Supermassive Black Holes Not So Big After All

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Supermassive Black Holes Not So Big After All

Posted by CmdrTaco on Thursday February 17, 2011 @03:18AM from the puck-will-be-disappointed dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Supermassive black holes are between 2 and 10 times less massive than previously thought, according to new calculations published by German astrophysicists (abstract)."

110 of 153 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

but but by Dyinobal · 2011-02-17 03:19 · Score: 3, Funny

but they are still super massive right? If not that totally ruins most of my celestial bodies jokes.
1. Re:but but by somersault · 2011-02-17 03:26 · Score: 2
  
  it's cold in space
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
2. Re:but but by mangu · 2011-02-17 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  but they are still super massive right? If not that totally ruins most of my celestial bodies jokes.
  Not all of them, only the "yo momma so fat" jokes. The Uranus jokes are still in effect.
3. Re:but but by whitedsepdivine · 2011-02-17 03:30 · Score: 1
  
  It will only effect geeks that tell and receive insults, because they are the only ones that will be able to reference this.
  
  So to all the people that don't read Slashdot : "Yo momma is so fat. If she gained another pound, she would collapse in on herself and become a black hole."
4. Re:but but by alphatel · 2011-02-17 03:30 · Score: 1
  
  but they are still super massive right? If not that totally ruins most of my celestial bodies jokes.
  The downgrade to UltraClumpy should preserve your astronomical punch lines.
  
  --
  When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
5. Re:but but by Nyder · 2011-02-17 03:30 · Score: 2
  
  but they are still super massive right? If not that totally ruins most of my celestial bodies jokes.
  They like to call themselves "big boned".
  
  --
  Be seeing you...
6. Re:but but by kencurry · 2011-02-17 03:56 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  It will only effect geeks that tell and receive insults, because they are the only ones that will be able to reference this. So to all the people that don't read Slashdot : "Yo momma is so fat. If she gained another pound, she would collapse in on herself and become a black hole."
  and then became uranus...
  
  --
  sigs are for losers (except to point out that sigs are for losers)
7. Re:but but by AstroMatt · 2011-02-17 04:38 · Score: 1
  
  Does this broad line region make my butt look massive?
8. Re:but but by funaho · 2011-02-17 04:53 · Score: 2
  
  Yo mamma's so fat, her event horizon IS the horizon!
9. Re:but but by amRadioHed · 2011-02-17 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  You need some jargon in there to make it a real geek insult. How about "Yo momma's so fat the next Big Mac she picks up will increase her mass beyond the Chandrasekhar limit", then you could score some bonus points by throwing in something about electron degeneracy pressure.
  
  --
  We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
10. Re:but but by lul_wat · 2011-02-17 09:30 · Score: 1
  
  Your momma so fat, the escape velocity at her surface exceeds 3*10^8 m/s
  
  --
  Divide a cake by zero. Is it still a cake?
11. Re:but but by funaho · 2011-02-17 09:37 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Your momma's so fat the only thing keeping her upright is electron degeneracy pressure!
12. Re:but but by RockDoctor · 2011-02-18 01:01 · Score: 1
  
  Rearranged :
  
  So to all the people that don't read Slashdot :
  
  Errr, "null" ?
  
  It will only effect geeks that tell and receive insults, because they are the only ones that will be able to reference this.
  While it may or may not be true that "most geeks receive insults", it is also very likely true that most geeks don't notice many of the insults they receive. [grammar-nazi]"affect" here, not "effect"[/grammar-nazi]
  
  "Yo momma is so fat. If she gained another pound, she would collapse in on herself and become a black hole."
  Apart from being literally impossible, and allowing for literary hyperbole, is this an insult? Surely the person delivering this so-called insult is simply showing the paucity of his imagination and his weakness in the cutting invective stakes. Pathetic.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Sheesh! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-17 03:27 · Score: 5, Funny

You mean, they're only hundreds of millions to a billion times the mass of the sun, not several billion times the mass of the sun? Sheesh! Talk about phoning it in! Wake me up when they're serious about being 'super massive'!
1. Re:Sheesh! by grimJester · 2011-02-17 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  They are still millions to billions times the mass of the sun, dividing by 2-10 doesn't make that much difference.
2. Re:Sheesh! by ooshna · 2011-02-17 05:17 · Score: 2
  
  Whoosh
Math? by LocutusMIT · 2011-02-17 03:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

How can something be X-times less massive than something else? I can understand half as massive, or 1/10 as massive, but two to ten times less massive doesn't make any mathematical sense for a result that must be a positive number.
1. Re:Math? by ArcherB · 2011-02-17 03:33 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  How can something be X-times less massive than something else? I can understand half as massive, or 1/10 as massive, but two to ten times less massive doesn't make any mathematical sense for a result that must be a positive number.
  I agree. That pet peeve ranks right up there with "I could care less".
  Like nails on a chalkboard.
  
