Scientists witness the apparent birth of a black hole

[FattyCatty]

From The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/15/AR2010111504192.html):

Scientists witness the apparent birth of a black hole

For the first time, scientists believe they have witnessed the birth of a black hole. <snip> The evidence began arriving 30 years ago from a star 50 million light-years away that had imploded, setting into motion events that created a region where gravity is so great that nothing can escape, even light.

The initial 1979 observation of the exploding star was made by an amateur astronomer from Western Maryland, but the profession's top scientists have studied it intently with increasingly sophisticated orbiting X-ray telescopes.

In announcing the discovery Monday at NASA headquarters, the researchers said that although the information they have collected is consistent with the birth of a baby black hole, they cannot rule out other possibilities. Nonetheless, they spoke enthusiastically about what they are learning and will learn about the evolution of black holes. <snip>Fascinating, and there are some great NASA images along with the story. I thought it might be of interest to others.

I hadn't realized that there were different kinds of black holes. Also, the story says this one is in "our neighborhood" (maybe I should have posted this in a New Babies thread in Forum Community.:)). I had a vision of Earth being swallowed, until the article continued that it would take a million years to double in size. Whew.

[geni]

From The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/15/AR2010111504192.html):

Fascinating, and there are some great NASA images along with the story. I thought it might be of interest to others.

I hadn't realized that there were different kinds of black holes. Also, the story says this one is in "our neighborhood" (maybe I should have posted this in a New Babies thread in Forum Community.:)). I had a vision of Earth being swallowed, until the article continued that it would take a million years to double in size. Whew.

It's in a different gallaxy. Streching neighborhood a bit.

[BobHaulk]

From The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/15/AR2010111504192.html):

Fascinating, and there are some great NASA images along with the story. I thought it might be of interest to others.

I hadn't realized that there were different kinds of black holes. Also, the story says this one is in "our neighborhood" (maybe I should have posted this in a New Babies thread in Forum Community.:)). I had a vision of Earth being swallowed, until the article continued that it would take a million years to double in size. Whew.
it'l take a million years for black holes to be true.

[InfidelSavant]

I was going to say, 50 million light-years is just a wee bit out of our neighbourhood.

Cool news regardless.

[FattyCatty]

I was going to say, 50 million light-years is just a wee bit out of our neighbourhood.

Cool news regardless.Well, I guess I juiced the piglet in my ignorance of astronomy.:o

[Aitch]

Neighbourhood?

Well, some cosmologists believe the universe may be infinite in size (saw one of them on TV a month or two ago), so the fact that this baby black hole is in the visible part of it (from our point of view) sort of makes it in the neighbourhood. I think.

[Sceptic-PK]

it'l take a million years for black holes to be true.

Aren't black holes supported by maths and observations? Is there a body of work that disputes the existence of black holes? If so, and it's nicely dumbed-down, I'd love to read it.

[caniswalensis]

Very inteesting story. Thanks for posting, FC. :)

[Bishadi]

From The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/15/AR2010111504192.html):

Fascinating, and there are some great NASA images along with the story. I thought it might be of interest to others.

I hadn't realized that there were different kinds of black holes. Also, the story says this one is in "our neighborhood" (maybe I should have posted this in a New Babies thread in Forum Community.:)). I had a vision of Earth being swallowed, until the article continued that it would take a million years to double in size. Whew.


watch the weather channel; a hurricane is about as close to a black hole as anywhere in the universe.

Any person that posts items with such garbage as "Scientist witness........." on anything "black hole"... just remember it is trash.

It makes the concept of NASA look like idiots

[caniswalensis]

watch the weather channel; a hurricane is about as close to a black hole as anywhere in the universe.

Any person that posts items with such garbage as "Scientist witness........." on anything "black hole"... just remember it is trash.

It makes the concept of NASA look like idiots

Can you explain a little bit more please? I find what you are saying is interesting, but I am totally ignorant of the facts behind it.

Regards, Canis

[Bishadi]

Can you explain a little bit more please? I find what you are saying is interesting, but I am totally ignorant of the facts behind it.

