Slashdot Mirror


Star Falls Into Black Hole

thodelu writes with news that astronomers recently got a look at what they believe is a star falling into a black hole. Phil Plait explains: "As the star approached this bottomless pit, the side of the star facing the black hole was pulled far harder than the other side of the star, which may have been a million or more kilometers farther away from the black hole. This change in pull stretched the star — this stretching is called a 'tide,' and is essentially the same thing that causes tides on the Earth from the Moon’s gravity and when the star wandered too close to the black hole, the strength of that pull became irresistible, overcoming the star’s own internal gravity. In a flash, the star was torn apart, and octillions of tons of ionized gas burst outward! This material whipped around the black hole, forming a disk of plasma called an accretion disk. Magnetic fields, friction, and turbulence superheated the plasma, and also focused twin beams of matter and energy which blasted out from the poles of the disk, away from the black hole itself. The energy stored in these beams is incredible, crushing our imagination into dust: for a time, they shone with the light of a trillion Suns!"

169 comments

  1. Is there no escape? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Why is Slashdot covering Charlie Sheen now?

    1. Re:Is there no escape? by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Funny

      Dammification! You beat me by one minute. Now my Sheen joke will join the black hole of /. moderation

    2. Re:Is there no escape? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and quit ragging on Detroit. They've suffered enough already.

    3. Re:Is there no escape? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Duh, winning. The tiger blood running through my veins allowed me to first post.

  2. I didn't come here by ackthpt · · Score: 0

    To read more about Pia being dumped from American Idol

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  3. Quick! Let's hurry! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unleash the kerosene powered tubes and *colonize* that sumbitch! Wrap a few trillion kilometers of copper wire around that thing and beam the power back to Earth, we need the energy!

    1. Re:Quick! Let's hurry! by ackthpt · · Score: 2

      Unleash the kerosene powered tubes and *colonize* that sumbitch! Wrap a few trillion kilometers of copper wire around that thing and beam the power back to Earth, we need the energy!

      It was probably a publicity stunt for another civilisation's equivalent of Coca-Cola and involved the band Disaster Area.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  4. Well that's rather poetic by HeckRuler · · Score: 0

    Fitting though, for the death of a star.

    Get his man a turtleneck, joint, and a public television slot!

    1. Re:Well that's rather poetic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQNZ3CVGxvQ

    2. Re:Well that's rather poetic by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      Fitting though, for the death of a star.

      Get his man a turtleneck, joint, and a public television slot!

      It's all relative, man. The star doesn't die, it ceases to be its own entity and combines with the mass of the Black Hole.

      billyuns and billyuns

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    3. Re:Well that's rather poetic by Opyros · · Score: 1

      Well, one of the reviews of his latest book does say "Reading this book is like getting punched in the face by Carl Sagan." (quoted on the sidebar of TFA). You're not the first to compare Plait to Sagan.

  5. How long does this process take? by nebaz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I would be quite surprised if one was able to witness the entire event through a telescope from start to finish. I'm curious how long it takes a star to "fall into a black hole" from start to finish.

    --
    Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
    1. Re:How long does this process take? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Its all relative.

    2. Re:How long does this process take? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as any of us are concerned, it'll take forever.

    3. Re:How long does this process take? by barrtender · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Unfortunately I think the only signs we got were x-rays, not anything visible.

      As for the duration - there's a couple answers. From our perspective the best I can tell is 41 hours from the note on this picture saying it was a 41 hour exposure.

      From the sun's perspective it should take forever if I remember relativity right. Someone with more knowledge can correct me here, as I'm not positive and would like to know more.

    4. Re:How long does this process take? by barrtender · · Score: 4, Informative

      I wish I could edit my post. The follow up article has much more information.

      There was some (not much though) light that could have been visible:

      from our distance of nearly four billion light years, the flash of light was only bright enough to see with big telescopes.

      As for the duration:

      And this event is not over. As the material whirls around the black hole, turbulence and other forces inside the disk can cause the brightness to change. There have been several flares, and while it had been fading for a few days, suddenly on April 3rd the overall brightness increased by a factor of five!

    5. Re:How long does this process take? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you're in the star itself, nope. For us, it takes 4 days. For the hapless star, it'll take forever.

    6. Re:How long does this process take? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You also have your relativity backwards. Objects in gravity well have time pass faster, so this should have seemed like instantaneous to the star.

    7. Re:How long does this process take? by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Didn't you read the summary? It happened "in a flash"! No need to read the article for anything more detailed or scientific.

    8. Re:How long does this process take? by barrtender · · Score: 1

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

      Clocks which are far from massive bodies (or at higher gravitational potentials) run faster, and clocks close to massive bodies (or at lower gravitational potentials) run slower (slow is low).

      I'm pretty sure I got that part right, at least.

    9. Re:How long does this process take? by barrtender · · Score: 1

      http://books.google.com/books?id=OUJWKdlFKeQC&pg=PA216&dq=%22gravitational+time+dilation+%22&lr=&as_brr=0&sig=ACfU3U0_wc8IuNJdGCLnsaO-SyqXYaRapw#v=onepage&q=%22gravitational%20time%20dilation%20%22&f=false
      pg 220

      Nevermind. I'm wrong again. FROM OUR POINT OF VIEW it takes forever. From the falling star it'll happen quickly.

      Jesus. I really wish I could edit now.

    10. Re:How long does this process take? by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      Unless you're in the star itself, nope. For us, it takes 4 days. For the hapless star, it'll take forever.

      I think you've got it backwards. The star experiencing time dialation will experience the entire for days in a blink of an eye. It will be fine and then be destroyed before it knows what happened. Meanwhile, to observers watching the object will see it's last image as it crosses the event horizon go to infinite red shift and just fade away rather than actually cross.

    11. Re:How long does this process take? by mhelander · · Score: 1

      I thought the faster you moved through space, the slower you moved through time (thus preserving your constant speed of light through 4-d space+time) ?

    12. Re:How long does this process take? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If general relativity is to be believed it takes infinitely long. The flash we saw is from the star being shredded by tidal forces.

