Slashdot Mirror


Smallest Known Black Hole Found

smitty777 writes "Adding to the recent black hole discoveries of gas clouds and a quasar accretion disc, Forbes is reporting on a recent discovery by NASA's Rossi X-Ray Timing Explorer (RXTE) on the smallest known black hole. From the article: 'If the astronomers' calculations are correct, this black hole is located about 16,000 to 56,000 light years away from Earth (a more precise distance hasn't yet been determined). The black hole itself is only about three times the mass of the Sun, which means that the original star was just barely big enough to form a black hole.'"

69 comments

  1. That's odd... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    How did my ex-wife end up way the hell out there?

    1. Re:That's odd... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      ... particularly when you knew you'd buried her out in the backwoods?

      Well, it just proves you were right - vampire or zombie is undecided, but "Living Dead" for sure.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    2. Re:That's odd... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How did my ex-wife end up way the hell out there?

      black hole makes me think of knee-growz and the welfare system. or knee-growz and the prison system.

      NIGGER

      Commenting just to comment on yourself doesn't really look that cool.

  2. Some day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we'll understand everything there is to know about the universe (provided we don't blow ourselves to kingdom come first) and things like black holes will seem unreasonably trivial...

    Think about it.

  3. WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    WHAT THE FUCK! Is this for real? Maybe I'm just imagining this, but this article looks like, dare I say it, it may just be "news for nerds!" After months of articles about various shitty Apple devices, copyright, American politics, and shitty Apple devices again, it's stunning to finally see an article about a scientific discovery again.

    1. Re:WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you tried science.slashdot.org?

    2. Re:WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS! by Intron · · Score: 1

      Have you tried science.slashdot.org?

      NIH Restricts Use of Chimpanzees in Labs - and how is this a science article?

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    3. Re:WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My reaction was, is Slashdot turning into Scientific American? Another story about that latest wrinkle from cosmology that only a few specialists care about.

    4. Re:WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS! by khallow · · Score: 3, Informative

      NIH Restricts Use of Chimpanzees in Labs - and how is this a science article?

      Is that supposed to be a trick question? If this goes through, it's a significant constraint on animal research (the science angle that you're looking for) that could expand in the future.

    5. Re:WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, no kidding, Between clueless people drooling over 3D printers and even more delusional people earnestly proposing interstellar colonization, slashdot is more about the collective hallucinations of daydreaming adolescents.

    6. Re:WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS! by smitty777 · · Score: 1

      What's worse, the daydreaming adolescents, or those that act like they have something better to do but keep droning on about how bad it is. If you don't like it so much, why don't you actually contribute something to the discussion?

      --
      "Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish"
      Albert Einstein
  4. May be small but still big enough by glutenenvy · · Score: 1

    to steal socks from the washer.

  5. Tight by oldhack · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's a tight hole.

    --
    Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    1. Re:Tight by Gaygirlie · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      That's what she said.

    2. Re:Tight by ArcherB · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's a tight hole.

      That's what she said.

      Shouldn't that be "That's what HE said"?

      Never mind. I just read your username.

      I was also thinking:
      Answer: That's a tight hole.
      Clue: Name something your mother will never hear.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    3. Re:Tight by melikamp · · Score: 0, Troll

      Natalie Portmans black hole is even tighter, closer, and has been rediscovered many times by independent researchers.

    4. Re:Tight by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 4, Funny

      And it sucks hard.

      Too bad it's in the red-shift district.

    5. Re:Tight by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      But does it have hair?

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    6. Re:Tight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not for external observers.

    7. Re:Tight by mattr · · Score: 1

      The researchers found that among all intelligent sexually reproducing species in the galaxy, every single one had a list of sexual innuendoes related to black holes.

  6. interesting, but vaguely in line with estimates by Trepidity · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There have been a bunch of claims of black holes roughly in the range 3-4x solar masses, some subsequently revised upwards (this one made some news in 2008, and there are some other candidates as well). The "normal" range for stellar black holes is roughly 3-30x solar masses, according to current understanding.

    Anyone have a link to a good explanation of the current estimated values for a minimum? My understanding is that there isn't really a theoretical physical minimum (black holes can exist at any size), but that there's a mass level beneath which astrophysicists consider it very unlikely that conditions would have really existed to produce a black hole through stellar collapse of a star. But I can't seem to find a solid estimate of what that number is, just these sorts of indirect references to 3x being "close" to the minimum (looking at Google Books, I find an old textbook that also mentions 3.2x as "just above" the theoretical minimum, but doesn't elaborate).

