backtop

Print 65 comment(s) - last by Dorkyman.. on Dec 9 at 12:19 AM

  (Source: popsci.com)
These black hole’s huge realms of gravity could eat up 10 of our solar systems

Researchers from the University of California – Berkeley have found the two largest supermassive black holes to date, which are approximately 330 million light-years away.
 
University of California astronomers Michele Capellari, Nicholas McConnell, and Chung-Pei Ma found the monstrous black holes via the Keck II and Gemini North observatories, along with the McDonald Observatory in Texas and the Hubble Space Telescope. They measured the speed of stars moving around the black holes, where the faster the stars move, the more gravity is needed to keep them from flying away. The research team used these velocities to calculate the mass of each black hole.
 
According to the astronomers, the first black hole is in the center of the galaxy NGC 3842 and weighs approximately 9.7 billion suns. It’s about 331 million light-years away in constellation Leo.
 
The second black hole is placed in galaxy NGC 4889 and could have a greater mass of 21 billion suns, though researchers are not 100 percent sure on that quite yet. It’s also a little further away at 336 million light-years in the Coma galaxy cluster.
 
These black hole’s huge realms of gravity could eat up 10 of our solar systems, and outweigh the former leader of the black holes, which was located in the elliptical galaxy Messier 87 and weighed 6.3 billion solar masses.
 
“These are the most massive reliably measured black holes ever,” said McConnell. “Measurements of these of these massive black holes will help us understand how their host galaxies were assembled, and how the holes achieved such monstrous mass.”
 
Ma explained that black holes could possibly grow by either swallowing gas around them or merging with other black holes.
 
“We did not expect to find such massive black holes because they are more massive than indicated by their galaxy properties,” said Ma. “They’re kind of extraordinary. If there is any bigger black hole, we should be able to find them in the next year or two. Personally, I think we are probably reaching the high end now. Maybe another factor of two to go at best.”
 
In addition to learning how these black holes grow so large, the research team hopes to reveal if black holes are indeed the missing link between the early universe and the present. Supermassive black holes have been predicted based on quasars, which are ultra-luminous, energetic and distant discs that enclosed the event horizons of black holes in the early universe. It was thought that quasars were powered by these giant black holes.
 
“Our discovery of extremely massive black holes in the largest present-day galaxies suggests that these galaxies could be the ancient remains of voracious ancestors,” said McConnell.

Sources: The New York Times, ABC News, The Los Angeles Times


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Clarification
By Reclaimer77 on 12/6/2011 7:07:38 PM , Rating: 2
Has something changed about black hole theory and I missed it?

quote:
Ma explained that black holes could possibly grow by either swallowing gas around them


I remember reading years ago that black holes, especially ones this large, had gravity of such a magnitude that matter would be crushed, converting it to X-Ray's and other forms of energy.

Obviously Ma knows way more about black holes than I do. But I'm just curious how gas could grow the size of a black hole based on the fact that it destroys, not collects, matter.

Anyone?




RE: Clarification
By amanojaku on 12/6/2011 7:37:53 PM , Rating: 2
The majority of matter in the universe is gas, dust or cosmic rays (charged protons, neutrons, etc...) Black holes, like all things in space, drift around and collide with stuff. Sometimes the stuff is big, like stars and other black holes, but most of the time it's small things like dust and gas.

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/...


RE: Clarification
By Goty on 12/6/2011 7:50:36 PM , Rating: 3
Matter falling into a black hole will emit radiation as it falls down the potential well of the black hole, but there is no conversion of the matter itself to energy.


RE: Clarification
By Reclaimer77 on 12/6/2011 9:31:11 PM , Rating: 3
Looks like we're both wrong lol. Black holes apparently rip matter into infinitely smaller pieces due to the tidal forces. So assuming that a black hole isn't a wormhole that transports everything somewhere, I guess it does collect all those bits of matter and add it to it's mass?? It's all so mysterious and interesting isn't it.


RE: Clarification
By MrBlastman on 12/6/2011 9:38:58 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, it does add the matter to its mass until hawking radiation depletes it. Hence, black holes grow over time if they continue to feed and dissipate (or even vanish) if they don't. Things get quite freakish inside a singularity at the quantum level.

As far as them being a wormhole--doubtful for now until we actually observe one. If it were the case we'd see exit points where matter is strewn outwards. It is one thing to bend spacetime but it is a completely different thing to bend it and simultaneously create a tunnel that exits through an arbitrary endpoint in another section of the universe (or a higher dimension--but even this is doubtful as we'd have observed a net decrease of background radiation/net sum of energy over time as it is funneled to another universe).


RE: Clarification
By Spuke on 12/6/2011 10:43:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Things get quite freakish inside a singularity at the quantum level.
What's a good read on this? Sometimes I like to turn my brain into a singularity.


RE: Clarification
By MrBlastman on 12/7/2011 1:13:34 AM , Rating: 5
The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene is a great read.

Also, watch these Nova Episodes, they're great (albeit the latest ones are pretty basic stuff but if you aren't really caught up with physics they'll be great for you):

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/fabric-of-cos...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wy9gXKwRpXc&feature...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSElHuK37-g&feature...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJa73DT54jQ

aaannd...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eZqQUdWURs&feature...

I missed a couple but those are a good start. :)

Like I said though, they're all very basic stuff. Once you watch them you'll want to read read read and I promise you it is a wonderful adventure. Nova has some really great resources on their site for the amateur.

Here's a bonus video on the eleven dimensions of reality, guaranteed to make your head spin if you've never heard of this. It pertains to M-Theory:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uY_ZgAvXsuw


RE: Clarification
By lagomorpha on 12/7/2011 6:31:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene is a great read.


The Black Hole War by Leonard Susskind as well if you're interested in how the debate about the nature of black holes developed. Susskind also has a series of physics lectures he does at Stanford you can watch on youtube ranging from classical mechanics to string theory.


RE: Clarification
By Spuke on 12/7/2011 9:45:42 AM , Rating: 2
Thank you very much sir!


RE: Clarification
By JediJeb on 12/7/2011 3:36:41 PM , Rating: 2
One I read back in high school in the 80's was "Black Holes and Warped Spacetime". Of course it is a little outdated but it is a very good read for the beginner and covers a lot of things including general relativity, black holes, worm holes and the Einstein/Rosen Bridge theory. It is also not at a highly advanced level making it a good starting point.

http://www.amazon.com/Black-Warped-Spacetime-Willi...


RE: Clarification
By Reclaimer77 on 12/6/2011 11:06:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If it were the case we'd see exit points where matter is strewn outwards.


Assuming the exit is in this dimension or not an alternative universe :P


RE: Clarification
By chagrinnin on 12/7/2011 12:28:29 AM , Rating: 2
Aaaaghhh! Can you imagine if we were that alternate universe and had a black hole expelling garbage and gas all over our universe? I wonder if it's garbage would be tapered on one end? :P


RE: Clarification
By MrBlastman on 12/7/2011 1:16:11 AM , Rating: 2
Well it could, the question is though--is the matter in an alternate universe compatible with our universe? ;) Think about that one for a moment... Remember, our twenty or so physical constants only apply to our individual universe. Elsewhere, the constants may be far different, thus the properties of our matter there might be different too and vice versa.


RE: Clarification
By Adonlude on 12/7/2011 11:59:20 AM , Rating: 2
This thread is a testament to the fact that we know very little about black holes and our universe.


RE: Clarification
By MrBlastman on 12/7/2011 1:23:59 PM , Rating: 2
Affirmative. Long live science!


RE: Clarification
By lightfoot on 12/7/2011 11:47:23 AM , Rating: 2
It would be horrible. It might even look like a Big Bang. Thankfully we've never had one of those.


RE: Clarification
By WLee40 on 12/7/2011 1:35:00 PM , Rating: 2
Hey now that's a thought. Maybe there is no net energy loss in our universe because we are at the end of a black hole and gain energy from it as our black holes spew energy into other universes?!


RE: Clarification
By LCam on 12/7/2011 7:15:53 AM , Rating: 4
Very good point.

For the record, the definition of a Universe is _very_ vague. I live in my own universe where I am the center of all everything and all the action. As does everyone else. We all accept we coexist so there must be some intermingling between universes. :)

So alternate universe is probably more like a "Steve Jobs reality distortion field" where his products are uniquely superior to the competition because his measurements says their are; It may be true but we all know we get to decide for ourselves.

I applaud your challenge to the assumption that an explosion necessarily needs to have an "exit". Such an assumption limits the Astronomical Universe to three dimensions in time, the true phenomena may be effect more dimension then human beings naturally perceive.


RE: Clarification
By Reclaimer77 on 12/7/2011 9:26:51 AM , Rating: 2
Could explain our missing mass theory if, for eons, black holes have been gobbling up the matter in this universe and depositing it somewhere NOT in our universe, eh? :)

quote:
For the record, the definition of a Universe is _very_ vague.


