• Monster black hole is biggest ever found
    130 replies, posted
[URL="http://www.livescience.com/25101-biggest-black-hole-discovery.html"]Source[/URL] [QUOTE]Astronomers have discovered what may be the most massive black hole ever known in a small galaxy about 250 million light-years from Earth, scientists say. [IMG]http://i.livescience.com/images/i/000/033/862/original/galaxy-ngc-1277-giant-black-hole.jpg?1354137843[/IMG] The supermassive black hole has a mass equivalent to 17 billion suns and is located inside the galaxy NGC 1277 in the constellation Perseus. It makes up about 14 percent of its host galaxy's mass, compared with the 0.1 percent a normal black hole would represent, scientists said. "This is a really oddball galaxy," said study team member Karl Gebhardt of the University of Texas at Austin in a statement. "It's almost all black hole. This could be the first object in a new class of galaxy-black hole systems." The giant black hole is about 11 times as wide as the orbit of Neptune around our sun, researchers said. The mass is so far above normal that the scientists took a year to double-check and submit their research paper for publication, according to the study's lead author, Remco van den Bosch. "The first time I calculated it, I thought I must have done something wrong. We tried it again with the same instrument, then a different instrument," van den Bosch, an astronomer at Germany's Max Planck Institute for Astronomy, told SPACE.com. "Then I thought, 'Maybe something else is happening.'" The finding may have implications for our understanding of how giant black holes evolve in the center of galaxies. Astronomers typically believe that the size of the central part of a galaxy, and the black hole inside of it, are linked. But the vastly different proportions seen in NGC 1277 are calling that into question. NGC 1277's black hole could be many times more massive than its largest known competitor, which is estimated but not confirmed to be between 6 billion and 37 billion solar masses in size.It makes up about 59 percent of its host galaxy's central mass - the bulge of stars at the core. The object's closest competitor is in the galaxy NGC 4486B, whose black hole takes up 11 percent of that galaxy's central bulge mass. However, van den Bosch's team says it has also spotted five other galaxies near NGC 1277 that look about the same, and may also harbor gigantic black holes inside of them. "You always expect to find one sort [of a phenomenon], but now we have six of them," van den Bosch said. "We didn't expect them, because we do expect the black holes and the galaxies to influence each other." The research is detailed in tomorrow's (Nov. 29) edition of the journal Nature.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]"The first time I calculated it, I thought I must have done something wrong. We tried it again with the same instrument, then a different instrument ... Then I thought, 'Maybe something else is happening.'"[/QUOTE] You know that this is something special when a person who literally studies space for a living doesn't believe what he's seeing.
[QUOTE=willer;38650532]You know that this is something special when a person who literally studies space for a living doesn't believe what he's seeing.[/QUOTE] I like to imagine that he just curled up in a corner and hyperventilated into a paper bag for a few minutes when he confirmed it.
I think I saw a picture showing that the size of it stretched all the way UrAnus.
It always stuns me how little we know and are. How we cannot fathom the size of things even when we're told. A mass equivalent to 16.000.000.000 suns. I have no idea how to picture that in my head.
I wonder if this is bigger then [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VY_Canis_Majoris"]VY Canis Majoris[/URL].
[QUOTE=Program Files;38650611]I wonder if this is bigger then [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VY_Canis_Majoris"]VY Canis Majoris[/URL].[/QUOTE] -Snip- Sometimes I'm an idiot.
[QUOTE=Program Files;38650611]I wonder if this is bigger then [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VY_Canis_Majoris"]VY Canis Majoris[/URL].[/QUOTE] [quote=the article]The giant black hole is about 11 times as wide as the orbit of Neptune around our sun[/quote] [quote=VY Canis Majoris] 6.6 astronomical units[/quote] It is way bigger.