  --
  There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
2. Re:Math? by mangu · 2011-02-17 03:33 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  How can something be X-times less massive than something else? I can understand half as massive, or 1/10 as massive, but two to ten times less massive doesn't make any mathematical sense for a result that must be a positive number.
  Don't worry, it's only you. Everybody else understood perfectly that they are now estimated to be between 10% and 50% of the former estimate. Or can you imagine any other reasonable interpretation for that?
3. Re:Math? by msauve · 2011-02-17 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  Because "between 2 and 10 divide less massive" doesn't sound right.
  
  --
  "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
4. Re:Math? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-17 03:37 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  "2 * less" == (x * -1 * -1);
  "10 * less" == (x * -1 * -1 * -1 * -1 * -1 * -1 * -1 * -1 * -1 * -1).
  Is my guess.
5. Re:Math? by Xiph1980 · 2011-02-17 03:38 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  two times less massive: 1/2 * m
  ten times less massive: 1/10 * m
  
  Really, if you want to make it in the world out there, you've gotta get off of your high pedestal, and accept that the scientific world is only a small percentage of the "regular folk" out there. Theoretically, you're right, but practically, noone cares about theory so you're screwed.
  
  --
  Manuals are your last resort only
6. Re:Math? by Ephemeriis · 2011-02-17 03:39 · Score: 2
  
  x^-2
  
  --
  "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
7. Re:Math? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-17 03:50 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  The pattern "x as massive" isn't the same as the pattern "x times less massive". You understand the first pattern. Now you need to learn the second pattern.
8. Re:Math? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-17 03:51 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Personally, I'm also bothered when I hear "5 times more". Is it 6 times as much or 5 times as much?
9. Re:Math? by atrain728 · 2011-02-17 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  It's only unreasonable given the context. Mathematics is a precise language and so too should be our semantics when describing mathematics. Ambiguity is added for journalistic flare, but it is in reality what is unreasonable, not the interpretation.
10. Re:Math? by ArhcAngel · 2011-02-17 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  Or blood is thicker than water.
  I mean come on! if your gonna use a meme at least use it right.
  
  --
  "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
11. Re:Math? by nedlohs · 2011-02-17 03:53 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Welcome to the English language, you will notice that it is not actually a branch of Mathematics.
12. Re:Math? by The+Grim+Reefer2 · 2011-02-17 03:54 · Score: 2
  
  I agree. That pet peeve ranks right up there with "I could care less".
  Like nails on a chalkboard.
  The phrase is "I couldn't care less". Indicating that I care so little for something that no matter what you tell me it's not going to make the subject any more insignificant. "I could care less" indicates that I care enough that my feelings on the matter could be swayed to become more apathetic than they currently are. Obviously there's a big difference, though I do hear an awful lot of people misstating it as you have posted.
13. Re:Math? by Trepidity · 2011-02-17 03:57 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It's not even uncommon language in science, though maybe you'd be more precise when writing a paper. In this context, "times" is understood as colloquial shorthand for "by a factor of", and factors can be either multiplied or divided, depending on whether it's "greater" or "less" by that factor.
  The translation from "two times less massive" to "less massive by a factor of two" is pretty straightforward and easily understood...
  
  --
  10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
14. Re:Math? by Galestar · 2011-02-17 04:04 · Score: 1
  
  *WOOSH*
  
  --
  AccountKiller
15. Re:Math? by The+Grim+Reefer2 · 2011-02-17 04:11 · Score: 1
  
  *WOOSH*
  Perhaps, but in all honesty I hear that phrase misquoted more often than used correctly.
16. Re:Math? by N0Man74 · 2011-02-17 04:13 · Score: 1
  
  Fucking Multiplicative inverses.... how do they work?
17. Re:Math? by MozeeToby · 2011-02-17 04:18 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The 'ambiguity' is a standard phrasing that has been part of the language for more than 100 years. Language is not math, language is not 100% logical. This argument is equivelent to yelling at someone for saying that they're "as hungry as a horse" because they are incapable of eating as much as a typical horse. It's a stupid and pedantic argument that tries to apply strict logic and mathematical rules to a system (language) that does not follow them.
18. Re:Math? by mangu · 2011-02-17 04:19 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  The translation from "two times less massive" to "less massive by a factor of two" is pretty straightforward and easily understood...
  The real problem happens in the opposite direction. A star that's 200% as massive as the sun is smaller than one that's 150% more massive than the sun, but many people will give the wrong answer if asked.
19. Re:Math? by ILMTitan · 2011-02-17 04:23 · Score: 1
  