You said it! Sometimes it's still hard to rationalize this vague something called the Universe which has no end. At least non that we can discern. Infinity is a difficult concept, to quote a Vulcan I know :)

And thanks! Welcome to Daily Tech LCam :D


RE: Clarification
By Reclaimer77 on 12/7/2011 9:30:54 AM , Rating: 2
Oh my god! What if right now as scientists in our Universe argue and posit "Dark Matter" theories to explain the missing mass...scientists in this other Universe, right now, are debating why their Universe has been filling up with matter! Because certainly they would have had an Einstein equivalent at some point who stated that matter could "not be created".

I think I just gave myself a paradoxical headache :P


RE: Clarification
By Motoman on 12/7/2011 9:33:40 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Could explain our missing mass theory if, for eons, black holes have been gobbling up the matter in this universe and depositing it somewhere NOT in our universe, eh? :)


No, because then the mass would be gone from our universe, and our universe wouldn't behave like it was still here. The behavior of our universe is such that there *is* vast amounts of matter hanging around that we can't directly detect. But physically speaking, it categorically has to be here.

In high school I imagined that black holes were tied to quasars/pulsars/something else in other universes - magically transporting stuff from one universe to another in a larger multiverse. An actual astrophysicist explained to me why that isn't the case.

It's basic arithmetic to see that the mass of a black hole is proportional to the amount of mass/energy it's "eaten" - that mass/energy didn't go anywhere...it's right there in the black hole, until after zillions of years it evaporates away. Likewise, pulsars/quasars are simply emitting energy based on their own wild processes using their own mass...no additional mass is coming from anywhere else, and naturally eventually they run out of mass and stop with their hijinks.


RE: Clarification
By Reclaimer77 on 12/7/2011 9:56:29 AM , Rating: 2
You're assuming that our knowledge of the Universe is such that we're qualified to dictate it's behaviors. Saying about 90% of the matter in this Universe is "dark" or invisible simply because the "behavior" conforms with our notions of how it should be, is folly at best.

It seems like every month a new discovery puts a dent in Dark Matter theory. The most recent being Dwarf Galaxies, I believe. Which according to Dark Matter theory, shouldn't be possible.

quote:
It's basic arithmetic to see that the mass of a black hole is proportional to the amount of mass/energy it's "eaten"


Is it? Since we've never observed, obviously, or cataloged exactly how much matter a black hole has pulled in to compare it to it's mass. I would say our understanding of such a phenomenon is anything than "basic".

But then again, I was just having fun with the idea of it and letting my imagination roam. Enjoying the discussion :)


RE: Clarification
By tng on 12/7/2011 1:26:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You're assuming that our knowledge of the Universe is such that we're qualified to dictate it's behaviors.
I have found that the best that anyone can do is explain things with the current best theories and math. However in the future as more is learned, things will change to meet that future times theories and math.

For instance there are allot of theories put forward for "dark matter". Some have been eliminated, some still work with what is known, but soon enough there will be more data collected and it will start all over.

I heard a prominent scientist talk about this discovery and he said that yes, there are reputable researchers that are exploring the "White Hole" theory that matter that goes into "black holes" comes out somewhere else.


RE: Clarification
By JediJeb on 12/7/2011 3:48:37 PM , Rating: 2
Thinking of the Dark Matter theories being used to explain how galaxies rotate, I have wondered if maybe what we are seeing is not due to Dark Matter but maybe flawed theories on how gravity actually works at different distances. This would be similar to how we can not explain the actions of sub atomic particles where special relativity and gravity equations break down, maybe at super large scales we need to modify how gravity works also.


RE: Clarification
By LCam on 12/7/2011 6:36:42 PM , Rating: 2
Dark Matter is a term coined to refer to the "extra" matter required for conventional physics to explain movements and observable physics. It's a correction factor, if anything else, because the amount of gravity required to hold things in place is significantly different than the the calculated gravity in existence calculated from the amount of visible matter. The idea is since our physics theories dictate gravity to hold things in place, and the amount of visible matter doesn't exert such a force, there must be "unseen" matter that makes up for the differences.

Perhaps the theory, as a correctional factor, is not bad as far as the mathematics and modeling goes. The real point of interest for me is how this dark matter is manifested Astronomically.


RE: Clarification
By tng on 12/8/2011 10:24:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I have wondered if maybe what we are seeing is not due to Dark Matter but maybe flawed theories on how gravity actually works at different distances.
Had some of the same thoughts, though I am hardly well versed in this.

Just seems that since we can't actually do experiments in inter-stellar or inter-galactic space, just infer what we see on a local scale on those much larger models that there may be something else at work.


RE: Clarification
By buzznut on 12/7/2011 3:27:52 AM , Rating: 3
Many astrophysicists now believe in the multiverse, that our universe is connected to other multitudes of universes and that black holes may be a conduit to these other universes.

