E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Analysis of the galaxy ESO 243-49 in multiple wavelengths has detected the signature of hot stars swirling around a midsize black hole, highlighted by the white circle on this Hubble Space Telescope image. Astronomers say the readings suggest that the black hole is actually part of the leftovers from a dwarf galaxy that crashed into the bigger galaxy and disintegrated.
Astronomers have reconstructed what they think is a galactic crash scene, with a rare breed of black hole left behind amid a dwarf galaxy's wreckage. The Hubble Space Telescope played a key role in the accident investigation.
The black hole was detected three years ago in the edge-on spiral galaxy ESO 243-49, about 290 million light-years from Earth, and raised a question that's been bugging astronomers ever since.
The theoretical scenario for creating black holes through the collapse of stars is well-known. But scientists are just beginning to figure out how galaxy formation can lead to the creation of supermassive black holes that are millions or billions of times heavier than the sun. This particular black hole, designated HLX-1, was even more of a puzzler: It's about 20,000 times as massive as our sun, a kind of midsize monster that's rarely seen in our celestial neighborhood.
The astronomer who led the HLX-1 search effort, Sean Farrell of the University of Leicester and the Sydney Institute for Astronomy, took a closer look at the black hole with the aid of imagery in ultraviolet, visible and infrared wavelengths from Hubble, as well as X-ray imagery from NASA's Swift satellite. Now he and his colleagues are suggesting that the midsize black hole is a leftover from a dwarf galaxy's unfortunate encounter with the much bigger galaxy less than 200 million years earlier.
They came to that conclusion based on observations of light toward the reddish side of the spectrum — so much red light that it can't be explained just by the blaze of material falling into the black hole. Farrell and his colleagues think the light is coming from a cluster of hot stars surrounding the black hole.
"The fact that there’s a very young cluster of stars indicates that the intermediate-mass black hole may have originated as the central black hole in a very low-mass dwarf galaxy," Farrell said in a news release from the European Space Agency's Hubble team. "The dwarf galaxy was then swallowed by the more massive galaxy."
As the dwarf galaxy was ripped apart, the black hole and some of its surrounding material would have survived.
The researchers say it's not yet clear what will happen to the black hole. It might spiral into the center of ESO 243-49, merging with the supermassive black hole that's already there. Or it might settle into a stable orbit in the bigger galaxy's outer environs. Either way, the X-ray emissions that brought the black hole to light in the first place will eventually fade away.
The findings from Farrell and his colleagues were published today by The Astrophysical Journal, and the team will continue watching HLX-1 for more clues.
Looking beyond just one intermediate-mass black hole, the astronomers say the case of HLX-1 sheds light on the bigger mysteries surrounding the formation of those supermassive, galaxy-scale black holes. Most theorists surmise that big galaxies — and the big black holes at their centers — are built up gradually through the merger of smaller galaxies. This research supports that view.
Our own Milky Way galaxy might well go through the next phase of the merger process in a few billion years, when it's due to mix it up with Andromeda and create a bigger behemoth nicknamed "Milkomeda."
More about galaxy mergers:
- Twisted galaxy warped by 'stealth merger'
- Almost every galaxy has had a major collision
- Galactic merger could boot our solar system
- NASA spots most crowded space collision ever
- Black hole knocked off its axis by galaxy collision
- Cosmic Log archive on galaxies | black holes
In addition to Farrell, authors of "A Young Stellar Population Around the Intermediate Mass Black Hole ESO 243-49 HLX-1" include M. Servillat, J. Pforr, T.J. Maccarone, C. Knigge, O. Godet, C. Maraston, N.A. Webb, D. Barret, A. Gosling, R. Belmont and K. Wiersema.
Alan Boyle is msnbc.com's science editor. Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter or adding Cosmic Log's Google+ page to your circle. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for other worlds.
Leave a Comment:
Does anyone know if supermassive black holes at the center of galaxies formed in the immediate aftermath of the big bang or did they form over time through accretion of matter?
The thinking is that galaxies and the central black holes co-evolved ... Galaxies are thought to have started forming hundreds of millions of years after the big bang, after the reionization epoch. Here are a couple of links:
How the cosmic fog cleared
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/10/12/8274038-how-the-cosmic-fog-cleared
Which came first? Galaxy or black hole?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44597618/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/which-came-first-galaxy-or-black-hole/
Thanks Alan.