  Or, "I could care less" means I care so little, I could care less about this than anything else I'm supposed to care about.
20. Re:Math? by Mr_Huber · 2011-02-17 04:26 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  It's also a difficulty with language. In physics, mass and weight are two separate concepts. We have comparison words for weight: heavier and lighter. But we do not necessarily have the same comparison words for mass. So we're stuck with the English default construct of more massive and less massive. Sure, we could use lighter in this context and hope everyone understands we really are discussing the concept of mass, not gravitational attractive force to the local big rock, but most physicists dislike that imprecision.
21. Re:Math? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-17 04:36 · Score: 1
  
  The expression "five times smaller" gets nearly 1M hits on Google, you have quite an uphill battle! In fact you might want to reconsider whether you're wrong instead of the world.
22. Re:Math? by SpeZek · 2011-02-17 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  It definitely went right over your head, but I see you could care less.
23. Re:Math? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-17 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  You confuse the adverb “less” with the preposition “less”. The adverb “less” means “to smaller extent” or “in lower degree”. The sense of “subtraction” applies only to the preposition (“gross income less expenditure equals net income”).
  This usage of “less” is symmetrical with that of “more”, except for the less/fewer distinction. Observe:
  You have two dollars. I have two more dollars than you. I have two times more wealth than you. I have two times more dollars than you.
  You have four dollars. I have two fewer dollars than you. I have two times less wealth than you. I have two times fewer dollars than you.
24. Re:Math? by ScentCone · 2011-02-17 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  Don't worry, it's only you.
  No, it's not. It's a ridiculous way to express things like that, and it's actually misleading. To say that something is ten times less massive means that you consider the thing to which it's being compared to already be not very massive (compared to what?). That leaves a bunch of implications dangling open and unanswered. Saying it's "a tenth the size" is far more appropriate, and doesn't imply anything about the larger item to which you're comparing it. If you mean to say that the ten-times-larger thing isn't very big either, then be specific.
  
  It's not that we don't get that the smaller thing is a tenth the size. It's that nobody can infer anything useful from the suggestion that the original is already small. Is it? When you say "A is ten times smaller than B," what you're really saying is "B is small, and A is even smaller." What is the meaning of B's smallness in this context? Why add extra, distracting words that convey nothing but which imply meaning at which you can only guess?
  
  No, the GP isn't the only one who doesn't like this, and anyone with an interest in useful communication should feel the same way.
  
  --
  Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
25. Re:Math? by RealGrouchy · 2011-02-17 05:46 · Score: 1
  
  Since the "whoosh" didn't explain it clearly enough: That's why GP called it a "pet peeve". Because it's a misuse of a common phrase.
  - RG>
  
  --
  Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
26. Re:Math? by RealGrouchy · 2011-02-17 05:52 · Score: 1
  
  Everybody else understood perfectly that they are now estimated to be between 10% and 50% of the former estimate.
  So 10x less massive = n - (1/10)n
  2x less massive = n - (1/2)n
  and by extension:
  1/2x less massive = n - (1/(1/2))n
  = n - 2n
  If the terminology is used consistently, then that last step doesn't make sense. It also doesn't make sense how "ten times" translates to "one tenth", its inverse.
  - RG>
  
  --
  Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
27. Re:Math? by Angst+Badger · 2011-02-17 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  Really, if you want to make it in the world out there, you've gotta get off of your high pedestal, and accept that the scientific world is only a small percentage of the "regular folk" out there. Theoretically, you're right, but practically, noone cares about theory so you're screwed.
  Scientific and mathematical language is precise for a reason, which is that both depend on long chains of rigorous reasoning, and ambiguity wastes the time of the reader at minimum. At worst, it renders the description unusable. This actually matters in science and math. For "regular folk" who just skim superficially from science as a form of entertainment, we could just as well make up something for all the difference it would make.
  Your complaint reminds me of the defensive "You know what I meant!" the dumb kids in high school would exclaim when a teacher pointed out their grammatical and spelling errors which, like yours, numbered about a half-dozen every couple of sentences. Those were the same kids who would interrupt class every couple of days or so to ask if what was being taught mattered in the "real world". Unsurprisingly, it did, and it does. I used to see those guys later in life doing minimum wage yardwork until they were finally replaced by immigrant labor. I don't know what they do now. I don't really care.
  The fruits of civilization, and indeed civilization itself, come from people like the OP who learn what they need to know and pay attention to the details. It's not pretension; it's competence. Remember that next time you ask one of them if they'd like fries with their order.
  