Regards, Canis



No such thing as a black hole unless you like carbon nano tubes. ANd a hurricane is a valid orientation of mass and energy rotating in association.

ie...... a hurricane is evidence and YOU can witness while the black hole is a fignewton of the physics (an imaginary creation).

purdy basic

[RecoveringYuppy]

It's in a different gallaxy. Streching neighborhood a bit.
Well, we call us and a few other galaxies "the local group". They don't name this galaxy but at 50 mly it is outside the local group. But compared to the farthest galaxy we've ever seen this is less than .3% across the universe.

[InfidelSavant]

No such thing as a black hole unless you like carbon nano tubes. ANd a hurricane is a valid orientation of mass and energy rotating in association.

ie...... a hurricane is evidence and YOU can witness while the black hole is a fignewton of the physics (an imaginary creation).

purdy basic

Yeah, you obviously have absolutely no clue about physics. Which isn't surprising given your other threads.

[Cuddles]

I hadn't realized that there were different kinds of black holes.

Yep, four main types. And we only understand how one of them works. Sort of.

I had a vision of Earth being swallowed, until the article continued that it would take a million years to double in size. Whew.

The important things to remember is that gravity depends on mass, and black holes aren't any more massive (in fact generally much less so) than the object they form from. They're only different in being much more dense, so if you get very close to them the gravity felt at that point will be much stronger. If you're further away there's absolutely no difference, gravitationally speaking, between a black hole and any equivalent amount of mass.

[Bishadi]

Yeah, you obviously have absolutely no clue about physics. Which isn't surprising given your other threads.


How about i comprehend the physics and the people who hold onto the physics over evidence are the 'less than' scientific.

Remember, evidence rules over any belief.

And the reason, the threads i open are screwed up is because the standards are less than good within this arena. ie.... the believers follow the laws over science.

[Hellbound]

Yep, four main types. And we only understand how one of them works. Sort of.



The important things to remember is that gravity depends on mass, and black holes aren't any more massive (in fact generally much less so) than the object they form from. They're only different in being much more dense, so if you get very close to them the gravity felt at that point will be much stronger. If you're further away there's absolutely no difference, gravitationally speaking, between a black hole and any equivalent amount of mass.

Yep. Had an argument with co-workers at one time about if the sun somehow collapsed into a black hole, what would happen to the Earth's orbit (assumign the total mass was constant)? Of course, they were insistent that I was incorrect when I told them nothing would change, even when I showed the equations governing gravitational force and asked them to idetify which parts of that would change and thus affect the orbital force.

But it's a common misconception that black holes are some sort of super space vacuum cleaner.

[InfidelSavant]

How about i comprehend the physics and the people who hold onto the physics over evidence are the 'less than' scientific.

Remember, evidence rules over any belief.

And the reason, the threads i open are screwed up is because the standards are less than good within this arena. ie.... the believers follow the laws over science.

No but that's the thing, a hurricane is in no way similar to a black hole.

[Molinaro]

How about i comprehend the physics and the people who hold onto the physics over evidence are the 'less than' scientific.

Remember, evidence rules over any belief.

And the reason, the threads i open are screwed up is because the standards are less than good within this arena. ie.... the believers follow the laws over science.

Please explain what force prevents the collapse of a star into a black hole when the outward pressure due to heat in the core is no longer greater than the gravitational attraction, after it has been making iron for some time.

If not that, then explain what stops the collapse when you have sufficient mass that the math says it cannot be stopped.

[A Laughing Baby]

Furthermore, maybe get a bit into gravitational lensing/accretion disc emissions that have been observed numerous times?

[InfidelSavant]

Please explain what force prevents the collapse of a star into a black hole when the outward pressure due to heat in the core is no longer greater than the gravitational attraction, after it has been making iron for some time.

If not that, then explain what stops the collapse when you have sufficient mass that the math says it cannot be stopped.

em upon mass, or whatever!

[Bishadi]

No but that's the thing, a hurricane is in no way similar to a black hole.


why?