Another reason for this theory is that the big bang as we understand it would have sent all matter out in all directions at a constant rate, pretty much all superheated gas. Let's ignore anti-matter for this discussion, since we don't know much about it anyway.
All matter would continue to expand at a fixed rate unless acted upon by another force. Over billions of years, much of these gases cooled and coalesced into stars, planets, galaxies. Now these points of mass can influence other masses, if they weren't doing so already. At this point it makes sense that some of these accelerations would actually decrease the rates of expansion. However, there is strong evidence that shows the expansion of the universe is actually increasing in rate! So what is the force that is accelerating expansion? It is logical that it is not from the original big bang.

One odd thing they have more recently discovered is that the edge of black holes are found to actually be emitting energy.
This definitely seems to one of the places in the universe where energy becomes matter and matter becomes energy. Thus E=mc2 is better represented by E <--> m c2, in equilibrium. There continues to be no net loss of energy or mass as this would be more of an exchange of mass and/or energy between universes. Or even within our own universe. A black hole may simply be a factory for turning mass into energy. In which case it (they) could conceivably grow until all matter is consumed and the universe recreated with another big bang from an infinitely small and infinitely massive point. As the mass implodes on itself, an infinite amount of energy is released, and the stars are born anew.

In this case, my definition of infinite means more energy or mass than we are capable of comprehending. So why should we be able to comprehend how it would behave?


RE: Clarification
By LCam on 12/7/2011 7:05:43 AM , Rating: 3
I like the idea of a big bang, however I have a question or two:

1. Why is it always assumed that the big bang was some event that happened, as opposed to: is still happening? Maybe the only difference to consider is the perspective of time on the theory/phenomena. Is it so hard to believe that we actually live in a "continuous" Big Bang? Or has the challenge of one simple assumption, time, create a deviation too great for the theory?

2. If we believe in the law of conservation of energy, all the energy in the Universe must have already been in existence. Isn't the Big Bang theory rather lacking in it's explanation of these energy transformations? If such transformation existed, why can't they still exist? I mean, we don't see exploding black holes! Or do we?

I am suggesting that the conception of an imaginary singular event never seen before and never to be seen again is much like the idea of a Christian god, you need to take it on faith.


RE: Clarification
By Reclaimer77 on 12/7/2011 9:19:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Isn't the Big Bang theory rather lacking in it's explanation of these energy transformations?


Yes. I was watching a show on Discovery and a scientist was saying that the Big Bang theory wasn't "scientifically satisfying" because we have to accept the premise that something came from nothing, at an arbitrary point in time, for unknown reasons.

The show went on to say that a revelation was recently made when we discovered that the Universe isn't just expanding, but the velocity at which it's expanding is ever INCREASING.

That seems perplexing to me and conflicts with established assumptions about the Big Bang, does it not? Given this information, your #1 point could be correct. In that we're still in the continuous "big bang". But wouldn't that mean we were WAY off about the time frame of the Big Bang event or it's energy magnitude if the Universe is still increasing in expansion velocity? Or is some other unseen factor contributing to this?

Anyway great discussion all around by everyone. I almost didn't even make this thread, but you know, it never hurts to ask questions and discussing this stuff is always interesting.


RE: Clarification
By MrBlastman on 12/7/2011 1:42:10 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
1. Why is it always assumed that the big bang was some event that happened, as opposed to: is still happening?


It is still happening. If you look at Hubble data, you will see that we have observed the Universe continuing to expand and not in a pure Euclidean fashion but instead a Minkowskian manner. The Big Bang wasn't so much the injection of matter into the Universe--you have to think of it differently. The Big Bang was the ultimate creation of our Universe that allowed it to expand outwards. While to some it might sound hokey, you have to first refute our evidence we have gathered of the Cosmic Background radiation. It is there and is from the initial Big Bang as was theorized many years ago.

You might also ask yourself--well why can't we go to where it originated? That's hard to do considering space time has constantly grown from that single point of origin, almost like we're on a bubble or softs (I'm not going to turn your brain to mush trying to explain it). The reality is, we don't really know what space (more appropriately, nothing) is--AT ALL. Not one bit. Until we solve this, the most important question that can be answered in science, period, we can only theorize, test and repeat.

quote:
2. If we believe in the law of conservation of energy, all the energy in the Universe must have already been in existence.


It was not because the Big Bang lead to the creation of our Universe. Prior to it, the best many can suggest was all the matter/energy in the universe existed in a single, finite point. That is only one of several theories though. Others touch on the fact that our Universe could have been created through a collision between other "Universal Bubbles" thus injecting energy into (and creating) our cosmos which ultimately lead to the coagulation of matter, etc.

quote:
If such transformation existed, why can't they still exist?