  --
  Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
28. Re:Math? by dreamchaser · 2011-02-17 06:33 · Score: 1
  
  *WOOSH*
  Perhaps, but in all honesty I hear that phrase misquoted more often than used correctly.
  There is no 'perhaps' involved in this at all. The person you replied to was citing it as his own pet peeve. You wasted your pedantry.
29. Re:Math? by Xiph1980 · 2011-02-17 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  Hahahaha, you're funny!
  
  Besides you not knowing anything about me, about my education or success, you assume that I am a burger flipper at White Castle or something. You presume that my spelling and grammatical errors are indicative of my intelligence. Well, believe what you want, but by the time your skills in Dutch, German, French and English are as good as mine, please, be free to comment on my grammatical errors. You see, not everyone comes from the land of fatties and diabetics and has English as their paternal language. I do believe that if I tried and cared enough to spend time on it, I could out-correct you on a random person's English prose. However this is a forum, neither a scientific paper nor a publisher's office.
  
  You are utterly wrong in your assumption that those that make it out there, are the ones that pay heed to those details. The ones that actually are successful are not those that nitpick about details as mentioned above in a summary clearly not intended for the scientific public. There is absolutely nothing unique about being able to be accurate. There is however power in being able to perform this accuracy and being able to describe the processes and actions you have performed to your non-scientific managers and/or clients in such a way that they are actually able to comprehend why you took a month for a "simple calculation". A potential client cares not about the difference between a product being 200% as efficient or 200% more efficient. All he sees is that that product will be better. Learn this social aspect, and you'll be successful. Choose to remain in your scientific ignorance and you'll might be popular and successful with your peers, but the general public will find you utterly annoying for all the unasked for corrections.
  
  --
  Manuals are your last resort only
30. Re:Math? by radtea · 2011-02-17 06:43 · Score: 1
  
  Fucking music... how does it work?
  
  --
  Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
31. Re:Math? by civex · 2011-02-17 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't that aggravating? The holes are from 1/2 to 1/10 as massive. You _can't_ be 2 times less or 10 times less. Sheesh!
32. Re:Math? by icebike · 2011-02-17 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  Me: Hello, I would like to order 10 bags of cement.
  Hardware Store: yes sir, we will deliver those today.
  Me: Wait, make that two times less bags.
  Hardware Store: But Sir, there is no such thing as a negative bag of cement.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
33. Re:Math? by amRadioHed · 2011-02-17 07:40 · Score: 1
  
  Why use percentages in an intentionally confusing and inconsistent way like that?
  
  --
  We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
34. Re:Math? by HaZardman27 · 2011-02-17 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think I've ever seen that misused. How have you heard it used incorrectly?
  
  --
  Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
35. Re:Math? by GungaDan · 2011-02-17 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  My tolerance for this sort of pedantry grows smaller by the day.
  
  --
  Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
36. Re:Math? by mangu · 2011-02-17 08:19 · Score: 2
  
  Why use percentages in an intentionally confusing and inconsistent way like that?
  I don't know, but people do it. When they say things like "n times more than", a slight variation in words might mean either (y = x * n) or (y = x + x * n). I'm not nitpicking, it can be very confusing.
  OTOH, when they say "n times less than" it always means (y = x / n), it's only the Slashdot anal-retentive trolls who find any problems about it.
37. Re:Math? by snakeplissken · 2011-02-17 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  Fucking moon... how did it get there?
38. Re:Math? by osu-neko · 2011-02-17 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  You _can't_ be 2 times less or 10 times less.
  You can. However, only a fluent speaker of the English language will understand what you mean when you say that, as the transformation of that into mathematical language is not straightforward.
  
  --
  "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
39. Re:Math? by osu-neko · 2011-02-17 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  My tolerance for this sort of pedantry grows smaller by the day.
  Yeah, my tolerance is ten times smaller than it used to be.
  
  --
  "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
40. Re:Math? by nelk · 2011-02-17 09:04 · Score: 1
  
  My tolerance for this sort of pedantry grows smaller by the day.
  But how much smaller? 20%? 50%? How are we supposed to know how to correct you if you don't give us these details?
  