Look at a solar system and a Galaxy is just bigger so after the big bang gases mixed and formed super massive stars that started to form galaxies, after the stars death it becomes a BH. So perhaps our universe is one of many spinning around an even bigger super massive star or BH. And only time will tell since it takes so long for light to reach us from another so called universe. Just a thought I have.
Good from far but far from good.
I am a complete skeptic of ""black holes. If and only if they exist I would like to think of them as door ways, the infinite density just doesn't add up. I think the mistake is thinking of the universe as flat.
Everything seems to flow + (positives), = (equals), and - (negatives).
What do I know?
By my understanding (admittedly not the best), black holes do not possess "infinite" density. The mass/unit volume is immensely high, but not infinite. It's just that our understanding of matter at those densities is very poor, so we call it a singularity. But black holes definitely exist. The signs of them are quite literally everywhere in the universe. We maybe can't see the singularity itself, but the effects on other matter are quite obvious.
Is a singularity a doorway to another place, time, or dimension? Unknown what really happens to matter under those conditions. Could be, I guess.
Maybe the bubble is so big that it looks flat to us?
And maybe black holes, singularities, are the ground state (maximum potential energy, zero velocity) of our universe? If the universe is a closed bubble and there are many bubble universes around, then the BHs are what keep these bubbles apart. Point being, there is no need for 11 dimensions to explain multiverses.
To me it would make much much more sense if all black holes in our universe shared the same singularity.
If ""black holes exist.
everything seems to involve a delicate balance. Birth, death and rebirth.
Look I am open minded and love this stuff. More Please :)
From what I understand the Mayans called the center of our galaxy the womb. That is what I read that someone else supposedly translated into English that is.
Like I said what do I know? :)
Does anyone really care what happened in space 290,000,000,000 years ago. Don't we have better need for our money?
David 99321,
I hypothesize that the answer to both of your questions is yes, but that's just my theory.
Matter itself, nebulae, stars and solar systems, and eventually galazies formed long after the big bang. The time is measured in "Planck Time", but the translation is hundreds of thousands of years for matter, and much longer for the formation of condensed gasses in nebulae, which birth the stars that create supermassive black holes upon death (extremely large supernovae) and the galaxies which eventually form around these. It took hundreds of thousands of years for matter and anti-matter to leave enough residual matter to form even the most simplest of gasses, hydrogen.
@MDB123
Being a skeptic of black holes is like being a skeptic of oxygen. We can't see either of them but they both do exist and there is ample scientific evidence of this. Black holes are not theory, they are scientific fact.
@Brisaber
Actually, the math tells us that, yes, black holes do have infinite mass and infinite density. This is because all that mass winds up at the singularity, which is an infinitely small point. Because the point is infinitely small, the denisity is also infinite.
@Alex-4550494
Plank Time is not used in science relating to large time scales. Plank Time is the amount of time it takes for light to travel a Plank Length, which is the smallest unit of time there is. Plank Time and Plank Lengths are used in the study of Quantum Physics, but not when talking anything larger than the smallest fraction of a nano-second.
Black holes, nature's drains to the Void or better yet the unknown. :)
A quibble Scott, though the math in Relativity tells us that, I don't think there's a lot of astrophysicists studying black holes that believe that's what happens. Most believe it's just a breakdown of Einstein and that new ways to describe it needs to be drawn up, some even think it has a definable radius at the center. This is probably just an extension of the work that needs to happen to merge Relativity and QM.
Mitchell
A galaxy is simply the process by which hydrogen gas ends up in black holes. Eventually all matter will end up in black holes. On such a time scale, stars and planets are just temporary phenomenon associated with bits of matter jostling each other as they fall into black holes.
I know Planck time is an extremely short time scale, what i said was the time is measured in Planck time but the amount of Planck time during which the formation of matter occurred over equates to hundreds of thousands of years, I guess my wording wasn't clear when I said, "the translation" of the Planck time measured.
Scott M-536256: Yeah - I understand the math falls apart at those densities, but I understood that did not necessarily mean the singularity was infinitely dense. I thought it just meant our math was not able to describe it. When I've read about them, they always talk about massive black holes as having a specific diameter and mass, so I don't see how that can mean infinit density.