[QUOTE=Dominicus;38650607]It always stuns me how little we know and are. How we cannot fathom the size of things even when we're told. A mass equivalent to 16.000.000.000 suns. I have no idea how to picture that in my head.[/QUOTE] and I thought my life had some sort of impact, meanwhile we're all considered tiny, little .. things, compared to the mass of the galaxies and stars. fuck where is my alien poontang, being swallowed up by a supermassive black hole
[QUOTE=Program Files;38650611]I wonder if this is bigger then [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VY_Canis_Majoris"]VY Canis Majoris[/URL].[/QUOTE] VY Canis Majoris is 6.6AU in radius. The article says the black hole is about the radius of neptune's orbit times 11. Neptune's orbit is ~30.1AU. Times 11 we get 331.1AU. This means the black hole is far larger than VY canis majoris. Fuck ninja'd, but I have slightly more data. Also, VY Canis Majoris is thought to be about the size of Juptier's orbit. 1 AU is also the distance from the earth to the sun. Just an FYI.
[QUOTE=Pilotguy97;38650644]VY Canis Majoris is 6.6AU in radius. The article says the black hole is about the radius of neptune's orbit times 11. Neptune's orbit is ~30.1AU. Times 11 we get 331.1AU. This means the black hole is far larger than VY canis majoris. Fuck ninja'd, but I have slightly more data. Also, VY Canis Majoris is thought to be about the size of Juptier's orbit. 1 AU is also the distance from the earth to the sun. Just an FYI.[/QUOTE] I never imagined that something could be bigger then VY Canis Majoris, possibilities are endless it seems.
[QUOTE=Dominicus;38650633]It says Canis Majoris has a Solar Radius of 2.100. Meaning it's 2.100 times bigger than our own sun. I think you can safetly say it's quite a bit smaller.[/QUOTE] See the hugest fucking red thing? That's Canis Majoris. See the tiny yellow dot on the left? Of course you don't, because that's the Sun. [img_thumb]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/Rho_Cassiopeiae_Sol_VY_Canis_Majoris.png[/img_thumb]
-I am wrong and I see that now-
Good thing it's damn far away so it can't suck and make Earth into spaghetti in it's event horizon.
is clearly red hole
Imagine what it must feel like to ants. They'd be so pissed off, considering that they're already really tiny compared to all the animals on earth.
[QUOTE=Pilotguy97;38650679]Now if the blue star was VY Canis Majoris, the big one would probably be about the size of this black hole.[/QUOTE] You'd still be off by quite a bit, I reckon.
Slightly off topic, but in my astrophysics exam we had to draw a diagram of a Kerr black hole. I labelled the inner and outer event horizons (respectfully) as, "Inner boundary of absolute fuckery," and, "Outer boundary of absolute fuckery." This blackhole has a bloody BIG outer boundary of absolute fuckery.
[QUOTE=sltungle;38650899]Slightly off topic, but in my astrophysics exam we had to draw a diagram of a Kerr black hole. I labelled the inner and outer event horizons (respectfully) as, "Inner boundary of absolute fuckery," and, "Outer boundary of absolute fuckery." This blackhole has a bloody BIG outer boundary of absolute fuckery.[/QUOTE] My knowledge of this stuff is really limited but isn't the black hole itself just a dot in space (a singularity)? So this article is a big misleading in that the event horizon is really big, not the black hole itself
[QUOTE=thrawn2787;38651040]My knowledge of this stuff is really limited but isn't the black hole itself just a dot in space (a singularity)? So this article is a big misleading in that the event horizon is really big, not the black hole itself[/QUOTE] The size of the 'dot', as you call it, differs per size of mass that has been crushed to the density it needed to become a black hole. Obviously, the bigger the dot, the bigger the Event Horizon.
[QUOTE=thrawn2787;38651040]My knowledge of this stuff is really limited but isn't the black hole itself just a dot in space (a singularity)? So this article is a big misleading in that the event horizon is really big, not the black hole itself[/QUOTE] IIRC the event horizon is part of the black hole. The hole itself is small, but the actual [I]black hole[/I] is integrated with the event horizon. But I know about as much as you do, so I'm probably wrong.
[QUOTE=Pilotguy97;38650563]I like to imagine that he just curled up in a corner and hyperventilated into a paper bag for a few minutes when he confirmed it.[/QUOTE] I nearly did.