Hawking radiation. Read about it. ;) There are many other examples I could cite.

quote:
you need to take it on faith.


We don't need to take it on faith--and thousands in the scientific community are not. This is what science is all about. Hypothesizing something happened (or is) and then going about testing that theory, collecting the data and then analyzing what it represents. After we're done with that, we formulate a new hypothesis as needed and test again. The journey goes on for a long, long time.


RE: Clarification
By Reclaimer77 on 12/7/2011 9:42:07 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
One odd thing they have more recently discovered is that the edge of black holes are found to actually be emitting energy. This definitely seems to one of the places in the universe where energy becomes matter and matter becomes energy. Thus E=mc2 is better represented by E <--> m c2, in equilibrium. There continues to be no net loss of energy or mass as this would be more of an exchange of mass and/or energy between universes. Or even within our own universe. A black hole may simply be a factory for turning mass into energy.


Right that's what I was saying. I had always assumed from reading about Black Holes that this is what took place. That matter was broken down into it's base components and converted into energy. Because the gravitational forces were so great that "matter" couldn't survive.

It's not just the gravity either, it's the heat. As matter is pulled into the black hole it gains tremendous kinetic energy as it's accelerated and pulled by tidal forces. Atoms are ionized until they reach like a few million degrees Kelvin, at which point X-rays are emitted.

It seems clear to me some matter to energy conversion is taking place.


RE: Clarification
By MrBlastman on 12/7/2011 1:53:12 PM , Rating: 2
One important thing to point out--the X-Rays aren't being emitted from beyond the event horizon (i.e. the singularity within). Instead, the X-Rays are being emitted just before matter passes through the event horizon or inside the accretion disk (which is theorized to be a very chaotic place itself). Once you go past it, nothing can escape (except via Hawking Radiation) due to the angle of incidence relative to spacetime. Remember, while Gravity is the weakest force of the four forces, we still do not know exactly what it is or why it works the way it does other than through General Relativity (which is still theoretical).

You see, when matter enters the event horizon, spacetime stretches out to near infinity (very hard to comprehend) as well as matter itself (i.e. spaghettification). I guess the easiest way to find a similar phenomena is the distortion of spacetime when your speed approaches C (the speed of light) per the Lorentz transform equation. Matter is wretched and torn as it passes through this point (which is already a huge divergence in the spacetime fabric to begin with at this point).


RE: Clarification
By Reclaimer77 on 12/8/2011 8:36:10 AM , Rating: 2
It's a little hard to take in, yeah. Because matter is basically slowly (or fast) vibrating atoms held together with lots of empty space in between them. The idea of matter being stretched to near infinity, while still maintaining the bonds that holds the particles together, is a hard thing to comprehend indeed.

Or is it a relativity issue? Where it only appears to us that it's taking place?

What I'm trying to get clarification on is how can you tear apart matter without releasing some type of energy in the process. Do black holes convert matter to energy, on some level, or don't they?

quote:
Remember, while Gravity is the weakest force of the four forces, we still do not know exactly what it is or why it works the way it does other than through General Relativity (which is still theoretical).


Yes so I've heard :) I've heard some pretty wild theories to explain this universally present phenomenon called Gravity. What do you think about this one? It claims all gravity is a function of "electrostatic", even on a galactic scale. It does bring up some good points, gravity does seem electromagnetic in nature.

http://www.howgravityworks.org/Detailed_Version.ht...

"So, gravity is simply the weak electrostatic attraction between atoms. Its that simple. It's all electrostatics!

The Attractive forces exceed the Repulsive forces because
the Attractive Forces are coupled together and work in concert.
The Repulsive forces are not coupled and do not work together.
It's like two against one. But the repulsive also keep everything from collapsing."

Hmm food for thought or nonsense?


RE: Clarification
By MrBlastman on 12/8/2011 1:16:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What I'm trying to get clarification on is how can you tear apart matter without releasing some type of energy in the process. Do black holes convert matter to energy, on some level, or don't they?


Well, you are assuming the black hole is tearing the matter apart to begin with. Now, we do factually know that when you _do_ tear matter apart, gobs of energy are released through their bonds being severed. We also know that a single atom by itself has a higher mass than two atoms combined together in some instances to form a molecule. This gets into mass/energy equivalency, btw. Without going there, you have to understand that atoms aren't the smallest form that matter takes.

You have to get into the relationship that fermions and bosons share and know that these composite/elementary fermions: protons, neutrons and electrons are formed of sub-fermions and so on. The bosons on the other hand, provide the forces for them and their interactions--and also potentially the forces we witness. If you break bonds etc., you have a net release--but, you must ask yourself... what is energy?