Is it the physics that makes them different or it is the observational evidence?


What makes them different other than location and size?

ie.... why do the storms of a hurricane combine to rotate? How it is that gravity is the cause of a black hole and 'x' is the cause of a hurricane but the effects are about identical via observational evidence?


Black holes dont exist other than observing mass rotating based on an association. But no evidence has ever been provided to render mass colapsing to create an implosion of a 'black hole'.

get over it

[Bishadi]

Please explain what force prevents the collapse of a star into a black hole prevents?


how about you provide evidence of mass colapsing to a 'black hole'?

ie.... no one is here to provide evidence that a god does not exist, either; no ability to prove something that dont exist.

when the outward pressure due to heat in the core is no longer greater than the gravitational attraction, after it has been making iron for some time.
what iron?

now iron is in black holes..........?



If not that, then explain what stops the collapse when you have sufficient mass that the math says it cannot be stopped.


what collapse? Nothing in all the universe renders mass collapses into a black hole, except the math. Heck there are postulates that without all that gravity, no elements can combine to make a greater element than iron, but we all know that is crap too (what is einsteinium?)

[InfidelSavant]

why?

Because the physics of each phenomena is fundamentally different. One is reliant on atmospheric conditions and the other, gravity.

Is it the physics that makes them different or it is the observational evidence?

Yes, it's the physics.

What makes them different other than location and size?

Everything.

ie.... why do the storms of a hurricane combine to rotate? How it is that gravity is the cause of a black hole and 'x' is the cause of a hurricane but the effects are about identical via observational evidence?

The effects aren't even close to identical. You're clueless.

Black holes dont exist other than observing mass rotating based on an association. But no evidence has ever been provided to render mass colapsing to create an implosion of a 'black hole'.

get over it

facepalm.jpg

[Bishadi]

Because the physics of each phenomena is fundamentally different. One is reliant on atmospheric conditions and the other, gravity.
The fair part is that both are discribed with different forces.


Yes, it's the physics. well then, it sure aint evidence that makes the difference.

ie....other than physicists math and the believing folk like yourself, no one can provide evidence.


That is the fair bet!

[caniswalensis]

I am willing to consider the idea that the current concensious understanding of the nature of black holes is fundemently wrong.

I do not think that comparing them to hurricanes is valid.

One takes place in a presurised atmosphere.

The other occurs in a vacuum.

Is that an over simplification?

[A Laughing Baby]

prevents?

now iron is in black holes..........?



He's referring to the end stages of the life cycle of a black-hole producing star, where iron is the last element being created by fusion, after which the outward pressure created by the fusion is not enough to counteract the inward pressure created by gravity and creates the collapse. I'm sure I got something off in there, as it's been a while, but if I got anything wrong in there, I'm sure he can correct me.

In short, he's not talking about iron being in the black hole, he's referring to the endpoint of the star right before it becomes a black hole.

[FattyCatty]

Yep, four main types. And we only understand how one of them works. Sort of.



The important things to remember is that gravity depends on mass, and black holes aren't any more massive (in fact generally much less so) than the object they form from. They're only different in being much more dense, so if you get very close to them the gravity felt at that point will be much stronger. If you're further away there's absolutely no difference, gravitationally speaking, between a black hole and any equivalent amount of mass.Thank you for explaining in a way an ignoramus like me can start to understand. I love learning new things on the Forum.:)

Yep. Had an argument with co-workers at one time about if the sun somehow collapsed into a black hole, what would happen to the Earth's orbit (assumign the total mass was constant)? Of course, they were insistent that I was incorrect when I told them nothing would change, even when I showed the equations governing gravitational force and asked them to idetify which parts of that would change and thus affect the orbital force.