    1. Re:interesting, but vaguely in line with estimates by Trepidity · · Score: 4, Informative

      Replying to myself: it appears that the minimum is related to the Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limit for the maximum mass of a neutron star, which isn't known to great accuracy. Wikipedia cites a 1996 journal article with an estimate of "approximately 1.5 to 3.0 solar masses".

    2. Re:interesting, but vaguely in line with estimates by Tynin · · Score: 2

      Anyone have a link to a good explanation of the current estimated values for a minimum?

      I know you asked for a good link, but here is a wiki article for what it is worth. This part specifically:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#High-energy_collisions

    3. Re:interesting, but vaguely in line with estimates by Hentes · · Score: 1
    4. Re:interesting, but vaguely in line with estimates by arth1 · · Score: 2

      There is, I believe, another limiting factor in Hawking radiation. Because the area of the horizon relative to the mass of the hole is larger the smaller the mass, a too small hole will "evaporate" (for lack of a better term) in an accelerating process, before it winks out with a "tzing!"

      There is no fixed "limit" for this, nor do I believe one would make much sense, as it would also depend on how well fed the black hole is. And unless in our back yard, or rather, on our doorstep, we can only observe the black holes that are close enough to mass to feed on it.

    5. Re:interesting, but vaguely in line with estimates by Gaygirlie · · Score: 4, Informative

      I may be wrong as I'm not a physicist, but as I understand it that chandrasekhar limit applies only if a black hole is formed through a star collapsing. If a black hole is formed by some other means then its mass could be something entirely different, including the minimum limit for forming one. As wikipedia so helpfully lists there are two known ways for a black hole to form: gravitational collapse and high-energy collisions. There could be some as-of-yet-unknown means, too.

      The more precise answer to the OP's question thus would seem to be: the Planck mass

    6. Re:interesting, but vaguely in line with estimates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Evaporation is an issue for very small black holes, and usually important to question of primordial black holes that have been around since when the early universe could have created them without requiring a star collapse. While a kilogram sized black hole would evaporate on the order of femtoseconds, and even a million kilogram one would be gone in a minute, the evaporation time goes with mass cubed. So by the time you get to a single solar mass, it is 10^67 years to evaporate, as it is radiating at about 10^-28 W. Even if you could squeeze the Earth into a sphere about a centimeter across to get a black hole, it would last for 10^50 years.

    7. Re:interesting, but vaguely in line with estimates by Hentes · · Score: 2

      As wikipedia so helpfully lists there are two known ways for a black hole to form: gravitational collapse and high-energy collisions. There could be some as-of-yet-unknown means, too.

      Black hole forming from high-energy collisions is poorly understood, as on that scale both quantum and gravitational effects play a role, and there is no solid quantum gravitational theory. Theoretically, there could be other ways of black hole formation, such as ones that formed in the Big Bang, but those are also areas that we know little about. So yes, in some exotic theories small black holes could exist, but those theories are all unconfirmed.

      Also, we are yet to observe a small black hole. Now small black holes are not easy to see, but if the Hawking radiation exists, we should be able to detect the radiation of small black holes.

      So I would say that other than some really weird theories there is no proof of black holes forming other means than by star collapses.

    8. Re:interesting, but vaguely in line with estimates by Trepidity · · Score: 1

      That's definitely one hard limit, but I believe the open question is whether there are other minimum bounds for a black hole formed through stellar collapse, which may be higher than the Chandrasekhar limit. The Chandrasekhar limit is the maximum size of a white dwarf, but there may be other ways of preventing collapse into a black hole at higher masses; for example, the TOV limit that governs neutron star formation.

    9. Re:interesting, but vaguely in line with estimates by mikael · · Score: 2

      There is the Chandrasekhar limit which defines the maximum size of a White dwarf star .

      There is a theoretical maximum limit for a neutron star, which seems to be about 3 - 3.2. This also applies to pulsars, which are spinning neutron stars.

      There is also an upper limit to the size that a black hole can become

      There is the Schwarzfield radius which defines the escape limit for the speed of light.

      Maybe the maximum size of neutron star is the minimum size of a black hole? Or is there something inbetween?