Well we know through thermodynamics that energy can be transformed but not created nor destroyed. In order to transform--and transfer it, it has to have a medium from which it can travel. If the angle of incidence (i.e. slope) of the gravitational curve is too steep, no matter the amount of potential (or if in motion, kinetics) the energy possesses, it can not escape the "well" of spacetime. It in essence, gets stuck.

As you properly allude to--matter is basically spacially broad--i.e. it contains a large amount of empty space within it (empty in our own comprehendable sense) and thus, it has a great deal of compressability. From where you and I are sitting, gravity is not strong enough to compress matter due to the strong atomic forces preventing us from doing so. However, if you compress spacetime itself (which is what is happening in a black hole) you can for all intents and purposes, override those strong atomic forces due to the curve becoming dramatically elongated to infinity, thus subjugating it to extreme levels of forced contraction on one axis and elongation on another. It is in essence being warped, completely.

This is all theory, btw. :) The truth is, as the theory goes, that is how it may go--but, until we witness the internals of a black hole and collect data from it, we won't know for sure. In order to witness one, though, we have to accept never being able to share that information (unless of course some form of quantum communication semi-violating entanglement via Bell's theorem) would give us this opportunity. Computational modelling, for now, is the best we have.

Relativity and the spacetime curve compression go hand in hand--because, as I've mentioned, not only due to the slope can it not escape in a euclidean sense, but also due to the fourth element, time, which is expanded infinitely causing a complete cessation of it (and this is where it gets extremely interesting at the quantum level due to hawking radiation) thus contributing to this no-escape phenomena. What appears to us is only the x-rays and radiation we can detect, nothing else. Our frame of reference differs greatly from that from within it.

quote:
It does bring up some good points, gravity does seem electromagnetic in nature.


The only thing that concerns me of such an assumption is the distances involved. Electromagnetic forces are extremely powerful, yet they step off in force dramatically over a short distance. Gravity has been shown to effect large, extremely large distances. Our Galaxy is held together by gravity and the theorized supermassive black hole at the center. From looking at it this way alone, I feel that it is going in the wrong direction.

I could be wrong though, but it just doesn't sound plausible to me. :) While gravity is classified as a "force" it could be far more complicated (or really, simple) that being just that. We have to solve what "nothing" is I feel to know the truth of it.


RE: Clarification
By Reclaimer77 on 12/8/2011 3:49:13 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The only thing that concerns me of such an assumption is the distances involved. Electromagnetic forces are extremely powerful, yet they step off in force dramatically over a short distance. Gravity has been shown to effect large, extremely large distances. Our Galaxy is held together by gravity and the theorized supermassive black hole at the center. From looking at it this way alone, I feel that it is going in the wrong direction.


If you read the whole thing, about halfway down the page he address this attraction and how it works across great distances. Do I fully understand it all? Not really lol. But I'm intrigued by the theory. I like his common sense approach to the problem gravity poses and the pictures help. I also liked how he addressed how his theory accounts for a "repulsive" force, that doesn't really get addressed by other theories.

quote:
We have to solve what "nothing" is I feel to know the truth of it.


Maybe that's impossible? Gravity appears to be an ever present force in everything, everywhere. It could simply be a universal constant that we'll just have to accept and stop asking questions about hehe :)

But man, I'm just a layman. You sound like a physics major or something :)


RE: Clarification
By senecarr on 12/7/2011 9:02:24 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, I believe it was mathematically shown that Blackholes can't be a wormhole in the sense most people think of. While it is possible for a blackhole to be connected with another blackhole via quantum tunneling, I believe it was shown that "information" cannot escape a blackhole, i.e., it might be possible for matter to come out, but the matter that comes out will never have the same composition and form as before (the information).


RE: Clarification
By MrBlastman on 12/8/2011 1:20:09 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. A classical (imagined) wormhole would bridge two points in space via upscaling to an upper (or outer) dimension from our on conceivable 4-dimensional Minkowskian spacetime.


RE: Clarification
By Goty on 12/7/2011 7:11:11 AM , Rating: 2
No, not both of us. ;)


RE: Clarification
By Reclaimer77 on 12/7/11, Rating: 0
RE: Clarification
By Goty on 12/7/2011 1:22:57 PM , Rating: 2
I said radiation is emitted, which is certainly energy, but that doesn't mean it was created from matter. The energy emitted by matter as it falls into a black hole is the object's gravitational potential energy.


RE: Clarification
By Reclaimer77 on 12/7/2011 7:29:30 PM , Rating: 2
No sorry, that's wrong.


RE: Clarification
By Goty on 12/7/2011 10:42:08 PM , Rating: 2
Alrighty, I'll just let you explain that to Misner, Thorne and Wheeler. Oh, and my degrees in physics.