  --
  No keyboard detected. Press F1 to continue.
41. Re:Math? by honkycat · 2011-02-17 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  To say that something is ten times less massive means that you consider the thing to which it's being compared to already be not very massive (compared to what?).
  No, you are incorrectly parsing the statement. "X is ten times less massive than Y" is clearly comparing X to Y, finding the difference to be a ratio of ten, and specifying the sense to be that X is less than Y. There's no implication about the absolute massiveness of Y.
  There IS a very slim opportunity for ambiguity, but it's not the one you're suggesting. Because of the parallel structure to "X is ten kg less massive than Y" so, if one is not very perceptive, he might conclude that mass(X) = -9 * mass(Y). If that is actually what was meant, though, it was a misuse of the original structure. The "n times" comparison means you're taking a ratio.
42. Re:Math? by ScentCone · 2011-02-17 10:27 · Score: 1
  
  it's part of common language now
  How commonly a phrase is used has nothing to do with how useful it. People use out of context or annoyingly vague/misleaning phrasing all the time (especially with regard to percentages in comparisons or in relating a change in size). It's laziness, or sometimes a deliberate attempt to distort. In this case, it's more work to parse the misleading "A is ten times smaller then B" than it is to parse "A is a tenth the size of B." The word smaller, when used along side the multiplier times is used to multiply the notion of the original "small." It means "more small than something else is small." It's fine to say "A is smaller than B," but saying that "A is ten times smaller than B" absolutely connotes the notion that B is already small, and that A is ten times more so. It's a pointless thing to say, but people use the phrase because they think it makes them sound more important, or that they're delivering a more sensational number.
  
  --
  Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
43. Re:Math? by dwarfsoft · 2011-02-17 11:56 · Score: 1
  
  Fucking tides... you can't explain that!
  
  --
  Cheers, Chris
44. Re:Math? by shermo · 2011-02-17 12:48 · Score: 1
  
  I've seen these popping up lately.
  As a non-American, can someone explain it for me? Who is it? My best guess is that it's a ultra-conservative Christian who uses the phrase 'you can't explain that' as evidence of god.
  
  --
  Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
45. Re:Math? by N0Man74 · 2011-02-17 16:57 · Score: 1
  
  The Tides references are about Bill O'Reilly, who has cited the behavior of the tides as evidence that there is a god.
  "Tide goes in, tide goes out. Never a miscommunication."
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BCipg71LbI
  But that's neither here nor there, my joking comment is just to point out that people are making too big of a deal over "times less", which most of us realize is used to express a multiplicative inverse relationship (reciprocal).
  As for the "music" comment, don't mistake my reference to ICP as me acknowledging their work as 'music'. Nothing could be further from the truth.
  But that's just my 50 times less than a dollar's worth.
46. Re:Math? by ScentCone · 2011-02-18 15:01 · Score: 1
  
  What's more interesting is that you equate being social with using dumbed-down communication, and have such an abiding hatred for people who actually think about what they say. It's sort of an odd quirk. I'd venture to say it's actually a form of deflection/projection. Likely it's you, actually, that are the one stuck in the basement and lashing out at people who comment on language use. I'm sure the irony is escaping you at the moment, but it will dawn on you eventually.
  
  --
  Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Just as I thought... by listen · 2011-02-17 03:33 · Score: 2, Funny

This shows that science is just a mass of arbitrary assertions.
This abject, craven, flip flopping about face allows me to justifiably substitute my own preferred notions into the debate as fact.
This effectively proves that global warming, vaccination, evolution, and all other liberal plots are bald faced lies.
Its an outrage! If scientists can revise their theories based on improved evidence, science is untrustworthy claptrap that must be excluded from debate.
1. Re:Just as I thought... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2011-02-17 03:38 · Score: 2
  
  You are a bit too self-aware about it to not be joking; but it is a matter of continual puzzlement to me that so many people accord higher regard to an assertion made with certainty than to one made with explicit provision for updates in the face of new evidence.
  
  It's just a really weird defect.
2. Re:Just as I thought... by faviann · 2011-02-17 03:41 · Score: 1
  
  I'd even push the thought further. Knowledge as a whole, is just a mass of arbitrary assertions. That means nothing I know can considered trustworthy! :'( At least Descartes' "Dubito ergo cogito ergo sum" allowed me to assert that I do exist. Unless...
3. Re:Just as I thought... by bunratty · 2011-02-17 03:48 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Certainty in a position gives people a stronger reason not to believe competing ideas. It's basic cognitive dissonance. Let's say I prepared for aliens to visit and destroy the world on a certain day. When that doesn't happen, I can either admit I was wrong or I am uncertain about whether these aliens even exist, or I can confidently believe that the aliens spared us because of our faith. It's easier to confidently believe that AGW is a big hoax than to admit the possibility that we're causing the climate to change. It's easier to believe that evolution is not real if it causes me to question my faith in the existence of God. People will do all kinds of mental gymnastics rather than admit a truth they find emotionally disturbing. Even the lamest excuse will do. The latest is the old "the science isn't settled" when there's the least little bit of uncertainty.
  