But it's a common misconception that black holes are some sort of super space vacuum cleaner.I was always of the "super space vacuum cleaner" school of thought. Thank you for your edifying example (although the mention of equations:eek: sent me backing up with my fingers instinctively warding off evil). As someone with a liberal arts degree and no science background, I appreciate clear, simple explanations. Not a vacuum cleaner and nothing about earth's orbit changes are about my speed.:D

[MattTheTubaGuy]

um, how can someone think that a black hole is anything like a hurricane?
a hurricane is a result of a low pressure system and the Coriolis force due to the earth spinning.

a black hole does not necessarily have to be spinning. I think that stuff would generally orbit around the black hole because black holes are rather small and stuff would almost never head directly towards a black hole, but offset a little bit.
Also there is plenty of observed evidence for black holes. Cygnus X-1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cygnus_X-1) for example, and also in the middle of our galaxy.

One thing I can't quite work out is spinning black holes. if a star is spinning, and it collapses to form a black hole, the angular momentum must remain the same, which will cause it to spin faster as it collapses. if it collapses to a singularity, then it must be spinning infinitely fast. does anyone know what actually happens with a spinning black hole?

exciting stuff, especially since I am studying astronomy:D

[Ziggurat]

One thing I can't quite work out is spinning black holes. if a star is spinning, and it collapses to form a black hole, the angular momentum must remain the same, which will cause it to spin faster as it collapses. if it collapses to a singularity, then it must be spinning infinitely fast. does anyone know what actually happens with a spinning black hole?

Assuming General Relativity is correct (if it isn't, we don't understand what happens with any black holes), then yes, we do know what happens with spinning black holes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr_metric). But they ARE more complicated than non-spinning black holes (for example, within a region outside the event horizon called the ergosphere, frame dragging (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging) is so large that EVERYTHING rotates with the black hole), and there is also a limit to the angular momentum they can have.

[RecoveringYuppy]

One thing I can't quite work out is spinning black holes. if a star is spinning, and it collapses to form a black hole, the angular momentum must remain the same, which will cause it to spin faster as it collapses. if it collapses to a singularity, then it must be spinning infinitely fast. does anyone know what actually happens with a spinning black hole?:D
My guess is the only thing anyone would claim to be sure of is that angular momentum lost due to frame dragging from the black hole would be expected to be conserved. Figuring out where it might be located in the black hole is probably not agreed upon.

ETA: A more informed opinion showed up while I was typing.

[MattTheTubaGuy]

Assuming General Relativity is correct (if it isn't, we don't understand what happens with any black holes), then yes, we do know what happens with spinning black holes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr_metric). But they ARE more complicated than non-spinning black holes (for example, within a region outside the event horizon called the ergosphere, frame dragging (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging) is so large that EVERYTHING rotates with the black hole), and there is also a limit to the angular momentum they can have.

sounds really complicated. I can't make any sense of the maths on the wiki page (yet!)
maybe in a couple of yeas time when I have learnt a bit more. I was told that it would take something like 7 weeks of lectures just to teach the maths required for GR!
Also Roy Kerr, who the Kerr metric is named after is from NZ:)

[3point14]

In my (limited) experience here, bishadi has shown himself to be either a dedicated gimmick with the purpose of trolling via incredible misunderstandings of science, or he really actually has that little of a grasp on science.

What gets me is how he's so damn confrontational all the time. I really don't think he can be real, but it's the first time that the ignore button has really called to me.

Black holes are very cool. I also had sort of fallen into the 'black holes as vacuum cleaners' thought trap, not that I'd thought a lot about it, but if the mass stays the same, no matter the volume, then the gravity remains the same and earth carries on merrily going round in the same orbit, yes?

[Bishadi]

um, how can someone think that a black hole is anything like a hurricane?

they both have a hole







a hurricane is a result of a low pressure system and the Coriolis force due to the earth spinning.

sorry, but that is the description, not the fact.



a black hole does not necessarily have to be spinning. but everything around it is, funny!


I think that stuff would generally orbit around the black hole because black holes are rather small and stuff would almost never head directly towards a black hole, but offset a little bit.
kind of like a hurricane


Also there is plenty of observed evidence for black holes. Cygnus X-1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cygnus_X-1) for example, and also in the middle of our galaxy.


i could flush a toilet for the symptoms of a black hole

[Bishadi]

Apparently, black holes & hurricanes are like people, They all have a hole, and some of them stink. :D

is that where the dark matter comes from?

[Bishadi]

I am willing to consider the idea that the current concensious understanding of the nature of black holes is fundemently wrong.

I do not think that comparing them to hurricanes is valid.

One takes place in a presurised atmosphere.

The other occurs in a vacuum. what vacuum? A kerby?

There is no vacuum in space, that idea is poppy cop!


Is that an over simplification?

sure is

the similarity of the 2 is the mass is associated in both a hurricane and galaxy by the energy between the bodies of mass

[sol invictus]

Aren't black holes supported by maths and observations?

Yes.

There's a very simple argument that tells you black holes should exist. We know for certain that light is affected by gravity (it loses energy as it climbs out of a gravity well, it is deflected by the gravity of the sun and other stars, etc.). So it would be quite strange if it's impossible to have a gravitational field too strong for light to climb out of - and indeed, the math of gravity+relativity (which is called general relativity) says that black holes exist.

There are also various indirect observations of black objects with the expected size and density and with the expected physics taking place near them (radiation from accretion disks, very rapidly orbiting stars, etc.).

Is there a body of work that disputes the existence of black holes? If so, and it's nicely dumbed-down, I'd love to read it.

No, there really isn't. There is considerable interest in using black holes as a test of general relativity (because it's a very good one), and in the course of that some work has been done to see what would change if you replaced black holes with something different (like a solid dark star). But no one that understands the physics has much doubt about their existence - there are many reasons to believe they exist, and none to believe they don't.

[sol invictus]

One thing I can't quite work out is spinning black holes. if a star is spinning, and it collapses to form a black hole, the angular momentum must remain the same, which will cause it to spin faster as it collapses. if it collapses to a singularity, then it must be spinning infinitely fast. does anyone know what actually happens with a spinning black hole?

It is a singularity after all, so it's not impossible for it to spin infinitely fast... but a better answer is that it's better not to think of the angular momentum as carried by the singularity. In fact it's better not to think of the singularity at all - just focus on the horizon and the region outside it. The spacetime near the horizon of a Kerr hole is itself spinning (in a specific, technical sense). So you can think of that region as carrying the angular momentum.

That picture is supported (at least to some extent) by the fact that it's possible to extract angular momentum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_process) from a spinning hole. That wouldn't be possible if the angular momentum was all carried by the singularity (since then to access it you'd need to fall through the horizon and couldn't get back out).

[caniswalensis]

what vacuum? A kerby?

There is no vacuum in space, that idea is poppy cop!



Space is not strictly a perfect vacuum, true. It has bits of matter in it.

I was speaking in terms of the lack of atmosphereic pressure, and comparing that to the aymosphere of our planet.

[X]

People: Before you get too sidetracked by Bishadi's revelations, there is some background to cover.


Bishadi thinks a black hole is something completely pitch black. Not a gravity well, but an object which is 100% black.

Remember, this is the same guy who thinks we're all fools for accepting calories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie) (in food) while rejecting Caloric theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caloric_theory) (in thermodynamics). He either cannot or will not differentiate between the two, purely because of their having similar names.

It is obvious to anyone with any knowledge of the subject that the two are completely unrelated, but Bishadi, either through language barriers or mis-education, conflates the concepts and is unable or unwilling to separate them.

This is why he's on about carbon tube (the blackest substance he could find) and hurricanes and the like.
It's either trolling, or a severe confusion about the issues.



Now, in regards to the OP:
I find it very cool. From Bad Astronomy, it seems it is not certain that this is a black hole, just very likely.
I hope we learn a lot from this.

[HansMustermann]

Black body radiation too. He worked graphene sheets into that one too a while ago.

[Sceptic-PK]

Yes.

There's a very simple argument that tells you black holes should exist. We know for certain that light is affected by gravity (it loses energy as it climbs out of a gravity well, it is deflected by the gravity of the sun and other stars, etc.). So it would be quite strange if it's impossible to have a gravitational field too strong for light to climb out of - and indeed, the math of gravity+relativity (which is called general relativity) says that black holes exist.

