Slashdot Mirror
Black Holes May Mature Early In Galaxy Evolution
masterwit writes "From Scientific American: 'An accidental find in a star-forming dwarf galaxy shows that black holes may mature early in galaxy evolution.' Also, 'if giant black holes in star-forming dwarf galaxies prove to be common — that is, if Henize 2-10 is not an outlier but a representative of a larger population — they may have much to tell about the formation of primordial black holes and galaxies in the early universe.'"
I think any red-blooded male can confirm that this is obvious common knowledge. They keep maturing earlier and earlier. Hell, have you seen them lately? You think they're all 18 or even 22 millennia until that awkward moment when you make your move and find out they're really only 15 millenia. I say it's the chemicals they're subjected to in the modern cosmos.
The first time astronomers found a supermassive blackhole at the center of a galaxy they decided to check the results against a typical quiet galaxy and found the same thing. The observations continued and it became clear pretty quickly that blackholes in galaxies were common. So common in fact, that I am unaware of a galaxy that didn't have one. The mass of the supermassive blackhole strongly correlates with the mass of the galaxy. A typical galaxy is about 200 times the mass of its supermassive blackhole which suggests a link between supermassive blackhole formation and the creation of galaxies. Whether they act as seeds for a galaxy to form in the first place or are the inevitable result isn't yet clear.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
This likely will not affect us in any immediate fashion outside our continued pursuit of knowledge of the universe... but on another note:
Barbie dress up games
Looks like you need to clean up your computer and online browsing settings! (Unless you meant to post that link following your comment)
We should start a new Slashdot and return control to the geeks. It actually wouldn't be that hard to get some users to
n/t
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Something to keep in mind next time the Intergalactic Real Estate agent tweets about "PRISTINE oceanfront property in young galaxy, fun neighborhood!"
big black holes = gravitational mass? = maybe account for missing mass we thought of as 'dark matter'? Just curious... this is awesome [if it's not outlier of course].
No. Galaxies aren't just black hole accretion disks.
The influence of the black hole is strong only at the very center tiny fraction of a percent (by either volume or mass) of the galaxy. So much so that we only found them a few decades ago.
You may as well ask if the solar system were just your own personal accretion disk.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
You're either trolling or deluded. There is plenty of observational evidence for black holes. See the center of our galaxy. While it is true that relativity and QCD/QED have not been reconciled, and the Standard Model is incomplete at best, they are the best models we have to date.
Science is about forming a testable hypothesis, testing it, and looking at the data. If your hypothesis was wrong, admit it and move on to the next thing. Infinite densities are only forbidden in the sense that they don't fit nicely in the models framework, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the model should be shelved. What you are suggesting is throwing away the experimentalists evidence for black holes because it doesn't fit perfectly with our contrived explanations. You're doing it wrong.
Since relativity and bending of light due to space-time curvature has been experimentally confirmed, meaning light's path can be 'changed' in the sense that we view it (it turns out that the light never really 'curves', but instead it follows a straight line in a curved space, but its all relative, right?), what would you call an area of mass so dense in which light could not escape?
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
And I recommend you actually deal with what the majority of cosmologists and physicists actually talk about. I know you probably think yourself quite hip by accepting a contrary view, and doubtless contrary views are important, but being contrary just so you can feel yourself superior is the sign of stupidity.
We have a theory that predicts what we ought to detect from a black hole. We have multiple cosmological sources that match that description. Alternative explanations have other serious issues, so, the weight of the evidence is towards the existence of black hole. Beyond that, Einsteinian physics, being classical in nature, will naturally have a number of singularities, which is why we seek to unite classical physics with quantum mechanics, and not simply declare that at every point that classical physics fails that that amounts to "that's impossible!"
This idea of yours that physics is proscriptive, as opposed to descriptive, suggests to me that you are pretty much a scientific illiterate.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
They keep maturing earlier and earlier.
Actually, you are getting older and older...