Admittedly, I am just an enthusiast, not an expert. So likely I am wrong or simply missing something. Or maybe, when they are discussing diameter (and therefore volume) and mass of a black hole, are they simply talking about the diameter of the event horizon?
well they definitely do not have infinite mass, in fact mass is one of the very few variables that CAN be accurately measured. the three quantifiable attributes are mass, charge and spin.
and mathematically, a single point at the center would accurately describe our own Earth's gravity , although an actual earth-mass black hole would be roughly half the size of a golf ball. the truth is that all of our physics breaks down at the event horizon,, so we really don't know what goes on at the center
they always talk about massive black holes as having a specific diameter
brisaber, the "diameter" is the event horizon, the point where escape velocity equals the speed of light.
danwill - the physics breaks down at the singularity, since the quantities that describe space-time become meaningless: infinite curvature, infinite density, time stops, etc.
found this link that I remembered from some time ago. a simulation near the surface of a neutron star, near a black hole, etc.
http://apod.nasa.gov/htmltest/rjn_bht.html
@Mitchell-512733
While it is true the Classical Physics break down when you get to the Quantum level, you are inocrrect that the general scientific thought is that the singularity has a discernable size. The math does show that the size of the singularity is infinitely small or unmeasurably small, in which case the size cannot be measured. There is no accepted mathematical theory or model for a black hole having a singularity of a measurable size.
@Brisaber
Yes, what they are referring to is the sphere of influence the black hole has, from which an entering object cannot return, which is demarkated by the black hole's event horizon. This sphere can be measured and is usually several to thousands of times larger than our sun.
Additionally, the math does show that the singularity at the center is infinitely dense.
@danwill
Yes, you are correct.
Well, that's not actually true. Physics doesn't break down at the event horizon. In fact, it's physics that tells us why the black hole is black. The light inside a black hole's event horizon is being affected by gravity, just as our physics tells us it should be. There are several models of what is most likely going on inside the event horizon.
It's the singularity where classical physics breaks down.
I did say that Relativity shows infinity. But I also said that new math needs to happen, this is work being done inside the field as few physicists believe what Relativity suggests. A lot of scientists believe there is a discernible radius at the center.
Black Holes are just another example of the disconnect between Einstein and QM and in this case Relativity needs to be adjusted.
Mitchell
The Schwarzschild radius is the distance from the center of an object such that, if all the mass of the object were compressed within that sphere, the escape speed from the surface would equal the speed of light. An example of an object smaller than its Schwarzschild radius is a black hole.
you are correct, thanks for the correction :)
@Mitchell-512733
I dispute that statement. There are very few, if any, reputable physicists that believe there is a measurable size to a singularity. Also, the statement that there are very few physicists that believe what relativity suggests is completely unfounded as the exact opposite is the case.
Well, no, not really. The singularity is where relativistic physcics and quantum mechanics meet. What physicists are (and have been) trying to do is find the common thread between the two. What causes the two fields to be at odds is gravity. Currently, it is not relativity that is being looked at for "adjustments", but rather Quantum Mechanics is being further researched to see if a gravitational component can be found, which would unify relativity and QM. Essentially, the discovery of Quantum Gravity would be the unifier and there are several tantelizing possibilities currently being researched.
The writer of this article failed to acknowledge that black holes have always been kind of a 'which came first, the chicken or the egg' analogy. There are a myriad of theories surrounding their existence, i.e., black holes are expected to result from the gravitational collapse of heavy stars, or black holes may have existed upon the very creation of the universe and the galaxy collected around it (much like the planets accreted around the sun), or another option (as presented in the book, 'The Evolutioning of Creation - Volume 2') is that the collective conglomerations of matter may have provided for a focus of gravitational acceleration that initiated the black hole (kind of like the drop in pressure within the eye of a hurricane). The second option in which black holes have always existed is especially intriguing in that matter was not expected to have formed mass of any significant gravitational influence. Therefore it appears that these black holes could have been a subsequence of our creation into a fourth dimensional universe. So then one might ask which came first, gravity or matter; or in a more broad sense, centric black holes or the galaxies which they host. Indeed, it appears that black holes may have existed prior to our universal creation and may outlast our universal termination.
You're correct that I didn't get into the "which came first" issue here, because all this happened in relatively recent time (200 million years). But see the link in the comment thread above for discussion of that angle.
Per your article, it is equaling intriguing that black holes can be disloged or displaced. However, what your sources are not discussing is why the rogue black hole is not still gravitationally impacting (at least not visibly) our galactic matter. Is it much smaller ? Did it weaken in strength ? Did a much larger black hole decompose into smaller black holes ? This would even provide more insight in the nature and possible origin of black holes.