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    10. Re:interesting, but vaguely in line with estimates by whoisisis · · Score: 3, Informative

      I am a physicist, although not an astronomer. Indeed, microscopic black holes (less than the earth mass) are speculated to exist. They're called primordial black holes and must be created in the early universe.

      They're candidates for the sources of gamma ray bursts.

    11. Re:interesting, but vaguely in line with estimates by Ruie · · Score: 1

      Replying to myself: it appears that the minimum is related to the Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limit for the maximum mass of a neutron star, which isn't known to great accuracy. Wikipedia cites a 1996 journal article with an estimate of "approximately 1.5 to 3.0 solar masses".

      There is a recent observation of a neutron star with 2.0 solar mass (+/- a small uncertainty).

    12. Re:interesting, but vaguely in line with estimates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I may be wrong as I'm not a physicist" Uh, you could be a physicist and still be wrong.

    13. Re:interesting, but vaguely in line with estimates by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      "I may be wrong as I'm not a physicist" Uh, you could be a physicist and still be wrong.

      Yeah, especially considering that we actually don't have correct laws of physics to work with. We have vague approximations that do us just fine at the macro level for some things, but when it comes to what's really happening, we're no better off than the blokes who coined the term "Atom" and then found it actually IS divisible after all.

      TL;DR: If you're a physicist, you're certainly wrong; We just don't know exactly why yet.

    14. Re:interesting, but vaguely in line with estimates by retiarius · · Score: 1

      Link desired? I'm not a physicist, but I remember "Schwartzchild radius"
      from high school, and, as per usual, Wikipedia fills in the blanks coming
      up with closed-form solutions for stellar black holes near 3 solar masses,
      to wit:

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

  7. The biggest black hole by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1, Funny

    The biggest hole is here at work.

    --
    It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
  8. There is no "size" in this universe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But I am nitpicking...

    1. Re:There is no "size" in this universe by Ruie · · Score: 1

      Planck length.

    2. Re:There is no "size" in this universe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      :O

      turns out i was wrong

      thanks

  9. Not the smallest .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  10. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought it was in my wallet.

    1. Re:Really? by TuringCheck · · Score: 1

      More likely it was sucking money out of your wallet...

  11. Forbes is reporting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Astronomical errata aren't exactly what people turn to Forbes for. I keep waiting for the punch line... Is it a bank? A country that threatens the stability of the Euro? A cell phone manufacturer that bet its future on WP7?

    1. Re:Forbes is reporting? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2

      Maybe the punch line is that it's too small to have been formed by stellar collapse, and therefore is evidence of a former intelligent alien species who have built an LHC and created a black hole that way, which then ate their star. :-)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  12. Very close to the Chandrasekhar limit? by grimJester · · Score: 1

    Here it's claimed that the limit for a white dwarf collapsing to a neutron star is about 1.4 solar masses. Some statistics of how common black holes are relative to neutron stars could probably narrow down that 1.5 to 3.0 maximum for a neutron star quite a bit. At the lower end neutron stars should be fairly rare, shouldn't they?

  13. Titel not answered by zAPPzAPP · · Score: 1

    So, how small is it?

    1. Re:Titel not answered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      black hole "radius", or the radius of its event horizon, is related to its mass.
      for a non rotating black hole: R=2G*M/c^2
      G being newton constant, M the black hole's mass, and c speed of light
      if you take M to be three times the mass of the sun, you'll get R=8860 meters

    2. Re:Titel not answered by Surt · · Score: 2

      About 9 km.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    3. Re:Titel not answered by kestasjk · · Score: 1

      18km wide, I dont think GP was talking about the radius.

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    4. Re:Titel not answered by Surt · · Score: 1

      Good point. He probably wasn't.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
  14. Some of the last science for RXTE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is the probably the last big science release for Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer (RXTE). RXTE will be turned off at the end of this year and disabled. This is mostly because of NASA budget reductions and reduced prioritization by peer review committees, but also because of its aging on-board systems. The systems were designed for a two year life-time but lasted for more than sixteen! The satellite will probably remain in orbit for quite a few more years - passive - before re-entering the atmosphere. The scientific community will lose the only working X-ray observatory that can measure the fast heartbeats of black holes and neutron star systems, and do complicated monitoring observations.

    RXTE has done a lot of great science in the past 16 years, some of it featured here on Slashdot. The legacy will live on though, since the data archive will remain publicly available. Sometimes great science can come from the archive as well!

    (speaking for myself only) CM

  15. The proof is right in front of us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Orion Group is behind every black hole.

    The Orion Group is a Draconian controlled and manipulated regressive extraterrestrial political body that is specifically made up of eighteen different star systems within the Orion constellation.

    Prominent members of this consortium are from Beta, Alpha and Gamma Orions -- as well as groups who are from Ursa Minor and Ursa Major, who are strongly associated with it. The races consist of a mixture of reptilians, humans, hybrids and other species.

    The collective human minds are manipulated from the Moon, which is actually a spacecraft controlled by the reptilians.

  16. Awwww by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How cute! It's just a baby!

  17. nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's ridiculous nonsense - I have in my possession the smallest black hole known to men. Possession is 9/10th of the law.

  18. Hawking evaporation limit by TuringCheck · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A black hole that would grow by absorbing radiation instead of shrinking at the ~4K average temperature of the universe can be around the mass of the Moon. Such a small black hole cannot form just by gravitational collapse but can go on indefinitely unless the universe cools down.

    The question here was about the minimum mass a star can have to become a black hole instead of remaining a neutron star - or maybe something more exotic but still fighting gravity. The Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff equation gives an estimate but since noone managed to observe exactly what happens with matter at the densities found in a neutron star there are still a lot of assumptions.

  19. totally incorrect slashdot summary by bcrowell · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here is the scientific paper. It makes no claim whatsoever about the mass of IGR J17091-3624. On p. 6, they say:

    Figure 5 implies that if IGR J17091-3624 emits at Eddington, then either it harbors the lowest mass black hole known today (< 3Msolar for distances lower than 17 kpc), or, it is very distant. Such a large distance, together with its b ~2.2deg Galactic latitude, would imply a significant, but not necessarily implausible, altitude above the disk

    Here is the NASA press release summarizing the paper for people who aren't scientists. It quotes the lead author as saying:

    Just as the heart rate of a mouse is faster than an elephant's, the heartbeat signals from these black holes scale according to their masses

    The Forbes article morphs this into "NASA Satellite May Have Found The Smallest Known Black Hole," and says, "An international team of astronomers utilizing NASA's Rossi X-Ray Timing Explorer (RXTE), believe that they've identified a candidate for the smallest known black hole[...]"

    The slashdot summary says:

    The black hole itself is only about three times the mass of the Sun[...]

    This is completely incorrect. It's a candidate for a very low mass black hole. What that means is that they're suggesting that astronomers do follow-up observations on this object and actually determine its mass, which may be unusually low.

    It is of very great interest to relativists and astronomers to find the smallest black holes. There is a limit called the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit on the largest mass that a neutron star can have. There are big theoretical uncertainties in this number, but it is probably around three solar masses. However, we don't know for sure whether anything too massive to be a stable neutron star necessarily becomes a black hole. There have been all kinds of goofy objects hypothesized by theorists that might be intermediate between neutron stars and black holes, including black stars, gravastars, fuzzballs, quark stars, boson stars, and electroweak stars. Observing a low-mass black hole narrows the gap in mass between the heaviest stable neutron star and the lightest black hole, leaving less wiggle room to believe in these exotic objects.

  20. Even smaller black hole by Wowsers · · Score: 2

    I beg to differ with the scientists, I've found an even smaller black hole, my girlfriend's purse!

    --
    Take Nobody's Word For It.
    1. Re:Even smaller black hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Purse"? That's what you call it? Does she like that?

  21. I thought black holes got smaller by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought black holes got smaller as they gained more mass because all that gravity pulls everything ever closer together. Have I been wrong all this time?

  22. Thats not a natural black hole... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was made with red matter.

  23. I put Kate Bush in space by nessus42 · · Score: 1

    I know this is neither here nor there, but I was a software engineer for RXTE and I snuck Kate Bush lyrics into an unused part of one of the ROMs.

    |>ouglas

    P.S. Peek-a-boo, little Earth.

  24. Wow... only 3 times the mass of the Sun.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean they actually managed to find a black hole smaller than your mom?

  25. Re:Smallest first post... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    bzzzztthankyouforplaying....

  26. Correction.. by Kongzilla · · Score: 1

    It's just grit.