There are also various indirect observations of black objects with the expected size and density and with the expected physics taking place near them (radiation from accretion disks, very rapidly orbiting stars, etc.).



No, there really isn't. There is considerable interest in using black holes as a test of general relativity (because it's a very good one), and in the course of that some work has been done to see what would change if you replaced black holes with something different (like a solid dark star). But no one that understands the physics has much doubt about their existence - there are many reasons to believe they exist, and none to believe they don't.

I didn't really think there was (work disputing black holes) but found bobhaulk's assertion so indignant I thought maybe there was some new theories on the subject that hadn't made it to popular documentary yet (where I get all my cosmology from, because I lack the requisite knowledge).

Thanks for your reply :)

[Bishadi]

Space is not strictly a perfect vacuum, true. It has bits of matter in it.


if you walked across the hall within the dark matter/energy adherants, they will claim, that what you see only about 22% of what is out there and that 78% of dark junk is what the majority of the universe is composed of



I was speaking in terms of the lack of atmosphereic pressure, and comparing that to the aymosphere of our planet.

and do you actually believe 175mph wind speed is based on the pressure difference between upper and lower 'atmospheric' pressures?

[Bishadi]

People: Before you get too sidetracked by Bishadi's revelations, there is some background to cover.


Bishadi thinks a black hole is something completely pitch black. Not a gravity well, but an object which is 100% black.

a gravity well?


who is following belief?

SOme claim a gravity is a wave while some claim, it is bent space, while others are looking for a graviton...............



The little history is, i will hold onto evidence and reality before any belief.

[Bishadi]

Black body radiation too. He worked graphene sheets into that one too a while ago.


what is black?

which element?

how is gravity making a black hole black?



SOme comprehend how science works and some dont.

[caniswalensis]

if you walked across the hall within the dark matter/energy adherants, they will claim, that what you see only about 22% of what is out there and that 78% of dark junk is what the majority of the universe is composed of

I don;t understand this, sorry. Are you saying their claims have merit or not?



and do you actually believe 175mph wind speed is based on the pressure difference between upper and lower 'atmospheric' pressures?
I know that like any fluid, our atmosphere is at a higher pressure the deeper you go into it.

Is there some reason not to believe the pressure differential idea?

[sol invictus]

I don;t understand this, sorry. Are you saying their claims have merit or not?


Actually, according to the best current model of cosmology, ordinary visible matter makes up less than 5% of the energy density of the universe on average (of course on earth it makes up the vast majority).

Is this surprising? Not really. It's pretty hard to see air, but it's there and it has mass. It's nearly impossible to detect neutrinos, but they are all around us in enormous numbers, and they have mass too. So it's really not so surprising that there would be a bunch of extra massive stuff that we can't see with telescopes, and we have a wide variety of good evidence for its existence.

[Shalamar]

what is black?

which element?

how is gravity making a black hole black?



SOme comprehend how science works and some dont.

A black hole is 'black', due to the fact that light travels into it, but does not leave. It absorbs all light that falls into it because the gravity is very very strong. It is perceived as black, but would not be 'black' as we know the colour. It would seem that it can not be directly observed.

You seem to have a vast vast misunderstanding of, well, everything scientific.

[Olowkow]

SOme comprehend how science works and some dont.There is some comedy value I guess in making bald assertions about physics, but there is just so much information easily available that it makes me wonder about the motives of someone questioning certain scientific claims with no elaboration.

This article (http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/01_releases/press_011101.html) dates back to 2001, and provides the basis of a very nice confirmation for black holes, and recent evidence is getting to the point of what I would call overwhelming. It is also now understood that a black hole probably resides at the center of most galaxies.

Astronomers have used NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory to study some of the darkest black holes yet observed. Their work strongly confirms the reality of the "event horizon," the one-way membrane around black holes predicted by Einstein's theory of relativity.