    13. Re:How long does this process take? by Xaositecte · · Score: 1

      Gravitational time dilation operates separately from velocity time dilation. I don't fully understand it myself, but GP is correct, and there's a pretty good write-up on wikipedia.

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

    14. Re:How long does this process take? by EdIII · · Score: 1

      More than at any time in my life do I wish Star Trek was real.

      To witness this event safely from a distance (but still close enough for the naked eye in Ten Forward) would be indescribably profound and awesome.

    15. Re:How long does this process take? by kinnell · · Score: 1

      As I understand it, it would take an eternity from our point of view for the star to fall in the black hole completely due to the time dilation in the vicinity of the black hole. However, I believe what they're seeing is just the start of the event. A star is effectively a huge nuclear explosion kept in equilibrium by a massive gravitational field. As the star approached the black hole, the gravitational field from the black hole would gradually reduce that of the star on the near side until at some point it would no longer be enough to contain the nuclear reaction. At this point the matter in the star would be explode in the direction of the black hole. This would probably accelerate as the star itself lost mass and hence gravitational field strength. It's the rapidity of this reaction which causes the gamma ray burst, not the process of the matter actually falling into the black hole, which would probably look like a regular accretion disc. I'd guess the whole process would be over fairly quickly.

      I'm not an astrophysicist, but this is my hand-wavey explanation of what happened. Hopefully someone better qualified will elaborate, or tell me I'm writing bollocks :)

      --
      If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
    16. Re:How long does this process take? by mhelander · · Score: 1

      Ah! Thanks, I missed that indeed!

    17. Re:How long does this process take? by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      The description is a bit sensational: star stretched by the enormous tides of the black hole, huge jets of matter, etc... So then you have a look at the actual pictures from the telescope, expecting some spectacular video: hey, see that bright spot? That's it! Sure, I suppose the theory is all correct, but the description would make you believe that they actually saw this happening. Nope.

  6. Protection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The energy stored in these beams is incredible, crushing our imagination into dust: for a time, they shone with the light of a trillion Suns!"

    So, we should put on sunglasses when looking at it?

    1. Re:Protection by vuke69 · · Score: 2

      Do not look into incredible beam shining with the light of a trillion suns with remaining eye.

      --
      Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so. ~ Douglas Adams
  7. crushing our imagination into dust by Ezekiel68 · · Score: 2

    Inexplicably, no witty comment comes to mind.

    --
    Imagination is more important than knowledge -Einstien
    1. Re:crushing our imagination into dust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Inexplicably, no witty comment comes to mind.

      Apparently you had little imagination to begin with...

    2. Re:crushing our imagination into dust by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      Inexplicably, no witty comment comes to mind.

      It's Friday; save your wit for Monday when everyone's reading.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    3. Re:crushing our imagination into dust by BitZtream · · Score: 0

      Actually, Tuesday is the day everyone reads stuff after the weekend. Don't ask me why, but there some reason for it, hence why anyone 'in the know' publishes things on Tuesday, not Monday.

      My guess would be that everyone is recovering from the weekend (either professionally or socially, i.e. the hang over) but I distinctly remember it being something entirely different.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  8. Gravity... by ackthpt · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Is a distortion of both Time and Space.

    While a star being stretched and pulled into a Black Hole, and perhaps giving out a death cry (rather poetically written as: "The energy stored in these beams is incredible, crushing our imagination into dust: for a time, they shone with the light of a trillion Suns!") is certainly fascinating stuff. It seems to me that within its own reality the Sun remains unstreched, unbent and happy as can be until it merges with that which is the black hole (which itself is converting matter to energy, emitted from its poles.)

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Gravity... by mmcuh · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, the tidal effects exist for any observer.

    2. Re:Gravity... by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

      No, tidal forces literally do rip the star apart as it approaches the black hole. It would be torn to its constituent atoms long before it ever got near the event horizon.

    3. Re:Gravity... by ackthpt · · Score: 2

      No, tidal forces literally do rip the star apart as it approaches the black hole. It would be torn to its constituent atoms long before it ever got near the event horizon.

      Usually, and what I'm seeing described in the article, is that the gas from the star is pulled from it, which isn't too unusual where one large star with low density orbits a higher density star with greater mass. Energy emitted from the poles is only from the Black Hole itself, not the star being drawn in - likely the matter from the star will eventually contribute to that stream, though - as pole and disc are quite different locations.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    4. Re:Gravity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This distortion of both space and time results in great forces applied to the material in the sun. The tidal force is a result of the vast differences in the forces applied to the material on one side of the star as compared to another side of the star. Whereas before the star was close to the black hole, the forces acting on the star's material is relatively more uniform. The results are definitely observable from within the star as well as elsewhere, assuming of course that one can exist there to make the observations. Obviously, we are observing this star and treating it as a whole, and that's where any description of a distortion would make any sense. If our observation is microscopic and is only applied to single atoms within the star, then yes, perhaps the reality of the atoms would remain unchanged, as you said, until it reaches the singularity.

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

      Moreover, stars hate it when you anthropomorphize them.

    6. Re:Gravity... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Can't help wondering: Does the Department of Transportation put warning signs at the event horizon? Actually, there should be a bunch of them. "Warning, event horizon, .1 light year ahead."

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    7. Re:Gravity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the Sun is not happy. Since it doesn't have a neural network, there is no evidence to suggest that it can feel any emotions at all.

    8. Re:Gravity... by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      Moreover, stars hate it when you anthropomorphize them.

      In particular, Charlie does.

  9. HURR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DERP DERP look at my WITTY and RELEVANT comment

    1. Re:HURR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      DERP DERP look at my WITTY and RELEVANT comment

      Can't work out whether this was meant as a criticism of the predictable repetitive attempts at being funny vs. actual insightful comments, or just another stupid pointless comment.

      But at any rate I'll assume the former, and say that the responses to this story demonstrate again that *in general*, Slashdotters' expertise and ability to comment insightfully on science subjects drops way more sharply than you'd expect when the subject matter veers even slightly beyond the usual IT/gaming/electronic tech subject matter.

      What's disappointing isn't so much the lack of people with knowledge about the field, because we can't all be experts. It's that people seem more content to make lame rehashes of the predictable "Hollywood" star confusion-type jokes instead of at least asking questions that demonstrate an interest in the subject (and provide a jumping off point for those who *do* know about this kind of thing to address those of us with less expertise, often answering questions we hadn't thought to ask ourselves, but want to hear the answers to).

      I must admit though, to being surprised that, at the time of writing, there is only one smartass this time pointing out that this event actually happened years ago due to the distance light has to travel. It's not an astronomy thread without at least ten people showing how "clever" they are by pointing this out like we haven't heard it before and getting pedantic over the implications, like we haven't had *that* discussion before either....

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

      You ain't got shit if you ain't got that wit

  10. Both beams left the black hole? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > ...twin beams of matter and energy which blasted out from the poles of the disk...

    Shouldn't you get one beam going straight into the black hole and one going straight out? A disc doesn't really have "poles", just an axis. The only way I can see the summary being literally true is if (somehow) a fair portion of the star ended up on the side of the black hole opposite the collision.

    1. Re:Both beams left the black hole? by ThunderBird89 · · Score: 1

      The writer is probably thinking of the axial jets. Those are emitted from the hole itself, which is at the center of the disc, so it's technically true.

      --
      Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
  11. Our Leader Must Know This Now ... by Grindalf · · Score: 0

    Why, if only a naked singularity could be tamed and harnessed to power a alcebere gravity distortion field space warp drive! Why, with technologies such as this we could invade any star system in the galaxy...

    --
    The purpose of existence is to make money.
  12. why is is part of the bad astronomy blog? by whizbang77045 · · Score: 1

    Has anybody figured out why this was a part of discover's bad astronomy blog?

    1. Re:why is is part of the bad astronomy blog? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wild stab in the dark here on that one, 'cause the guy who writes the blog is a professional gamma-ray astronomer, maybe?

  13. The force of a trillion suns? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's OVER 9000 times the force of 1000 suns!

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    1. Re:The force of a trillion suns? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WHAT 9,000?!! There's no way that can be right!!

    2. Re:The force of a trillion suns? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WAT? That's more than two to the tenth power times the force of over a dozen dozen suns!

  14. Octillions? by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

    Is this a rhetorical phrase like ginormous, or is this number actually defined somewhere?

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
    1. Re:Octillions? by tvsjr · · Score: 1

      10^27. Is your Google broken?

    2. Re:Octillions? by OverlordQ · · Score: 1

      It's powers of a million, so 1000000^8 or A thousand trillion trillion, a billion billion billion: 1 followed by 27 zeros, 10^27.

      One octillion.

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    3. Re:Octillions? by LighterShadeOfBlack · · Score: 1

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

      Was that really so hard?

      --
      Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
    4. Re:Octillions? by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Funny

      Is this a rhetorical phrase like ginormous, or is this number actually defined somewhere?

      An Octillion is 1,000 Septillions.

      A Septillion is 1,000 Augustillions.

      An Augustillion is 1,000 Julytillions.

      A Julytillion is 1,000 Junetillions.

      A Junetillion is 1,000 Maytillions.

      A Maytillion is 1,000 Apriltillions.

      An Apriltillion is 1,000 Marchtillions.

      And a Marchtillion is 1,074 Februarytillions (except every 4 years when it's exactly 1,000 Februarytillions.)

      Next time look it up in Googol.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    5. Re:Octillions? by mevets · · Score: 1

      | Is this a rhetorical phrase like ginormous
      Does a neologism shit in the woods?

    6. Re:Octillions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Next time look it up in Googol.

      I see what you did there.

    7. Re:Octillions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Octillion

    8. Re:Octillions? by Rufty · · Score: 1

      Only when constipated.

      --
      Red to red, black to black. Switch it on, but stand well back.
    9. Re:Octillions? by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      Must I rely on Google searchs and Wikipedia for all my answers? I've read hundreds of scientific sources and this is the first time I've ever come across Octillion.

      Maybe, simply finding something somewhere on the internet is not enough to make it remarkable.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    10. Re:Octillions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And when Googol's no help, try Google.

    11. Re:Octillions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do I hear a whoosh?

      googol

    12. Re:Octillions? by voidphoenix · · Score: 1

      I learned that word in grade school math, before the Internet.

      Maybe, simply finding something somewhere on the internet is not enough to make it remarkable.

      If a word for a mathematical concept isn't "remarkable", then your nickname isn't very appropriate, is it?

    13. Re:Octillions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      something something something ... Octopussy!

    14. Re:Octillions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you're a real asshole.

    15. Re:Octillions? by FailedTheTuringTest · · Score: 1

      Must I rely on Google searchs and Wikipedia for all my answers?

      Safer to rely on Google and Wikipedia for all of your answers than to rely on Slashdot for any of them!

    16. Re:Octillions? by TheThiefMaster · · Score: 1

      It's NOT powers of a million, that's long scale numbers (which has octillion as 10^48, aka 1000000 (10^6) ^8).

      It's powers of 1000, times 1000 to put million at 1,000,000: 1000 * 1000^8 or 1000^(8+1).

  15. Light of a trillion Suns! by Culture20 · · Score: 3, Funny

    You lose, Sentry! Trillion suns beats a million!

  16. Silly question: by UncleTogie · · Score: 2

    As I was thinking about black holes the other day, a few questions came to mind. I'm no astrophysicist, so pardon if they're silly.

    The setup: If you pass the event horizon, you're going in, obviously. While you won't take forever to hit the singularity once you're past the event horizon, it APPEARS as such.

    1. If I took a cube 100 meters on a side, carved information on it that could be read from a distance, and slung it past the EH, how long would it remain visible? Forever? For the life of the singularity?

    2. If for a long period of time, could this be used as a method of "permanent" information storage? I've read too much sci-fi, as I keep picturing an intergalactic bulletin board... just waiting to be read...

    4. If the block DOES remain visible, and the singularity eventually has enough dropped blocks into it, would it render the black hole "visible"?

    --
    Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
    1. Re:Silly question: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      carved information on it that could be read from a distance, and slung it past the EH, how long would it remain visible?

      It wouldn't be visible once it passed the event horizon. That's the defining characteristic of a black hole's event horizon: nothing escapes, including light.

    2. Re:Silly question: by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      Remember, anything you "Read" is from reflected light. Ain't that a pretzel of the mind?

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    3. Re:Silly question: by theqmann · · Score: 1

      So as soon as it enters the event horizon, poof? No more visible cube (as the reflected light rays are unable to escape)?

    4. Re:Silly question: by mmell · · Score: 2
      There's an interesting theory which relates (tangentially) to your question. You see, from your perspective the cube would never quite reach the EH and would appear frozen in time. However, yon cube will sail uneventfully through the event horizon and in short order strike the singularity. This is a paradox, and we all know that any theory which results in a paradox is by definition false. Reducto ad absurdum is a recognized tool for disproving a hypothesis or theory. The Holographic Principal reconciles the paradox.

      (the following quoted from Wikipedia)

      The holographic principle was inspired by black hole thermodynamics, which implies that the maximal entropy in any region scales with the radius squared, and not cubed as might be expected. In the case of a black hole, the insight was that the description of all the objects which have fallen into the hole, can be entirely contained in surface fluctuations of the event horizon. The holographic principle resolves the black hole information paradox within the framework of string theory.

      So, to answer your first question - your cube full of information would remain visible and appear to be outside/on the surface of the event horizon forever.

      Yes, you could use this as some form of optical storage - except that other objects will almost certainly be drawn in, obscuring your view of your stored information, and there's absolutely no way to clear your visual field.

      To answer your fourth question (I'm going to skip the third, as you did) you'll have the opposite effect - you'll never render the singularity "visible". There is no such thing as a naked singularity. Current theory forbids it. Period. You can completely obscure the event horizon, but the net effect would be to render the singularity more obscured, not the opposite.

      Clear as mud?

    5. Re:Silly question: by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      You see, from your perspective the cube would never quite reach the EH and would appear frozen in time. However, yon cube will sail uneventfully through the event horizon and in short order strike the singularity. This is a paradox, and we all know that any theory which results in a paradox is by definition false.

      Wouldn't it only be a paradox if the cube physically existed in both places? Observation being relative due to dilation and all.

      sail uneventfully through the event horizon

      *rimshot*

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    6. Re:Silly question: by MoonBuggy · · Score: 1

      Correct.

    7. Re:Silly question: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The way I see it (as an entirely uninformed person) is something like this:

      To avoid the complication of reflected light, say the information on the cube is displayed by LEDs. An observer sitting on the cube can consider the light wave being emitted, and count the finite number of wave peaks up to the time the cube reaches the event horizon.

      An observer sitting outside the black hole must see precisely the same number of peaks in the light wave - none emitted beyond the event horizon can ever be seen, and none can be created or destroyed - but the last will take almost forever to escape from near the event horizon to reach them. So the frequency of the observed light is falling from the original frequency of the LEDs when far outside the black hole, to about zero as the wave is stretched to eternity and as the distance between observed wave peaks approaches infinity.

      So it's basically just redshifting, and it probably won't take long before that makes the light too low-frequency (hence low-energy) to distinguish from the background noise. You're likely better off leaving the cube in orbit around the black hole until someone comes and finds it.

    8. Re:Silly question: by Tynin · · Score: 1

      My woefully lacking formal education in this area might be showing as well, but let me try to answer:

      1. My understanding is the event horizon is a mind boggling bad place to be near. Even if the spaghettification of your cube didn't take place, light is falling into the black hole, so you'd not be able to read anything in it.

      2. As best we can tell, only Hawking radiation is capable of escaping a black hole. Any information would be lost due to entropy, you'd not be able to retrieve any specific information out of that radiation.

      3. Why do you hate the #3?

      4. Black holes do grow bigger as they continue to merge with the matter that is falling into them. There have been speculations in the past that they could be linked to a white hole, but so far we have no direct evidence of them, just lots of beautiful math.

    9. Re:Silly question: by bunratty · · Score: 1

      Ah, but from an outsider's frame of reference, it would take the block forever to reach the event horizon. On the other hand, the light from the block would get redder and dimmer until it becomes effectively invisible. Remember, relativity means that time and space are relative, so you must always consider the observer's frame of reference.

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    10. Re:Silly question: by UtsuMaster · · Score: 1

      Actually, the moment it slung past the event horizon, any light originating from the object would also be trapped within. So, not visible at all.

      Permanence would be lightspeed exactly at the horizon. Still no information getting out though. Very insidious backup system, as the hole slowly absorbs stuff, grows, and eats your data.

      And for things farther away, its just an orbiting billboard, but there are a lot of safer things to orbit than a black hole :]

      I'm not an astrophysicist either, but even if I were, I wouldn't think questions about something this unintuitive would be silly. Theories this crazy can only be interesting, right?

      --
      ...or not.
    11. Re:Silly question: by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't be visible once it passed the event horizon. That's the defining characteristic of a black hole's event horizon: nothing escapes, including light.

      True, but the view of it in it's last instants before it crosses the event horizon would take longer and longer to reach the observer and become increasingly red shifted. It will appear to get closer and closer to the event horizon but never reach it while it fades away as the number of photons reaching the observer are fewer and fewer and are increasing shifted in wave length. Eventually, the wavelength of the light coming from it will be so long that won't even be able to be seen as such.

    12. Re:Silly question: by UncleTogie · · Score: 0

      3. Why do you hate the #3? ...because "eleventy-two" is a LOT more fun to say.

      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
    13. Re:Silly question: by Chris+Burke · · Score: 0

      It wouldn't be visible once it passed the event horizon. That's the defining characteristic of a black hole's event horizon: nothing escapes, including light.

      Not to mention that even that fictional stuff they made the Ringworld out of would be ripped apart well before it reached the event horizon.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    14. Re:Silly question: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not completely, when it "enters" there is still visible light on the outside of the event horizon slowly escaping.

    15. Re:Silly question: by swalve · · Score: 1

      That makes sense, but it isn't time and space being warped, it is just an optical illusion that makes it seem like time and space are being warped.

    16. Re:Silly question: by cbhacking · · Score: 1

      Sorry, this doesn't make sense to me. The event horizon surrounds the singularity. It is defined as the distance where, once an object is less than that distance from the singularity, no information will ever breach the event horizon again. This applies even to photons; the reason a singularity is called a "black hole" is because once light crosses the event horizon it will never return, giving the effect or an object with absolutely no albedo.

      In other words, once something passes the event horizon, you *cannot see it* because any light reflecting from it will also have passed the event horizon, and gravity will curve the light back toward the singluarity before the light can escape. The last glimpse you will have of the object is just before it crosses the event horizon. I'm not certain what will happen to light trying to travel directly away from the singularity from a point outside the event horizon - it might get distorted somehow, but I don't have the physics to be sure - but it would get back to you. Once it crosses the even horizon, though, it's gone forever even if it reflects off (or originates from) an object just inside the event horizon.

      Meanwhile, there will be a period of time after crossing the event horizon but before the object is actually obliterated (although it will be "destroyed" in the classic sense by tidal forces much earlier, as this star was). As I understand it, an outside observer can (relatively) easily calculate the time it will take for the object to reach the singularity, assuming its the velocity crossing the event horizon and the mass of the singularity are known.Howeve,r for the object itself, time would subjectively be dialated to such an extent that the journey would seem, if not eternal, close to it (again, I suspect that I don't have the physics to answer this one correctly).

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    17. Re:Silly question: by danhaas · · Score: 1

      You can "see" black holes by the bending light suffers when passing by. It's called gravitational lensing.

      And I'm sorry to inform you, there are no permanent stuff in the universe. If you can observe it (interact with it), you can mess with it (increase its entropy).

    18. Re:Silly question: by MoralHazard · · Score: 2

      You have this all backwards WRT how time dilation affects the two frames of reference:

        1) The observer falling into the black hole experiences the trip to the event horizon *normally*. In a finite amount of time, this moving observer will cross the event horizon and reach the singularity--or, at least, his constituent subatomic particles will (tidal force). Crossing the EH is a non-event, for this guy--if the black hole is massive enough, he won't even notice the tidal forces until well after he passes the EH.)

        2) The stationary, outside observer never actually sees the moving observer cross the event horizon. Instead, the outsider sees the moving guy get slower and slower, the closer he gets to that point. (I.e., the moving guy will appear to approach the EH asymptotically.)

      For example, consider a hypothetical non-rotating black hole with an EH radius of ~1,000 km. Our two observers are sitting at a distance of ~1,000 km outside of the EH (that's 2,000 km away from the singularity). Suddenly, the more suicidal of the two observers backs off, takes a running start, and hurls himself directly toward the center (singularity) of the black hole with a velocity of 1,000 km/hour.

      The suicidal (now moving) observer checks his watch about an hour later and measures his distance to his ship: ~1,000 km from his ship (also 1,000 km from the singularity, in the other direction). Around this time, he's crossing the EH, and probably not noticing anything funny. In his frame of reference, plunging into the black hole, time just moves along normally. Sometime during the next hour, the tidal forces will rip him to shreds. Presuming his consciousness continues the trip along with his shreds (staying in that same moving frame of reference), he'll reach the singularity at the end of the second hour. God only knows what happens, there.

      The stationary observer, on the other hand, watches his moving buddy seem to slow down as falls. At the end of the first hour, the stationary observer checks his watch and measures the distance to his buddy: somewhat LESS than 1,000 km from the ship (and MORE than 1,000 km from the singularity. At the end of the second hour, his buddy will still not have reached the 1,000 km mark--the buddy's velocity drops in direct proportion to his distance from the event horizon. With a telescope, the stationary observer would actually see the second hand on his buddy's wristwatch sweep slower and slower as gets closer and closer to the black hole.

      Capiche?

    19. Re:Silly question: by MoralHazard · · Score: 4, Informative

      NO, absolutely not. An outside observer sees time "slow down" for objects that are approaching a black hole, so that each falling object approaches the event horizon asymptotically BUT NEVER ACTUALLY REACHES IT.

      If you watched somebody falling into a black hole, and you kept a telescope trained on his wristwatch, you would see the second hand sweep slower and slower as he got closer to the EH distance. No matter how long your wait, you'll never actually see anything cross the EH from the outside.

      (I am not kidding, this is what actually would happen. If this seems unpossible, don't worry too much--unless you've already studied special relativity and grasped at least that much, this is pretty counter-intuitive.)

    20. Re:Silly question: by MoralHazard · · Score: 2

      Time dilation and length contraction are NOT optical illusions. They are very, very real *physical* effects, and there are a number of unarguable, concrete experimental results showing them at work.

      You're probably getting confused by the concept of gravity lensing, which is black hole-related phenomenon described by General Relativity.

    21. Re:Silly question: by slew · · Score: 1

      Well, sortof...

      I'm not certain what will happen to light trying to travel directly away from the singularity from a point outside the event horizon - it might get distorted somehow...

      The light will get redshifted (move towards lower frequency)...

      As I understand it, an outside observer can (relatively) easily calculate the time it will take for the object to reach the singularity...

      Relativistically calculating, the outside observer notes that it takes forever for the object to reach the singularity. Of course you might say that observation is really an artifact and you are interested in the "real" time. However, if you are computing correctly, time and space are warped near the singularity time and space are really 1 thing space-time (it's either gravity is bending space so much so the distance is really far away or gravity is dilating time so much so it takes a long time). Strangely, this is just an artifact the computing distortion of space-time. If we assumed space and time were not warped near the singularity, well we just threw out general relativity, right? Of course from the object's view of time and space it'll get to the singularity very quickly ;^)

    22. Re:Silly question: by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Why did you even post that, seriously?

      Because I figured people who aren't e-douches would immediately understand that by saying "even" the fictional super-material would fail, I'm also implying that any real material you could make a data-storage-cube out of, including those undiscovered, would not be strong enough.

      Understand the relevance now?

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    23. Re:Silly question: by John+Meacham · · Score: 1

      No, from the outside it will look like the cube just falls in, depending on the size of the black hole and the angle of approach, we may see it undergo spagettification first.

      However, you can use a black hole for data retention as a delay line. There is a distance above the black hole that is called the "photon sphere" which is the point that the orbital speed exactly equals the speed of light, meaning that photons injected at the proper angle will actually be in orbit around the black hole.

      So, you can use a laser beam to spit out your data on an almost but not quite orbital path, sending the data around and picking it up after it orbits, picking out what you want and re-transmitting everything else. The latency would be high, but the storage space would be incredible. Imagine you set the angle so the light orbits enough time to travel a light week before you capture it again, todays optical interconnects work at 100Gb/s, a week is roughly 600 megaseconds so you get 60 petabytes of storage more or less, per frequency you use, and not to mention you can send data in both directions, and have delay lines longer than a light week. You could have a whole storage hierarchy with delay lines of a few light seconds to centuries around the same black hole to balance latency/storage space.

      --
      http://notanumber.net/
    24. Re:Silly question: by Jeremi · · Score: 4, Funny

      If I took a cube 100 meters on a side, carved information on it that could be read from a distance, and slung it past the EH

      You euthanized your faithful Companion Cube more quickly than any test subject on record. Congratulations.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    25. Re:Silly question: by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      The suicidal (now moving) observer checks his watch about an hour later and measures his distance to his ship: ~1,000 km from his ship (also 1,000 km from the singularity,

      Assuming he manages to withstand getting torn to shreds for long enough, can our suicidal observer look backwards (away from the black hole) and see the entire future of the universe (or much of it) play out in front of his eyes over the next few seconds/minutes of his subjective time?

      That might almost make it worth the trip.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    26. Re:Silly question: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No matter how long your wait, you'll never actually see anything cross the EH from the outside.

      Not to burst your bubble or anything, but if nothing ever appears to cross the Event Horizon from an outside perspective then everything that has ever fell in would still look as though it hadn't. All the fallen objects would appear to be continuing to circle the black hole just like everything else in the universe appears to be doing. This could quite possibly, if not probably, mean we have all already passed the Event Horizon of a black hole and are on the inside looking out, rather than the outside looking in.

      Personally, methinks the math needs a little more work if you calculate an object traveling a minute distance pulled by incredible force would take an infinite amount of time.

    27. Re:Silly question: by Kagura · · Score: 1

      True, but the view of it in it's last instants before it crosses the event horizon would take longer and longer to reach the observer and become increasingly red shifted.

      It doesn't take longer and longer to reach the observer, it reaches the observer at the same speed, which is the speed of light. It loses energy, instead, becoming red-shifted.

    28. Re:Silly question: by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      It would become redshifted and dimmed. Eventually, it would be too dim to see. If it is a radio transmission, the transmission will slow down to a near halt. If it is a tablet, it would be flattened and distorted.

    29. Re:Silly question: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reflected light from the block would keep getting more and more redshifted with time to an observer outside the EH, which means it would be continually harder to resolve. I don't remember enough optics off hand, but once the wavelength gets to be longer than the 100m size of the cube I bet the information on the cube is essentially gone.

      For 4) the black hole technically isn't visible, just the things you've dropped in to it. We can see the things falling into lots of them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_galactic_nucleus

    30. Re:Silly question: by ae1294 · · Score: 0

      Permanence would be lightspeed exactly at the horizon. Still no information getting out though. Very insidious backup system, as the hole slowly absorbs stuff, grows, and eats your data.

      So it's just like ntbackup.exe with a data set that exceeds 500GB!!!

    31. Re:Silly question: by Altrag · · Score: 4, Informative

      No he wouldn't. He looks back and sees the stationary guy 1000km away, but the light took a certain amount of time to get to him, negating any possibility of seeing the "future". The further out into the universe he looks, the further back in time he looks -- the same as happens to us when we stare really far into the sky from Earth -- if we're looking at something 1000 light years away, we know that it happened 1000 years ago (or more, if something managed to slow down the light for part of the journey). We can NEVER see the future (or for that matter, the present). Even reading this on your screen is old news by a tiny fraction of a second as the light moves from your screen to your eye.

      Basically from the moving observer's perspective, nothing unusual is happening at all until the tidal forces kick in.

      As he gets closer and closer to the singularity the tidal forces would rip him into atoms, then the atoms get ripped apart layer by layer until you end up with individual quarks (and who knows what it means to rip a quark or an electron apart.. ie: what happens when space is so warped that a signal can't make it from one side of a quark to the other without exceeding c.)

      All that said, the stationary observer would NOT see the moving guy forever. As others have noted, along with seeing him slow down indefinitely, we'd also see him redshift indefinitely. Eventually he'd be so redshifted that he'd no longer be detectable by the instruments of the stationary observer. He'd still "be there" but could no longer be seen. A more sensitive instrument could see him for a longer period of time, but he'd still fade out eventually as all instruments no matter how good will have a finite cutoff for what they can detect.

    32. Re:Silly question: by sjwt · · Score: 1

      Crossing and Reaching are not the same.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes

      --
      You have 5 Moderator Points!
      Which Helpless Linux zealot/MS basher do you want to mod down today?
    33. Re:Silly question: by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>so that each falling object approaches the event horizon asymptotically BUT NEVER ACTUALLY REACHES IT.

      To be fair, there's a certain amount of "open question" about what actually would happen if you threw a baseball into a black hole, as we don't actually have one on hand to play with. There's something of a paradox involved as well, since the baseball (from its perspective) would pass through the event horizon just fine, but observers would watch it stop, or perhaps get smeared across the surface of the black hole.

    34. Re:Silly question: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wouldn't be visible once it passed the event horizon. That's the defining characteristic of a black hole's event horizon: nothing escapes, including light.

      True, but the view of it in it's last instants before it crosses the event horizon would take longer and longer to reach the observer and become increasingly red shifted.

      Nope. It takes the same amount of time to reach the observer. The light travels at the speed of light, whether or not it is blue shifted, red shifted, or not shifted. So you see it traveling just like any other object, including the star here in the story.

    35. Re:Silly question: by lordofthechia · · Score: 1

      The way I see it, you have a limited number of photons striking the cube before it crosses the event horizon. Once the object crosses the event horizon then the photons striking it would also cross the event horizon. These limited number of photons (pre-event horizon) which at first were striking your eyes at a regular pace get slowed down and less and less are hitting your eye per time period.

      Thus, per my understanding, the object becomes dimmer as time passes.

      --
      Georgia Tech, the leader in Chia(tm) technology.
    36. Re:Silly question: by epine · · Score: 1

      Ringworhlium II is strong enough to make your ring bigger than the EH, and, in fact, hardened RWII is made by dropping a rapidly spinning ring axially across a small EH object to exploit gravitational hardening. Unfortunately, the precision stabilizing jets are never quite the same afterwards.

      In another unforeseen consequence, many of the original engineers commit suicide after overhearing the Ringworld sales dept. trying to explain relativistic delivery dates to the Vogon Ministry of Administrative Affairs.

    37. Re:Silly question: by MoralHazard · · Score: 1

      but if nothing ever appears to cross the Event Horizon from an outside perspective then everything that has ever fell in would still look as though it hadn't. All the fallen objects would appear to be continuing to circle the black hole just like everything else in the universe appears to be doing. This could quite possibly, if not probably, mean we have all already passed the Event Horizon of a black hole and are on the inside looking out, rather than the outside looking in.

      Believe it, man, I shit you not--this is the real physics. Check out the description on WP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_horizon#Interacting_with_an_event_horizon

      That you perceive it as weird doesn't mean it's not true. There is some mind-blowing shit out there, and it's sometimes hard to accept the truth of it without understanding any of the math involved.

  17. How would this compare to a supernova? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Subject is self explanitory but woudn't this event be very comparable to a supernova or would it be more incredible because supernovas happen at the end of a star's lifecycle?

    -AC

  18. the ori are dialing a super gate by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    the ori are dialing a super gate

  19. Re:earth just shy of black hole no-fly status; cos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    am I missing a 'boeing, boeing, gone' at the end of this?

  20. bah, old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    First there were dupe stories and now we get news from billions of years ago, what is /. coming to?

  21. Dissapointed by byronblue · · Score: 0

    I read the headline and thought I was coming here to read about how Charlie Sheen got drunk off his ass and fell in a manhole or something.

    1. Re:Dissapointed by LighterShadeOfBlack · · Score: 1

      First comment about Charlie Sheen posted by AC @09:14PM (First Post!!!1)
      Second comment about Charlie Sheen posted by Tablizer @09:15PM
      Your Charlie Sheen comment posted @10:05PM

      Ever think you're putting a little too much care and attention into your posts?

      --
      Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
    2. Re:Dissapointed by sjwt · · Score: 1

      Ever think *some* Slashdotters don't spend all day refreshing and trying to get 'first post' ?

      --
      You have 5 Moderator Points!
      Which Helpless Linux zealot/MS basher do you want to mod down today?
    3. Re:Dissapointed by LighterShadeOfBlack · · Score: 1

      Ever think *some* Slashdotters don't spend all day refreshing and trying to get 'first post' ?

      Yes, but in that case I'd hope that they might actually read some comments to see if what they're going to post has already been said*. Seeing as this guy repeated the contents of the first and second responses to the article I chose to give the benefit of the doubt and assume GGP was merely very very thorough rather than inept.

      *: Yes, yes, I must be new here.

      --
      Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
  22. nom nom nom? by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

    I just have one question for the black hole, what did it taste like? And is tabasco required or is it spicy enough on its own?

  23. old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    old news this happened 4 billion years ago!

  24. last report still plenty of jets, stuff to explode by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    then there's the unproven dead, still unproven. so that takes care of that. the fake weather? where are we boeing?

    look it up in the genuine native american elders teepeeleaks etchings, in between murder, mayhem, hymen, & real sex religious 'training'/surgical alterations/extermination. lots to go through, but knowing the truth about our real history helps us decide which of the rulers' planes are 'better', or if we even need any? a continued accurate recorded history of us would be good?

    spys like us?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDVt_hSo_EU&NR=1

  25. Octillions? by mangu · · Score: 1

    How many brazillians is one octillion?

  26. How The Simpsons influences technology by cvtan · · Score: 4, Funny

    Any site that "embiggens" images when you click on them is OK with me.

    --
    Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
    1. Re:How The Simpsons influences technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any site that "embiggens" images when you click on them is OK with me.

      Mod parent up! Perfectly cromulent post!

  27. Repent! by martin-boundary · · Score: 1
    See? The star didn't believe in his Noodly Holyness, so the Spaghetti Monster slurped it down with great vengeance and furious anger.

    Repent, human heathens, before we are all turned into tomato sauce!

  28. Exciting story!!!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was damp and chilly afternoon, so I decided to put on my sweatshirt! ... I pulled the lever on the machine, but the Clark bar didn't come out! ... Get rid of the exclamation points...

  29. Am I the only one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .. who is sick of these things

    It Godwins Law for physics/cosmology:
    The probability that one will bring up black holes in a discussion about physics approaches 1.

  30. Wow by Jbcarpen · · Score: 1

    I know Slashdot has a penchant for posting old stories, but a story that happened four Billion years ago? That's just ridiculous.

    --
    GENERATION 667: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation
  31. "Crushing Our Imagination Into Dust" by guttentag · · Score: 2
    I was intrigued by the summary until I read this:

    "The energy stored in these beams is incredible, crushing our imagination into dust..."

    Black hole = awesome. Black hole swallowing a sun = probably beyond the scope of our comprehension, but not quite so amazing that it can turn an intangible thing like imagination into a tangible thing like dust. The author of the summary may have had his brain turned to dust, but to make a claim like this indicates that the imagination is functioning quite well. Perhaps too well.

    1. Re:"Crushing Our Imagination Into Dust" by Kufat · · Score: 2

      Are you demanding the revocation of the author's poetic license?

    2. Re:"Crushing Our Imagination Into Dust" by Draek · · Score: 0

      If there's such thing as a metaphor nazi, youÂre one. And if there isn't, there damn well should be.

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
    3. Re:"Crushing Our Imagination Into Dust" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only Carl Sagan was here to write the commentary. Man would have used zero exclamation points with the force of an octillion.

  32. How much of the star actually falls in? by earls · · Score: 1

    A lot of the star in the disc, a lot of the star in the jets, precisely how much of the star actually falls into the black hole?

  33. objoke by mbkennel · · Score: 0

    In Soviet Russia, black hole falls into you!

    Simple application of revolutionary relativistic dialectical physics, too advanced for capitalist bourgeoisie obsessed with reference frame status.

  34. falling? by 3seas · · Score: 1

    Man that really sucks!!! Stars that fall down and can't get back up.

  35. goatse strikes again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can censor it but one day you'll all have to come face-to-face with the truth!

  36. These comments sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These comments sucks.

  37. Imagine ... by LoudMusic · · Score: 1

    Imagine a beowulf cluster of those ...

    --
    No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
  38. Gives new meaning to the lyrics... by Saberwind · · Score: 1

    "Catch a falling star, put it in your pocket..."

    Falling into a gravity well pocket in space-time...

  39. Obligatory Niven by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you want to understand the tidal gradient around a very dense object, go read Larry Niven's Neutron Star.

    And you shouldn't have had to scan down 123 postings to find this. /. is slipping.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:Obligatory Niven by sjwt · · Score: 1

      Indeed, much more relevant then the post about Scrith

      --
      You have 5 Moderator Points!
      Which Helpless Linux zealot/MS basher do you want to mod down today?
    2. Re:Obligatory Niven by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You win.

      Niven == awesomeness.

  40. The BIG Flash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *shades on*
    sux.

    yyeeeaaaahhhhhhhhhh!

    1. Re:The BIG Flash by camperslo · · Score: 1

      So was this one of those events that could have sent out a lethal burst of neutron radiation, killing life in distant systems?

      Maybe we should be mourning the loss of life on planets we've never known?

  41. I don't understand this about black holes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK, the one central tenet is the gravity is so great not even light can escape. If that is so, then how can "Hawking radiation" escape it? This seems to contradict the one law of black holes.

    1. Re:I don't understand this about black holes. by FormOfActionBanana · · Score: 1

      It's possible I miss the point because the solution seems pretty simple to me. The really hot stuff just outside the event horizon radiates this energy.

      --
      Take off every 'sig' !!
  42. Bad-ass tronomy! by orkysoft · · Score: 1

    Now that's some bad-ass tronomy!

    --

    I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
  43. Detection by VernonNemitz · · Score: 2

    It occurs to me that the gravitational-wave astronomers will be looking for a signal from this event. If any gravitational waves produced by it happen to be heading in our direction, that is. From what I understand regarding how such waves would be produced, and how the href="http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/">LIGO system works, detection of a signal may be reasonably expect-able.

  44. The movie ... by ignavus · · Score: 1

    ...will be called "A Star is Torn" ... and the climax will be when the "twin beams of matter and energy which blasted out from the poles of the disk" cross over each other, causing the black hole to explode "into torrents of melted marshmallow".

    --
    I am anarch of all I survey.
  45. That I understand. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But from everything I read, Hawking radiation comes from within the EH, from the actual singularity. That's is in complete opposite of the "nothing can escape the gravity of a black hole" law.

    1. Re:That I understand. by NoseyNick · · Score: 1
      Particle and antiparticle created right next to the event horizon. Almost by definition, they have opposite velocity. Particle falls in, antiparticle escapes, OR vice-versa. Escaped antiparticle meets escaped particle, annihilate each other, give off energy in the form of radiation (Hawking radiation).

      ... so hawking radiation comes from just outside the EH, but requires the symmetry of the opposite particles falling in, so you could argue it comes from right ON the EH, but not inside it.

      --
      Nick Waterman, Sr Tech Director, #include <stddisclaimer>
  46. This proves nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The images shows only a star that for some reason explodes and disappears in a giant gamma ray burst. This is not a proof about the existence of black holes. I still have to see a convincing experimental proof that they do actually exist.

    1. Re:This proves nothing by TrekkieGod · · Score: 1

      The images shows only a star that for some reason explodes and disappears in a giant gamma ray burst. This is not a proof about the existence of black holes. I still have to see a convincing experimental proof that they do actually exist.

      Then check out this video of stars orbiting a black hole.

      --

      Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

  47. monster beats by beats+headphone · · Score: 0

    We put the diddy beats to the test with a playlist of tracks from a variety of genres and were pleased to note that these beats by dre are capable of providing good audio for those with eclectic taste. Playback is very balanced, with plenty of detail through the high end and a low end that thumps without overpowering. If anything, music could stand a bit more sparkle, and mids are slightly lacking in that buttery quality we crave, but songs still sound plenty warm and rich and the midrange isn't overly forward. To be clear: these aren't audiophile earphones, but they will no doubt satisfy the average music listener. So if you like lots of different music and want a pair of portable headphones that don't look like the rest, the Diddybeats are a great choice. ladygaga heartbeats tour beats kobe beats justbeats

  48. No jokes about Maximilian Schell falling in? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or Tony Perkins? Yvette Mimieux? OK, that's pushing it, but Ernest Borgnine??

  49. Earthquakes and Powerful Astronomical Events Linke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is perhaps a crazy theory but could this, and perhaps other, powerful astronomical events be the trigger of major earthquakes? If the X-rays got to us recently, could the gravitational waves have reached us say a couple of weeks earlier?

  50. interestin to see if.... by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    Just like a nuke bomb but maybe a trillion trillion times more powerful, I wonder if ripping a star apart like that is something that gives enough energy to do something incredible with, such as in this case close a black hole...or in some other cases cause rifts in space ...of course this is just theory as no one can know for sure, but when something like this happens, and is recorded, I hope we have the intellect to think that the aftermath is also just as important, to see what else gets affected, from the cause and effect factor....although I still wonder if the black hole is at all affected, or just keeps sucking...

  51. E=mc2 by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

    If imagination is intangible, like say, energy, then it can be converted into something tangible, like matter (dust).

    There is in fact a well known formula for this conversion, but as is also well known, the amounts of energy required are vast.

    The Author of the article is pointing out that there is sufficient amount of energy stored in these beams to in fact turn your imagination into dust.

  52. Look everyone: mevets is trying to play "smart" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LMAO - & he fails as usual. See subject-line and of course, mevets usual patent stupidity.