Slashdot Mirror


Black Hole Found That Takes Up 14% of Its Galaxy's Mass

An anonymous reader sent word that astronomers have discovered an absolutely enormous black hole residing in a galaxy that seems too small for it. In a new study (PDF), researchers looked at galaxy NGC 1277 and found that its central black hole weighed in at roughly 17 billion solar masses. Quoting Phil Plait: "The problem is, that’s far more massive than the central bulge of NGC 1277 would suggest the black hole should be. It’s well over half the total mass of the bulge! In fact, the entire mass of the galaxy is about 120 billion solar masses, which means the black hole at its heart is 14 percent of the total galaxy’s mass; compare that to the Milky Way’s black hole mass of 0.01 percent and you’ll see why astronomers were shocked."

22 of 65 comments (clear)

  1. Missing from the summary by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's the largest black hole they've yet found, if the article I saw yesterday is correct.

    1. Re:Missing from the summary by Bengie · · Score: 2, Informative
  2. Re:News! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    This was in my local paper a week ago, is this supposed to be 'news'?

    No, the news is that somebody is still reading a newspaper in 2012.

  3. Re:Let's call it... by SJHillman · · Score: 2

    You don't need a license to counterfeit money. Print money, sure, but not to counterfeit money.

  4. It might be easier to study since it's so big by voislav98 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I wonder if, with a black hole as large and relatively less shielded, you can look for some evidence of relativistic effects around it.

  5. That's not a galaxy... by idontgno · · Score: 4, Interesting

    that's an accretion disc.

    --
    Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    1. Re:That's not a galaxy... by dkleinsc · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's not a galaxy, that's yo momma!

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    2. Re:That's not a galaxy... by melikamp · · Score: 2

      Yo momma is so fat, she has her own exact solution of the field equations.

  6. This is what happens by stox · · Score: 2

    when you let the Walton Family take over a galaxy.

    --
    "To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
  7. Visualization of how large NGC 1277 by rminsk · · Score: 5, Interesting
    1. Re: Visualization of how large NGC 1277 by Baloroth · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And, interestingly enough, given the mass and size of the hole, air at sea level is about 19 times more dense than the black hole is. Black holes are just strange.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    2. Re: Visualization of how large NGC 1277 by SternisheFan · · Score: 2
    3. Re: Visualization of how large NGC 1277 by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well yes if you use the size of the event horizon and the mass of the black hole to calculate density then you get a low density.

      But the mass is not distributed over that volume. inside the black hole the mass is actually contained in an infintesimal point, and the density is infinite. At least according to the math; it's impossible to look inside the event horizon to find out if that's really the case.

      At the very least it's clear that a black hole must have density significantly higher than that of a neutron star. Saying it's less dense than the air is misleading in that respect.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    4. Re: Visualization of how large NGC 1277 by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2

      It's not quite that simple. The usual relativistic treatment of black holes seems to use a point source simplification (like you do with Newtonian gravity in high school). All the mass is assumed to be concentrated in the singularity, at the centre of the black hole. If that's the case then you're correct - the black hole consists of empty space with a point of infinite density at the middle.

      But how exactly do you achieve that? The event horizon, among other things, is where time stops from the perspective of an outside observer. So from that perspective all the matter falling into a black hole slows down as it falls inward, taking an infinite amount of time to get to the horizon itself. It seems you can't cross the event horizon even if you wanted to. But if you keep dropping matter towards a black hole the event horizon will grow outwards. This must lead to a distribution of "frozen" matter throughout the volume of the black hole, which would make the GP's observation not so arbitrary after all.

      I'm speculating, so if I've made an error I'd be interested to hear what it is.

    5. Re: Visualization of how large NGC 1277 by turbidostato · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "But the mass is not distributed over that volume. inside the black hole the mass is actually contained in an infintesimal point"

      Ahh! the old problem... equations versus reality!

