Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Fastest Spinning Black Hole Ever Found

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the wheeee dept.

204

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.

cancel ×

204 comments

Not so impressed (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16918950)

I bet it would make for a crappy RAID array.

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

Re:Not so impressed (2, Funny)

Gogogoch (663730) | more than 7 years ago | (#16919652)

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

fuck a bunch of YOU!!! (-1, Offtopic)

Asshat_Nazi (946431) | more than 7 years ago | (#16918960)


ENOUGH OF THIS GAY BANTER, ON WITH THE TROLLING!!!

8====D~~



I was still in High School, I had a big cock and was horny all the time, jerked off at least 3 times a day. My body is small and slim with very little hair, 5"4",125lbs. My fat cut 7" cock looked huge on me. I had been jerking off thinking about gay sex lately, I was very turned on by the fantasy of having sex with an older man, and having a cock in my ass.

I got a job working after school and weekends at a antique shop, it was ran by 2 older gay gentleman, very nice gentleman who were always flirting and teasing me. An older very distinguished looking handsome customer came in the store, he was a silver haired fox who looked like he had money.

The owners knew him well, he bought a small end table and asked the owners if I could help him unload it at his house, I thought this was kind of suspicous since it didn't weigh much but my horniness and curiousity made me jump at the chance. We rode in his SUV to a big house in a ritzy neighborhood and I carried the end table into his house. He gave me a tour, it was huge and very nice, there was an indoor hot tub and he asked me if I wanted to soak for a while, I told him I didn't have a swim suit and he laughed and told me I could go without, he always did.

I was getting turned on so I started to undress, my tank top came off first and my back was turned to him and I pulled down my cutoffs, no underwear and bent over to finish removing my cutoffs, it was a turn on to expose my ass to him, he watched me climb into the hot tub, my cock was rock hard. I watched him take off his shirt, he had a sexy chest covered with silver hair, he pulled down his pants and underwear in one motion exposing a beautiful 8" cut cock, very fat. We sat in the tub for five minutes talking, he asked me if I wanted a massage, I moved over close to him with my back to him and sort of sat on his lap, I could feel that big cock, I started moving my ass around until it was between my cheeks, I moved up and down, it felt so hot, made my asshole spasm. He was rubbing my shoulders and back, he reached around and started massaging my inner thighs making my cock twitch, finally he started stroking my cock, I was so turned on it was all I could do not to cum. He had me stand up and started tonguing my ass while stroking my cock, I was in pleasure overload and exploded cum after about two minutes of this.

We went into his bedroom, still naked and dried off, he put his hands on my shoulders and gently pushed me to my knees, grabbed the back of my head and guided me to his cock. I sucked on it hungrily feeling it get harder in my mouth, when he was rock hard he guided me to the bed and had me lay on my stomach. He ate my ass again this time harder, getting his tongue up inside me, this made my cock hard again, I relaxed and felt my boypussie open up. Next he slowly inserted one of his fingers , it kind of hurt at first but then I started to love the feeling. Two fingers was next with some lube, he two finger fucked me for along time, I loved how it felt, like I was getting stretched. I was moaning and moving my ass up and down.

He stopped and put his big cock back in my mouth, I sucked him for maybe a minute and he pulled out and rolled on a condom, had me get down doggie style got behind me and pushed that big cock head against my tight hole. He slowly pushed, I thought it was to big and would never fit, all of a sudden it popped in, the sensation took my breath away, it felt so huge and it hurt a little, but I was starting to relax and it was feeling better by the second.

He slowly pushed in until he was deep inside me and moved in and out very slowly to start with, it still burned but the thought of getting fucked, having a big cock inside me was such a turn on.

He fucked me for a long time, after I got used to it and fully relaxed the feeling was pure pleasure. My cock was rock hard.

The pace got faster and harder, finally I came again, without even touching my cock, such intense pleasure. He came and stayed inside me, I layed flat on my stomch with him still inside me, he slowly went limp, slipped out of me and rolled off me.

I'm glad to see the old school trolls are back (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16919666)

Slashdot's been too fucking boring lately.


Bring on the trolls and shit!

Re:fuck a bunch of YOU!!! (2, Informative)

Gogogoch (663730) | more than 7 years ago | (#16919702)

Not that kind of Black Hole, you idiot!

Re:fuck a bunch of YOU!!! (0, Offtopic)

Sneakernets (1026296) | more than 7 years ago | (#16920114)

I smell GNAA again. Haven't they learned already?

Fastest Spinning Black-Hole (5, Funny)

Quaoar (614366) | more than 7 years ago | (#16918966)

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

Re:Fastest Spinning Black-Hole (5, Funny)

brian0918 (638904) | more than 7 years ago | (#16919982)

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:Fastest Spinning Black-Hole (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 7 years ago | (#16921140)

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

This reminds me of a speech by Michael Richards (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16918986)

"Fifty years ago we'd have you upside down with a fucking fork up your ass, nigger."

Oh, that wacky Kramer, keepin it real.

In the spirit of Dave Barry... (2, Insightful)

Lanoitarus (732808) | more than 7 years ago | (#16919008)

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

Re:In the spirit of Dave Barry... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16919382)

Sounds like a photo caption in a violent marine biology magazine

Re:In the spirit of Dave Barry... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16919608)

Sounds more like a gay porn title to me.

Original Article (4, Informative)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 7 years ago | (#16919022)

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.

Re:Original Article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16919162)

arXiv link is below.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0606076 [arxiv.org]

Re:Original Article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16919250)

JU WHORE!

The moon is green cheese (5, Insightful)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 7 years ago | (#16919264)

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.

Re:The moon is green cheese (1)

HAL9000_mirror (1029222) | more than 7 years ago | (#16920790)

Even if one made an observation of a such a black hole, its go to be so far away (simply because we don't perceive its enormous gravity in any close proximity) that you are essentially looking at the past :-). Yes, I realize light particles/waves cannot escape the black hole --i'm talking about the light from matter that it is swallowing...

--Ram

Re:The moon is green cheese (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16920822)

What you just communicated needs to be told and repeated to the masses until every person hears and understands this.

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. That doesn't mean that it isn't used by the "scientific community" (whatever that means). It is used...in a ridiculously dishonest way...to steal money from the US government in the form of grants. The most current harmful, and embarrassing misuse of this flawed data is the worlwide hysteria over Global Warming. Global Warming has become a religious arguement. It has no basis in reality, science, fact, or modern research. But people the world over (think Kyoto Protocol) believe that not only is the Earth getting warmer and that the phenomenon isn't cyclical, but that we (humans) not only caused it, but that we can somehow stop it and/or reverse it. Amazing arrogance...

Funnily, (but based on arrogance also) the same people (sheeple) who parrott the insanity that is Global Warming, also believe that it is stupid for other people to believe in a God. Objectively consider this for a few minutes....

Re:The moon is green cheese (1)

brian0918 (638904) | more than 7 years ago | (#16921030)

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!

Method (2, Informative)

iamlucky13 (795185) | more than 7 years ago | (#16920838)

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 plausible to me (also assuming I'm understanding the paper and article right).

Basically, the size of a black hole event horizon depends mainly on its mass. However, if the black hole is spinning (most or all are believed to due to conservation of momentum), the event horizon contracts due to frame dragging.

Of course, we can't directly see the event horizon to measure it like we can measure the sun's radius. These black holes are far too distant to resolve. But, matter falling into the black hole is heated up due to friction. Just before it passes the event horizon, it gets so hot it emits x-rays that are detectable from earth.

The clever part is that the energy of the x-rays is correlated to the emitting particle's radius from the center of the black hole, since as particles spiral in further, they heat up more and more. So if you know the mass and can measure the highest frequency of the emissions, you can calculate the rate of spin. Of course, finding the mass and measuring those x-rays is not at all trivial, and the final step of calculating the spin probably took the 6 researchers who published the paper a year or so worth of work.

Re:Method (1)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 7 years ago | (#16921080)

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 Newtonian physics: fine at 100mph, but pretty crappy at 0.9C. Except though that Newton at least had the presence of mind to say that his laws of motion were the best he could come up with at the time and with the tools available and would likely fall apart under certain conditions.

Black holes Vs. Planets (2)

SoVeryTired (967875) | more than 7 years ago | (#16919064)

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 (3, Informative)

0racle (667029) | more than 7 years ago | (#16919170)

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

Re:Black holes Vs. Planets (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 7 years ago | (#16919260)

AFAIK a black hole does emit light - from a boundary layer - and small black holes will eventually evaporate. My totally uninformed guess is that big black holes will eventually evaporate or explode too - it is doubtful that a black hole will just keep gobbling up stuff for all eternity, since eternity is just too long. Anyhoo, looking from a safe distance, a black hole is just a super massive star, for all practical purposes.

Re:Black holes Vs. Planets (1)

shrubsky (661474) | more than 7 years ago | (#16920968)

Look up Hawking Radiation. Big black holes emit very dim, low frequency light. Smaller ones emit brighter and higher frequency stuff. The curve is exponential, so when the black hole gets really really small (planetary mass maybe? I don't recall), they throw off great gobs of gamma rays and disappear. The problem is that long before they get that small, they gobble up more cosmic background radiaiton than they emit, so they reach a sort of energy equilibrium with the universe. We'll have to wait for the background radiation to cool off due to universe expansion for the little black holes to go pop. That second paragraph is based on info at wikipedia, so take it with a little bit of net-salt. :-)

Re:Black holes Vs. Planets (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16919330)

well they have alot of mass, stars revolve around them and such, they release x rays and whatnot. planets are like dust in contrast, they cant be seen directly or detected indirectly like black holes.

Re:Black holes Vs. Planets (3, Informative)

jimstapleton (999106) | more than 7 years ago | (#16919388)

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:Black holes Vs. Planets (1)

noewun (591275) | more than 7 years ago | (#16919420)

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 purely optical means, but they don't have any of the drama of black holes.

Re:Black holes Vs. Planets (1)

glitch23 (557124) | more than 7 years ago | (#16919430)

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.

I agree, however to clarify what you said, it's the fact that black holes emit no *visible* light. If they were totally dark then they probably would be just as hard to find as planets, maybe even harder (you can still rely on gravitational effects which they often use as well, maybe more often than the radiation emittance). Since planets don't emit anything and (as far as I know) can only be detected through gravitational effects they are hard to find. I don't think there is any argument with that. Luckily black holes aren't totally black as Hawking discovered (hence the name Hawking radiation) so they can be easier to find than planets...maybe their name should be changed to Almost Black Holes?

One thing is for sure. (3, Funny)

AltGrendel (175092) | more than 7 years ago | (#16919070)

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

Re:One thing is for sure. (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 7 years ago | (#16919316)

Who knows? Maybe centrifugal force will eventually destroy a black hole - something probably will eventually do them in, since the laws of physics as we know it probably doesn't apply inside a black hole. Stand by for another Big Bang...

Re:One thing is for sure. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16919672)

"Who knows?"

People who work with general relativity... black holes have a maximum rate of spin (in a similarly counter-intuitive way that relative speeds can't be faster than light), and a maximally-spinning* black hole is theoretically known to be stable. Now we have good evidence that they exist in nature we can be very confident in the theory.

*Experts: I'm talking astrophysical maximum, as in Thorne (1974).

Re:One thing is for sure. (2, Interesting)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 7 years ago | (#16920036)

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't escape". At the very least, this would be an acceleration of the "evaporating black hole" theory.

Now we take this a step farther, and what if you CAN shrink the blackhole just a fraction, then INFORMATION about the blackhole is gained from photons that were once inside and now outside, without them being virtual particles. Yes, this rather violates what we think we know about the physics of blackholes, which is very little.

It is entirely possible that I am just too ignorant to fully understand these concepts and missing something. Interesting though.

Re:One thing is for sure. (1)

WhiteWolf666 (145211) | more than 7 years ago | (#16920672)

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 Hawking Radiation [wikipedia.org] . Furthermore, it's now believed [wikipedia.org] that information does indeed escape the event horizon.

This physics is way over my head ;-), however, when it comes to vast disturbance in space-time (such as black holes represent), you're better off throwing out all concepts of speed, time, and size.

Re:One thing is for sure. (1)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 7 years ago | (#16921236)

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 the speed of light). As for frame dragging, the frame of reference I was speaking about was from just outside the event horizon. And yes, shrinkage would require the hole to speed up, hense approaching 99.99% of the speed of light and accelerating., not static. Even here, theory already says it can keep accelerating as it gains mass as long as it doesn't exceed the speed of light.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear, but I am wondering if it is possible for just ONE, real, unentangled photons to escape under the right circumstances, even if only in theory. With what we think we know (which is very little) the answer is no. But then, 30 minutes ago we /.ers didn't know how fast a blackhole can spin either. It's new information. I am not so sure we armchair physicists can say Yes or No so quickly, since even Hawking can't say with certainty.

Squished apart (2, Interesting)

jbeaupre (752124) | more than 7 years ago | (#16919844)

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:Squished apart (1)

lufo (949075) | more than 7 years ago | (#16920210)

I, for one, would welcome our new familiar-with-forces-inside-black-holes, shedding-light (from inside blck holes) overlords.

Re:Squished apart (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16920212)

The black hole doesn't actually squish. The event horizon contracts due to frame dragging.

Re:Squished apart (2, Informative)

shrubsky (661474) | more than 7 years ago | (#16920578)

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 read this) that you may only get centrifugal force for your angular velocity that exceeds the speed at which space-time is rotating. Otherwise, as far as space-time is concerned, you're just falling straight in. The end effect of this is that objects that appear to be rotating around the black hole to a distant observer may actually be falling straight in.

I've probably put enough conjecture and botched explainations in there to attract the attention of a real physicist, so just hang on for the real explanation. :-)

Re:One thing is for sure. (1)

Phanatic1a (413374) | more than 7 years ago | (#16920086)

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.

How close is close? (1)

robinsonne (952701) | more than 7 years ago | (#16919192)

"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." I'd be interested to know just how close that is, a few million miles, a few billion?

Get the full text (no subscription) here (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16919196)

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

Is that fast enough for closed timelike curves? (3, Interesting)

Dr. Manhattan (29720) | more than 7 years ago | (#16919202)

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

Re:Is that fast enough for closed timelike curves? (1)

butterwise (862336) | more than 7 years ago | (#16920292)

anyone know the details of the math?

Anyone seen John Titor lately?

Re:Is that fast enough for closed timelike curves? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16920828)

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

Re:Is that fast enough for closed timelike curves? (1)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 7 years ago | (#16921060)

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

why spinning it good (2, Interesting)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 7 years ago | (#16919266)

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 there or explode, but most likely just sit there. This is the only known (well, in theory) way to "destroy" a black hole so when one comes and sucks up Pluto, thus ending that stupid debate, and is heading for Earth, we can just shoot particles into it at the correct angle and it will absorb the kinetic energy and translate it into spin and eventually spin so fast it effectively isn't dangerous anymore :)

Re:why spinning it good (1)

thewils (463314) | more than 7 years ago | (#16919408)

we can just shoot particles into it at the correct angle

Why do I get the impression this would be like trying to deflect a airborne 747 by shooting BBs at it, at the correct angle...

Size differential (1)

benhocking (724439) | more than 7 years ago | (#16919540)

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 trajectory.)

Re:Size differential (1)

Gospodin (547743) | more than 7 years ago | (#16920122)

...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.

Re:why spinning it good (5, Insightful)

qwijibo (101731) | more than 7 years ago | (#16919848)

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:why spinning it good (1)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 7 years ago | (#16920818)

because you suck at physics I guess. If you shot a whole bunch of 100 mile wide asteroids at an angle...umm I guess the best way to describe it is to say there was a 1000 mile tall flagpole on earth's surface going straight up and you aim for just above the tip of it, then the asteroids' would curve in and eventually spiral in to earth's surface cuz of gravity. The forward inertia is absorbed through this process and earth spins slightly faster in the direction that the asteroids were heading. It's like shooting an airsoft gun at a spinning beach ball in space coated in glue. If they all hit at the same point, each airsoft BB that hits it makes it spin faster in that direction. Same with black holes.

In other news... (-1, Troll)

camusflage (65105) | more than 7 years ago | (#16919302)

Politicians are seeking ways to utilize this new power source. Top RNC officials were quoted as saying, "With the ability to spin this fast, we may have the means necessary to win the Iraq war by rapidly spinning disinformation." Democratic officials were equally hopeful, offering a cautious, "We'll be able to flip-flop on issues MUCH more quickly now."

Re:In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16919742)

I'm guessing that was an attempt at a joke? Desperate for +1 "Funny" mods are we?

So the question is... (4, Funny)

Kenja (541830) | more than 7 years ago | (#16919334)

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

Re:So the question is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16919506)

I believe gene roddenberry's ashes were launched into space, and 'Enterprise' was pretty terrible

Re:So the question is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16919648)

God's, of course.

That's 60k RPM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16919346)

Pretty fast! Now how large would the black hole need to be to approach the speed of light at the outer edge?

It's also 1 kHz (1)

DeadCatX2 (950953) | more than 7 years ago | (#16919954)

Fast in reference to what?

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

Re:That's 60k RPM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16920550)

c=299,792,458 m/s

Circumference = c/1000 = (299,792,458 m/s) / 1000Hz = 299,792.458m

299,792.458 m = Pi x diameter

diameter = 95,425.9m = 95.4 km = 59.3 miles

So, it's a radius of about 30 miles which is why they are saying that the event horizon ends about 30 miles from the center of the black hole.

Makes sense to me... (3, Interesting)

e4g4 (533831) | more than 7 years ago | (#16919356)

...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:Makes sense to me... (1)

Tsalg (828169) | more than 7 years ago | (#16919784)

You are right. Stars collapse, and can then form black holes or pulsars that have been measured to spin in a millisecond [wikipedia.org] , exactly like this black hole. So why the fuss about black holes spinning at a kHz when pulsars already do?

Re:Makes sense to me... (1)

lymond01 (314120) | more than 7 years ago | (#16920064)

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

Full Article Available for Free (3, Informative)

Betelgeuse (35904) | more than 7 years ago | (#16919392)

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).

Uh, I hate to burst your bubble (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16919432)

I'm no genius in physics, but I thought the only way you could measure the absolute speed or position of something (at least on the sub atomic level) is to bounce another particle off of it (light, electron, quark, whatever) (and never both at the same time). Same applies to larger objects in every day life, where you typically just bounce light off them.

So how the hell do you measure the rotational speed of a black hole, when by definition every particle you shoot at it gets sucked in never to return?

Re:Uh, I hate to burst your bubble (0, Redundant)

Goaway (82658) | more than 7 years ago | (#16919864)

Just what "bubbles" are you "bursting" here by mentioning the fact that you are ignorant of the physics involved, anyway?

cue the... (1)

alexhard (778254) | more than 7 years ago | (#16919452)

cue the goatse jokes!

Re:cue the... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16919758)

cue the goatse jokes!

... merged with GNAA, no less!

Orbiting at no more than 30 miles from the center (1)

Jerry (6400) | more than 7 years ago | (#16919554)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16919792)

Around stationary black holes, time does not work that way. Around spinning black holes, time *really* doesn't work that way (I could have sworn we hadn't even solved the GR metric for that system yet...). Unfortunately, reality has the tendancy to ignore the way that I, at least, think it should behave.

Basic idea -- large gravitational well means that distances are streeeeeeeetched and so is time. In the local frame of reference, the orbiting object is moving much slower than we're seeing it here in the bookkeeper frame. Of course, beyond that and my undergraduate level GR class is no longer really adequate enough to be worth mention.

Re:Orbiting at no more than 30 miles from the cent (5, Funny)

Eternauta3k (680157) | more than 7 years ago | (#16919820)

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:Orbiting at no more than 30 miles from the cent (2, Insightful)

stormy_petral (978505) | more than 7 years ago | (#16920976)

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... (2, Informative)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 7 years ago | (#16919578)

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 (3, Interesting)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#16919582)

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?

Re:This When to the Egress (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16919832)

Most black holes tend to be roughly spherical in nature, not cylindrical. I think this would be the case for this one as well.

In the immortal words of Space Quest IV... (2)

192939495969798999 (58312) | more than 7 years ago | (#16919650)

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 (4, Funny)

owlnation (858981) | more than 7 years ago | (#16919722)

I for one, welcome our new extremely dizzy overlords.

Re:obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16919886)

This...
is getting...
SO OLD!

I for one welcome you to have a coke and smile and shut up!

meatspin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16919760)

this article needs more meatspin.gif

If we could make a rom like blu-ray out of GamaRay (1)

itz2000 (1027660) | more than 7 years ago | (#16919762)

How much GB will every DISC include?
will a disk cost more then PS3?
Some answers are left unanswered

Re:If we could make a rom like blu-ray out of Gama (1)

KylePflug (898555) | more than 7 years ago | (#16920022)

Someone once told me there is no such thing as a stupid question.

I win.

Re:If we could make a rom like blu-ray out of Gama (1)

itz2000 (1027660) | more than 7 years ago | (#16920726)

SARCASM my friend. SARCASM

Re:If we could make a rom like blu-ray out of Gama (1)

Salsaman (141471) | more than 7 years ago | (#16920734)

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:If we could make a rom like blu-ray out of Gama (0, Offtopic)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 7 years ago | (#16921132)

"no I am not gay..."

But your dad DID say you were the best french kisser in town...

Wow! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16919938)

That's faster than a Dremel!

Shrinking Event Horizon (a question or three) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16920030)

Odd. So, does the Schwarzschild radius actually shrink as a black hole spins faster? And for curiosity's sake, if a large, incredibly strong interstellar body were to clip one of these fast-spinning black holes (assuming it isn't stretched into oblivion), would the part that touches the event horizon simply be sheered off, like a knife cutting through butter, or would be ripped off, like tearing a chunk of bread from its whole?

Likewise, does anyone know if the speed at which a black hole spins has any relationship with how quickly it evaporates?

Not too shabby for an 11-year old satellite (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16920068)

For info on the Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer satellite and instruments and the scientists and teams which made these observations possible, see http://heasarc.nasa.gov/docs/xte/XTE.html [nasa.gov] .

Fastest Spinning with a Black Hole (0)

brajesh (847246) | more than 7 years ago | (#16920092)

Shakira!

Multi-Dimensional Universe (3, Interesting)

writerjosh (862522) | more than 7 years ago | (#16920224)

"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 (5, Insightful)

Jerf (17166) | more than 7 years ago | (#16920882)

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:Multi-Dimensional Universe (1)

writerjosh (862522) | more than 7 years ago | (#16921102)

Ok, so India Daily is not the best source, but the point is that multi-dimensional theory (re: String or M-theory) are considered "real" science by most physicists at this time. India Daily may be looking for the spiritual dimension to the universe, but this particular article is at least grounded in the general knowledge of real String-theory.

Or, you could just look at this article as wacky. Either way, it's still "informative" even if it's just informing you about other perspectives.

"Look before you leap" :)

Faster than light? (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 7 years ago | (#16920256)

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 (1)

QuickFox (311231) | more than 7 years ago | (#16920412)

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:Contradiction (2)

shrubsky (661474) | more than 7 years ago | (#16920866)

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 doesn't have the "why can gravitons get out" problem. I don't know what the quantum physics answer will be.

Re:Contradiction (1)

Cheapy (809643) | more than 7 years ago | (#16921006)

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:Contradiction (1)

Gotung (571984) | more than 7 years ago | (#16921126)

I'm thinking it's because Gravity is really more of a phenomenon than a "force." I know we talk about the "force of gravity" and "gravitational pull" and such, but those are just ways of describing what is happening. And the terminology often used confuses the issue.

Gravity represents a warping of space time generated by mass. Two bodies warp the space around them in such away that they "gravitate" towards each other.

If an object moving along a straight line passes by another object, its path will be affected. Not because the 2 objects are actually pulling on each other with a conventional force, but because the straight line itself is being bent by the warping.

There is no force that needs to escape in order to affect nearby mass.

In your example, you point out the seemingly "weird" phenomenon of a straight line curving back in on itself. This is an extreme example of what the warping can do. With the extreme mass of a black hole, these lines can be drawn rather large and still end up bending back in on themselves.

Heres another extreme example: You. Jump up and down. When you push off you are sending yourself in a straight line away from the planet. But the differential between your mass, and how hard you can push, and the earth's mass are so extreme that the earth bends your straight line back in on itself, and you return back to where you started.

Re:Contradiction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16921212)

You can ask the same question about the electromagnetic field of a charged black hole, too: the photons in the electromagnetic field travel at the speed of light, so how can they get out?

Static fields are mediated by virtual particles (gravitons, photons, or whatever). Virtual particles can travel in any way conceivable: faster than light, backward in time (equivalent to antiparticles), or whatnot. But we can never catch them doing it, because virtual particles can't be measured — that's why they're called "virtual".

On the other hand, real gravitons and photons do have limitations on their motion: they must travel at the speed of light in vacuum. But real particles do not give rise to static fields; black holes don't have to shoot out particles we can measure in a detector merely to exert a gravitational or electromagnetic force. Rather, real particles give rise to changes in fields, i.e. waves. So black holes cannot radiate electromagnetic waves (light), gravitational waves, etc.

(A technicality: if you drop something into a black hole, the location of its horizon distorts, and gravitational waves can be emitted, essentially from arbitrarily close to the horizon. Incidentally, this temporary distortion does not allow objects from inside the horizon to escape.)

See also this FAQ [nasa.gov] .

Real fast! (0)

elgatozorbas (783538) | more than 7 years ago | (#16920426)

So fast you almost can't see it!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...