It's too far away to impact our own galaxy at all. The thinking is that the black hole was a smaller-class object from a smaller-class galaxy. Black holes do lose mass due to Hawking radiation, but that takes a long, long time.
I was curious if the centrifugal force around a spinning object actually lowered its gravitational pull on nearby objects? (if the earth didnt spin would we appear to weigh more?)
You're making my head spin with that question. But the short answer is no. This question was addressed in more depth on PhysicsForums:
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-36037.html
not the actual gravitational pull, the apparent pull is affected, but not so much as you would notice
now a rapidly spinning black hole gets really strange
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergosphere
just a taste of the zingers in there:
Dwarf Galaxy I suppose size matters when we speak of galaxies...
Perhaps a more accurate nom de signalétique, if you will, would be Victim Galaxy...
That of course presupposes they are the remnants of either collisions or theft.
Please explain the physics of how two black holes can possibly merge?
Gravitationally speaking, it's just two massive objects coming together. Heaven knows what it would look like inside the event horizon(s).
"Heaven knows..." ? :-)
Ad'M
He probably wanted to say "only god knows" --The figure of speech-- but thought better of it due to all the diety-phobes that troll these articles
I'm interested in whether it would be possible to image the stars around the black hole using radio telescopes. I was not able to find anything on the web connecting ESO 243-49 and radio observations.
Maybe just maybe the lack of light after a star explodes is debris from the ex-star blocking the light?
Anyways
What do I know?
nope, the debris after a star explodes leaves quite a light show of its own
heres an example:
http://chandra-ed.harvard.edu/image/crab4square_lg.jpg
i think it should be name andromilk. the new galaxy name
I like Andromaway
andromedasmilk, actually andromoway has a nice ring to it.
It has a nice ring to it because it sounds like a company that relies on door-to-door sales.
† Psalm 2:4
4 He that sits in the heavens will laugh:
Yahweh will have them in derision.
After all universe might be God...
It is assumed that our universe began with equal amounts of matter and anti-matter.
It is also assumed that today mostly matter exists; but what if...
1. Black holes are primordial sinks of anti-matter; OK, but;
2. Gravitational collapse of stars creates smaller black holes.
3. This being true, might imply that gravitational collapse converts matter
into gravitational energy and then into anti-matter. There is no singularity in
black holes.
4. In the e=mc^2 mass energy equivalence, energy converts to/from matter. Does
anti-matter convert to/from gravitational energy? Is there a negative energy in our
universe that corresponds to positive energy and could it be gravity?
5. Could gravity be a form of energy that is connected to anti-matter? But;...
6. Gravity exists here on earth, so where is the anti-matter?
7. The neutron is considered to be a composite particle that contains an
anti-electron. Could the weakness of gravitational force be due to its being
propagated by the small number of anti-matter particles that are contained
in neutrons (also, perhaps, anti-quarks in other particles)?
8. The above then implies that there is no gravitational attraction between
normal hydrogen atoms (as opposed to hydrogen having a weight when attracted
by the earth)?
9. Anti-hydrogen therefore could have a strong, positive gravitational attraction
and there could then exist a stronger than expected attraction between anti-hydrogen
atoms. (The attraction of both forms of Hydrogen to the earth, tiny compared to the mass
of the earth vs. the mass of atoms, could be different, although very small).
10. All forms of know energy are convertible, so could gravity, if it is a form of energy,
also be convertible?
11. The matter particles that are considered to be force carriers could have the corresponding
anti-matter particles as carriers of gravitational force. (The photon, being different,
is thought of as both matter and anti-matter).
12. Electro magnetism exists and, with relativity theory, so does gravito magnetism (frame dragging).
Gravity may not be all that different?
13. Not sure, but I think I have heard that atomic tests have created gravitational anomalies? Curious if so?
The above is just 'what if...' philosophical musings...and no, I don't do drugs :)
Most of your "what if's" are based on an incorrect understanding of science facts.
I recommend "Warped Passages" by Lisa Randall. Professor Randall answers all of the questions you have raised here.
While I don't believe your therories to be "on the mark" per say. I do believe your thought prosses is the kind that leads us to THE answer. Too many SMARTY PANTS' blindly follow the mumbo jumbo of the so called "super minds" of today. Even when the "MINDS" throw out outragious, magical explanations to keep their theories alive when they should be burried and forgotten. Don't let these idol woshipping drones deter you. Some of what you say is on track, but until there is a reduction in the despotism and outright foolishness that runs science these days, and it has been recognized and abolished, those who think "outside the event horizon" will be shunned.