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
Barbie dress up games
Looks like you need to clean up your computer and online browsing settings! (Unless you meant to post that link following your comment)
That was probably one of the manual-labor spam factories that seem to be sprouting like weeds recently -- they pay people to register on a forum, read the forum, and post comments (with spam links, of course) that make just enough sense to attract real readers' attention.
On the one hand, I guess it means that spam-detecting tech has advanced far enough that it's no longer very profitable to send out machine-generated spam. On the other hand, this makes it harder for us humans to tell the difference. (But then again, xkcd has a point too.)
Well, keep in mind, we still can't fully explain galactic rotation curves with GR. It's entirely possible that supermassive black holes have more influence on the galaxy than current theories give them credit for. This is the stuff science is made of!
Well um no. That isn't what's observed. What's observed is the very nearest stars whipping around the supermassive black hole at blistering speeds and no discernable influence further out. Dark matter and galactic rotation curves just don't come into it. Unless your particular brand of MOND is so loopy that things get weaker then stronger again some how. It's just not what we're seeing.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
I'll point out that humans thought the solar system WAS our own personal accretion disk until only the last few hundred years. For the lulz.
The first stars were gigantic, anything that size supernova's very quickly and becomes a blackhole. So more blackholes would have been produced in the early universe in comparison to now...am I missing something that is new science here?
but being contrary just so you can feel yourself superior is the sign of stupidity
NUH-UH!
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
being contrary just so you can feel yourself superior is the sign of stupidity.
I beg to diff-
Uhm, never mind.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
there is no observational evidence for a black hole occuring in nature.
Actually we observe stars near the center of our galaxy moving at high speed in small orbits. We can calculate the mass and maximum size of whatever it is that they're orbiting, and it sure comes out sounding like a supermassive black hole.
You're welcome to offer an alternative explanation.
...that the point mass singularity...
I'm as ignorant on this topic as you are, but I suspect that when we finally unify gravity with the other forces we'll see that the collapse isn't total... Pauli Exclusion Principle, kind of thing.
And there are other notions - created by actual physicists - alread out there. E.g., fuzzballs.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
"Infinite densities are only forbidden in the sense that they don't fit nicely in the models framework, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the model should be shelved."
More to the point, one shouldn't mistake the mathematics for the physics. Just because a mathematical model indicates infinite density does in no way imply it need exist physically. For that to happen, the mathematics would have to completely describe the physical situation. It might, but we cannot ever know that. All we can do is claim consistency up to a certain epsilon of measurement.
I'll point out that humans thought the universe WAS our own personal accretion disk until only the last few hundred years. For the lulz.
FIFY.
More to the point, one shouldn't mistake the mathematics for the physics.
OTOH, one should remember that any consistent description of the physics is inherently mathematical. And if you get close enough in your mathematical description, you're going to be accurately describing physical phenomena.
I found the website hilarious and evidence that MightyMartian's post should be modded +5 insightful. Funny stuff.
We should start a new Slashdot and return control to the geeks. It actually wouldn't be that hard to get some users to
Physics is inherently mathematical. The Phenomenon is only accurately described by physics if two things happen.
1. The phenomenon can be completely treated as subject to physics (Prove that, if you can - prove that formal science can answer all questions about the phenomenon, in advance of actually finding those answers). 2. Someone coined the right math. A fundamentally wrong theory could generate solutions that look closer to accurately describing a phenomenon than a prior theory, but stlll not be the right theory.*.
You used the phrase "physical phenomena". That's begging your question, like saying the law is just and then replacing it with the claim that the law is correct in all legal matters. Of course, if the phenomenon is 'physical', it's described by physics, that's semantically redundant. That doesn't mean that being able to apply some math to it makes it physical - Or the corollary would be that until we get some accurate math on it, we can't claim the phenomenon is physical!
Personally, I'll be happy to proceed from the axiom that there is an objective external reality that is physical, and the other axiom that a black hole can eventually be fully described by physics, and your third axiom that physics is mathematical. But, one reasons from axioms, not to them...