RE: Clarification
By LCam on 12/7/2011 6:50:20 AM , Rating: 2
My first post!

Because of a relationship between energy and matter, space and time, it's important to understand that while a black hole may appear to be eating up matter, it probably also eats up the space/time in the same reference frame as the observable matter.

Beyond the event horizon, it's not inconceivable that atomic structures no longer exists (because of the intense gravity that even light cannot escape probably would crush electron cloud "orbits") Such a phenomena certainly affects space/time as well.

Quite simply, there is no evidence that within the event horizon time also no longer exists; it would be as though the past, present and future collapse into a moment.

And if the above presumption is not absurd, it's also not absurd that if space itself also collapses. So imagine no that here, there and everywhere is collapsed into a single here (point).

If the above two absurdities could in-fact be plausible, then all black holes that are detected in the sky must lead to the same singularity (above absurdities) within the event horizons of each. So trying to find the more massive black hole is irrelevant since they are all the same singularity. Perhaps what appears to be the more massive black hole is merely a larger rift in the fabric of space that separates our universe from the singularity. A fabric that exists even in the very space we occupy at this moment.


RE: Clarification
By Motoman on 12/7/2011 9:37:20 AM , Rating: 1
You've made a nonsensical argument...your first 2 absurdities, while potentially not that absurd, in no way validate the concept that "all black holes that are detected in the sky must lead to the same singularity."

Which I believe is easily discredited by pointing out that different black holes have different masses and wield different event horizons because of it.You've made a nonsensical argument...your first 2 absurdities, while potentially not that absurd, in no way validate the concept that


RE: Clarification
By Reclaimer77 on 12/7/2011 10:01:50 AM , Rating: 1
Dude will you chill the fuck out? He's not "making an argument", we're just having a discussion here. One that used to be pleasant until you showed up.


RE: Clarification
By LCam on 12/7/2011 7:07:59 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for your comment. Appreciated of course. I agree with another poster about not presenting a real argument.

Your proposition is that each black hole leads to a different singularity that plausibly is timeless/sizeless and location-less (first two absurdities) but in different localizations as seen by our observational measurements.

I considered that option, it's part the traditional theory after all. However, if something is location-less, why is it accurate or even proper to attribute a location at all. So while the singularities may in fact be distinct, if there where multiples, they would overlap I suppose. It seems simpler to reduce the complexity and consider the singularities to be the same.

Having no size does not mean necessarily small, it may mean huge, even equivalent to the size of the known universe. It does most certainly mean that in it's reference frame, size as we know it, does not apply.

My point, if I have one to make at all, is not to introduce a new idea, it's simply to challenge the assumptions. One such basic assumption is that beyond the event horizon of black holes, we have individual "balls" of mass that have accumulated over millions of years. The challenge of assumption here are the very characteristics of a "ball" of mass. Every particle we know of whether quantum or astronomical, has measurable spin, inertial vector, size and localization. Why do we need to bring the presumption of those attributes into our understanding of a singularity?

I remember reading an article about superfluids and the interesting ways it behaves, certainly challenges more then a few assumptions we have about fluids... (think of the rotating container characteristic)

Want to challenge another assumption? Everyone assumes inertia is a result of mass. Is that correct? Why can't it be the result of the space the mass occupies? Thinking steel ball vs styrofoam balls? Well do they occupy space in the same way?


330 million light-years away...
By ekv on 12/6/2011 7:04:52 PM , Rating: 3
Is cutting it a bit close.

I'm curious
a) what took so long to find these black holes?

b) in general, does a black hole's mass increase when additional planetary bodies and what-have-you are accumulated?




RE: 330 million light-years away...
By Goty on 12/6/2011 7:52:57 PM , Rating: 2
a) These black holes are the tail of the distribution; there just aren't many of them out there to find.

b) Supermassive black holes like this don't really grow by accreting things as small as planets, but yes, they do grow more massive as they accrete gas and dust from their host galaxies.


RE: 330 million light-years away...
By Samus on 12/6/2011 8:04:41 PM , Rating: 2
Setting growth-rate aside, remember there are (albeit smaller) black holes in our own galaxy.


RE: 330 million light-years away...
By Goty on 12/7/2011 7:13:50 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, but stellar mass black holes and supermassive black holes form through fundamentally different means (you can't start with a stellar mass black hole and have it grow to these masses in a Hubble time). The presence of stellar mass black holes doesn't preclude anything I've said.


