30 years old, I'll be even more pedantic. :) Relativity of Simultaneity, look it up. It's absolutely meaningless to talk of the temporal ordering of space-like separated events. In some suitable reference frame, it "really" did happen 30 years ago.

      You've got that somewhat garbled. The relevant events would be (A) a photon is emitted from the star, and (B) that photon arrives here on earth. The relationship between A and B is lightlike, not spacelike. Since they are lightlike relative to one another, they do have a well-defined temporal ordering; there is no frame of reference in which B preceded A, or in which A and B are simultaneous. Your final sentence, however, is correct.

      --
      Find free books.
    9. Re:Relativity of Simultaneity by flowwolf · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Holes_and_Time_Warps Cited. The only theories that describe traversable wormholes must involve 'exotic' matter. AKA matter with impossible properties.

    10. Re:Relativity of Simultaneity by flowwolf · · Score: 1

      Society already is in the habit of calling delayed broadcasts live. Anything you see on tv that is called a Live Broadcast actually has quite a bit of latency involved in the signal. I would say in the norm of 3 seconds. Ever since the superbowl nipple shinanigans I believe they've increased this artificially for many big events.

    11. Re:Relativity of Simultaneity by Surt · · Score: 1

      You forgot the air-quotes around 'impossible'.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    12. Re:Relativity of Simultaneity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      You forgot the 9 months it takes to develop in the womb.
      We start counting age from birth, not creation.

      Having not read the article (of course), I'm assuming that the 9 months would place birth into 1980 to make the black hole 30 years old.
      If not, then this message is just nonsensical BS.~

      Side note: does anyone else find it creepy and voyeuristic that scientists are being paid to watch supernovæ 'mum & pop personal time?'
      Perverts, the lot of them!

    13. Re:Relativity of Simultaneity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would say it is 50 million and 30 years old?... If what you describe were true you could create matter just by looking at it from a different distance. Energy is neither created or destroyed on transformed. E=MC^2. And yes I did read the damn book and understood it.

    14. Re:Relativity of Simultaneity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF, every single post youve made in this topic is pedantic.. do you practice or something?

    15. Re:Relativity of Simultaneity by oldhack · · Score: 1

      After you hit 30, it's all a blur. Let's not split hairs here.

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    16. Re:Relativity of Simultaneity by prionic6 · · Score: 1

      Actually, 50000031 years.

    17. Re:Relativity of Simultaneity by marqs · · Score: 1

      And it's 50 million light years away so make the age 50 000 031 years old

    18. Re:Relativity of Simultaneity by this+great+guy · · Score: 1

      So, instead you turned all the comments to pedantic responses about relativity of simultaneity.

      See what you did?

    19. Re:Relativity of Simultaneity by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      When it comes to the universe as a whole, "impossible" has a permeating flavour of "we just haven't seen it yet".

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    20. Re:Relativity of Simultaneity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we could travel to this black hole at the speed of light, it would take 5 million years to get there, and the black hole would be 10 million + 30 years old. Both in the reference the traveler and the hole(stuff around the hole). The age of the traveler is another matter.:)

      10-5=5

      If it is 30y ears old "now" you would expect it to be 5 million + 30 years old when you get there.

    21. Re:Relativity of Simultaneity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, if the aliens would travel here at the speed of light they would get here in 50 milion years, right?

      And then, if we would travel through the wormhole to the black hole wouldn't it be 50.000.030 years old? Plus the actual time it takes to travel through the worm hole, which isn't necessary 0.

    22. Re:Relativity of Simultaneity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That' s exactly where general relativity seems to fail - it abrogates simultaneity.

      However, if you take advanced quantum gravity then simultaneity is restored.

      See; String quintessence and the formulation of advanced qunatum gravity. Physics Essays 22: 364-377

    23. Re:Relativity of Simultaneity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From our points of view, the sun revolves around the earth. It's absolutely meaningless to talk of the spatial ordering of space-like separated objects.

    24. Re:Relativity of Simultaneity by notaspy · · Score: 1

      "there is no frame of reference in which B preceded A, or in which A and B are simultaneous."

      From the photon's point of view they are simultaneous.

      --
      hi!
    25. Re:Relativity of Simultaneity by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1

      Practice makes perfect.

      --
      Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
    26. Re:Relativity of Simultaneity by Surt · · Score: 1

      No, this is pedantic:
      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pedantic

      My post to which you responded was not.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    27. Re:Relativity of Simultaneity by bcrowell · · Score: 1

      >From the photon's point of view they are simultaneous.

      Here's a FAQ I wrote about that. The short answer is that there is no frame of reference that coincides with the motion of a photon.

      FAQ: What does the world look like in a frame of reference moving at the speed of light?

      This question has a long and honorable history. As a young student, Einstein tried to imagine what an electromagnetic wave would look like from the point of view of a motorcyclist riding alongside it. But we now know, thanks to Einstein himself, that it really doesn't make sense to talk about such observers.

      The most straightforward argument is based on the positivist idea that concepts only mean something if you can define how to measure them operationally. If we accept this philosophical stance (which is by no means compatible with every concept we ever discuss in physics), then we need to be able to physically realize this frame in terms of an observer and measuring devices. But we can't. It would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate Einstein and his motorcycle to the speed of light.

      Since arguments from positivism can often kill off perfectly interesting and reasonable concepts, we might ask whether there are other reasons not to allow such frames. There are. One of the most basic geometrical ideas is intersection. In relativity, we expect that even if different observers disagree about many things, they agree about intersections of world-lines. Either the particles collided or they didn't. The arrow either hit the bull's-eye or it didn't. So although general relativity is far more permissive than Newtonian mechanics about changes of coordinates, there is a restriction that they should be smooth, one-to-one functions. If there was something like a Lorentz transformation for v=c, it wouldn't be one-to-one, so it wouldn't be mathematically compatible with the structure of relativity. (An easy way to see that it can't be one-to-one is that the length contraction would reduce a finite distance to a point.)

      What if a system of interacting, massless particles was conscious, and could make observations? The argument given in the preceding paragraph proves that this isn't possible, but let's be more explicit. There are two possibilities. The velocity V of the system's center of mass either moves at c, or it doesn't. If V=c, then all the particles are moving along parallel lines, and therefore they aren't interacting, can't perform computations, and can't be conscious. (This is also consistent with the fact that the proper time s of a particle moving at c is constant, ds=0.) If V is less than c, then the observer's frame of reference isn't moving at c. Either way, we don't get an observer moving at c.

      --
      Find free books.
  7. Accretion DIsks ? by mbone · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Neutron Stars can have accretion disks too. (LSI 31 303 is supposed to have one, for example.)

    So I am not sure I see why that is determinative. Off to read the article.

    1. Re:Accretion DIsks ? by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > Neutron Stars can have accretion disks too.

      Yes, but I don't think that they would emit large amounts of X-rays.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    2. Re:Accretion DIsks ? by mbone · · Score: 1

      The press release didn't say that, but that it was the decay with time that was determinative. I don't see it, but I suspect that there are some missing pieces in the paper, but not the press release, that fill in the gaps.

  8. "Keeping an eye on it" by durkzilla · · Score: 1

    Ok, so what if it IS a pulsar? Don't leave me hanging like that, you know I'm too lazy to read the article.

    1. Re:"Keeping an eye on it" by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Informative

      If it's a pulsar, it's a neutron star; degenerate matter, but matter still, and not a black hole.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:"Keeping an eye on it" by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      If it's a pulsar, it's a neutron star; degenerate matter,

      Geeze. Judgmental anyone?

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    3. Re:"Keeping an eye on it" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it's a pulsar, it's a neutron star; degenerate matter, but matter still, and not a black hole.

      How do you know a black hole isn't matter?

    4. Re:"Keeping an eye on it" by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      Because it is below the schwartzchild radius. This means that the electro-strong and electro-weak forces become impotent, and normal matter interaction becomes impossible. What results is an "object" of infinite density, but finite mass. Hence, "Singularity."

      Neutron star matter is just a teeny weenie bit above this critical limit, and still has enough charge force to prevent gravitational collapse. It is the most dense material in the universe that is still recognizable as matter.

  9. Slow news day? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Redundant

    That news is 50000030 years old

  10. Here's the better news by hackingbear · · Score: 0

    Being a black hole, this one is obviously a female at a still attractive age!

    1. Re:Here's the better news by GreyLurk · · Score: 2, Funny

      Would that be a BHILF?

  11. Obviously, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Redundant

    It's 50000030 years old.

  12. Bad Astronomy? by starless · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm not sure the Bad Astronomer understands this properly... an accretion disk could certainly form around a neutron star as well...

    1. Re:Bad Astronomy? by by+(1706743) · · Score: 1

      an accretion disk could certainly form around a neutron star as well...

      I feel as if yo mamma jokes are imminent...

    2. Re:Bad Astronomy? by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      ...an accretion disk could certainly form around a neutron star as well...

      Phil Plait didn't say it couldn't. Link

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    3. Re:Bad Astronomy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, just like an accretion disk can form around an uncollapsed star or even a brown dwarf. The difference is in the emission spectrum (and intensity) of the inner part of the accretion disk, in particular there will be a lot more high energy photons from a black hole than from a neutron star. There is a reason that the astrophysical unit "crab" exists, and few objects even reach millicrabs.

    4. Re:Bad Astronomy? by starless · · Score: 1

      Nonsense, there are many accreting neutron star X-ray binaries that are extremely bright. The brightest X-ray source in the sky is Sco X-1 which contains a neutron star. If anything, black hole systems often have softer (lower energy) spectra than neutron star X-ray binaries. Though there are certainly spectral differences. Unfortunately Dr. Bad Astronomer didn't seem to completely grasp what is going on. (Not completely his fault, there are many specialized sub-fields of astronomy. But perhaps he should have consulted with a real expert.)

    5. Re:Bad Astronomy? by dmartin · · Score: 3, Informative

      It is correct to say that an accretion disk can form around a neutron star as well.

      The distinguishing characteristic is that a neutron star bigger than its Schwarzschild radius. Not just a little bit bigger, but at least 11% bigger [see the Buchdahl-Bondi limit; this a theoretical limit for any perfect fluid spheres -- actual neutron stars don't come close to saturating that bound]. This means that the accretion of charged particles that is spiraling inward will eventually hit the surface, stopping the charged particles very rapidly. The radiation from suddenly stopping charged particles (Bremsstrahlung) is fairly distinctive, and is not seen here.

      By contrast, an accretion disk around a black hole loses energy and eventually passes through the horizon. There is no sudden breaking and hence no Bremsstrahlung radiation It is the accretion disk and the lack of Bremsstrahlung that convinces us that the most likely candidate is a black hole.

      [The reason the size limit was important is that as you get close to the horizon, redshifting makes things harder to see anyway. The point of the Buchdahl-Bondi theorem is that any perfect fluid sphere has to be about 11% bigger than the size of a black hole of equivalent mass. This limits the total redshift due to the object to a modest factor of 2, ensuring for a large class of matter (including neutron stars and all known matter to date) that the collision with the surface if it existed would be visible. This does not prevent unknown matter with exotic properties having s surface that is beyond the event horizon but close enough in the we would not see the Bremsstrahlung radition, but it is very difficult to construct "reasonable" solutions.]

    6. Re:Bad Astronomy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoops and I should have read my own posting more carefully before submitting.

      If you swap "a lot more" for "a lot fewer" then the reference to the crab pulsar (and millicrabs) makes a lot more sense.

      It's not too hard to understand influences like gravitational redshifting and compton scattering (or ICS and pair production) in the immediate vicinity of an object much denser than a neutron star.

  13. obligatory jokes by Tumbleweed · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    1) I'm pretty sure The Black Hole came out in 1979, so this story is a year old. Way to go, Slashdot editors!

    2) That's overstating things a bit about Duke Nuke 'Em Forever.

    3) Another story about the Hurd?

    Please, please, no applause; just throw money. I'll be here all week...

    1. Re:obligatory jokes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it was just one of the NASA scientists commenting he'd found a 30 year old black ho, but one thing led to another...

  14. Naw.... by The+Living+Fractal · · Score: 2, Funny

    I know of a younger one. It actually just happened. Sorry though, the light from the supernova won't be here for 50,000,000 years. Go ahead, prove me wrong! ;p

    --
    I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
    1. Re:Naw.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just traveled into the past 50,000,000 years to call you a liar!

    2. Re:Naw.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nopethere was nothing happening.
      I didn't feel any divergence of The Force.

    3. Re:Naw.... by turbidostato · · Score: 0, Troll

      "I know of a younger one. It actually just happened. Sorry though, the light from the supernova won't be here for 50,000,000 years. Go ahead, prove me wrong! ;p"

      OK, ok, I'll do it. If only you first tell me how did you get to know about your new black hole so I can corroborate your findings. If not, I'll simply think you were lying.

      (This exactly why those telling this black hole is in fact 50.000.030 year old are not even wrong but making an unsensical claim).

    4. Re:Naw.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was there, it's not actually a black hole, we just painted a white hole black.

    5. Re:Naw.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doing the math, or referencing a List will surely be the easiest method to prove you wrong (or possibly correct).

  15. Fifty Million and Thirty years old by johnrpenner · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    if it is '50 million light-years from Earth' - then it must be something that happened at least fifty-million years ago - talk about old news - not even slashdot repeats news that's *that* old... ;-P

    1. Re:Fifty Million and Thirty years old by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      Escept that as someone else noted if you were moving toward it at .8c it would only be 25 million light years away.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    2. Re:Fifty Million and Thirty years old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you were moving toward it at .8c it would be only 25 million light years in that frame of reference, but since we are looking at it from our frame of reference in which it is 50 million light years away then from our frame of reference it is still 50 million years old and we happen to have the opportunity to observe what it looked like at a mere 30 years from 50 million years ago.

  16. Relate to this! by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 2, Informative

    I don't know much about the Universe, but I am certain about one thing: There isn't a person alive who understands it . The people who feel a sense of superiority by deluding themselves into think they do are among some of this Space-Time's most strikingly hilarious examples of irony.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    1. Re:Relate to this! by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      I feel superior because I know enough about it to know I don't understand it. How's that work for your irony meter? :)

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    2. Re:Relate to this! by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      "I feel superior because I know enough about it to know I don't understand it. How's that work for your irony meter? :)"

      I don't find it ironic at all. Our knowledge is greater for that very reason. The fact that you equate greater knowledge with superiority as a human being might be ironic in most places, but it is to be expected on Slashdot. ;-)br%

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    3. Re:Relate to this! by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      Nobody who really understands science thinks they understand the Universe, but they know that they understand it in a measurably better way than others.

    4. Re:Relate to this! by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      They don't know any such thing. Most likely, they understand and can communicate Maya in a mutually delusional way (The distinction between consciousness and physical matter, between mind and body (refer bodymind), is the result of an unenlightened perspective.)

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  17. Stop with all the 50,000,030 stuff! by glowworm · · Score: 1

    Let's just leave it as "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away..." and trust that what we can "see" now is how it looked when it was/is 30 years old.

    --
    Orationem pulchram non habens, scribo ista linea in lingua Latina
  18. Witnessing the birth of a blackhole by fatp · · Score: 1

    Does any observatory around the world keep the record (radiation of different frequencies..., etc) around that portion of the sky? If the signal was strong enough, we will be able to witness the birth of a blackhole!

  19. black hole? neutron star? by mug+funky · · Score: 1

    FTA:
    "the press releases by NASA make it seem a lot more certain this is a black hole, but I think that’s premature; beware of news article making the same claim"

    it seems to me though, that a pulsar would not be giving a continuous x-ray level, but, maybe, pulses?

    still cool either way.

    1. Re:black hole? neutron star? by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      You don't see any pulses from a pulsar unless you are in the plane of the beam.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    2. Re:black hole? neutron star? by gumbi+west · · Score: 1

      or the x-rays hit something else that reflects them back to you... but it would have to be something within 30 light years of the (potential) pulsar. That sphere keeps expanding...

  20. In Soviet Russia... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    ...BHLFY.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  21. The inevitable geek-off by trippyd · · Score: 1

    You know why I love topics like this one? The inevitable Slash-Dot geek off. This is how I learn about a lot of subjects, like here, I don't know astronomy too well, but I know SD has the people with the skills. The trolls are just comic relief.

  22. Younger than me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh! God, an celestial body younger than me!!.

  23. Rather weak reporting... by Seismologist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As this matter falls onto the newly created black hole, it gets heated to unimaginable temperatures — millions of degrees— and blasts out X-rays

    Translation: The temperature is so high, it is somehow unimaginable using numbers. But since you are reading on, let me just pull a totally random number out of my ass and say a million degrees... wait no.. make it a millions, as in more than 1 million, which makes my claim sound sorta vague and not precise but makes it nevertheless appear I know what I'm talking about. That should cover the unimaginable bit of it. Besides, its not like you're going to check anyways so fuck it, lets and some em dashes for extra emphasis for no other reason other than because its really "HOT". I mean wow, can you imagine a place this hot? I'm just siting here in my office, thinking to myself, geeze this black hole stuff is not the usual environment I'm used to, most likely because I would have been obliterated and spit out as really "HOT" x-rays... there, you see where I'm coming from? HOT!

    --
    ~ In Trust, We Trust ~
    1. Re:Rather weak reporting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      He means "unimaginable" in terms of "you probably have 0 frame of reference for what this temperature is". Stop being a pedantic twat.

  24. Nothing to See Here by Greyfox · · Score: 1

    It's just a sigsegv in the physics processing engine. How long will it take for the core dump to arrive so we can analyze it and fix the code? We probably just need to increase SINGLEPOINT_MAX_MASS from a long to an unsigned long long...

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  25. The Beam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't see any pulses from a pulsar unless you are in the plane of the beam.

    And make sure you are not too close or the first pulse will also be the last...

  26. Not a black hole just yet by michelcolman · · Score: 1

    Actually, it's not really a black hole yet. Not even now, 50 million years after the supernova. At least not in the reference frames that most of us are using. As the collapsing star gets more and more dense, its enormous gravity will warp space-time so that local time effectively comes to an asymptotic standstill from our point of view. This thing is, and forever will be, something that's about to become a black hole. Unless you fall into it, of course. Then your watch will join the local reference frame and you will find yourself falling into an actual black hole that has just formed. But any outsiders would only see you approaching the thing, slowing down, and your watch coming to pretty much a standstill.

    Of course, for all intents and purposes, the thing will very much resemble a black hole and might as well be considered to be one. It might not have an actual event horizon yet (and never will, from our point of view), but any light trying to escape would take such an enormously long time and be redshifted by such an enormous amount, we might as well say nothing can escape

  27. age by xushi · · Score: 0

    Don't they mean approx 50 million and 30 years old?

  28. URANUS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lol

  29. Absolute frame of reference by mangu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Actually, there exists a well defined frame of reference with respect to velocity. In rotation this is pretty obvious, since rotation with respect to the absolute frame causes centrifugal forces to appear.

    Constant linear movement is not so easy to measure, but there's the background radiation dipole that can be measured and defines an absolute velocity with respect to the universe.

    We cannot define one point as an absolute origin, but we can define one state as being "standing still" with respect to the absolute origin, both in rotation and in translation.

    1. Re:Absolute frame of reference by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Actually, there exists a well defined frame of reference with respect to velocity. In rotation this is pretty obvious, since rotation with respect to the absolute frame causes centrifugal forces to appear.

      You don't need an absolute reference frame for that.

      Constant linear movement is not so easy to measure, but there's the background radiation dipole that can be measured and defines an absolute velocity with respect to the universe.

      The CMBR dipole makes a convenient measuring stick for comparing the velocities of objects, but that is still not an 'absolute' reference frame or an absolute velocity. The ordering of events according to a reference frame that is not moving against the CMBR is no more "absolute" than the ordering of events according to any other reference frame.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  30. Happy Birthday! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Happy birthday! If you remember the 20s, you weren't there!

  31. Calling people names by paxcoder · · Score: 1

    Bad Astronomer Phil Plait

    I don't know this fellow, but you've said it once too many times. And if he's such a bad astronomer, then why are you posting his *persumptions* as *true*? Could it be that you're a different kind of hole? Respect people.

  32. Re: by suckhoenct · · Score: 1

    this is the first time I heard about this information. Really interesting!

  33. uh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it's 50 million light years away, then it's 50,000,030 years old.