  --
  What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
4. Re:Just as I thought... by Ironchew · 2011-02-17 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  Just wait until the mods eventually flip flop on their broken sarcasm detectors.
5. Re:Just as I thought... by MadKeithV · 2011-02-17 04:27 · Score: 1
  
  It's a simple fact that people are dumb.
6. Re:Just as I thought... by dwarfsoft · 2011-02-17 11:59 · Score: 1
  
  My preferred one is "Common sense is not so common.".
  Offtopic: Hey MKV. Long time no see (since GDN). Still rocking out? \m/
  
  --
  Cheers, Chris
7. Re:Just as I thought... by MadKeithV · 2011-02-17 19:54 · Score: 1
  
  Hey DF! Yeah, definitely :-). You won't see me on GD.net much these days, too much other stuff going on. Are you still involved with game development?
8. Re:Just as I thought... by dwarfsoft · 2011-02-17 23:40 · Score: 1
  
  Vaguely. I am a Roving Mod there now, and have been for years. I continue to do a little Game Dev on the side, but mostly I am occupied with working in the real world.
  
  --
  Cheers, Chris
How does this affect our long term plans? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-17 03:34 · Score: 1

We will colonize the Galaxy with our chemical rockets and frail bodies that give 10-20 years of useful life at best. How will this change our plans?
1. Re:How does this affect our long term plans? by osu-neko · 2011-02-17 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  It won't. It only affects the estimates of distant black holes. The one in the center of our own galaxy has a mass determined by much more reliable methods that aren't subject to the kind of error discovered here.
  
  --
  "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
The real question is by ArhcAngel · 2011-02-17 03:35 · Score: 5, Funny

Will MUSE release a followup called "Not So Supermassive - Black Hole"

--
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
1. Re:The real question is by atrain728 · 2011-02-17 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  That's sure to be a track on one of the next two Twilight movies' soundtracks.
2. Re:The real question is by tnk1 · 2011-02-17 05:28 · Score: 2
  
  Unfortunately, with this new information, the subject of the song will actually suck less than the Twilight movies.
Not so puny by Drakkenmensch · 2011-02-17 03:38 · Score: 1

Despite being less dense than before, I'm pretty sure they'd still crush us all into a singularity-sized monodimensional pin dot.
1. Re:Not so puny by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-17 03:48 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not so sure. My latest calculations show you could walk on the surface completeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee...
2. Re:Not so puny by Kronon · 2011-02-17 03:55 · Score: 2
  
  Treating these as classical black holes, they would only be less massive, not less dense. Classical black holes have diverging density due to collapse of a finite mass to a singularity. If you propose that black holes have internal structure then it's reasonable to suggest that differences in density could result.
3. Re:Not so puny by Rich0 · 2011-02-17 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  Wouldn't the internal structure of a black hole vary with time - and not just trivially?
  After all, it takes from now until the end of the universe for something to fall into the event horizon of a black hole, from our perspective.
  Doesn't that mean that right now every black hole out there is just a neutron star with one extra electron an infinitesimal distance inside the event horizon radius? Sure, it will become a singularity - but from our perspective perhaps not before it evaporates.
  Now, from the perspective of somebody falling into the black hole they'd just fall and fall and hit a singularity in the middle, or maybe they would find themselves evaporating into Hawking radiation right before they get there or something - only moments later by their measure.
  Is there really anything that suggests that black holes even have to have a central structure? What if they just evaporate before they even change from the moment they form?
4. Re:Not so puny by Kronon · 2011-02-17 15:41 · Score: 1
  
  According to my understanding of the theory: In special relativity, descriptions from any inertial reference frame are equally valid in relativity. However, in general relativity no coordinate system can cover the whole spacetime manifold. Our coordinate system's time variable reaches an end at the event horizon and so our coordinates simply cannot be used to describe events at or beyond the horizon.
  
  Of course, deducing the presence of a singularity within a black hole relies on GR being valid across all length scales. GR is inconsistent with QM (our most successful theory for describing phenomena on small length scales), which should make us question the validity of singularities. This coupled with our inability to gather information from the interior of a horizon doesn't give much firm ground for claiming what things are like inside of a horizon.
5. Re:Not so puny by Maritz · 2011-02-18 05:33 · Score: 1
  
  The event horizon of a more massive black hole has a larger radius. If singularities actually exist then it won't really be any different volume wise as it still won't have any volume. I've heard supermassive black holes can have an event horizon on a similar scale to our solar system (maybe 0.5-1 light years), which is pretty crazy.
  
