12-Billion-Solar-Mass Black Hole Discovered

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

12-Billion-Solar-Mass Black Hole Discovered

Posted by Soulskill on Thursday February 26, 2015 @02:58AM from the go-big-or-go-home dept.

sciencehabit writes: A team of astronomers has discovered what is, in galactic terms, a monstrous baby: a gigantic black hole of 12 billion solar masses in a barely newborn galaxy, just 875 million years after the big bang. It's roughly 3000 times the size of our Milky Way's central black hole. To have grown to such a size in so short a time, it must have been munching matter at close to the maximum physically possible rate for most of its existence. Its large size and rate of consumption also makes it the brightest object in that distant era, and astronomers can use its bright light to study the composition of the early universe: how much of the original hydrogen and helium from the big bang had been forged into heavier elements in the furnaces of stars.

139 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

So don't go around there no more by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 02:59 · Score: -1

Right?
Oh? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 03:02 · Score: -1

"it must have been munching matter at close to the maximum physically possible rate"
That "maximum possible rate" sure sounds like bullshit.
1. Re:Oh? by ledow · 2015-02-26 03:04 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  My thoughts.
  If something had to be doing the maximum possible for its entire existence to get that far, chances are that's not the maximum possible, or we're measuring something wrong.
2. Re:Oh? by chris200x9 · 2015-02-26 03:09 · Score: 0
  
  I dunno a baby gazelle can run at it's max speed within an hour of it's birth.
3. Re:Oh? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 03:12 · Score: 1
  
  Really? Speed of light? Are you denser than a 12 billion solar mass black hole?
4. Re:Oh? by Waffle+Iron · 2015-02-26 03:19 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  "it must have been munching matter at close to the maximum physically possible rate"
  That "maximum possible rate" sure sounds like bullshit.
  Why does it sound like BS? Given that a huge fraction of the matter spiraling into the black hole is converted into energy before it falls in, that creates an outward pressure that limits how much more matter can follow. So there is a maximum rate that the black hole can accumulate mass.
5. Re:Oh? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 03:21 · Score: -1, Flamebait
  
  How long does it take a baby human to learn the difference between its and it is? Seems like a life's work for some people.
6. Re:Oh? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 03:23 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  There is a maximum rate at which stuff can fall into a black hole, as stuff falls in it compresses and heats up. The more stuff you try to compress at the same time, the hotter it gets, the more black body radiation it emits, to the point that the light emitted would be strong enough to blow away any other stuff in the process of falling in. It is similar in concept to upper limits for the size of stars, where the heat produced at the center of the star will create a light pressure exceeding the gravity holding the star together.
  These are not hard boundaries, like the speed of light in relativity. The exact circumstances and external factors can increase or decrease the limit a little, or limits can be exceeded for short periods of time before things setting into some quasi-equilibrium. But there is still a rough limit, and you're not going to see it violated by large amounts unless the theories involved are wrong.
7. Re:Oh? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 03:24 · Score: 0
  
  If the matter is just "falling in" given the matter's density and distribution being less than 100% of the total possible space I think it's possible that your "maximum possible rate" is an artifact of a static model of a black hole at any given time. I think it's probably impossible that this rate was even approached, really, for any significant time period, certainly not "nearly its entire existence."
8. Re:Oh? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 03:30 · Score: 0
  
  I bet there are about a dozen possible "yo momma" jokes hidden in there, each with several variations.
9. Re:Oh? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 03:30 · Score: -1
  
  How long does it take a baby human to learn the difference between its and it is? Seems like a life's work for some people.
  And a baby chimp recognizes shapes much earlier than a human baby too, but can never reach the intelligence level possible of an adult human. One of the consequences of having such a flexible brain is the extra time needed to develop it.
10. Re:Oh? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 03:33 · Score: 0
  
  I dunno a baby gazelle can run at it's max speed within an hour of it's birth.
  Yea, but it cannot do it for it's whole life without stopping to rest...
11. Re:Oh? by Ketorin · 2015-02-26 03:36 · Score: 1
  
  By definition. A baby gazelle can run an hour after its birth, then it is running at a baby gazelle's maximum speed.
12. Re:Oh? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 03:44 · Score: -1
  
  it's means it is, genius.
13. Re:Oh? by Waffle+Iron · 2015-02-26 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  If the matter is just "falling in" given the matter's density and distribution being less than 100% of the total possible space I think it's possible that your "maximum possible rate" is an artifact of a static model of a black hole at any given time. I think it's probably impossible that this rate was even approached, really, for any significant time period, certainly not "nearly its entire existence."
  The amount of matter that fits in a given space is totally dependent on its pressure and temperature. For the conditions in an accretion disk near the surface of a black hole accumulating at its maximum rate, the space is at 100% of its capacity to hold matter.
14. Re:Oh? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 03:58 · Score: 0, Interesting
  
  "the space is at 100% of its capacity to hold matter" You can say that, but that doesn't make it so.
15. Re:Oh? by Thanshin · 2015-02-26 04:01 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Yea, but it cannot do it for it's whole life without stopping to rest...
  Yes it can. As long as it steps on a landmine before getting tired.
16. Re:Oh? by Waffle+Iron · 2015-02-26 04:01 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  "the space is at 100% of its capacity to hold matter" You can say that, but that doesn't make it so.
  OK, Einstein. You win. You've conclusively proven that there is indeed nothing limiting how fast a black hole can grow, and you can now collect your Nobel Prize in physics.
17. Re:Oh? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 04:22 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Have you ever watched a waterfall?
  Ever wonder how all the water doesn't just fall at once?
  How about a traffic jam?
  While the mechanics behind it are vastly more complex, the end result is quite similar for black holes. There's only so much matter that can transit across the event horizon (a finite surface area) in a given amount of time and if more matter is available it get's blocked up and the excess has to wait.
18. Re:Oh? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 04:25 · Score: -1
  
  How long does it take an AC to turn into a smug pedantic douchehole? Just because someone mistypes something doesn't mean they don't know the difference.
19. Re:Oh? by Longjmp · 2015-02-26 04:35 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  I'm in tears...
  An AC on slashdot with an on-topic, reasonable and comprehensible explanation...
  I think last I've seen that must have been around 1912 or so. Thank you! *sniff*
  
  --
  There are fewer illiterates than people who can't read.
20. Re:Oh? by Bacon+Bits · 2015-02-26 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  Presumably the statement is less tautological than that. I would assume it means that a new foal is capable of the same speed that any older immature gazelles are capable of, with the possibly that it means they can move as fast as a fully grown gazelle.
  
  --
  The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
21. Re:Oh? by dywolf · 2015-02-26 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  hence the line in TFA about "challenging current theories"
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
22. Re:Oh? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  STFU you Karma whore! You're a buffoon!
  (sorry, but I had to counterbalance that rogue AC's work with an appropriately rude post lest the world come to an abrupt end)
23. Re:Oh? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 05:16 · Score: -1
  
  How long does it take an AC to turn into a smug pedantic douchehole?
  Less time than it takes to spit in your face and see whether you can back up your mouth.
24. Re:Oh? by drerwk · 2015-02-26 05:17 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I wonder if the accretion disk could get to the point of pair instability thereby reducing the photon pressure and increasing the rate of flow across the event horizon. I did a little Googling, but any knowledgeable pointer would be appreciated - as I'm sure the idea is not novel.
25. Re:Oh? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 05:28 · Score: 0
  
  "it must have been munching matter at close to the maximum physically possible rate"
  That "maximum possible rate" sure sounds like bullshit.
  Why does it sound like BS? Given that a huge fraction of the matter spiraling into the black hole is converted into energy before it falls in, that creates an outward pressure that limits how much more matter can follow. So there is a maximum rate that the black hole can accumulate mass.
  A constant supply of matter, sufficient to be greater than, or equal to its maximum rate of consumption, for the past 13 billion years?
26. Re:Oh? by Waffle+Iron · 2015-02-26 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  You didn't even read the article summary at the top of the page, did you?
27. Re:Oh? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 05:37 · Score: -1
  
  Hey I don't come where you work and knock the dicks out of your mouth, do I? it's means it is, it's fucking simple, get it right!
28. Re:Oh? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 05:38 · Score: -1
  
  And you've conclusively defended your version of the status quo, based on nothing but static observation and assertive chutzpah. Let's face it, you're ALSO not a cosmologist.
  Or were you going to lie about that also?
29. Re:Oh? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 05:42 · Score: -1
  
  How long does it take a baby human to learn the difference between its and it is? Seems like a life's work for some people.
  Not the guy you're responding to but English is a living language - if enough people use the ' to show possession then suddenly 's becomes a possessive suffix. If you want to nit-pick over things that don't matter semantically go for a dead language like Latin.
30. Re:Oh? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 05:53 · Score: -1
  
  if enough people use the ' to show possession then suddenly 's becomes a possessive suffix.
  Exactly! Fuck this contraction bullshit. In fact, starting right now I'm going to write hi's, her's, your's, their's, and our's. That'll show 'em! Its is a *special* possessive pronoun, and so it gets a special way of being written!!
31. Re:Oh? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 05:59 · Score: -1
  
  That's because most things that are right aren't politically-correct and non-politically-correct comments get modded down instantly below your viewing threshold. Physics is a bit of an exception in some cases.
32. Re:Oh? by Waffle+Iron · 2015-02-26 06:15 · Score: 2
  
  You've found me out! I admit it, I'm a member of a vast conspiracy that's foisting "static observation" on an unsuspecting public.
33. Re:Oh? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 06:19 · Score: 0
  
  No the part I win out on is that you're not a cosmologist and have no actual knowledge on this topic.
34. Re:Oh? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 06:20 · Score: 0
  
  So we've decided that neither of you are cosmologists.
  
  I think, just maybe, that I'm going to side with the cosmologists that have decided that there is an attainable limit to the rate that matter can fall into a black hole.
35. Re:Oh? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  It would change limits, but not by large amounts, as there is still a pressure involved. For example, the equation of states relating pressure to kinetic energy differ only by a factor of 2 for a bunch of photons vs a bunch of particles. Additionally, at larger radii, they would still be in the non-pair production regime. I haven't checked the math, but this would suggest that it would make it easier to increase the rate of material fed to the black hole, it wouldn't mean a sudden increase once the transition is made (i.e. a knee, a change in the slope and not a step, a sudden increase).
36. Re:Oh? by Wraithlyn · 2015-02-26 06:44 · Score: 1, Flamebait
  
  Considering he made the exact same mistake twice in a row, it seems like more than just a one-off typo don't you think?
  And your response to someone teasingly pointing this out, is offensive name calling?
  What are you, twelve? From the generation where nobody is ever told they're wrong and everybody gets a participation trophy?
  Mature adults acknowledge their mistakes and attempt to learn from them. If I was repeatedly making a mistake like this, I would WANT it pointed out to me.
  
  --
  "Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
37. Re:Oh? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 07:06 · Score: 0
  
  At it is max speed? At it has max speed? What the heck is that? Oh, you mean at its maximum speed. Didn't learn much in school?
38. Re:Oh? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 07:19 · Score: -1
  
  Perhaps you are unaware that it has been a possessive suffix for at least a couple of centuries. If you're going to be pedantic you first need to know what you're talking about.
39. Re:Oh? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 07:37 · Score: -1
  
  You have horrible reading comprehension if you think I'm the pedantic one (or you just heard someone use that word and don't know what it means or how it applies in context, oh the irony).
40. Re:Oh? by kernel_user · 2015-02-26 08:58 · Score: -1
  
  Maybe it's some kind of riddle. It should be parsed like this, with [clues] I dunno a baby gazelle can run at [ it's max speed ] within an hour of [ it's birth.]
41. Re:Oh? by HiThere · 2015-02-26 09:14 · Score: 1
  
  Well, one guess is that it could have formed *during* the big bang, and been force-fed at high pressure for a bit. (I'm no cosmologist, in case you couldn't tell, but I *did* warn you it was a guess.) External pressure could do wonders at increasing the rate of feed, and since it would thus grow more rapidly than expected, it would then feed more rapidly than expected when the external pressure was relieved.
  Or possibly there was a universe here *before* the big bang, and the nucleus of that black hole predated the big bang.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
42. Re:Oh? by painandgreed · 2015-02-26 11:03 · Score: 0
  
  "the space is at 100% of its capacity to hold matter" You can say that, but that doesn't make it so.
  OK, Einstein. You win. You've conclusively proven that there is indeed nothing limiting how fast a black hole can grow, and you can now collect your Nobel Prize in physics.
  Nope. They need to show their math first. Until they come up with the math, then they need to apply for the Nobel Prize in philosophy, not physics.
43. Re:Oh? by quenda · 2015-02-26 11:32 · Score: 2
  
  Are you denser than a 12 billion solar mass black hole?
  Actually, he is. Unlike regular black holes resulting from supernova collapse, a super-massive black hole is not very dense.
  e.g. a one-billion solar-mass (2x10 to 39kg) hole would give a density of 200kg/m3 - less than that of cork!
  http://physics.stackexchange.c...
  Some have proposed that we may living inside an even bigger black hole.
44. Re:Oh? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 12:02 · Score: 0
  
  Interesting idea, but I don't think it changes things. The limit on the accretion rate is caused by outgoing photons from the accretion disk. (The ingoing photons just get absorbed into the black hole.) Those outgoing photons hit incoming matter and have enough momentum to blow it away from the black hole. If the photons have more than a few MeV of energy, when they hit the incoming matter, they produce electron-positron pairs, as you suggest - but those electron-positron pairs still have the same outward momentum, so they still blow the incoming matter away from the black hole.
45. Re:Oh? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 19:18 · Score: 0
  
  "You've conclusively proven that there is indeed nothing limiting how fast a black hole can grow" I never said there was no limit. You seem to need to make things up.
46. Re: Oh? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 21:27 · Score: 0
  
  I thought this was about physics not spelling?
47. Re: Oh? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 21:30 · Score: 0
  
  Anyhow auto correct VHS turn just about and weird into what ever it wants.
48. Re: Oh? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 21:53 · Score: 0
  
  Nice, I was going to use a nightclub metaphor about max capacity and how as the club expands so does its capacity.
49. Re:Oh? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 02:11 · Score: 0
  
  he may have read the summary, he just doesn't understand how light travels
50. Re:Oh? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 02:43 · Score: 0
  
  Ouch ouch ouch. Should be: "Just because someone mistypes something, *it* doesn't mean *he/she* doesn't know the difference". If you're going to correct grammar, you have to expect such blowback. (I'm braced for feedback on my mistakes here as well.)
  By the way, as another person pointed out, the same mistake made 2x probably isn't a typo. Now maybe the poster doesn't speak English natively, but that's another story.
51. Re:Oh? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 04:28 · Score: 0
  
  How long does it take an AC to turn into a smug pedantic douchehole?
  Not long at all, as you've just demonstrated with your own post.
52. Re:Oh? by demonrob · 2015-02-28 20:06 · Score: 1
  
  or reaches maximum speed by running off a cliff...
53. Re:Oh? by DarthVain · 2015-03-02 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  Seems like if it is a constant, that it would increase linearly as the blackhole grows in size, allowing more surface area (is that even a correct term to use in such a case?) to gobble up additional stuff. Of course that could become exponential if the growth rate is such.
54. Re:Oh? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-02 06:51 · Score: 0
  
  Seems like if it is a constant,
  
  It is not, it scales with black hole size.
hmmm by slashmydots · 2015-02-26 03:06 · Score: -1, Troll

It sort of makes me think that dark matter, which doesn't exist and never will, is actually a bunch of black holes that ate their entire galaxy and we can't see them because there's nothing behind them.
1. Re:hmmm by Drethon · 2015-02-26 03:23 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Except black matter is required to explain how stars move within our own galaxy. One would think all those black holes would be spotted effecting light from stars in our galaxy if the cause of the effect was visible. Black matter is a placeholder to make the gravity equations work properly and no one has figured out yet what fills in that placeholder, or (probably less likely) if the equations are just wrong.
2. Re:hmmm by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 03:24 · Score: 0
  
  So dark matter *does* exist? Do tell, professor Hawking...
3. Re:hmmm by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 03:29 · Score: 0
  
  What is your evidence that it does not exist?
  Furthermore, that does not explain dark matter by any means. Explain, for example, how your theory explains galaxy rotation curves?
4. Re:hmmm by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 03:32 · Score: 0
  
  we can't see them because there's nothing behind them.
  Unless by some amazing bad luck that every single one is sitting some place with nothing behind it, then the possibility of dark matter being due to black holes (large or small) is excluded by the upper bounds on their numbers due to microlensing surveys. There might be a lot in locations we can't observer because nothing is behind them, but you should still expect some to move in front of something, and the observed number is way below the number expected if dark matter was just a bunch of black holes.
5. Re:hmmm by Maritz · 2015-02-26 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  It sort of makes me think that dark matter, which doesn't exist and never will
  It exists, and will continue to exist, long after all casually arrogant slashdot armchair blowhards have passed into oblivion. :)
  
  --
  I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
6. Re:hmmm by Drethon · 2015-02-26 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  Black matter, dark matter, dyslexia is awesome...
7. Re:hmmm by bill_mcgonigle · 2015-02-26 03:59 · Score: 1
  
  Black matter, dark matter, dyslexia is awesome...
  "Alternately-bright matter" is the preferred nomenclature, Dude.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
8. Re:hmmm by Drethon · 2015-02-26 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  Black matter, dark matter, dyslexia is awesome...
  "Alternately-bright matter" is the preferred nomenclature, Dude.
  Matter of insufficient light?
9. Re:hmmm by Thanshin · 2015-02-26 04:03 · Score: 2
  
  Except black matter is required to explain how stars move within our own galaxy. One would think all those black holes would be spotted effecting light from stars in our galaxy if the cause of the effect was visible. Black matter is a placeholder to make the gravity equations work properly and no one has figured out yet what fills in that placeholder, or (probably less likely) if the equations are just wrong.
  "The movement of starts within our galaxy, as explained by Afro-american Matter. " - Drethon. 2015
10. Re:hmmm by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 04:16 · Score: 0
  
  Prove it! ;-)
11. Re:hmmm by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 04:42 · Score: 0
  
  How long does it take a baby human to learn the difference between affect and effect? Seems like a life's work for some people.
12. Re:hmmm by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 04:52 · Score: 0
  
  Luminescently challenged matter to you.
13. Re:hmmm by arth1 · 2015-02-26 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  How long does it take a baby human to learn the difference between affect and effect?
  My guess is they learn that the first time they bite the nipple.
14. Re:hmmm by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 05:11 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  The politically correct term is "African-American Matter."
  Which reminds me of some ridiculous verbal gymnastics done by some US-based news reporters years back. They were interviewing a black African male as part of a diplomatic entourage from Africa. The knee jerk reaction to say "African American" was so deeply rooted in this news reporter's psyche that she couldn't bring herself to call him "black." Instead, she called him "An African-American from Africa," oblivious to how stupid that sounded.
  Even better, I've seen reporters who simply can't deal with calling a white person emigrated from South Africa to the US as an "African-American" even though they are, indeed, "African-American."
  The stupidity never ceases.
15. Re:hmmm by prisoner-of-enigma · 2015-02-26 05:15 · Score: 0
  
  People used to say the same thing about the "luminiferous aether," you know.
  Personally, I think "dark matter" and "dark energy" don't really exist. Instead, I think there's something wrong with our understanding of the fundamental forces of the universe. Perhaps gravity doesn't behave with the inverse-square law across vast distances like we think. Perhaps there's a subtle force out there we've yet to discover that only acts over extreme distances. After all, quantum mechanics is only observable at extremely small scales, and a century ago nobody even suspected it existed. What's to say there's not something else that acts in an observable fashion only at galactic scales?
  
  --
  In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
16. Re:hmmm by number6x · 2015-02-26 05:22 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  A cosmologist's 'dark matter' (non-baryonic) is different than an astrophysicist's 'dark matter' (baryonic). To an astrophysicist, the term 'dark matter' has historically meant matter that is not lit up. It is not reflecting ar emitting light. Also it is not blocking light from some other source. There is nothing exotic or strange about it. It is just in the dark and so it cannot be seen.
  There were many observations of matter within the milky way, and within other large spiral galaxies that showed the velocity and orbits of matter were not explained by the mass that could be seen. We only saw mass in the visible light for a long time. The matter had to be emitting light, reflecting light, or blocking another source of light for us to see it in telescopes.
  It was simply assumed that Einstein's theories of gravity were still correct and there just had to be more matter than we were seeing. It wasn't seen becuase it was dark, hence the name 'dark matter'. Nothing wierd or strange, just stuff we didn't see.
  As time went on our observations expanded into more regions of the electromagnetic spectrum. We saw that there, indeed, was a great deal more matter emitting in the infra-red, radio, x-ray, and gamma ray spectrums. This has added greatly to the amount of matter that is known. There is much less missing mass on the intragalactic scale than there once was because we see more of it.
  However, it is not enough. Here is a really good explanation.
  And there is a new problem. We are now mapping the interaction of galaxies, and of huge groups of galaxies. And there does not seem to be enough matter in sight to fully account for there movements. Enter the cosmologists.
  The first 'exotic' form of 'dark matter' was probably the neutrino. While once considered a very exotic beast, it is now considered rather mundane (at least the three known flavors are considered mundane). The neutrino is an almost massless particle that is electrically neutral and has such a small cross section that it hardly ever interacts with other matter. Neutrinos have mass, so they do feel the effects of gravity and due the the equal and opposite reaction thing, they contribute to the gravity that we, our sun, and all the starts in the galaxy feel. While a single neutrino is almost non-existent, the huge numbers of neutrinos within the boundaries of the galaxy actually do add up to an appreciable mass.
  Now cosmologists are suggesting even more exoctic unknown particles, like WIMPS, to explain the missing mass. Some people feel that we should be examining new theories of gravity. Maybe on a very large scale gravity behaves differently. We do know that our theories of gravity are not complete. We do not have a good field theory of gravity that works with quantum mechanics. Continued experimentation involving things like the Higg's Boson will help to confirm some of these leading edge theories, and get rid of others. By determining the mass and energy of the particles that communicate the 'mass' field we will be putting constraints from the real physical universe around these theories.
  The cosmology stuff is the wierd exotic 'dark matter' that inspires wierd science fiction ideas, but it will probably be needed to explain all of the missing mass. When some of these, currently, exotic particles are observed measured and fit in an overarching theory, they will seem much more ordinary, as the three known neutrinos are today.
17. Re:hmmm by Bengie · 2015-02-26 06:02 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Personally, I think "dark matter" and "dark energy" don't really exist. Instead, I think there's something wrong with our understanding of the fundamental forces of the universe.
  That is exactly what Dark Matter is and has always been claimed to be. It is a gap in our knowledge with certain characteristics. We know it is not baryonic matter, we know it is not an issue with gravity, as assume it is matter because matter has mass and mass distorts space(aka gravity). The biggest problem is that Dark Matter is the longest standing unknown in all of history. Through all of recorded history, problems have been solved shortly after the discovery of the problem. Dark Matter is nearly a century old and almost a magnitude worse than any other problem.
  
  Plenty of great minds have looked at the problem. Our only hope is to keep running more tests and for technology to allow our tests to get better.
18. Re:hmmm by Bengie · 2015-02-26 06:04 · Score: 2
  
  Forgot to add. "Dark energy" definitely exists, otherwise we'd be running into problems with the fundamental laws, like conservation of energy. Space itself is expanding and that takes energy, a lot of energy.
19. Re:hmmm by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 06:09 · Score: 0
  
  Black matter, dark matter, dyslexia is awesome...
  Or you could do something wild, crazy, unprecedented, and nigh-impossible around here, such as: proofread those few sentences before clicking "Submit". I know, I know -- that would take an amount of effort very slightly greater than the bare minimum necessary to write your post, and therefore you are strongly disinclined to do it. I'm sure you will have some wonderful excuses for why you are so lazy, even if making those excuses requires significantly more effort than the proofreading would have.
20. Re:hmmm by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 06:10 · Score: 0
  
  How long does it take a baby human to learn the difference between affect and effect?
  My guess is they learn that the first time they bite the nipple.
  Unless your mom was a selfish bitch and decided to formula-feed you, because she was more concerned about her figure or her momentary discomfort (or whatever) than giving you the best and most healthy start possible.
21. Re:hmmm by ubergeek65536 · 2015-02-26 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  On a different scale "While a single galaxy is almost non-existent"
22. Re:hmmm by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  A cosmologist's 'dark matter' (non-baryonic) is different than an astrophysicist's 'dark matter' (baryonic).
  
  While I agree with a lot else you said, the quoted bit above has not been true for over a decade. With the various surveys that placed upper bounds MACHO theories too low to explain non-cosmological things like lensing and rotation curves, even astrophysical dark matter theories have become non-baryonic. There is a lot of normal matter out there still not accounted for, supported even by cosmological models and CMB, that while the main evidence for non-baryonic dark matter, also give normal matter density higher than what we observe. But this missing normal matter isn't grouped with dark matter, and not enough to explain any of the issues dark matter attempts to address.
23. Re:hmmm by slashmydots · 2015-02-26 08:40 · Score: 1
  
  The equation is based on the complete lunacy that we know exactly how much matter is in the universe. They also admit that there's a thing called the "observable" universe and we have no idea what is past it due to the speed of light vs spatial expansion. So they ignore planets and go for just stars since that's like 99% of the visible mass. Then they say certain types of stars can't exist then they say oh crap, there's one of them. See a problem there? The entire basis for the equation is ridiculous, although gravity being off by a factor of like ten or whatever does seem slightly strange.
24. Re:hmmm by slashmydots · 2015-02-26 08:43 · Score: 0
  
  The Earth HAS TO be flat. Otherwise it would violate the fundamental laws of up and down that we have proven and witnessed.
  
  Seriously, we don't even know how quantum stuff or gravity really works. At every point in history physicists think they've attained perfect and complete knowledge and every single time they're wrong. So a bunch of dumbasses stuck on their own planet can't calculate the total energy of the entire universe correctly, it must be magic, not a math error. That makes sense.
25. Re:hmmm by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  we know it is not an issue with gravity
  We don't know that with any certainty. Alternative gravity theories are still undergoing active research with various groups dedicated to such work (and are part of mainstream physics, not sidelined or crackpots). That said, no alternative gravity model has had the same success as dark matter theories in terms of explaining multiple observations.
  A lot of people shooting from the gut on here and other online sites talk about how it "has to be" or is "obviously" an issue with gravity, but that is going way too far in the other direction though. I've lost count of how many alternative gravity talks I've sat through where the speaker said they still think dark matter is doing better, unprompted. Many more say that when asked their opinion on the state of current theories.
26. Re:hmmm by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 09:33 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  The equation is based on the complete lunacy that we know exactly how much matter is in the universe.
  No equation in astronomy is based on knowing exactly how much matter is in the universe. Virtually every paper on such topics discuss error bars. A large amount of work on such topics deal with upper and lower bounds, explicitly dealing with the inability to know things exactly. There are a lot of realms of science where some value X is not known, but measurements show that X can't be larger than some bound, otherwise they would have caused different observations.
  
  They also admit that there's a thing called the "observable" universe and we have no idea what is past it due to the speed of light vs spatial expansion.
  Any universe that has a finite speed of light and finite age will have an observable distant limit, nothing to do with spatial expansion. This is really non sequitur to a discussion about things like galaxy rotation curves.
  
  So they ignore planets and go for just stars since that's like 99% of the visible mass.
  This is flat out wrong, as there have been multiple surveys for things like rogue planets, in addition to those looking low mass stars, various size black holes, and various forms of dust even. They didn't find exact numbers of such things, and no astronomer is making claims to have such numbers exactly, but they did set upper bounds on how much chunks of normal matter is floating around out there.
  
  Then they say certain types of stars can't exist then they say oh crap, there's one of them.
  You want to give an actual example? There are several rough limits placed on star properties, and it has made the news several times in the last decade when examples have been found close to limits, but not exceeding such limits. There are a lot of proposed ways to exceed some of those limits too, but have not been observed. But without concrete examples, it is hard to tell if you have a point or are just trying to pass off BS as insightful.
  
  The entire basis for the equation is ridiculous,
  Again with being vague; what is "the equation"? Do you mean the Einstein field equation and the rest of GR (not really just "the equation") which have extensive observation based testing independent of the dark matter issue?
  You complain of people being too smug and sure of their ideas, yet seem to spout falsehoods and vague statements with more certainty than you would find in most publications on the actual topic.
27. Re:hmmm by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 09:39 · Score: 0
  
  At every point in history physicists think they've attained perfect and complete knowledge and every single time they're wrong
  At every point? The why do physicists talk about big unsolved problems in physics? Why are there so many papers being published on alternatives current best theories? Even with this specific issue, there is still extensive research into alternative gravity theories and improving upon past astronomical surveys. You're creating a strawman, and maybe should learn how things work on Earth, including that easily visible via the internet, before commenting on how things work in the rest of the universe.
28. Re:hmmm by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 13:46 · Score: 0
  
  Is it bigger than Kim Kardashian's Butt? I DOUBT IT.
29. Re:hmmm by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 14:36 · Score: 0
  
  we can't see them because there's nothing behind them.
  Unless by some amazing bad luck that every single one is sitting some place with nothing behind it, then the possibility of dark matter being due to black holes (large or small) is excluded by the upper bounds on their numbers due to microlensing surveys. There might be a lot in locations we can't observer because nothing is behind them, but you should still expect some to move in front of something, and the observed number is way below the number expected if dark matter was just a bunch of black holes.
  hmmm is right , because this largely depends on your definition of "nothing"
  before Hubble, this was nothing and is definitely not nothing in the traditional sense, rather observable versus non-observable.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Deep_Field
30. Re:hmmm by Bite+The+Pillow · 2015-02-27 13:56 · Score: 1
  
  While AC reply has not presented any sort of references that I can read, making it kinda suspect, I less than 3 your reply.
  I'm sure no one cares, but I'm on the record. Am I 10 years behind in astronomy science? How the shit would I know?
Obviously by rossdee · 2015-02-26 03:10 · Score: 3, Interesting

Supermassive black holes have a different origin than stellar black holes
Anyway how big is it now (if it was 12 billion solar masses 12 billion years ago it must be pretty big now. Does this account for the missing dark matter?
1. Re:Obviously by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 03:19 · Score: 0
  
  Does this account for the missing dark matter?
  If the mass of the black hole is greater now than it was when the light we're observing now left it, then it grew by absorbing other matter.
  So no, that resolves nothing.
2. Re:Obviously by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 03:45 · Score: 1
  
  Don't get too excited. 12 billion solar masses doesn't mean much. Billion is 10^9th. The Milky Way's solar mass is about 1.1 10^12th. And the Milky Way isn't that big of a deal on the galactic scale of things.
3. Re:Obviously by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 03:56 · Score: 0
  
  I don't know what kind of outfit you're running, but where I come from we strive for properly nested parenthesis. Here, takes this: )
  Don't let it happen again.
4. Re:Obviously by Thanshin · 2015-02-26 04:05 · Score: 1
  
  Don't let it happen again.
  That laissez faire attitude is the source of most parenthetical unnesting in the first place.
  Execution is the only solution.
5. Re:Obviously by Zalbik · 2015-02-26 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  vive la revolution
  (sorry, I couldn't help myself
6. Re:Obviously by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 08:50 · Score: 0
  
  ) damn it
7. Re:Obviously by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 11:41 · Score: 0
  
  "And the Milky Way isn't that big of a deal on the galactic scale of things"
  Really? It's our entire galaxy.. that seems pretty big on the galactic scale of things to me.
  Maybe not so true on the universal scale of things.
It was there at the start of the Big Bang by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 03:11 · Score: 0

And all the matter being blasted around it ate. problem solved. I'll take my Nobel for Science or Physics or whatever.
brightest object by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 03:17 · Score: 0

The "black hole" is the brightest object in the region? Am I missing something?
1. Re:brightest object by edawstwin · 2015-02-26 03:23 · Score: 1
  
  Yes.
  
  --
  I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it by not dying. - Woody Allen
2. Re:brightest object by wjcofkc · 2015-02-26 03:40 · Score: 2
  
  The black hole in question is eating matter near the rate of what is theorized to be the limit of how fast a black hole can consume matter. We've really never seen anything like it. ~875,000,000 is very young for such a structure to be so big in a universe that young. Anyway, when it is said that it is the brightest object in that part and time of the universe, we are speaking of the "extra bright" event horizon: the point where matter is super heated before tumbling into the singularity itself. Since it's all one dense gravitationally bound structure, the event horizon is part of the whole. The great part of this discovery is that it allows us to take a peek at ratios of elements such as hydrogen and helium relative to heavier elements in a still pretty young universe.
  
  --
  Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
3. Re:brightest object by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 03:59 · Score: 0
  
  Right. And egg white is a very resistant material, because it is surrounded by a shell, and the shell is part of the whole.
4. Re:brightest object by wjcofkc · 2015-02-26 04:08 · Score: 1
  
  The next time a chicken lays a viable egg white without the shell, let me know.
  
  --
  Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
5. Re:brightest object by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 04:22 · Score: 0
  
  Chickens lay eggs without shells all the time. They are called jellie eggs. Some come with or without a yolk too.
6. Re:brightest object by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 08:25 · Score: 0
  
  But are these "jellie eggs" viable?
7. Re:brightest object by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 08:43 · Score: 0
  
  Who cares. The point is that if someone is talking about an egg shell and is calling it "egg white", it's a terminology error, irrespective of whether the egg is viable without its shell.
  Here a black hole is specifically the part that is inside of the event horizon. It is a terminology error to call its neighborhood "black hole", irrespective of whether it is bound gravitationally or other hand-waving argument. The fix isn't hard: simply add one word to the summary: "makes its surroundings the brightest object in that distant era".
8. Re:brightest object by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 09:18 · Score: 0
  
  Here a black hole is specifically the part that is inside of the event horizon.
  No, a black hole refers to the whole structure associated with the particular GR solution being considered (e.g. the whole Schwarzschild metric with no solid surface in the way). Outside of FAQ and textbook discussion, a vast majority of research and literature discussion of black holes has to deal with the outside, as the inside is not observable under GR. There is plenty of talk of structure outside of the black hole that is a part of the black hole, e.g. ergosphere, region of unstable orbits.
  And a large amount of phenomenology associated with black holes, including accretion discs and relativistic jets, get lumped in with the black hole. Names like Cygnus X-1 and Sgr A* are referred to interchangeable for both the whole system causing observed emissions and the central black hole candidate. In the end, the black hole is the cause of the emissions in such case, even if it requires additional material to do so.
  A flashlight is still called a light source, even though it is the light bulb or LED within actually doing the light emission. You can even remove a light bulb from a flashlight, and it is still would be called a flashlight.
9. Re:brightest object by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 09:47 · Score: 0
  
  Sentences 1 and 3 of Black hole together imply that a black hole is the region inside of the event horizon. If that's wrong, then surely you won't have any trouble fixing the opening paragraph of the Wikipedia article and convincing editors not to revert your change. Come back after you've done this.
10. Re:brightest object by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 16:05 · Score: 0
  
  Or you could just be misreading things considering how structures external to the event horizon are discussed on Wikipedia as parts of black holes. Whatever Wikipedia says and regardless of any given /. poster's motivation to change something there, that doesn't change how such working gets used in astrophysics publications, and even textbooks like MTW.
Compared to mass of our galaxy by chadkennedyonline · 2015-02-26 03:23 · Score: 5, Interesting

Our galaxy is 1000 billion suns in mass. So this guy is 1.2% the mass of our entire galaxy. That's huge. By comparison, the black hole at the center of our galaxy is 4 million suns in mass.
1. Re:Compared to mass of our galaxy by Bite+The+Pillow · 2015-02-27 13:59 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, well your mom's... well not quite that big. But she big man, she real big.
Sucking in everything around it by Alain+Williams · 2015-02-26 03:26 · Score: 4, Funny

I did not realise that bankers were around as early as 875 million years after the big bang.
1. Re:Sucking in everything around it by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 03:58 · Score: 0
  
  So screwing people really IS the oldest profession.
2. Re:Sucking in everything around it by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 04:10 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  That's not a banker, that enormous black hole is your mom!
3. Re:Sucking in everything around it by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 07:19 · Score: 0
  
  Your Momma's so fat she's 1.2x10^10 M_Sol.
Hmm... by linkdude64 · 2015-02-26 03:32 · Score: 2

"...munching matter at close to the maximum physically possible rate for most of it's existence." One of their physicists must be really good at yo momma jokes.
1. Re:Hmm... by Rashdot · 2015-02-26 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  Reading that sentence I thought: "hey, I know where that black hole lives!"
  Also it's its, not it's.
  
  --
  This is not the sig you're looking for.
It's been named... by Ronin+Developer · 2015-02-26 03:42 · Score: 1

Congress.
frist st0p by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 03:57 · Score: -1

While the project work that you resound as fitting every day...Like thing for the be forgotten in a turned over to yet Prospects are very their hand...she We don't sux0r as Milestones, telling arrogance was Fai7ure, its co8pse learn what mistakes centralized Or make loud noises the deal with you to decline for consider that right be on a wrong big deal. Death users. BSD/OS tops responsibility never heeded Megs of ram runs Developers FreeBSD's and other party the above is far
No real maximum as stated exists by burtosis · 2015-02-26 03:59 · Score: 1

Yes it is true if you assume things like the material is gas, it has random slow motion initially, etc. Then yes you can derive an upper limit based on the balance of radiation pressure and gravity. For special cases unlikely to happen in reality, such as artificial configurations of matter or thought experiment cases, this upper limit is much higher. For example if you fed a black hole neutrinos how would they significantly heat and spread compared to gas? They would not and you could feed a black hole many orders of magnitude more mass if you had a sufficent source of neutrinos. The same goes for electromagnetic radiation of most any kind. Or carefully slow a spinning black hole and feed it large amounts of solid matter such that it tends to not form any accretion disk. Again you can feed it orders of magnitude more matter than the theoretical limit.
Space expansion inside super-massive black holes. by Thanshin · 2015-02-26 04:08 · Score: 2, Informative

My theory is that space expanded differently inside the black hole and that the difference influences our calculations, significantly reducing the needed ingested mass.
Yes, I will mention Slashdot when they give me the Nobel price for that.
Brightest ? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 04:09 · Score: 0

honest question here: how can a black hole be the brightest object in any area ? isn't it supposed to suck light in and not spread it out ? or maybe they meant the accretion disc ? (I guess this is a mis-interpretation of the actual paper, but I can't go read it, it's paywalled)
1. Re:Brightest ? by dskoll · 2015-02-26 04:19 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Light cannot escape the black hole's event horizon. But as matter falls into the black hole, it's heated up tremendously and emits huge amounts of heat, light, and other electromagnetic radiation including X-rays. So it's the matter in the acretion disk being eaten up that emits so much energy.
2. Re:Brightest ? by Blaskowicz · 2015-02-26 07:12 · Score: 2
  
  Also why we're able to see brown dwarves at all. It's a much lower scale gravitational collapse that will simply leave a frozen, dead Jupiter behind but there's sizable heat content in there (though perhaps augmented by deuterium + tritium fusion early on, and then radioactive decay like in Earth)
Sorry, I'm a Black hole 'skeptic'. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 04:46 · Score: 0

Nobody has irrefutable proof of their existence. Just a lot of big numbers. Phooey!
1. Re:Sorry, I'm a Black hole 'skeptic'. by OldCodger · 2015-02-26 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  It's called Gravitational Lensing.
s/So/Dol by ballpoint · 2015-02-26 05:46 · Score: 2

12-Billion-Dollar-Mass Black Hole Discovered

--
Flourescent (adj): smelling like ground wheat.
Interesting... by rgbatduke · 2015-02-26 06:12 · Score: 1

So if there is one, either there is a substantial asymmetry or there should be many, following a reasonable distribution curve. If there were many, uniformly distributed, then there should be at least some well inside of the 13 gigaLY sphere (where this one is on the periphery). If there are some inside of this sphere, obviously they stopped "munching stars" and being bright at some point, probably some point before 13 billion years ago. Therefore we can conclude that either:
a) There are an unknown number of dark galaxies (to coin a term for them) wandering around inside of the 13 GLY sphere -- black holes with essentially galactic mass but with no remaining light matter to "munch" nearby and thereby light them up; or
b) This represents a substantial asymmetry in the distribution of early matter, one that is not replicated inside of the visible ~14 GLY sphere;
c) Something happens to galactic black holes after they've munched all of the stars. New physics. Space aliens. The fall out of our cosmos and into another.
Possibility a) sounds like a possible source of "missing matter" -- dark matter inside the visible Cosmos, wandering around in between the visible galaxies and possibly even more prevalent. It doesn't seem as though it would work as well for dark matter inside of galaxies themselves, unless this phenomenon scales out so that there is a distribution of black holes of sizes ranging from supernova remnants produced much later through 10s, 100s, 1000s, 10000s, 10000s, ... 10^9s or more stellar masses. If 1% of the stellar mass or better objects in a given galaxy were black holes with a mass of 100 to 1000 stellar masses with no leftover supernova remnant gases infalling to light them up, that's a whole lot of "dark matter" right there.
rgb

--
Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
12 Billion?! by skaralic · 2015-02-26 06:14 · Score: 1

That's big but it's not Euro-Billion big! Now that would be 10^12 huge!
1. Re:12 Billion?! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 06:48 · Score: 0
  
  You're off by an order of magnitude.
Banking Instrument specifically for lease and sale by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 06:41 · Score: 0

For genuine and Serious inquiry of any form of banking instrument (BG/SBLC/MTN/DLC/LC) Which can be engage in PPP Trading, Discounting, signature project(s) such as Aviation, Agriculture, Petroleum, Telecommunication,automobile, construction of Dams, Bridges, Real Estate and all kind of projects, We offer these from a genuine and certifiable finance company as the provider hence we are able finance your signatory projects and help you enhance your business plan. Furthermore,My Provider's swift carries tracking code with answerback,we can deliver at affordable price to our customers in other to derive maximum utility.for lease and/or sale from a genuine and reliable source without broker chain / joker broker story or chauffer driven offer while having your required time frame in mind.
We will be glad to share our working procedures with you upon request to help us proceed towards closing deals effectively.
Thank You
Contact : Mr. Mahendra Jain
Email :Draj.bgbroker@gmail.com
Skype ID: Jaindra.bglease
Only one salient question... by frank_adrian314159 · 2015-02-26 06:59 · Score: 1

Is it's event horizon gaining on us?

--
That is all.
Great Attractor by Salgat · 2015-02-26 07:22 · Score: 1

It doesn't even come close to this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G... It has a mass thousands of times our entire galaxy, which has over 200 billion stars.
How far is it? by hcs_$reboot · 2015-02-26 08:24 · Score: 1

Doesn't seem to be in any of 3 TFAs

--
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
Re:How far is it? by hcs_$reboot · 2015-02-26 08:30 · Score: 1

Ok got my answer. 12.9 billion light years.

--
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
Time dilation by kernel_user · 2015-02-26 09:02 · Score: 0

Does it even make sense to date events that happen in the neighborhood of massive objects ? I mean, time dilation and stuffs..
Mystery solved by Tablizer · 2015-02-26 09:22 · Score: 1

Side effect of all those AOL disks

--
Table-ized A.I.
Merging black holes by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-26 10:15 · Score: 0

Simple answer, another black hole isn't going to be impacted significantly by gas outflows. Far end of the probability curve yes to get so many mergers, but not physically impossible,
Re:How far is it? by quenda · 2015-02-26 12:14 · Score: 1

Who reads TFA? But the answer is in TFS: "just 875 million years after the big bang".
"how far away" and "how long ago" are the same thing in astronomy.
12 billion solar masses huh? by petergriffinismyhero · 2015-02-27 06:06 · Score: 1

So, about the same as Michael Moore then? Not as much super heated rhetoric probably though.
Are new singularities created around a black hole? by JohnStock · 2015-02-28 15:54 · Score: 1

I assume the pressure and densities of matter around a black hole's accretion disk are at least as high as those in the center of stars that form into black holes. So would it be right to conclude that new singularities are created around an active black hole's accretion disk all the time?