@paldude
The problem with your viewpoint is that it is based on your philisophical belief, while science is guided by theory, experiment, observation and math. As such, there is no science behind much of the diatribe that you provide.
I guess my basic question right now is: Does anyone know of an experiment that has measured, or might be able to measure, the gravitational attraction between two normal Hydrogen atoms? (An assumption based calculation is not a measurement). The AEgIS experiment is designed to test the gravitational energy of anti-hydrogen atoms relative to the earth; can it perhaps do more?
To add another very curious item;Neutron interferometry studies have indicated that not all mass falls at 'exactly' the same rate (on earth). The reply has been that there is something about Neutron interferometry that is not understood. Thus, the false results. Reminds of the faster than light Neutrino studies, doesen't it? I don't know why this has not been more in the science news.
T.W. Your questions remind me of the old arguments for there being an "ether" that balances out equations explaining the amount of known matter. I like the assumptions you query about gravity as an alternative to that cumbersome quest called string theory.
The measurements of the gravitational constant, on earth, all vary +/- close to 2%. If the gravitational constant is not constant, perhaps it varies with changes in, perhaps, less stable isotopes. If we measure the gravitational on the moon, would the results also vary close to 2%. The idea that normal Hydrogen atoms, quarks and anti-quarks aside, do not exert any gravitational attraction is a strange. The calculations that are done are based on the assumption that, mass aside, the gravitational attraction of Hydrogen, Helium, Iron etc are all fundamentally the same. An assumed calculation is not a measurement. Could the AEgIS experiment yeald any measurement?
With black holes the idea is that anti-matter can 'contain' a greater gravitational force than matter. And under extreme gravity anti-matter is the far more stable form of mass. (?)
I remember reading (wish I could remember where) that some astronomers questioned how inter galactic hydrogen clouds could remain stable. Even with star formation, most new starts are triggered by novas etc.. Do you, or anyone, know of stars that were formed purely from gravitational collapse of normal Hydrogen clouds? I guess this is just a way of asking if we really understand the initial phase of fusion?
If anyone can add to, delete from or use any of these thoughts, please feel free. I want to keep this thought path going to see where it may lead (if anywhwere) mayby making more blog questions. It's all fascenating and I, for one, appreciate all professional scientists who make the time and the effort to interact with the rest of us. Thoughts or suggestions...?
The hole is rippling across the sky,
Swirling the dust.
Shadows dance.
Stars fall into place.
SPLOOSH!
Another whole is made.
And for the vast majority of bleating citizen-sheep whose votes will nullify all ye chaps and chapettes "discussing" the article votes I shake my oblate-spheroid-shaped head in wonderment at those bemoaning the many sheep who fail to register to vote or refrain from doing so.
To whose advantage is it to have the uncaring easily hoodwinked and indoctrinated citizen-sheep to be compelled, coerced, prodded, etc. to vote when it is most likely that those likely ill-and uneducated buffoon's main concerns are what team is appearing on the TV and/or the mall sale or anything other than meeting immediate base desires and lusts.
Consider that when the bemoaners are politician, bureaucrats and other lackey lap-dog puppets of corporate USA and the ruling elite-class and their minions and cohorts.
Sigh..........
And the galaxy keeps revolving.
What a wild and crazy ride.
And I sit in my hovel-like shanty pondering... is my existence and its oh-so minute speck of time in a universe-size of a multitude of perhaps eternity or near-eternity (if "time" can even be measured) all there "is."
Two humongous intervals with that itty-bitty minute "slice" of existence.
I suppose it is not even worthy of pondering since there is likely no answer so...
eat drink and be merry.
And allow others to do the same.
All the best to all of thee present whose minds appear to be able to grasp the ins-and-outs of the topics discussed so much better than mine.
I do know, however, that a plate of well-prepared mashed taters is mighty tasty.
Interesting:
MEL
Interesting:
MEL
Black Holes? It's amazing how we study holes ???
When maybe we should be concerned with the one who encompasses not only the hole, but all things.
"My soul followeth hard after thee, thy right hand upholdeth me" Ps. 63:8
monomania is such a sad and terrible condition...
go back to your book and leave the rest of us to enjoy what the universe has to show us.
nobody cares that you don't approve