      All that the Einstenian equations tell us is that they don't know how to manage black holes beyond the event horizon (and that they are wrong about them because of that).

      Given that the event horizon neatly divides the universe in two, it is perfectly reasonable to say that the black hole density (from the outer univese perspetive) averages its overall percieved mass by its volume.

      At the very least it's clear that a black hole must have "density significantly higher than that of a neutron star."

      Because?

      All you can say is that *if* (a big if) black holes behave more or less like all the physics we know about, there must be something within the black hole with densities above those we can find on a neutron star because by all we "common sense" know, black holes are like neutron stars, only more so.

      "Saying it's less dense than the air is misleading in that respect."

      What's misleading about saying density is defined as mass against volume?

  8. Re:stripped by RKThoadan · · Score: 3, Informative

    According to the arxiv pdf (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1211.6429.pdf) there is no strong evidence of it being stripped. Page 1, last paragraph on the right.

  9. Not that odd... by Gunnut1124 · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is just an example of a MaCHO. We've theorized about them for a while. They are a strong candidate for a bulk of the dark matter we've detected. The other candidates are WIMPs.

    --
    America is all about speed. Hot, nasty, badass speed. -Eleanor Roosevelt, 1936
    1. Re:Not that odd... by CTachyon · · Score: 2

      This is just an example of a MaCHO. We've theorized about them for a while. They are a strong candidate for a bulk of the dark matter we've detected. The other candidates are WIMPs.

      Uh, no. MaCHOs were supposed to be Jupiter-size to brown dwarf-size lumps of mass, careening through galaxies without being associated with stars or other luminous matter. A black hole *can* count as a MaCHO *if* it has no accretion disk, but we think most black holes have accretion disks and therefore emit X-rays (and thus don't count as dark matter). This black hole is firmly in the not-a-MaCHO category; for that matter, what we today know about Big Bang baryogenesis pretty strongly rules out MaCHOs being the dominant type of dark matter, so they've mostly fallen by the wayside in modern cosmological thinking.

      --
      Range Voting: preference intensity matters
  10. Re:This is odd... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    There are actually two kinds of missing matter at this point. Evidence based on things from the Big Bang like the cosmic microwave background and relative abundance of light elements gives us an idea what portion of the mass in the universe would be made up from baryonic matter (things like protons and neutrons, so pretty much anything made of atoms), and then there is a large portion of mass that needs to be made up of something else, that is what gets called dark matter. Of the portion we think that is baryonic matter, we have not observed enough material to account for that portion yet either. So it is expected, that if the those proportions are correct, that there is still a lot of regular mundane matter to be found out in the universe that without cutting into the dark matter portion. Black holes would be grouped with the baryonic stuff because it would get most of its mass from infalling regular matter (and if not, then it wouldn't really change much anyways).

    There actually was and still are some searches for rogue or otherwise previously unobserved black holes around that would account for some of the missing matter. At one point, it was thought that the missing matter could have all been black holes (i.e. before they realized we need to find non-baryonic matter), and is when the MaCHo vs. WIMP debate was going on. But searches provided some upper bounds on the numbers black holes there can be roving around the galaxy, and they wouldn't be enough to account for a significant chunk of the missing matter anyway.

  11. Re:stripped by Genda · · Score: 3, Funny

    I would think it more likely that a supermassive blackhole was ejected by a galactic collision and landed in a dwarf galaxy where its living out its retirement. Hhhmmm, sounds vaguely like the Mel Gibson story...

  12. still waiting for 1 trillion+ solar masses... by PJ6 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I read (I think it was in 'death by black hole') that the more massive the black hole, the less gravity you experience at the event horizon. For a 1 trillion mass black hole, supposedly it would only have 10g at its event horizon. For still greater masses, you could have 1g, something reasonable for both a human and a spaceship to deal with... in theory, you could hover a ship with a person in it at the very boundary of such an event horizon... how sharp would this boundary be? I'd lower a string to see where and how it gets clipped.