Fastest Spinning Black Hole Ever Found

brian0918 writes, "NewScientist reports that researchers in Cambridge have detected a black hole spinning at nearly 1,000 times per second — the fastest ever recorded. From the article: 'McClintock's team examined a black hole in our galaxy called GRS 1915+105, which lies about 36,000 light years away. They found the innermost stable orbit around GRS 1915 is so close that the black hole must be spinning at nearly 1000 times per second. The finding supports the idea that only fast-spinning stars can collapse to create powerful explosions called long gamma-ray bursts.'" The Astrophysical Journal abstract is open but you have to be a subscriber to read the full article there.

Not so impressed

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet it would make for a crappy RAID array.

In addition to low throughput, I bet there would be some data loss.

Re:

[Gogogoch]

Apparantly, there is no data loss. That idea has been revised. Just a very, very long access time.

Fastest Spinning Black-Hole

[Quaoar]

I thought this title was held by White House press secretary Tony Snow...

Re:Fastest Spinning Black-Hole

[brian0918]

Ahh, so he's considered a black hole because of his ability to absorb vast amounts of information, yet emit nothing in return, except through accidental leaks over billions of years? Brilliant insight!

Re:

[roman_mir]

wouldn't that be considered the fastest spinning asshole instead? ;)

Re:Fastest Spinning Black-Hole

[fonetik]

You could probably throw something in there about being so dense that light actually bends around him.

In the spirit of Dave Barry...

[Lanoitarus]

I would like to point out that "Long gamma ray bursts" would be an excellent name for a rock band.

Re:

[Andrew Kismet]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_Ray_(band) [wikipedia.org]

Re:

[Gilmoure]

Or a Japanese monster movie.

Original Article

[eldavojohn]

The original article is from The Astrophysical Journal and I'm not sure if you can read this but I'll link it here [uchicago.edu]. I have an account so that may be unreachable, if it is try the PDF of it [uchicago.edu] or the abstract [uchicago.edu]. I often enjoy reading the original article no matter how large and complex it is. If anything, it causes me to look up more terms so that I feel like I'm learning something.

The moon is green cheese

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Yes, a deliberately inflammatory subject line. In The Olde Dayes, people said the moon was made of green cheese because it has the colour of green (unripened) cheese and their models were not very sophisticated. We still rely on models and the outcomes are only as good as the models themselves, and the observations they are based on.

People, what we have is a model, not an observation. As TFA says, this model is based on assumptions, though fewer assumptions in the past:"Now, astronomers have measured the spin of a black hole with a new method that requires fewer assumptions."

The black hole may indeed be spinning at 1000 revs, or is might just be that one of the model assumptions is invalid.

Method

[iamlucky13]

That is true. However, this is currently our best estimate, and the theory applied is pretty well-respected. It may be interesting to know that this finding supports a 1997 suggestion that this particular black hole spins very close to its maximum. The 1997 paper attempted to explain in theory the x-ray jets this black hole emits by suggesting it spins. In contrast, this new paper actually documents an attempt to measure the spin.

Anyway, assuming the theory is correct, their method sounds pretty plausibl

Re:

[EmbeddedJanitor]

I am not at all adverse to people making models, nor even making guesses. That is all science is: a set of models and guesses. However these models are very often based on pretty dodgy assumptions and often don't scale well. "Scientific" announcements should be made in ways that make this clear.

The models used here might be completely accurate. They might also be just a reasonable approximation for some coditions, and might be an appaling approximation when you step outside those conditions. A bit like New

Re:

[iamlucky13]

Your points are true, and in fact all measurements are at some level just approximations (eg: you read a ruler measurement as 6 inches, when it is actually 6.13 inches, or you calculate a trip time based on as-the-crow-flies distance instead of road distance).

So yes, assuming the underlying theories are correct, this could be a good measurement. We don't for certain know that general relativity and quantum mechanics are correct, but currently there is almost no scientific dissent on their validity. Those

Re:

[indifferent children]

"Scientific" announcements should be made in ways that make this clear.

Or our high school science classes should be improved to the point that every adult would already know that these caveats are implicit in every scientific announcement. Way too many of us (esp. us Americans) treat science as either gospel or hogwash. Note that claiming that science is hogwash in no way implies rejecting the practical fruits of said hogwash.

Re:

[brian0918]

Yes, clearly this is an elaborate scheme by scientists to get millions of dollars to pay for expensive top-of-the-line equipment built by your average Joe. This is all part of their plan to keep unemployment down!

Re:The moon is green cheese

[Decaff]

I believe that if the people on the street actually knew how and what we use (we..as in humankind)to collect the data that describes our physical universe and existence, they wouldn't believe a single thing the "scientific" community tells them. The modeling (practically all of it...pick your discipline) is flawed to the point that the data is literally unusable in an honest way.

If you believe that, you had better not fly. GPS systems only work because of General Relativity - Newton's work isn't accurate enough. GPS is proof of Einstein's work. Instead of being 'literally unusable', the information we collect is vital for so much of current technology.

So your attempt to disprove global warming by this argument just won't work. Sorry.

Re:

[susano_otter]

So your attempt to disprove global warming by this argument just won't work. Sorry.

Unless this argument happens to be much more applicable to global climate modeling than it is to General Relativity.

Re:

[Decaff]

Unless this argument happens to be much more applicable to global climate modeling than it is to General Relativity.

But that was not the way the argument worked:

The modeling (practically all of it...pick your discipline) is flawed to the point that the data is literally unusable in an honest way.

The original poster was so desperate to not believe global climate change (I understand why - the consequences could be nasty) that they felt they had to rubbish ALL science.

Re:

[susano_otter]

So the extrapolation from global climate modeling to other fields was unwarranted? Fair enough, but hardly a compelling endorsement of the current global climate modeling technology.

Re:

[Decaff]

So the extrapolation from global climate modeling to other fields was unwarranted? Fair enough, but hardly a compelling endorsement of the current global climate modeling technology.

Actually, it is. Because if this is all that those wanting to dismiss climate modelling can come up with....

Re:

[susano_otter]

Actually, it is. Because if this is all that those wanting to dismiss climate modelling can come up with....

If all they can come up with is that global climate modeling is so unreliable that it tempts the under-informed to mistrust modeling in general, isn't that enough?

Also, if your faith in global climate modeling is so strong, why such a weaksauce defense of it? Can't you be bothered to argue in favor of trusting the modeling, rather than simply arguing against extending distrust of the modeling to oth

Re:

[Decaff]

Also, if your faith in global climate modeling is so strong, why such a weaksauce defense of it? Can't you be bothered to argue in favor of trusting the modeling, rather than simply arguing against extending distrust of the modeling to other fields?

Because arguing in favour of modelling is hard, because modelling is hard. It involves detailed knowledge of physics, mathematics, chemistry and statistics. What am I supposed to do - go into those in detail in a Slashdot post? At some point people just have t

Re:

[susano_otter]

What am I supposed to do - go into those in detail in a Slashdot post? At some point people just have to learn to trust the experts.

That's exactly what I keep saying about the experts responsible for our modern translations of the Bible, but your advice doesn't seem to be taken very seriously in that context. Why should it be taken any more seriously in the context of global climate modeling?

Re:

[Decaff]

That's exactly what I keep saying about the experts responsible for our modern translations of the Bible, but your advice doesn't seem to be taken very seriously in that context. Why should it be taken any more seriously in the context of global climate modeling?

Because the techniques that they use have shown to work very well in other situations. For example, the type of modelling used for climate situations (statistical ensembles) is also used for things like modelling of chemical reactions, and is a sup

Re:

[susano_otter]

It's my understanding that the high number of variables and the extreme sensitivity to initial conditions, make climate modeling much more resource-intensive, and much less consistent in its predictive power, than the same modelilng techniques in other, less complex fields.

May I use an analogy?

It seems as if you're asking, "the engine in my riding lawnmower works just fine for mowing lawns; why shouldn't I use it in a high-speed chassis to break the world land speed record?". I know this is a gross exagger

Re:

[Decaff]

It's my understanding that the high number of variables and the extreme sensitivity to initial conditions, make climate modeling much more resource-intensive, and much less consistent in its predictive power, than the same modelilng techniques in other, less complex fields.

No, this isn't the case. Statistical ensembles are used in equally (or far more) complex fields, such as the simulation of quantum mechanical interactions or large molecular complexes.

but have you considered the possibility that the mode

Re:

[susano_otter]

The modelling would be pushed beyond its limits if you couldn't get sensible statistics for the outcome, even after running models for a long, long time.

How sensible are the statistics? What is their predictive success right now?

Re:

[Decaff]

How sensible are the statistics? What is their predictive success right now?

To simplify, there is a scientifically accepted standard for all statistics, called 'confidence limits'. Ranges are predicted (such as ranges in temperature in 100 years time), they are only shown if there is less than a 1 in 20 (5%) chance that they are wrong.

Re:

[susano_otter]

To simplify, there is a scientifically accepted standard for all statistics, called 'confidence limits'. Ranges are predicted (such as ranges in temperature in 100 years time), they are only shown if there is less than a 1 in 20 (5%) chance that they are wrong.

Won't it be impossible to know "if there is less than a 1 in 20 (5%) chance that they are wrong", until we've actually waited, say, 100 years to see if the 100-year predictions really are that accurate?

What's been the predictive success of these metho

Re:

[Decaff]

Won't it be impossible to know "if there is less than a 1 in 20 (5%) chance that they are wrong", until we've actually waited, say, 100 years to see if the 100-year predictions really are that accurate?

No, because that is what modelling is for! Models aren't taken out of the air. They are based on proven theories of physics, chemistry, biology and so on, and tested by running against historical data

What's been the predictive success of these methods so far, and what's the longest time period for which pre

Re:

[Decaff]

Because other areas often involve repeatable experiments. You can't put the earth in a controlled environment and run the experiment over and over, and see what the outcome is with more or less greenhouse gasses. Sure, you can do this is in a model, but then you can only predict what the model will do.

well, there goes much of science. Much of science consists of running repeatable experiments on models, and seeing what the models do, then comparing what happens to models with reality. That has been the ba

Re:

[Decaff]

Umm, if all science was exactly the same, then that would be true. However, fields like quantum mechanics have been experimentally verified to very precise levels, yielding far more certainties than stuff like climate models. That you are arguing this point makes me doubt your claimed credentials as a scientist. And if you are indeed a respected member of the climatology community (link to paper?), well let's just say that I hope you're style of reasoning is in the minority.

You are completely misunderstandi

Re:

[Decaff]

You were asking why the layman questions climate modelers. Climate modelers do not use their technology to make cars or GPS systems. They have no track record of predicting what will happen in 100 years time.

I am glad you mentioned cars. The methods used by climate modellers are indeed used by those who make cars. They are also used by those who make planes. They use statistical methods to analyse turbulent flows to predict air flows, energy transfers and forces. It is very much the same sorts of modell

Re:

[Decaff]

But eventually they get into wind tunnels, are driven on roads, and flown in the air, before the consumer is asked to buy them.

And climate models are run against past data before they are accepted. No model is acceptable unless it can produce reproducible results against some real data - there would be no point.

There's a huge difference between trying to divine the rules of physics vs. trying to model a complex and constantly changing system. Gravity, electricty, and chemical reactions haven't changed sinc

Re:

[Decaff]

I said it was less certain than other areas of science.

I am am insisting that it isn't. The point of using statistical ensembles is to be able to quantify the uncertainty.

Predicting against the past is not the same as predicting the future or scenarios that we haven't seen before with success.

No, it isn't. But it is done all the time. It is done in economics, in biology, even in physics (cosmology). There is nothing unique about climate modelling in this respect.

Re:

[susano_otter]

I'm lost.

How about a simple question: Have climate modellers already proven their ability to accurately model the global climate 100 years out, or not?

Re:

[Decaff]

I'm lost.

How about a simple question: Have climate modellers already proven their ability to accurately model the global climate 100 years out, or not?

Yes, and No :)

What climate modellers have shown is that a range of models, all with different assumptions, when taken together, provide a range of predictions of the global climate for the next century.

This range of predictions can be statistically examined. There is an average prediction, and there are extreme limit predictions. All we can say is that the

Re:

[Decaff]

I did not say, "literally all of it...". I used the term "practically" as a semi catch-all to include those theories that require some sort of response from those of us who are responsible for the financing of the research. In other words...if the solution requires massive funding to prevent the negative outcome of whichever theory, you can almost bet that the modeling is extremely flawed.

Sorry, but things don't work like that. The topic of this discussion was general relativity. You can't now work backwa

Re:

[Decaff]

My area of "expertise" and my chosen career for the last 27 years is Meteorology...just your average "weather man" on radion and TV in the Northeastern US and now in Texas. For the last 10 years, I have spent a large portion of my time, both personaly and professionally, studying Climatology and the politics that surround the topic of Global Warming.

Then why are you attempting to criticise physicists, or science in general? Are you broadly qualified? If not, how on Earth do you consider yourself in a posi

Black holes Vs. Planets

[SoVeryTired]

I find it amazing that they can find an object which emits absolutely no light, halfway across the galaxy, and yet it's still so hard to find planets. I know they find the black holes by their accretion discs, but I still think it's remarkable.

Re:Black holes Vs. Planets

[0racle]

If there was a planet with a gravitational pull equivalent to a Black Hole, I bet they'd find it pretty quick.

Re:

[twifosp]

If there was a planet with a gravitational pull equivalent to a Black Hole, I bet they'd find it pretty quick.

Erm, if there was a planet with a gravitational pull equivalent to a black hole, it would for all intents and purposes be a black hole. A hunk of matter with enough mass to equal the gravitational pull of a black hole would also not emit light. It would also have to be incredibly spread out. It would also have enough mass to start fusion and would either be a gas giant or would collapse and for

Re:

[strikethree]

I think you missed his entire point: The effects of gravity make Black Holes easy to spot as opposed to planets which do not affect as much mass in their regions of space.

strike

Re:Black holes Vs. Planets

[jimstapleton]

because they don't use light to detect either, they use the effect on nearby matter; which means their gravity, and not their size/light is what matters. Although someone mentioned that black holes also have a kind of "halo", which could also still be used. Also there is an accretion disk (I believe that's what it's called), around a black hole where stuff is getting sucked in. That would create a large and visible effect.

Nonetheless, a planet will make a star vibrate ever-so-slightly-and-slowly, whereas a black whole will make who masses of stuff rotate around it, and suck them in.

Re:

[noewun]

Despite their size, black holes make a much larger dent in spacetime than planets. You can find a black hole through a number of means--their enormous gravity, the effect this has on planets, stars or gas nearby, X-ray or gamma ray bursts caused by matter falling into the black hole, gravitational lensing, etc.--all of which are relatively visible from far away. Planets, on the other hand, don't do much other than orbit stars. You can find them through their much smaller gravitational effects, or from purel

Re:

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

You can pump energy out of a spinning black hole using a technique [wikipedia.org] discovered by Roger Penrose. A spinning black hole, with some other matter nearby, is a long way from "black". They can, in fact, be among the brightest things in the universe, at least in the X-ray spectrum.

Re:

[Ihlosi]

I find it amazing that they can find an object which emits absolutely no light

... but does have a big-freaking-huge gravitational influence on its surroundings ...

, halfway across the galaxy, and yet it's still so hard to find planets.

... which emit pretty much no light either, and have a gravity that's orders of magnitude of orders of magnitude weaker than that of black hole.

One thing is for sure.

[AltGrendel]

We know it won't fly apart from centrifugal force.

Squished apart

[jbeaupre]

If I remember correctly, centrifugal force as we know it actually reverses near a black hole. Pulling inward instead of outward. A rotating black hole may be compressed further by its rotation. Maybe someone familiar with the phenomena can shed more light.

Re:

[shrubsky]

I'm not certain, but you might be thinking about frame dragging. Rotating objects drag space-time around with them; the more massive the object, the stronger the effect. Because black holes tend to the massive side and can spin very very fast the frame dragging effect can be very strong near the event horizon.

Because of this effect, it is impossible not to orbit a rapidly spinning black hole as you fall in; you'll get dragged around along with space-time. I'm guessing (without having actually heard or re

Re:

[marcosdumay]

"Naturally I cannot shed any light on this or any other subject."

Ok, but how fast can you spin it?

Re:

[Phanatic1a]

Do we?

No, seriously. Relativity says that infinite tensile strength is impossible. Everything *must* cease to act as a perfectly rigid body at some level of applied force.

Re:

[Pharmboy]

Let's take a leap...

Being an armchair physicist, I was wondering what *if* the hole was spinning almost the speed of light (>99.999%) at the horizon, then wouldn't the centrifugal force almost equal the gravitational force at the horizon? Enough that the horizon would shrink ever so slighly (or via Uncertainly Principle), making something that was once inside, now outside? Discounting for "quantum hair", even a couple of photons escaping would disagree with the theory "Whatever falls in a blackhole can'

Re:

[WhiteWolf666]

There's no such thing as centrifugal force, for one. It's an illusion, at best; a strange contortion of the linear acceleration associated with circular motion.

Furthermore, there's no event horizon "shrinkage" due to the hole spinning. You get a "smaller" event horizon (in comparison to a non-spinning black hole) as a result of frame dragging, but shrinkage would require the hole to speed up.

Black holes _do_ shrink. They do, in fact, evaporate over time, as a result of imaginary particles. This is termed Ha [wikipedia.org]

Re:

[Pharmboy]

I am familiar with Hawking Radiation (hense my comment "Discounting for quantum hair") although the jury is out if there is real information since we are talking about virtual particles (and info may or may not be transfered depending on entanglement, if both fall inside, etc) and I am refering to Classical Information, which is why I excluded them via the hair comment.

I also understand that centrifugal force being "an illusion" that is linear acceleration (the key here being acceleration that approaches th

Re:

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

Read all about it [wikipedia.org]!

Re:

[twifosp]

I would never say never, but that really wouldn't happen. There would be so much energy required to spin a black hole that fast it would violate the plank density.

Get the full text (no subscription) here

[Anonymous Coward]

The astrophysics arXiv preprint [arxiv.org] from June.

Is that fast enough for closed timelike curves?

[Dr. Manhattan]

In theory, that could be a time machine [firstscience.com]... anyone know the details of the math?

Re:

[Mister Whirly]

So that's where that bastard Marty parked my DeLorean....

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone seen John Titor lately?
Yup, I saw him tomorrow

So the question is...

[Kenja]

So the question is, whos grave is it and what did we do to get them to spin that fast?

Makes sense to me...

[e4g4]

...some astronomers have expressed doubt that stars would be spinning fast enough at this stage in their lives.

Now, i'm not an astrophysicist, but it seems to me that if a star had any spin at all before collapsing into a black hole, that spin would be magnified quite substantially, to conserve angular momentum (y'know, like a figure skater, or you spinning on your office chair).

Re:

[lymond01]

How the hell did you know I was spinning in my chair?

Re:

[volpe]

Good point. Wouldn't any finite angular velocity, therefore, dictate a non-zero radius, and therefore that the object is not a singularity?
Two more questions:

1. Why are the positions of stable orbits (and what makes an orbit "stable", anyway?) dependent on the rate of rotation of the body being orbited? Isn't orbital mechanics dictated by the mass of the object being orbited? If you know the mass, and the altitude, you can compute the orbital velocity, no?

2. If the object is truly a singularity, does the co

Full Article Available for Free

[Betelgeuse]

If you'd like to see the whole article, as published in the Astrophysical Journal, you can find it on the astro-ph journal pre-print server. [arxiv.org] It's not the "official" journal version, but it should be identical to it (and was submitted to the preprint server by the authors).

Orbiting at no more than 30 miles from the center

[Jerry]

of the black hole?

If an ogject is orbiting at 1,000 times per second in order for it to remain just below the speed of light it would have to be NO farther than about 30 miles from the center of the black hole.

It's got to be on the verge of exploding. I wonder what effect the explosion will have here on Earth at 38,000 light years away?

Re:Orbiting at no more than 30 miles from the cent

[Eternauta3k]

It's got to be on the verge of exploding. I wonder what effect the explosion will have here on Earth at 38,000 light years away?

Maybe it has already exploded. Just wait 38,000 years to find out.

Re:

[stormy_petral]

It's got to be on the verge of exploding. I wonder what effect the explosion will have here on Earth at 38,000 light years away?

Maybe it has already exploded. Just wait 38,000 years to find out.

It may have exploded 37,999.99726 years ago, in which case we'll know tomorrow.

1K Hz sounds about right...

[$RANDOMLUSER]

Here's [nrao.edu] a 20 mile diameter pulsar spinning at 716 Hertz. When you factor in the increase in rotational speed with the black hole contraction, 1K sounds real plausible.

This When to the Egress

[Doc Ruby]

Some astrophysicists say that some spinning cylindrical black holes warp spacetime enough that a projectile moving through its nearby region gets its velocity rotated to travel through time instead of a spatial axis. Is this new one the longest wormhole [wikipedia.org] yet found?

In the immortal words of Space Quest IV...

[192939495969798999]

one of the stock phrases, whenever you try to touch something interesting but non-functional in the game:
"Doooon't mess with it!"

In this case, it sounds extremely functional, in the gravity-that-rips-your-arms-off sense.

obligatory

[owlnation]

I for one, welcome our new extremely dizzy overlords.

Lovecraft reference?

[grimJester]

"in the spiral black vortices of that ultimate void of Chaos wherein reigns the mindless daemon-sultan Azathoth"

"the ancient legends of Ultimate Chaos, at whose center sprawls the blind idiot god Azathoth, Lord of All Things, encircled by his flopping horde of mindless and amorphous dancers, and lulled by the thin monotonous piping of a demoniac flute held in nameless paws."

Wikipedia link [wikipedia.org]

Seemed somehow fitting.

Multi-Dimensional Universe

[writerjosh]

"A lot of research is focusing on creating an opening into the higher dimensional Hyperspace that contain innumerable universes. If it can be done, our whole world will change. We will leap forward in the advancement of science and technologies by millions of years.

Every black hole has a central singularity. These are points where mathematical modeling fails. That is because we assume every thing is 3-D. But the fact of the matter is these centers of black holes are singularities in 3-D but are actually simply transition points in higher dimensions..." [source] [indiadaily.com]

Whoa

Re:Multi-Dimensional Universe

[Jerf]

Uh, "Informative" my ass. A selection of other "technology" articles from India Daily, obtained simply by clicking on the "technology" tab on their page:

Gravity wave connectors through black hole singularities connect integrated consciousness from the chilled universe: Mathematically it is clear now that gravity waves can easily pass through the points of singularities in the black holes. These connect the integrated consciousness and provide guidance from the chilled universe below the Hyperspace.

We are part of a super advanced Type IV extraterrestrial civilization- projection of Zero Point Energy Module encapsulated as life on 3-D vector space with increasing span: After attaining perfection or 'Error Vector zero', we move on to higher dimension and continue the process till we cross into the chilled universe.

The world of advanced extraterrestrial civilizations - life-surrounding singularities: The time and space dimensions (infinite in numbers) can be accessed individually, manipulated and new configurations can be created.

India Times articles often show on Fark; I'll leave it to you to guess why.

Moderators: Big words != informative.

Re:

[smoker2]

Ok, prove them wrong !

Re:

[Jerf]

I give your defense no credence. Reading crap like that leaves you less informed about actual science than before you read it. It's right up there with taking education about quantum mechanics from Star Trek; Star Trek on the balance leaves you less informed about real physics and engineering than if you didn't watch it at all. (On the plus, it exposes to you certain words. On the minus, it is completely and utterly wrong about what those words mean, routinely, to the point that them getting something right

Re:

[khallow]

My favorite line is:

The limit cycle in the black hole is stable with everything getting attracted to it while on the other side it is unstable in terrestrial science vocabulary which means everything is pushed out over time.

Remember you heard about semantically unstable blackholes on India Times first! And the story babbles about "computer models". If you have something that can't be modelled mathetically, then it can't be modeled with computers either. The latter is a special case of the former.

Re:

[khallow]

Yea. It's pretty clear we should be thinking of our universe as existing in *four* dimensions. Anything past that is idle speculation as of present. And dimension is independent of whether the universe is "dynamic" or not. A string can have complex motions and be tied into intricate knots, but it's still a one dimensional object in a four dimensional space.

Faster than light?

[fahrbot-bot]

Is there any data on its diameter/circumference? If it's spinning at 1000 RPS, and it's more than 186 miles around then wouldn't its surface (event horizon?) be traveling FTL?

Contradiction

[QuickFox]

There's one thing I don't understand about black holes. I've read that a black hole is so massive that space itself is warped around it. This warping means that a straight line that starts at the center will return to the center. It returns even though in its local context it is straight. But don't gravitons move like light? So how does the force of gravity escape? No light or other signal can escape... And yet gravity can! Weird.

Re:

[shrubsky]

In General Relativity, gravity is the warping of space you refer to. The warp is the path light would take when travelling through that region. Everything with mass warps space-time a bit, and black holes do so a lot; so much so that any light you emit inside the event horizon bends around until it's in the singularity no matter where you aimed it initially.

Gravitons are a proposed quantum paritcle, and black holes and quantum physics haven't been reconciled yet. The warping-of-space-time explaination do

Re:

[Cheapy]

I've always thought of Gravity as a law of the universe, not an entity like light is. Maybe I'm just bad at visualizing things, but I can visualize light, information, etc. but I can't visualize gravity.

Re:

[khayman80]

There's one thing I don't understand about black holes. I've read that a black hole is so massive that space itself is warped around it. This warping means that a straight line that starts at the center will return to the center. It returns even though in its local context it is straight.

More precisely, a black hole warps space in the sense that if you had a flashlight right on the event horizon and pointed it parallel to the event horizon, the light would travel in a great circle on the event horizon.

Re:

[Decaff]

They didn't mention it in the article but thankfully I'm a black hole expert :-D There's a theory that says since the singularity is infinitely small then technically no matter is actually moving when it's rotating so it doesn't have to obey the speed of light speed limit and may be able to rotate faster than the speed of light. No idea how they can measure the speed if there's no radius but anyway, if it gets up to that speed they theorize that it will completely stop emitting gravity and either just sit t

Re:

[Decaff]

lmao, you're funny. All black holes have an ergosphere unless they're literally not moving at all.

Hence the phrase 'open up' an ergosphere, not 'create' one.

It's clear you have no idea what you're talking about so I won't even bother to type a whole big thing about what scientists who know what they're talking about think about how large singularities are regardless of how far out the event horizon is. It's either a simple physics statement that it's infinitely small but large enough to exist because if it

Size differential

[benhocking]

Well, since a 747 is significantly less massive than a black hole (except for very few - if any - primordial black holes, and even then, after swallowing Pluto they'd definitely be more massive), and BBs are significantly bigger than most particles, I'd say trying to deflect a 747 with BBs would actually be much, much easier. Assuming you have the correct angle, of course... :P

(Never mind the fact that by the time said black hole swallowed up Pluto it'd already have totally destroyed our orbital trajector

Re:

[Gospodin]

...except for very few - if any - primordial black holes, and even then, after swallowing Pluto they'd definitely be more massive...

I'm being nitpicky, but isn't it the case that any black hole that was only as massive as a 747 would evaporate in milliseconds? IIRC Hawking radiation takes care of small black holes at a rate inversely proportional to the surface area of the event horizon.

I think you are correct

[benhocking]

But... it could be just the right size that it becomes the mass of a 747 right before it collides with Pluto. Of course, then we also have all the radiation issues to worry about, too.

Re:

[Gospodin]

You are right, you can make a black hole of any size. But they lose mass quickly [wikipedia.org] if they're small. From the Wikipedia article: "A 1 second-lived black hole has a mass of 228,000 kg." This is only about half the maximum take-off weight of a 747 [wikipedia.org], so my guess that it would last only milliseconds was wrong - it would last over a second before exploding into gamma rays.

Re:why spinning it good

[qwijibo]

A 747 could easily be deflected with BBs. The velocity and quantity of BBs is the most relevant factor. A billion BBs would deflect a 747 pretty easily. Or maybe just a handful of BBs at 2/3 the speed of light.

Re:

[Hektor_Troy]

I'm no physicist, but I'm fairly certain that a handful of BB's at 2/3 the speed of light would simply tear right through the 747, leaving a handfull of holes rather than stopping it.

Re:

[Gogogoch]

Not that kind of Black Hole, you idiot!

It's also 1 kHz

[DeadCatX2]

Fast in reference to what?

The way you use RPM, I'm guessing you're comparing it to an engine.

Re:

[gstoddart]

The way you use RPM, I'm guessing you're comparing it to an engine.

OK, fine. But picture a car spinning at 1KHz. A Bus. A air craft carrier. A planet. By the time you're talking about a black-hole spinning at 1KHz, you're talking about an absolutely enormous mass spinning at an asounding rate -- big things don't move that fast without flying apart.

Yes, there are smaller things which can spin faster. The point is, this is the fastest enormous thing we've ever discovered. Picture the kind of forces req

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:If we could make a rom like blu-ray out of Gama

[Salsaman]

Well:

If a gamma ray from far away could play today a blu-ray, then I would say that gamma ray was sellable on e-bay.

(and before an anonymous coward makes a "funny" response, no I am not gay...)

Re:

[JohnFluxx]

Maybe you could measure the difference in doppler shift of the hawking radiation at both sides of the black hole.