* For a good example, Dark ages tapestries and such often show arrows as following a simple upwards angle until their momentum is spent, then turning down to follow a reflective angle to their targets. You can replace this with the same math that describes catenary curves on a flat earth and get a curve that strongly resembles an arrow's. At any given point, that math will be a pretty good descriptor of the position and velocity vector of the arrow. Never-the-less, the real arrow's path is fundamentally a parabola (the Earth is not flat!). Shoot a projectile fast enough in some directions and that caternary solution becomes wildly wrong. Did our math really get closer when it gave us better data for a select subset of the phenomina but also tricked theoreticians into thinking that same math would work over the whole possible range of ballistics, and made a misleading 'proof' the Earth was flat that has since been quoted by nutcase cults? (Or should we avoid using words such as 'closer' or phrases such as 'close enough' without specifying in what sense?)
Who is John Cabal?
you don't need infinite densities for black holes. In fact as the mass goes up, the density goes down. A Finite density object with a radius smaller than the event horizon radius is a black hole and is indistinguishable from a more dense object since the event horizon radius will be the same if the mass is the same.
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
The influence of the black hole is strong only at the very center tiny fraction of a percent (by either volume or mass) of the galaxy.
In other words, the black hole has direct influence over a small fraction of the galaxy.
You may as well ask if the solar system were just your own personal accretion disk.
Are you sure it's not like asking the soldiers on the battlefield if they report the the Field Marshall?
the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
Agreed. There is no known mechanism for supporting a mass of finite density that is so high from collapsing into a singularity, but that doesn't mean that such a mechanism doesn't exist. Clearly the central areas of a black hole fall into masses and volumes that are not adequately explained by our current theories - we probably need quantum gravity for this. For all we know space/mass/etc are quantized and a black hole just turns into some kind of crystal with as much packed into the smallest volume physically possible, just as electrons in an atom settle into well-described wavefunctions/etc.
All we know about black holes is that our laws of physics break down beyond the event horizon, and that we are unable to make observations beyond this region as well. Chances are that any explanation of what happens inside will come from studying other things as a result. The whole holographic distribution of information business suggests that even watching a black hole fully decay over time won't really reveal any information about what happened inside - the interior of a black hole might as well be another universe entirely. Indeed, if you define the universe as the set of all things that can be observed, then the event horizon marks of the border of a new universe by definition.
Chicken or Egg, any one?
What?
I thought this was the expected result.
Throw a bunch of matter about, and gravity will make quick work of it. The areas of slightly higher concentration will quickly converge. Only the bits that are relatively balanced between several large points of gravity will avoid assimilation for a while.
Essentially, given a nearly uniform distribution of matter, the more massive an object is, the older it tends to be.
It makes sense that black holes, as a class of objects, tend to be older than stars, planetoids, etc. because objects that are more massive are the result of more (cumulative) collisions. Early collisions, in a nearly-even playing field of cosmic dust, are more significant (with regards to gravity and increasing the rate at which other objects are pulled in) than later collisions.
This is like watching 1940's porn, knowing damn well that what you are seeing is only an image of what grandmother nature looked like long ago!
Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
Damn goatse trolls are getting high tech!
URL
http://tinyurl.com/33t2lpc
Effective URL
http://goatse.fr/
Redirections
1.http://tinyurl.com/33t2lpc
2.http://ow.ly/3yjew
3.http://bit.ly/eBHZpv
4.http://ow.ly/3yj9k
5.http://goatse.fr
So Dark (Middle?) Ages tapestries are illustrating Cartoon Physics?
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
The influence of the black hole is strong only at the very center tiny fraction of a percent (by either volume or mass) of the galaxy.
In other words, the black hole has direct influence over a small fraction of the galaxy.
You may as well ask if the solar system were just your own personal accretion disk.
Are you sure it's not like asking the soldiers on the battlefield if they report the the Field Marshall?
You're missing the point entirely. Influence decreases as the square of the distance. There is no cascade effect here. In this case the field marshal and the soliders are 10000 light years apart.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Common knowledge? Have you personally seen one - not that "seeing" would even be possible? When an infinity appears in physics equations, the reason is always that we reached the limits of their applicability. We certainly know that there is a whole lot of stuff in small space. It's arrogant to claim we know all the details of it's condition.