Gravity the last magic think from our world and the cleanest source of infinite energy
[QUOTE=Cone;38651073]IIRC the event horizon is part of the black hole. The hole itself is small, but the actual [I]black hole[/I] is integrated with the event horizon. But I know about as much as you do, so I'm probably wrong.[/QUOTE] When you say black hole you are referring to the entire "region" in which the singularity exterts its gravitational influence. The event horizon isn't a physical 'thing', it is a boundary in spacetime.
[QUOTE=demoguy08;38651201]When you say black hole you are referring to the entire "region" in which the singularity exterts its gravitational influence. The event horizon isn't a physical 'thing', it is a boundary in spacetime.[/QUOTE] I know, that's why I said that the event horizon was part of the black hole, i.e. the affected area. Semantics, yay!
[quote] supermassive black hole[/quote] The first thing I though of was this: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6okwg6PiSis[/media]
Damn space, you scary.
It's called The Red Giant get it right noobs.
[QUOTE=Dominicus;38651070]The size of the 'dot', as you call it, differs per size of mass that has been crushed to the density it needed to become a black hole. Obviously, the bigger the dot, the bigger the Event Horizon.[/QUOTE] For a Schwarzschild (non rotating) black hole the singularity is indeed suspected to be... well, a singularity. A point in space with NO volume; no length, no height, no width, but with a finite mass (and hence, an infinite density). These black holes aren't really expected to exist in nature because of the unlikeliness of setting up a system which winds up with zero momentum. They're just a simplified model to use as a basis. For a Kerr black hole (most likely black hole to exist, has angular momentum) the 'singularity' is a little more complex and sketchy to say the least. Suffice it to say, I don't think it's considered a 'true' singularity as you can eliminate the appearance of a singularity by choosing a different coordinate system (physicists like to mess with coordinate systems to simplify things). That said, I was under the impression that the singularity in a Kerr black hole was a ring with zero thickness which, at a glance would suggest zero volume (and hence a singularity), but... since when does intuition work with complex physics? Then again, 'singularity' would imply absolute lack of ANY dimensions, and a ring (even with zero thickness) evidently has some dimension ('length' if you will), so I suppose that fits with the idea that it isn't a true singularity. The event horizon is what somebody talks about when they're discussing the 'size' of a black hole, and, as I put in my exam, it's basically the boundary of absolute fuckery. If you pass that point... bye bye! Not even moving at light speed will save you then. While there are technically two event horizons (as I mentioned before inner and outer) for the sake of simplicity the outer is the one we're talking about here because it's basically the one we can... uh... see (even though we're not truly seeing it, we're using the ABSENCE of light to identify it).
[QUOTE=sltungle;38651358]For a Schwarzschild (non rotating) black hole the singularity is indeed suspected to be... well, a singularity. A point in space with NO volume; no length, no height, no width, but with a finite mass (and hence, an infinite density). These black holes aren't really expected to exist in nature because of the unlikeliness of setting up a system which winds up with zero momentum. They're just a simplified model to use as a basis. For a Kerr black hole (most likely black hole to exist, has angular momentum) the 'singularity' is a little more complex and sketchy to say the least. Suffice it to say, I don't think it's considered a 'true' singularity as you can eliminate the appearance of a singularity by choosing a different coordinate system (physicists like to mess with coordinate systems to simplify things). That said, I was under the impression that the singularity in a Kerr black hole was a ring with zero thickness which, at a glance would suggest zero volume (and hence a singularity), but... since when does intuition work with complex physics? Then again, 'singularity' would imply absolute lack of ANY dimensions, and a ring (even with zero thickness) evidently has some dimension ('length' if you will), so I suppose that fits with the idea that it isn't a true singularity. The event horizon is what somebody talks about when they're discussing the 'size' of a black hole, and, as I put in my exam, it's basically the boundary of absolute fuckery. If you pass that point... bye bye! Not even moving at light speed will save you then. While there are technically two event horizons (as I mentioned before inner and outer) for the sake of simplicity the outer is the one we're talking about here because it's basically the one we can... uh... see (even though we're not truly seeing it, we're using the ABSENCE of light to identify it).[/QUOTE] I agree with what you're saying. Although I'm not quite sure if your intention was to make a point or not. Pray do excuse me if it was for I missed it entirely.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.