RE: 330 million light-years away...
By ekv on 12/7/2011 2:14:52 PM , Rating: 2
A parable. Please explain yourself. Or just post a link. Thanks 8)


RE: 330 million light-years away...
By MrBlastman on 12/6/2011 9:13:25 PM , Rating: 3
a. Observing gravitational lensing takes time--there's only so much sky we can watch at any given time.

b. Mass increases with additional objects passing the event horizon... however, Hawking radiation will lead to the ultimate deterioration of a black hole over time if it does not continue to feed.

330 million light years isn't that close... Our own solar system is only 27,000 light years away from a supermassive (theoretically) black hole itself. Guess where it is located? In the center of our galaxy, the Milky Way.


RE: 330 million light-years away...
By ekv on 12/7/2011 4:07:56 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
330 million light years isn't that close... Our own solar system is only 27,000 light years
HOLY MOLY! That's even worse. [I suppose our gov't could even decide on a course of action in that time frame, well, maybe ... at the very least, potentially, maybe].

However, you are correct, 330e6 isn't that close. It was a rather veiled reference to Ringworld Engineers. [Also explains why it'd take more time to find, thanks].


RE: 330 million light-years away...
By geekman1024 on 12/6/2011 9:46:51 PM , Rating: 5
a) Ever tried finding a black dot on a sheet of black paper?


RE: 330 million light-years away...
By ekv on 12/7/2011 4:15:52 AM , Rating: 2
So you're trying to make me feel good about my decision not to go into Astronomy? Hmm, Merry Christmas to you to 8)


RE: 330 million light-years away...
By TSS on 12/7/2011 6:26:47 AM , Rating: 3
On discovery i saw (part of) a documentairy that detailed how the first super massive black hole was discovered (and interviewed the guy who did it).

Finding black holes is the easy part. I don't mean the regular ones roaming space, but supermassive ones. Just look at the center of every galaxy and you'll find one, including our own, which was the first one found. The trick is developing the technology to see through all that dust, gas, background light and whateverelse is in space between us and that black hole, to observe the trajectory of the *stars* closest to that black hole.

They showed the computed trajecotry of the 30 closest, biggest stars which took them like 10 years to gather the data of. Once displayed in motion you can see that all those stars suddenly move really really fast when they get close to a paticular point in space, where nothing seems to be at all. That was actually how the first black hole was discovered, not because they found it, but they found nothing where there should be something, and something incredibly massive too.

Since then gravitational lensing has been developed so even black holes roaming space aren't that hard to find anymore. The problem remains when you've found them. How are you going to measure something you cannot see? At best your gonna get mass from the amount of which light has been bent around it. More gravity, more bending, more mass. But that's pretty much where it ends.

Also yes a black hole increases in mass if it eats up.. well... anything. Space isn't empty so there's plenty of room to grow. What's more interesting though, is we've found black holes shooting large jets of matter from their center. Meaning they can lose mass as well as gain it. Makes me wonder what happens when they run out of enough mass to sustain themselves.


RE: 330 million light-years away...
By LCam on 12/7/2011 7:11:34 PM , Rating: 2
Fascinating!

The gravity lens almost serves as an invisibility effect!


RE: 330 million light-years away...
By ppardee on 12/7/2011 1:57:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
a) what took so long to find these black holes?

Well, the thing about a black hole - its main distinguishing feature - is it's black. And the thing about space, the colour of space, your basic space colour, is black. So how are you supposed to see them?


Black Hole
By VERBW on 12/6/2011 7:01:46 PM , Rating: 4
Well one of them is clearly the NHS, but I can't work out what the second one is




RE: Black Hole
By Spuke on 12/6/2011 10:46:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well one of them is clearly the NHS, but I can't work out what the second one is
Excellent sir!


RE: Black Hole
By abzillah on 12/7/2011 12:58:38 AM , Rating: 3
The second is: Military spending or free money to banks!


RE: Black Hole
By Mitch101 on 12/7/2011 3:41:48 PM , Rating: 2
Yo Mama.

I had the right to remain silent but lacked the ability to do so. My apologies to you and your mom.


Possible names
By MeesterNid on 12/7/2011 12:34:16 PM , Rating: 5
US Medicare and Social Security should be somewhere at the top of the list for naming these black holes.




.
By Iketh on 12/7/2011 3:50:54 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder how close they are to reaching critical mass where they suddenly have repulsive gravity and explode, creating another Big Bang. Quantum mechanics will tell us one day.




Boy, did I misread that headline!
By Dorkyman on 12/9/2011 12:19:16 AM , Rating: 2
I thought it said they had discovered "the two largest black A-holes" and I immediately assumed the article was about you-know-who.




"I'm an Internet expert too. It's all right to wire the industrial zone only, but there are many problems if other regions of the North are wired." -- North Korean Supreme Commander Kim Jong-il











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki