Slashdot Mirror
Monster Black Holes May Lurk All Around Us (yahoo.com)
Taco Cowboy quotes a report from Yahoo News: Astronomers have stumbled upon a supermassive black hole in an unexpected corner of the Universe, implying these galactic monsters are much more common than once thought, a study said Wednesday. The giant, with an estimated mass 17 billion times that of our Sun, was discovered in a relative desert, astronomers from the University of California, Berkeley, wrote in the journal Nature. "While finding a gigantic black hole in a massive galaxy in a crowded area of the Universe is to be expected -- like running across a skyscraper in Manhattan -- it seemed less likely they could be found in the Universe's small towns," said a university statement. Big, star-rich galaxies where supermassive black holes had previously been found, are very rare. Smaller ones like the NGC 1600 galaxy housing the newly-discovered whopper, are much more common, but were not previously thought to be appropriate host. "So the question now is: 'Is this the tip of an iceberg?'" said study co-author Chung-Pei Ma. "Maybe there are a lot more monster black holes out there that don't live in a skyscraper in Manhattan, but in a tall building somewhere in the Midwestern plains." The largest supermassive black hole spotted to date tipped the scales at about 21 billion solar masses, said the study authors.
Was found in an empty space... duh!
it seemed less likely they could be found in the Universe's small towns," said a university statement
Well that's great and all, but it misses the most important point of this entire story - what kind of shirt was the spokesman wearing when he released the statement? We already know, from empirical experience, that this fashion statement overshadows anything that might have been said or any legitimate human achievement that may have occurred. Up to and including announcing that HUMANITY LANDED A SPACE PROBE ON A GODDAMNED COMET.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Trump is an Orange Hole
Table-ized A.I.
Maybe the black hole they found used to be in the center of a super massive galaxy, but had already swallowed up most of the galaxy so there's not much left, leaving the impression that its a super massive black hole in the center of a not-so-massive galaxy?
Maybe this is what they have been spending years trying to invent the invisible and undetectable dark matter for?
Assuming much more matter has been concentrated, over the lifetime of the universe, into black holes - then is this a usable attempt to explain what we still designate as "black matter" ?
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
Monster Black Holes May Lurk All Around Us
I thought I only had to watch out for their over-priced HDMI cables.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Some of the evidence for dark matter is that parts of galaxies revolve at a different rate than would be expected if all the matter were of they type we understand. This black hole is much bigger than the black holes in some known galaxies. The rotational speed of those galaxies can't be explained by a super massive black hole in a different galaxy. One of the mysterious effects is the difference in rotational speed as you go out from the center of the galaxy. Again that can't be impacted by something that's only in the center. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... From that same article you'll see other evidence based on gravitational lensing that again can't be explained away by even a large number of super massive black holes.
But the human habitation analogies in this piece make me cringe just a bit.
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
We would notice if any supermassive black holes were close enough to affect us
I can verify. There is a giant one in my wallet. I put money in... aaaaaand it's gone.
Don't get sucked in to a discussion on why black holes don't suck any more than regular objects. That would suck.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
There is 0 evidence that what we call a "black hole" is an actual real class of objects that really exist.
Black holes is a prediction of our theory which matches observations so far. A recent example is the black hole merger causing the gravitational waves detected at LIGO.
Unless we find a different theory which matches observations better and which says that black holes are in fact not black holes but something else, we will think of these objects as black holes.
Theory suggests that black holes cannot form because they would require infinite time to collapse.
This is plain wrong. The collapse happens in a very short time, in the proper frame of reference.
See for example http://physics.stackexchange.c... for more details.
There is 0 evidence that what we call a "black hole" is an actual real class of objects that really exist.
Black holes is a prediction of our theory which matches observations so far.
So... Like anything deeper than a few km in our own Earth. Or Earth's orbit around the Sun.
Thank you, but I think I'll continue to take as real that which "is a prediction of our theories which matches observations so far".
Disregard that. I was answering the previous post. Sorry for the moment of dumbness.
A relatively young and small galaxy turns out to have a supermassive black hole at its center and people are wondering how it got there? How about this: The galaxy is forming around the black hole, not the other way around.
"While finding a gigantic black hole in a massive galaxy in a crowded area of the Universe is to be expected -- like running across a skyscraper in Manhattan"
The holes have already eaten everything, that's the same reason why there are no penguins on the North-pole, the polar bears ate them all.
What theory "suggests that black holes cannot form"? Whose theory is it? Yours? Is your math better than Hawking's? And what about all the observations matching the predicted signs of black holes?
Some nice theories here but I'm sticking with my own pet theory: our observable universe exists entirely inside a black hole, slowly being compressed at the center across time.
Our measurements that don't take this into account see the universe as "expanding" because our cherry-picked points of reference are actually getting closer together.
But since this is all happening simultaneously, even our own instruments and myriad points of reference for myriad "constants" are also being compressed, which means it completely goes over our heads and the ruler we think we're holding is much shorter than it actually is.
Also, being on the inside of an event horizon explains why a universe that's supposed to be lit up with infinite stellar matter is more or less dark. Not the entire actual, "outside" universe is in here, inside this particular black hole, with us.
The smallest, relatively debris-like space rock outside this black hole might astound us with dimensions the size of the local group, and indeed the local group may have formed long after such a space rock was sucked in past this black hole's event horizon. As the matter from the space rock was siphoned into a stream of particles past the event horizon, and entered into proximity with the particles of other objects that had also been sucked in, their relative closeness exerted some weak influence of gravity and they coalesced into various tiny swirls and clouds.
Meanwhile, we cannot detect the singularity at the center of the black hole because of the relative proximity of all observable objects near to it. It would just appear to be a "background force" omnipresent over everything, and we would never be able to develop either an instrument to measure the singularity's exerted force because of a lack of possible reference-points.
This leads to the question "well, since black holes also capture light particles, why isn't all the light of the 'real', 'outside' universe also visible as a sheen all around us at the edges of the visible universe?"
But we don't have any concept of what happens to light after it crosses an event horizon. For all we know, photons are just energetic enough to whip around the event horizon without ever being perceived again (you'd have to be right on the event horizon, with a line of observation orthogonal to the photon's path -- which is always changing due to the centripetal force pointing inward) and only less energetic forms such as hydrogen actually manage to "fall in" (which would explain the otherwise inexplicable background hydrogen.)
Sorry if you haven't encountered this theory before, it's entirely my own creation that I came up with just trying to be controversial while lounging around staring at the sky at night. I'm not nearly mathematically creditable enough (only recently passed Differential Equations and completed my minor in mathematics, and majoring in computer engineering, not astrophysics or related fields,) I don't have the time or the fancy, and most importantly of all I wouldn't want to be the one to have to break it to anybody.
And I'm absolutely sure it would be rejected outright, just because every time I bring it up to anyone they just get stunned and stare off into space. I mainly use it as a psych-out for people who are high or drunk at parties, you know -- to fuck with people.
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
"we would never be able to develop either the instrument..." ... to finish the sentence: "or the observation of a point of reference outside of the local effects of the black hole."
Also: the main reason this theory isn't acceptable is because, in line with the standards of meritable academe, it can't pass Karl Popper's standard of falsifiability. Unless Thomas Kuhn's theory of experimental paradigm can be modified to disprove that Popper's falsifiability is required for all experimental conclusions -- perhaps by way of suggesting that an experiment's constraints can be expanded to allow for data outside of the observable universe -- it's not a useful theory and it should by all rights fail to be published. It would be academic suicide to even make a noble effort.
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
What "we" call black holes also includes "grey holes". We're just talking about something denser than a neutron star and gives off almost no light of its own.
Dark matter isn't just matter we don't see. It's matter that doesn't collide with regular matter, which makes it not conform to galaxies' disk shape.
We don't know for certain that what we are calling "dark matter" is matter at all. Dark Matter is a place holder term used to explain a gap between our observations and our models. We have some guesses as to what it might be and we've ruled out a few possibilities. Calling it some form of weakly interacting matter is among the more reasonable hypothesis but we can't confirm or deny that idea at this time. It also could be some sort of error in our model of how gravity works. Not quite as likely but not conclusively ruled out either. It's possible that it is something else altogether. We just don't really know. Saying it is matter we cannot see pre-supposes that it is actually matter when in fact we really aren't certain. It seems likely that it is matter but there are other possibilities still on the table.
for only $8.99 for a 4 hour block.
One of the mysterious effects is the difference in rotational speed as you go out from the center of the galaxy.
Why can't this be explained by time dilation from the gravity of the black hole? The center is only rotating slower to an outside observer, but could in fact be going the same number of Km/h (to pick a completely off-scale unit).
Why can't this be explained by time dilation from the gravity of the black hole? The center is only rotating slower to an outside observer, but could in fact be going the same number of Km/h (to pick a completely off-scale unit).
It just doesn't. Time dilation is not arbitrary, it has to work in a very specific manner for all the math and the experimental results (and internet) to work.
The gravitational effect of the accounted for mass in each galaxy doesn't explain their movement.
But that is what tv is for.
There are many possible models collapsed objects that match our observations so far. A "black hole" (i.e., an object with a singularity) is only one of many such models, but it happened to be one of the earliest ones, which is why the name stuck. In reality, we already know that black holes in the strict sense don't "match observations", in the sense that they are not compatible with quantum mechanics.
Discussions of alien civilizations waging wars over those canals were a popular household topic conversation, just like black holes today.
Wow your household must be really different from mine, Sheldon Cooper. OBTW did you know they really fucked up your theme song, the universe started 13 Billion years not 13 Million, Idiot song writers.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
All these hysterical headlines.
So, I invoke a variation of the Fermi Paradox in relation to black holes. If they were all over the place "lurking" as the article suggests we should see evidence of that through Gravitational Lensing. Random points in space where suddenly we see a 'smear.' Other evidence would be through objects moving in odd was as we see at the center of our own galaxy. I've never read about any of that.
Last time I checked, we only see lensing where there is a defined galaxy, which then explains the lensing effect. And there we have it.
I realize things move fast in cosmology so perhaps my information is dated already. I always welcome a chance to learn something new.
A "black hole" (i.e., an object with a singularity) is only one of many such models, but it happened to be one of the earliest ones, which is why the name stuck.
From what I understand, the current definition of a black hole is not an object with a singularity, but a region of space surrounded by an event horizon.
We don't know for certain that what we are calling Matter is matter at all. Matter is a term used to explain our observations and our models.
[eyeroll] What we refer to as matter is matter by definition based on phenomena we have directly observed and experiments we have conducted on its properties. We understand quite a lot (though not everything) about its properties and component parts. Dark matter is something we have no direct observations of and have no idea what its properties might be aside from its apparent effect on gravitational models at large physical scales. We know matter is matter because we've seen it directly, have experimental evidence of its properties and assigned it a name. We have no idea if dark matter is actually matter because we haven't seen it directly and have no direct experimental evidence of its properties, though we have assigned it a tentative name. The most we've managed to do with dark matter is to constrain its possible properties somewhat but much more work remains to be done. It makes sense to tentatively call it matter as long as we acknowledge that such a label may turn out to be ultimately incorrect.
To put it plainly I'm not arguing that we don't know anything. I'm pointing out that our actual understanding of what we are calling "dark matter" is rather limited at this time. Not the first time that has happened in our scientific history and it won't be the last.
It also could be some sort of error in our model of how energy works.
Matter and energy are the same thing. E=MC^2 and all that. That is well understood. Saying you have an error in your model of energy is really the same as saying you have an error in your model of matter.
The time dilation effect is highly localised to the black hole.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
No mate. You're wrong.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
One of the mysterious effects is the difference in rotational speed as you go out from the center of the galaxy. Again that can't be impacted by something that's only in the center.
And yet they treat the galaxy as a point source of gravity at the center. See this post by Sique as an example. Plus, if gravity waves are a reality, then gravity must travel at a limited speed. This would mean that things orbit where the gravity was and not where it is now. This would also mean that the stars in the same orbit at the outer edges of the galaxy are affected by the stars ahead in the orbit more than the ones behind in the orbit. Since they are all travelling around together and gravity has a speed limit the ones following you have a "blue-shifted" gravity while the stars ahead of you have a "red-shifted" gravity.
It seems that there are other possible explanations for the galactic curve problem using relativity. The bullet galaxy and lensing are another matter though.
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
Sorry, stars following would be "red-shifted" and stars ahead would be "blue-shifted". I put those backwards in my first post.
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
Localized is a bit of a weird way to put it. The effect decreases with distance. But as you go further out, you're also orbiting not just the black hole but the rest of the galaxy in between, meaning more gravitational force in the same direction.
But how much faster could the outside really be moving compared to the inside if the galaxy still has a distinct spiral shape and hasn't combined into an amorphous disc? If it's been rotating for billions of years, but still has distinct spiral arms, it can't be spinning that much faster.
There are different stars in the spiral arms all the time. They are basically just an area where the stars bunch up. What I mean by the time dilation effect is that just as with increasing your speed up to C, you only really get noticable effects when you're very close to it. You need to be very close to the horizon to get dramatic time dilation effects.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Basically in a system like our solar system, the inner planets, e.g. Mercury move faster than the outer ones and if they didn't they would either fall into the sun or escape the solar system. In galaxies we see that the outer stars go at pretty much the same speed that the inner ones do. If gravity is the reason orbital mechanics suggest that rather than a point source of mass like the sun or a big black hole, there must be a lot of mass spread out through the galaxy. The speed can be measured using red shifts etc..
So a big black hole in the center can't be the explanation. There are lots of other explanations that have been knocked down (e.g. a lot of dust, stars that are more massive but somehow don't emit enough light etc). Look on wikipedia for why those don't work. I'm just pointing out why this new observation isn't the answer
If that is the definition you use, then you can't talk about "our theory" or "a theory that matches observations better", because there is no single theory of "regions of space surrounded by an event horizon". The theory people use to make predictions about black holes is general relativity, and it is important to remember that (1) there are many other possible theories that have event horizons and are indistinguishable from it using current observations, and (2) general relativity can at best be an imperfect, incomplete approximation to a correct theory of gravitation.
When people say that "black holes don't exist", that is basically just a shorthand for saying "black holes as described by general relativity don't exist", and that is a reasonable position to take given all available data.
That sucks.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
No, just her dildo.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
You are wrong. The fact that we don't know what dark matter is, doesn't imply we don't know whether it's matter.
That is a non-sequitur. If we don't know what it is then QED we don't know if it is matter. Your argument is like viewing a UFO and immediately deciding it must be aliens from another planet - completely disregarding what the U stands for. It could very easily be a modeling error like the difference between Newtonian physics and General Relativity. If that turns out to be true then it obviously is not a new form of matter. Until we actually observe and can describe in detail something physical that is causing the difference between our models and our observations then modeling error remains a possibility. Right now all we have are some educated guesses and incomplete data.
We do have some observations that tell us what Dark Matter cannot be but we still have a wide menu of options for what it actually is.
One of the few things we know is that it is matter.
No, we SUSPECT that it is matter. All the difference in the world. We plainly do not know that it is matter to a sufficiently level of certainty.
The other thing we are certain about is that it does not interact as easily as other matter with "accounted for" matter.
That can only be true if it actually is matter and we don't actually know that at this time.
"Direct observation" stopped being required proof over a century ago.
Not here on Earth. Last time I checked science was pretty serious about requiring actual proof through observations and evidence.
Red shift and blue shift apply to wave frequency, but gravity waves aren't all that important for orbits. The Earth is in an orbit determined by gravity and velocity, and still we have to make incredibly sensitive equipment in order to detect any effects of gravity waves.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Was this title
Monster Black Holes May Lurk All Around us, intentionally posted to cause insults?
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada