Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Black Holes May Mature Early In Galaxy Evolution

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the they-grow-up-so-fast dept.

Space 63

masterwit writes "From Scientific American: 'An accidental find in a star-forming dwarf galaxy shows that black holes may mature early in galaxy evolution.' Also, 'if giant black holes in star-forming dwarf galaxies prove to be common — that is, if Henize 2-10 is not an outlier but a representative of a larger population — they may have much to tell about the formation of primordial black holes and galaxies in the early universe.'"

cancel ×

63 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Common Knowledge (5, Funny)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#34819232)

I think any red-blooded male can confirm that this is obvious common knowledge. They keep maturing earlier and earlier. Hell, have you seen them lately? You think they're all 18 or even 22 millennia until that awkward moment when you make your move and find out they're really only 15 millenia. I say it's the chemicals they're subjected to in the modern cosmos.

Re:Common Knowledge (2, Funny)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 3 years ago | (#34819264)

I always caught myself wondering if I was looking at the edge of a primordial black hole or whether it had already gobbled up a few galaxies worth of matter...

Wait, what are we talking about?

Re:Common Knowledge (-1, Offtopic)

Smirker (695167) | more than 3 years ago | (#34819334)

Or at least you tell yourself you think they're 18 or over.

Re:Common Knowledge (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34819350)

I think any red-blooded male can confirm that this is obvious common knowledge. They keep maturing earlier and earlier. Hell, have you seen them lately? You think they're all 18 or even 22 millennia until that awkward moment when you make your move and find out they're really only 15 millenia. I say it's the chemicals they're subjected to in the modern cosmos.

You sound like a total fag.

Fucking niggers!

Re:Common Knowledge: referential problem (1)

hcs_$reboot (1536101) | more than 3 years ago | (#34819948)

They keep maturing earlier and earlier.

Actually, you are getting older and older...

Re:Common Knowledge (0)

Pikoro (844299) | more than 3 years ago | (#34822142)

"That's what I like about them high school girls man. I get older.. they stay the same age... Yes they do."

- Dazed and Confused

That's disgusting. (1)

mswhippingboy (754599) | more than 3 years ago | (#34825608)

This is like watching 1940's porn, knowing damn well that what you are seeing is only an image of what grandmother nature looked like long ago!

I have heard about black holes and their threat (-1, Offtopic)

giunda (1956292) | more than 3 years ago | (#34819268)

I have heard about black holes and their threat, does this affect to the earth ? Barbie dress up games [dollbabi.com]

Re:I have heard about black holes and their threat (3, Interesting)

masterwit (1800118) | more than 3 years ago | (#34819338)

This likely will not affect us in any immediate fashion outside our continued pursuit of knowledge of the universe... but on another note:

Barbie dress up games

Looks like you need to clean up your computer and online browsing settings! (Unless you meant to post that link following your comment)

[OT] Spam factories (4, Interesting)

achurch (201270) | more than 3 years ago | (#34819986)

Barbie dress up games

Looks like you need to clean up your computer and online browsing settings! (Unless you meant to post that link following your comment)

That was probably one of the manual-labor spam factories that seem to be sprouting like weeds recently -- they pay people to register on a forum, read the forum, and post comments (with spam links, of course) that make just enough sense to attract real readers' attention.

On the one hand, I guess it means that spam-detecting tech has advanced far enough that it's no longer very profitable to send out machine-generated spam. On the other hand, this makes it harder for us humans to tell the difference. (But then again, xkcd [xkcd.com] has a point too.)

Re:[OT] Spam factories (0)

masterwit (1800118) | more than 3 years ago | (#34820220)

Would explain the broken English and then the immediate link...as for the xkcd, I remember that one :)

Re:[OT] Spam factories (0)

junglee_iitk (651040) | more than 3 years ago | (#34821344)

They also probably buy subscription to these websites and forums...

Re:[OT] Spam factories (0)

masterwit (1800118) | more than 3 years ago | (#34821926)

Hell, that wouldn't surprise me either. All for a pagerank. I blame Google (among many other things).

what do you mean "if?" (5, Interesting)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 3 years ago | (#34819298)

if giant black holes in star-forming dwarf galaxies prove to be common

The first time astronomers found a supermassive blackhole at the center of a galaxy they decided to check the results against a typical quiet galaxy and found the same thing. The observations continued and it became clear pretty quickly that blackholes in galaxies were common. So common in fact, that I am unaware of a galaxy that didn't have one. The mass of the supermassive blackhole strongly correlates with the mass of the galaxy. A typical galaxy is about 200 times the mass of its supermassive blackhole which suggests a link between supermassive blackhole formation and the creation of galaxies. Whether they act as seeds for a galaxy to form in the first place or are the inevitable result isn't yet clear.

So are galaxies just black hole accretion disks? (1, Interesting)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#34819378)

n/t

Re:So are galaxies just black hole accretion disks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34819640)

Essentially. I recall a recent /. article on the cyclicity of our universe. After heat death the universe becomes two supermassive blackholes ready to merge, after which a new universe becomes born.

Re:So are galaxies just black hole accretion disks (5, Funny)

syousef (465911) | more than 3 years ago | (#34819676)

No. Galaxies aren't just black hole accretion disks.

The influence of the black hole is strong only at the very center tiny fraction of a percent (by either volume or mass) of the galaxy. So much so that we only found them a few decades ago.

You may as well ask if the solar system were just your own personal accretion disk.

Re:So are galaxies just black hole accretion disks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34820010)

Well, keep in mind, we still can't fully explain galactic rotation curves with GR. It's entirely possible that supermassive black holes have more influence on the galaxy than current theories give them credit for. This is the stuff science is made of!

Re:So are galaxies just black hole accretion disks (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 3 years ago | (#34820116)

Well, keep in mind, we still can't fully explain galactic rotation curves with GR. It's entirely possible that supermassive black holes have more influence on the galaxy than current theories give them credit for. This is the stuff science is made of!

Well um no. That isn't what's observed. What's observed is the very nearest stars whipping around the supermassive black hole at blistering speeds and no discernable influence further out. Dark matter and galactic rotation curves just don't come into it. Unless your particular brand of MOND is so loopy that things get weaker then stronger again some how. It's just not what we're seeing.

Re:So are galaxies just black hole accretion disks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34820020)

> You may as well ask if the solar system were just your own personal accretion disk.

Hey, I'm doing my best to lose weight, you insensitive clod!

Re:So are galaxies just black hole accretion disks (1)

melchoir55 (218842) | more than 3 years ago | (#34820380)

I'll point out that humans thought the solar system WAS our own personal accretion disk until only the last few hundred years. For the lulz.

Re:So are galaxies just black hole accretion disks (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 3 years ago | (#34821836)

I'll point out that humans thought the universe WAS our own personal accretion disk until only the last few hundred years. For the lulz.

FIFY.

Re:So are galaxies just black hole accretion disks (1)

Rob Riggs (6418) | more than 3 years ago | (#34823408)

The influence of the black hole is strong only at the very center tiny fraction of a percent (by either volume or mass) of the galaxy.

In other words, the black hole has direct influence over a small fraction of the galaxy.

You may as well ask if the solar system were just your own personal accretion disk.

Are you sure it's not like asking the soldiers on the battlefield if they report the the Field Marshall?

Re:So are galaxies just black hole accretion disks (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 3 years ago | (#34832486)

The influence of the black hole is strong only at the very center tiny fraction of a percent (by either volume or mass) of the galaxy.

In other words, the black hole has direct influence over a small fraction of the galaxy.

You may as well ask if the solar system were just your own personal accretion disk.

Are you sure it's not like asking the soldiers on the battlefield if they report the the Field Marshall?

You're missing the point entirely. Influence decreases as the square of the distance. There is no cascade effect here. In this case the field marshal and the soliders are 10000 light years apart.

Re:what do you mean "if?" (4, Interesting)

cosm (1072588) | more than 3 years ago | (#34819532)

Exactly, its a chicken and egg problem, and this finding just provides further evidence that the order of Star/Galaxy/Black Hole creation is still up in the air, seeing as they are finding younger/smaller galaxies with black holes, which pushes the lower boundary for black hole formation even further. It is still a chicken and egg problem, though (from what I gather).

Re:what do you mean "if?" (2)

Rich0 (548339) | more than 3 years ago | (#34823508)

Also - there could be a common cause for both galaxy and black hole - one need not cause the other.

Perhaps for some reason dark matter is not evenly distributed in space, and that causes normal matter to coalesce in some regions. At the very center of the coalescence this is sufficient to form a black hole, and everywhere else a galaxy forms. So, then both the black hole and the galaxy are just the effects of a prior cause.

Some of the string theory scenarios suggest that gravity could traverse between universes, and then dark matter is just the presence of normal matter in some other universe near to this region of our universe. So, galaxies might form in our universe near to where galaxies formed in other universes - of course that does raise its own chicken/egg question.

I was thinking that the bullet cluster example of non-interacting dark matter could be the result of there being four galaxies involved in the collision. Two in our universe, each of which is paired with one galaxy in two different universes. The galaxies in our universe would interact strongly, but the two in different universes would not, since they are not in the same universe as each other. That still raises lots of questions, like why would a galaxy in universe A cause formation of a galaxy in universe B, but not one in universe C, when universe B interacts with both A and C, or why didn't the formation in B cause a later formation in C? Issues like this probably cause problems with the multi-universe models.

thanks for the heads up (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34819402)

Something to keep in mind next time the Intergalactic Real Estate agent tweets about "PRISTINE oceanfront property in young galaxy, fun neighborhood!"

Galaxies are blackholes acceleration disks (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34819574)

Actually this galaxy [tinyurl.com] was almost completely sucked into a black hole!

Re:Galaxies are blackholes acceleration disks (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34826480)

Damn goatse trolls are getting high tech!

URL
http://tinyurl.com/33t2lpc [tinyurl.com]

Effective URL
http://goatse.fr/ [goatse.fr]

Redirections
1.http://tinyurl.com/33t2lpc
2.http://ow.ly/3yjew
3.http://bit.ly/eBHZpv
4.http://ow.ly/3yj9k
5.http://goatse.fr

dark matter gets murkier? (2)

tkprit (8581) | more than 3 years ago | (#34819670)

big black holes = gravitational mass? = maybe account for missing mass we thought of as 'dark matter'? Just curious... this is awesome [if it's not outlier of course].

Re:dark matter gets murkier? (4, Informative)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 3 years ago | (#34819918)

Black holes are not nearly enough to account for the missing mass from dark matter. Remember dark matter isn't a missing small percentage of what we can see, it makes up 4 times more matter then what can be observed.

Re:dark matter gets murkier? (1)

tkprit (8581) | more than 3 years ago | (#34820068)

right, ...I was thinking the grav. energy of these super-giant black holes (*if* they're indeed common) could account for [at least some of] the enormous missing mass.

Re:dark matter gets murkier? (2)

Vekseid (1528215) | more than 3 years ago | (#34820406)

The black hole at the center of our galaxy is four million solar masses. In comparison, the dark matter halo of our galaxy is on the order of a trillion solar masses.

Re:dark matter gets murkier? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34821184)

The black hole at the center of our galaxy is four million solar masses. In comparison, the dark matter halo of our galaxy is on the order of a trillion solar masses.

Well...

There are probably more than 170 billion (1.7 × 10^11) galaxies in the observable universe.

Re:dark matter gets murkier? (2)

Rich0 (548339) | more than 3 years ago | (#34823586)

Yes, and every one of those 2E11 galaxies has 1E6 too little mass even allowing for a big black hole in each one.

Based on other posts here the black hole in a galaxy is about 0.5% of its mass. The discrepancy with dark matter is something like 200% or some crazy figure like that.

Maybe if there are thousands of supermassive black holes floating around in the halos of every galaxy that haven't been discovered yet this would explain the paradox, but there is no evidence for this, and I'd think that something like a supermassive black hole floating around in clear space near our galaxy would be detectable due to lensing. The only reason they remained obscure for so long is that the nearest one is in a difficult area to observe, and the rest are so far away you can't easily resolve individual stars in their vicinity. A huge black hole in the halo would not be obscured, and it wouldn't be all that far away either (relatively speaking). But, perhaps they do exist. The bottom line, however, is that the central black holes discovered so far don't resolve the dark matter problem.

Re:dark matter gets murkier? (1)

CrashandDie (1114135) | more than 3 years ago | (#34821034)

Plus, a black hole doesn't have a greater mass than the sun it spawned from (quite the contrary, as it would appear some mass is lost during the "conversion"). It's just a whole lot denser (same mass but lesser size == greater density).

black holes don't exist (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34819708)

there is no observational evidence for a black hole occuring in nature. to invalidate the concept of a black hole it is sufficient to show that the point mass singularity at the center of the black hole violates relativity. infinity densities are FORBIDDEN by special relativity. since special relativity cannot violate general relativity, general relativity too forbids infinite densities.

i recommend everyone reading this to read stephen crothers' website and decide for yourself whether or not black holes exist.

Re:black holes don't exist (4, Interesting)

cosm (1072588) | more than 3 years ago | (#34819796)

You're either trolling or deluded. There is plenty of observational evidence for black holes. See the center of our galaxy. While it is true that relativity and QCD/QED have not been reconciled, and the Standard Model is incomplete at best, they are the best models we have to date.

Science is about forming a testable hypothesis, testing it, and looking at the data. If your hypothesis was wrong, admit it and move on to the next thing. Infinite densities are only forbidden in the sense that they don't fit nicely in the models framework, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the model should be shelved. What you are suggesting is throwing away the experimentalists evidence for black holes because it doesn't fit perfectly with our contrived explanations. You're doing it wrong.

Since relativity and bending of light due to space-time curvature has been experimentally confirmed, meaning light's path can be 'changed' in the sense that we view it (it turns out that the light never really 'curves', but instead it follows a straight line in a curved space, but its all relative, right?), what would you call an area of mass so dense in which light could not escape [wikipedia.org] ?

Re:black holes don't exist (4, Interesting)

gtall (79522) | more than 3 years ago | (#34821590)

"Infinite densities are only forbidden in the sense that they don't fit nicely in the models framework, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the model should be shelved."

More to the point, one shouldn't mistake the mathematics for the physics. Just because a mathematical model indicates infinite density does in no way imply it need exist physically. For that to happen, the mathematics would have to completely describe the physical situation. It might, but we cannot ever know that. All we can do is claim consistency up to a certain epsilon of measurement.

Re:black holes don't exist (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 3 years ago | (#34821862)

More to the point, one shouldn't mistake the mathematics for the physics.

OTOH, one should remember that any consistent description of the physics is inherently mathematical. And if you get close enough in your mathematical description, you're going to be accurately describing physical phenomena.

Re:black holes don't exist (1)

Artifakt (700173) | more than 3 years ago | (#34822398)

Physics is inherently mathematical. The Phenomenon is only accurately described by physics if two things happen.
1. The phenomenon can be completely treated as subject to physics (Prove that, if you can - prove that formal science can answer all questions about the phenomenon, in advance of actually finding those answers). 2. Someone coined the right math. A fundamentally wrong theory could generate solutions that look closer to accurately describing a phenomenon than a prior theory, but stlll not be the right theory.*.
      You used the phrase "physical phenomena". That's begging your question, like saying the law is just and then replacing it with the claim that the law is correct in all legal matters. Of course, if the phenomenon is 'physical', it's described by physics, that's semantically redundant. That doesn't mean that being able to apply some math to it makes it physical - Or the corollary would be that until we get some accurate math on it, we can't claim the phenomenon is physical!
        Personally, I'll be happy to proceed from the axiom that there is an objective external reality that is physical, and the other axiom that a black hole can eventually be fully described by physics, and your third axiom that physics is mathematical. But, one reasons from axioms, not to them...

* For a good example, Dark ages tapestries and such often show arrows as following a simple upwards angle until their momentum is spent, then turning down to follow a reflective angle to their targets. You can replace this with the same math that describes catenary curves on a flat earth and get a curve that strongly resembles an arrow's. At any given point, that math will be a pretty good descriptor of the position and velocity vector of the arrow. Never-the-less, the real arrow's path is fundamentally a parabola (the Earth is not flat!). Shoot a projectile fast enough in some directions and that caternary solution becomes wildly wrong. Did our math really get closer when it gave us better data for a select subset of the phenomina but also tricked theoreticians into thinking that same math would work over the whole possible range of ballistics, and made a misleading 'proof' the Earth was flat that has since been quoted by nutcase cults? (Or should we avoid using words such as 'closer' or phrases such as 'close enough' without specifying in what sense?)

Your arrow example (1)

billstewart (78916) | more than 3 years ago | (#34826578)

So Dark (Middle?) Ages tapestries are illustrating Cartoon Physics?

Re:black holes don't exist (2)

delt0r (999393) | more than 3 years ago | (#34822980)

you don't need infinite densities for black holes. In fact as the mass goes up, the density goes down. A Finite density object with a radius smaller than the event horizon radius is a black hole and is indistinguishable from a more dense object since the event horizon radius will be the same if the mass is the same.

Re:black holes don't exist (2)

Rich0 (548339) | more than 3 years ago | (#34823664)

Agreed. There is no known mechanism for supporting a mass of finite density that is so high from collapsing into a singularity, but that doesn't mean that such a mechanism doesn't exist. Clearly the central areas of a black hole fall into masses and volumes that are not adequately explained by our current theories - we probably need quantum gravity for this. For all we know space/mass/etc are quantized and a black hole just turns into some kind of crystal with as much packed into the smallest volume physically possible, just as electrons in an atom settle into well-described wavefunctions/etc.

All we know about black holes is that our laws of physics break down beyond the event horizon, and that we are unable to make observations beyond this region as well. Chances are that any explanation of what happens inside will come from studying other things as a result. The whole holographic distribution of information business suggests that even watching a black hole fully decay over time won't really reveal any information about what happened inside - the interior of a black hole might as well be another universe entirely. Indeed, if you define the universe as the set of all things that can be observed, then the event horizon marks of the border of a new universe by definition.

Re:black holes don't exist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34829244)

Good point. And besides, real black holes probably don't have infinite densities anyways. As a sibling post [slashdot.org] notes, you don't need infinite density for a black hole: the mass within a certain volume just has to be above a certain threshold.

For a real blackhole, viewed from the outside, matter falls inwards and adds to the overall mass. The mass distribution within the black hole is inferred to be collapsing (I say 'infer' because we can't go inside an check) and as time goes on, the density inside will increase. But all those relativistic effects means that from the external perspective, the black hole will never reach the infinite-density singularity state.

The infinite-density singularity is, as far as I understand, an approximation, and is more like the "final state" of a black hole that you allow to collapse/equilibrate for an infinite amount of time. It's an idealization (as are many things in science) that probably doesn't actually exist. In fact, the fact that block holes are somewhat "leaky" and still equilibrate with their surroundings via Hawking radiation more-or-less shows that black holes will never evolve to the infinite-density final state that seem to head towards.

Re:black holes don't exist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34829926)

A black hole with infinite density would take infinite time to manifest.... check the math and physics and put it in perspective. By time the mass collects at the center of a black hole the universe outside it would need to have time progress infinitely..... and thus there is no paradox.

The black hole is approaching infinite density, something else will probably happen to it before it gets there which will be discovered by later physicists.... we have billions of years to solve the puzzle.

You can't say "inifinite X" does not exist... it just takes infinite time to get to infinity. And in this case the math IS right... sometimes yes someone make an error... not here!

Look at a simple tangent function! Or how to integrate wave functions... again we use infinity to find the answer..... You should retake Trig is you believe infinity does not exist!

Re:black holes don't exist (4, Interesting)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#34819848)

And I recommend you actually deal with what the majority of cosmologists and physicists actually talk about. I know you probably think yourself quite hip by accepting a contrary view, and doubtless contrary views are important, but being contrary just so you can feel yourself superior is the sign of stupidity.

We have a theory that predicts what we ought to detect from a black hole. We have multiple cosmological sources that match that description. Alternative explanations have other serious issues, so, the weight of the evidence is towards the existence of black hole. Beyond that, Einsteinian physics, being classical in nature, will naturally have a number of singularities, which is why we seek to unite classical physics with quantum mechanics, and not simply declare that at every point that classical physics fails that that amounts to "that's impossible!"

This idea of yours that physics is proscriptive, as opposed to descriptive, suggests to me that you are pretty much a scientific illiterate.

Re:black holes don't exist (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 3 years ago | (#34820824)

but being contrary just so you can feel yourself superior is the sign of stupidity

NUH-UH!

Re:black holes don't exist (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 3 years ago | (#34821436)

being contrary just so you can feel yourself superior is the sign of stupidity.

I beg to diff-

Uhm, never mind.

Re:black holes don't exist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34821642)

You might actually find it worth checking out the website [plasmaresources.com] of this Crothers chap, if only for a bit of a giggle...

Re:black holes don't exist (1)

masterwit (1800118) | more than 3 years ago | (#34821954)

I found the website hilarious and evidence that MightyMartian's post should be modded +5 insightful. Funny stuff.

Re:black holes don't exist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34820176)

There are so many things wrong with what you have just said that it doesn't even make sense to try to discuss it with you. Don't talk about "infinite densities" until you understand what a black hole is. Start with reading up on a coordinate system that makes sense near a black hole [wikipedia.org] .

Re:black holes don't exist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34820504)

There is no observational evidence that your father is really your father, either. Even with a DNA test, he might have a twin. I suspect that according to your mother, the evidence is pretty good: but whether we should believe her observations or insist on additional proof, such as details of the insemination event, is left as an exercise in scientific rigor for readers.

You are also profoundly mistaken in your concept of black holes. There is _nothing_ in the math of black holes that requires infinite density. There is also no "sharp edge" of black holes, no profound passage across the "event horizon": they merely need to contain enough matter within them that their escape velocity is greater than the speed of light. All the other work on funny edge effects described by Hawking, or what happens when you get one spinning, is interesting but also does not require infinite density or a point source. The fascinating edge effects are how objects falling into a black hole appear to be slowing down: the observational optic evidence of their fall is _red shifted_, and when it's so red shifted that the observated wavelengths reach infinite length, they've also reached zero energy by the time they reach us as observers and are utterly useless. _That_ is the the event horizon. The falling object may not even notice that horizon, although they've got a lot of other problems happening by then anyway.

You can even get a toroidal black hole if you can get a big enough one, spinning fast enough, a black hole where the line through the center of the toroid does _not_ fall within the even horizon.

Re:black holes don't exist (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 3 years ago | (#34821496)

there is no observational evidence for a black hole occuring in nature.

Actually we observe stars near the center of our galaxy moving at high speed in small orbits. We can calculate the mass and maximum size of whatever it is that they're orbiting, and it sure comes out sounding like a supermassive black hole.

You're welcome to offer an alternative explanation.

...that the point mass singularity...

I'm as ignorant on this topic as you are, but I suspect that when we finally unify gravity with the other forces we'll see that the collapse isn't total... Pauli Exclusion Principle, kind of thing.

And there are other notions - created by actual physicists - alread out there. E.g., fuzzballs.

totally, dude! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34826228)

i'm pretty sure black holes are just 'your mom' after she acquired some nifty stealth technology.

Wasn't this obvious? (1)

Spinalcold (955025) | more than 3 years ago | (#34820636)

The first stars were gigantic, anything that size supernova's very quickly and becomes a blackhole. So more blackholes would have been produced in the early universe in comparison to now...am I missing something that is new science here?

Re:Wasn't this obvious? (1)

Barrinmw (1791848) | more than 3 years ago | (#34820886)

Isn't the correct term for something big enough to become a black hole a hypernova?

Re:Wasn't this obvious? (1)

boristhespider (1678416) | more than 3 years ago | (#34823420)

No.

Re:Wasn't this obvious? (1)

Spinalcold (955025) | more than 3 years ago | (#34829790)

I don't believe it's the scientific term...yet anyways. I think it's just slang at this point.

Black Holes and Dark Energy (1)

unil_1005 (1790334) | more than 3 years ago | (#34825276)

Since black holes occur so early in the evolution of galaxies, I wondering if such a concentration of mass could produce fields were are currently aware of, like the dark energy that holds galaxies together.

Chicken or Egg, any one?

What? (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 3 years ago | (#34825522)

What?

I thought this was the expected result.
Throw a bunch of matter about, and gravity will make quick work of it. The areas of slightly higher concentration will quickly converge. Only the bits that are relatively balanced between several large points of gravity will avoid assimilation for a while.

Essentially, given a nearly uniform distribution of matter, the more massive an object is, the older it tends to be.

It makes sense that black holes, as a class of objects, tend to be older than stars, planetoids, etc. because objects that are more massive are the result of more (cumulative) collisions. Early collisions, in a nearly-even playing field of cosmic dust, are more significant (with regards to gravity and increasing the rate at which other objects are pulled in) than later collisions.

Cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34829858)

This is indeed interesting news..... But as until recently (1995 or so) it was even argued that Black Holes did not exist (Thanks to Hawking we know they do.. I love his calculations!). Now its common knowledge that they do. I am hoping this oneoff observation points to them being inside all dwarf galaxies. We used to think there was a giant star in the center of the galaxy!

In any case, this is a first observation, I would like to see if it is common or rare for this to be the case. I am surprised it took astronomers so long to find any black holes in dwarfs... which worries me that this might be a one-off... like that mysterious free quark (quark-like at least) bubble track in the 1970s.

I have a feeling there are rogue black holes with no galaxies as well. I mean all a black hole is a dead big star that collapsed in on itself to the point where the density increased above a certain threshold, and followed the laws of general relativity to create a singularity. They should be pretty common critters. Its the supermassive ones that create all the galatic hub-a-bub.

As for Dark Energy and missing mass your guess is as good as mine.... I am hoping LHC will provide some answers after it find's Higgs in the next few years, or maybe another experiment will actually find and analyze a WIMP (if they exist).

In any case, missing mass is not solved by this because missing mass is also distorting galaxies WITH black holes.

Re:Cool (1)

iamacat (583406) | more than 3 years ago | (#34833528)

Common knowledge? Have you personally seen one - not that "seeing" would even be possible? When an infinity appears in physics equations, the reason is always that we reached the limits of their applicability. We certainly know that there is a whole lot of stuff in small space. It's arrogant to claim we know all the details of it's condition.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>