  --
  I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
6. Re:Not so puny by Rich0 · 2011-02-19 00:43 · Score: 1
  
  Here is another way of looking at my argument:
  We know that it takes an infinite amount of time from our point of view for a piece of matter to fall one inch beyond the event horizon.
  We also know that it takes a finite amount of time from our point of view for the entire black hole to evaporate into Hawking radiation.
  So, doesn't it stand to reason that even internally a black hole evaporates before its interior evolves at all? If somebody fell into a very large black hole is it unreasonable for them to see the event horizon shrinking right around them as quickly as they fall in such that they just get radiated out into space as black body radiation completely at the moment they reach the center?
  What I don't know is how to explain that from the point of view of the observer entering a large black hole such that both depictions describe the same reality. Mathematically can you show that the passage of time for the observer falling in results in them falling at the same rate as the contraction of the event horizon from Hawking radiation?
7. Re:Not so puny by Kronon · 2011-02-23 10:34 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, from our perspective all objects are caught forever at the horizon. An object will never fall into a black hole according to the description from our coordinates. However, the principle of relativity really applies to inertial reference frames, which we are not talking about here. Simply put, our coordinates are insufficient (deficient, defective, etc.) for describing anything in the vicinity of a compact mass.
  
  It's also not a given that a black hole will simply evaporate. You have to balance the energy budget. The black hole is predicted to lose energy via Hawking radiation. However, it's perfectly possible that due to infalling matter and radiation it is actually increasing in energy despite this.
  
  If you insist on describing things from our perspective, you might claim that the Hawking radiation slowly radiates the information about objects that appear to be caught at the horizon. Certainly the entropy (information content) of a black hole is proportional to the surface area of its horizon, so from an information theory perspective maybe this could seem reasonable. However, the failure of a coordinate system should generally prod you to find a coordinate system that does work in the region you wish to describe rather than to trust predictions that rely on the defective coordinate system.
Phallic similarity? by rockiams · 2011-02-17 03:49 · Score: 1

I am sure there is a great joke here, but I am not witty enough to put it in words
-1 Offtopic, I know.
dark matter by Taibhsear · 2011-02-17 03:56 · Score: 2

How would this relate to theories of dark matter? I don't know what formulas they use to determine this so would this lessen the necessity for dark matter or exacerbate the problem further (more dark matter than previously thought), if said formulas are accurate?
1. Re:dark matter by osu-neko · 2011-02-17 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  How would this relate to theories of dark matter?
  It doesn't. Changing theories of how much of a galaxy's mass is or isn't in its central black hole have no impact on the estimates about of mass of the galaxy, much less the amount of mass in the universe, it only impacts where we think it's located.
  
  --
  "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
2. Re:dark matter by Maritz · 2011-02-18 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  Dark matter appears to be spread quite uniformly through galaxies in gigantic spherical 'halos' rather than concentrated in the centre. Unlike baryonic matter, dark matter only seems to interact gravitationally and so appears quite happy pass through itself, the clearest example of this can be seen in the bullet cluster which is probably the best observational evidence for dark matter. So really the only dark matter in a black hole is the dark matter that would have happened to find its way there anyway, through gravitational interaction.
  
  --
  I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
2 and 10 by Murdoch5 · 2011-02-17 03:56 · Score: 1

2 and 10, That's not a very good re-guess. I mean it's kinda like when they say the universe is between 10 - 20 billion years old. You need to be a lot more certain, I would give them 9-10 times but 2 - 10 is just to wide a range. It would be like me saying I'm anywhere from 1 to 100 years old and being fine with that range.
1. Re:2 and 10 by osu-neko · 2011-02-17 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  You've completely misunderstood. They're not saying a particular black hole is 2 to 10 times smaller than thought, or that all black holes are 2 to 10 times smaller than thought, they're saying some estimates we've made are off by a factor of two, and some are off by a factor of ten, and others are at various places in between. It's like saying people in the audience are between 12 and 77 years old. That doesn't indicate uncertainty, it indicates the fact that the youngest member is 12, and the oldest is 77. The range indicates the range of errors in various different estimates, not a range of uncertainty about how far off they are.
  And, by the way, they don't say the universe is between 10 - 20 billion years old (assuming the "they" we're talking about is modern astronomers), they say the universe is 13.64 - 13.86 billion years old.
  
  --
  "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
2. Re:2 and 10 by Murdoch5 · 2011-02-17 09:24 · Score: 1
  
  Fair enough, as for the universe thing I 've seen it swing from 10 - 20 so I really don't know what to pick. I've also heard it nailed into like 13.1 etc... It's still pretty wide. Now I will admit that 13.6 is a great estimate I mean when you leave the billions that's okay. That would be acceptable accuracy.
When will we ever learn by KnownIssues · 2011-02-17 03:58 · Score: 1

This should say, "Supermassive black holes are now thought to be between 2 and 10 times less massive than previously thought..." Scientists would do everyone a favor if they dropped the formula "we used to think, but now we know". Appearing to have certainty about the newest scientific model gives the impression they are little different from the religious believer.
I could have dismissed this as the reporting being at fault, but the abstract ends with "Knowing the rotational velocities, we can derive the central black-hole masses more accurately; they are two to ten times smaller than has been estimated previously."
1. Re:When will we ever learn by c6gunner · 2011-02-17 05:38 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Scientists would do everyone a favor if they dropped the formula "we used to think, but now we know".
  Kinda hard to drop something that's never been used.
  
  I could have dismissed this as the reporting being at fault, but the abstract ends with "Knowing the rotational velocities, we can derive the central black-hole masses more accurately; they are two to ten times smaller than has been estimated previously."
  Emphasis added. Hope that helps with your parsing problem.
2. Re:When will we ever learn by treeves · 2011-02-17 19:57 · Score: 1
  
  Moe: Why do you think so?
  Larry: I don't think. I know.
  Moe: I don't think you know either.
  
  --
  ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
Obligatory by thatskinnyguy · 2011-02-17 04:05 · Score: 1

"That's heavy man"

--
The game.
Science reporting by fermion · 2011-02-17 04:16 · Score: 2

Many around here complain that the quality of science reporting is really bad because reporters tend not to understand the science and tend to think that they have to simplify the results to what the common reader can understand. In the process the reporters use words that are interpreted differently by common people and scientists who understand the science, so communication break down.
Then we do the same. The interesting results from this paper is a relationship between the spectra of the active galatic nucleus(AGN), which we infer to be a so-called black hole, the motion of the the AGN, and the geometry of the AGN. Given the inferred rotational velocity, the mass of central black-hole can be derived. If all this is true, the mass would be at most an order of magnitude less than previously thought. An order of magnitude correction is significant. It gives us something to test to confirm the assertions of the author. OTHO, I do not see that, in the absence of further work, these results are to be taken at face value that there is an order of magnitude discrepancy in the mass of these AGN.

--
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
1. Re:Science reporting by Maritz · 2011-02-18 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly. This is one paper. Maybe it'll become the consensus, maybe it won't. Time will tell.
  
  --
  I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Anti-Phallic similarity? by clonan · 2011-02-17 04:22 · Score: 1

We are talking about black holes NOT black pillars...
1. Re:Anti-Phallic similarity? by c6gunner · 2011-02-17 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, but my pillar suddenly seems between 2 and 10 times bigger than before!
Things are looking up by Mr_Huber · 2011-02-17 04:23 · Score: 4, Funny

Well, it's nice to know that something in the Universe now sucks less.
Supermassive Black Holes Not So Big After All by mschoolbus · 2011-02-17 05:07 · Score: 1

Thats what she said.
this down sizing only applys to distant AGNs by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-17 05:20 · Score: 1

Black hole masses of those measured from nearby systems where Keplerian velocities are resolved will not shrink.
Glaciers refreezing in the dead of night? by jdp · 2011-02-17 05:28 · Score: 1

Will MUSE release a followup called "Not So Supermassive - Black Hole"
Or perhaps melting in the light of day? Food for thought!
My favorite quote FTA: by Sigmon · 2011-02-17 05:36 · Score: 2

"Gas can potentially corrupt results"
Yes it can... especially on a first date.
Muse has re titled their song by Octopuscabbage · 2011-02-17 09:09 · Score: 1

Muse has retitled their song "Still fairly large black hole"
Re:I want to be the grammar nazi today by osu-neko · 2011-02-17 09:23 · Score: 1

I hate reading times and then having to stop and translate it in my head that they are saying something is less.
If you ever become a fluent speaker of the English language, you won't have to stop and translate, the meaning will be immediate and clear.

--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Re:Are not black holes mass-less? by arekq · 2011-02-17 13:23 · Score: 1

No. Black holes have no volume. They do have mass.
Between 2 and 10 times less exciting by LesFerg · 2011-02-17 16:40 · Score: 1

On analysis, the excitement level from reading that article appears to have been vastly overestimated.
It now appears that the article was between 2 and 10 times less exciting than the original estimates.
The techniques used for measuring excitement levels were based on the amount of gas ejected from a nearby colleague of mine, whilst he was reading said article. But since gas can be misjudged due to its unpredictable effects on my olfactory organs, it now appears that the actual excitement levels generated by the article were exaggerated by an unknown factor related to what my colleague had for lunch.

--
If I had a DeLorean... I would probably only drive it from time to time.
subject by Legion303 · 2011-02-17 19:15 · Score: 1

Your mom thought they were pretty big, CmdrTaco.