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!

Hundreds of Black Holes Found

CowboyNeal posted more than 6 years ago | from the no-not-the-view-studio-audience dept.

NASA 208

eldavojohn writes "Hundreds of black holes that were thought to exist at the beginning of the universe have been found by NASA's Spitzer and Chandra space telescopes. From the article, 'The findings are also the first direct evidence that most, if not all, massive galaxies in the distant universe spent their youths building monstrous black holes at their cores. For decades, a large population of active black holes has been considered missing. These highly energetic structures belong to a class of black holes called quasars. A quasar consists of a doughnut-shaped cloud of gas and dust that surrounds and feeds a budding supermassive black hole. As the gas and dust are devoured by the black hole, they heat up and shoot out X-rays. Those X-rays can be detected as a general glow in space, but often the quasars themselves can't be seen directly because dust and gas blocks them from our view.' This is pretty big, as it's empirical evidence proving the existence of objects that theoretically had to exist but could not be detected previously."

cancel ×

208 comments

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

Had to exist? (3, Insightful)

Misanthrope (49269) | more than 6 years ago | (#21124001)

Not to be pedantic, but couldn't there be another source for the x-rays? What would've happened if this was someones pet theory?

Re:Had to exist? (3, Funny)

alexborges (313924) | more than 6 years ago | (#21124059)

Im not gonna mod you. Could not find a +/- 1 "claims to be pedantic"

Re:Had to exist? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21124251)

Ah. The good ol' Schrödinvote.

Re:Had to exist? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21124169)

Well yes. But it'd have to be a source that generated fantastically intense beams of x-rays, and which had masses of hundreds of millions to billions of times the mass of a star in a fantastically small volume to keep stars in galactic cores moving at ludicrious speed. High density + invisible is something of a puzzle in astronomy.

Re: Had to exist? (2, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 6 years ago | (#21124503)

Not to be pedantic, but couldn't there be another source for the x-rays? What would've happened if this was someones pet theory?
If there were competing theories that predicted the same thing, the race would be on to see whether there was something else they made different predictions about, and to see which could stand up to the additional scrutiny.

Re: Had to exist? (4, Interesting)

pedestrian crossing (802349) | more than 6 years ago | (#21125267)

Not to be pedantic, but couldn't there be another source for the x-rays? What would've happened if this was someones pet theory?
If there were competing theories that predicted the same thing, the race would be on to see whether there was something else they made different predictions about, and to see which could stand up to the additional scrutiny.

Like these [wikipedia.org] ?

No one has ever "seen" a black hole, they are seeing effects that can be explained by black hole theory. A subtle but perhaps important difference.

IANAAP, but on the surface of it, ECOs are interesting because they do not involve a singularity.

Re:Had to exist? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21124679)

Here's a good picture of one of the black holes [tinyurl.com] .

Re:Had to exist? (1)

fireforadrymouth (1064330) | more than 6 years ago | (#21124855)

NFSW! (though I could see it coming)

String 'em up. (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21124003)

We ain't too fond of no nigger-holes in this here universe.

Hundreds of black holes found (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21124015)

in Harlem?

Re:Hundreds of black holes found (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21124381)

You spelled "hoes" wrong.

Re:Hundreds of black holes found (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21124609)

ha ha
racists are stupid

Re:Hundreds of black holes found (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21124685)

Racists, like conspiracy theorists, realize the truth of the world even though it runs contrary to dominant, irrational memes propagated by the opinion-makers of media.

There are plenty [latimes.com] of racists with PhDs, including Harvard professors [wikipedia.org] ... the fact that moderators at a pop-culture geek site give a kneejerk negative response to any racialist post doesn't make it "stupid".

As with anything, really, the more popular the idea, the stupider it is -- so it is with the P.C. notion of ultimate equality and myopia with regard to hereditary intelligence and behavior.

Re:Hundreds of black holes found (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21124809)

ha ha
racists are hate-mongering assholes

Re:Hundreds of black holes found (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21124923)

Is that really wrong, though?

Every civilization was founded by hate-mongering assholes. It's really the root of humanity. Denying that is denying reality.

Re:Hundreds of black holes found (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21125213)

So don't deny it; just move on. All hospitable land on this planet has been colonized and near-instant communication is possible with a great portion of it. What's the point of trying to divide the world when everyone's next door?

Slashdot's moderation system: censored? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21124615)

At least one person moderated this racist post "Funny," along with a few others, then those moderations disappeared into the Memory Hole.

This sort of moderation-redaction isn't explained on the Slashdot FAQ; someone fill me in? I'd hate to participate in a system that deletes unpopular speech.

- Poster With A Two-Digit ID.

The truth hurts (0, Troll)

speaker of the truth (1112181) | more than 6 years ago | (#21125013)

Its sad to see someone who tells the truth modded as a troll.

Huh? (2, Funny)

conner_bw (120497) | more than 6 years ago | (#21124019)

empirical evidence proving the existence of objects that theoretically had to exist

Is this like theoretical evidence proving the existence of object that empirically had to exist?

Re:Huh? (4, Funny)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 6 years ago | (#21124149)

No, this just proves that, for certain empirical cases, the difference between theory and practice is smaller in practice than certain other theoretically challenged cases: in other words, this one is rather similar, while still remaining slightly different.

Re:Huh? (2, Interesting)

conner_bw (120497) | more than 6 years ago | (#21124425)

it's late, so i'm still not getting it.

* Empirical evidence proves the existence of objects that theoretically had to exist
* An object theoretically had to exist,
* Therefore, this object may or may not have existed.
* This evidence proves an object may or may not have existed.
* The evidence proves nothings?
* Confirmation bias [wikipedia.org] ?

I'm thinking "proves" was the wrong word to use here.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21124761)

Theory implies a set of truths, following from some axioms. Some truths are confirmed by empirical result that seems to match the phenomenon predicted by the theory, thus attaching evidence of correctness to a mathematical model. What is hard to understand? In modern physics, mathematical necessity sometimes precedes modelling. Physics is no longer a process of observation-first-explanation-later. Discovery now begins in the equations, in many cases.

Re:Huh? (1)

rts008 (812749) | more than 6 years ago | (#21124925)

Obligatory Cheech and Chong: Up in Smoke paraphrase (regarding the proposed new band uniforms)

"So, it's DIFFERENT, but the SAME?!?!?" That's cool!

Alert Don Imus (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21124023)

Nappy-headed holes found.

Yeah, you didn't know that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21124029)

Yeah, you didn't know that?

I saw these with my backyard telescope the other day, forgot to mention it to NASA though... oops, maybe next time.

Black holes... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21124031)

...the universal niggers.

Not to be confused with Red Holes (2, Funny)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 6 years ago | (#21124035)

Despite sharing gas clouds and the emission of toxic energy, quasars are found in space while red holes are found near Taco Bells.

Re:Not to be confused with Red Holes (1)

Hao Wu (652581) | more than 6 years ago | (#21124347)

As the gas and dust are devoured by the black hole, they heat up and shoot out X-rays.
These sound like giant holes to devour.

I can't wait to see hi-resolution images of these massive "gassholes" in action.

Re:Not to be confused with Red Holes (1)

rts008 (812749) | more than 6 years ago | (#21124971)

"I can't wait to see hi-resolution images of these massive "gassholes" in action."

If you have your own telescope and camera setup, just check out Uranus after a day of bad burritos and beer....or was that bad beer and burritos?...or was that bad burritos and bad beer?....I'm sooo confused now!

Re:Not to be confused with Red Holes (1)

erKURITA (1114707) | more than 6 years ago | (#21125501)

Now you're thinking with goats-

I mean, Portals

it's funny because it's true (4, Funny)

User 956 (568564) | more than 6 years ago | (#21124045)

'The findings are also the first direct evidence that most, if not all, massive galaxies in the distant universe spent their youths building monstrous black holes at their cores.

That's funny, because I've heard the same thing about Dick Cheney.

Uh.... (2, Funny)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 6 years ago | (#21125043)

No, you are referring to brown holes. They are not the same things.

*phew* (5, Interesting)

AlphaDrake (1104357) | more than 6 years ago | (#21124047)

I was scared I might have run into one in a dark alley one night, thank goodness they have been found. On a more serious note, the article mentions that "the galaxies are 9-11 billion years old, and that they *did* exist when the universe was in it's adolescence." Does this mean they are no longer there? And if not, what would have become of the black holes?

Re:*phew* (0)

Xzzy (111297) | more than 6 years ago | (#21124325)

what would have become of the black holes?

They got plastic surgery, built a playground ranch in California, and became white.

Re:*phew* (1)

gabriel.dain (928879) | more than 6 years ago | (#21124339)

That "did" you emphasize doesn't mean the statement is not true now.
As I understand it, the x-rays are reaching our telescopes now with a 9-11 billion light-year delay. We are seeing these quasars in their infancy/reaching maturity. We can only make assumptions about their status today.

Hawking Radiation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21124357)

DISCLAIMER: All my current knowledge on the subject comes from a couple weeks of mild interest with NO physics or astronomy background almost a decade ago. And I have a horrible memory.

I think it has something to do with Hawking Radiation, which eventually uses up all the matter-energy in the black hole, causing them to shrink and evaporate. This is why the bajillions of micro black holes (as in, on the quantum scale) that theoretically exist EVERYWHERE (there's probably an astronomical number in your brain right now, even) don't last for very long (fractions of fractions of fractions of a second), evaporating before they can suck up enough matter to grow big enough to be a problem. I don't know how long it would take for these large black holes to evaporate, though.

Re:Hawking Radiation? (1)

Joaz Banbeck (1105839) | more than 6 years ago | (#21124603)

...bajillions of micro black holes (as in, on the quantum scale) that theoretically exist EVERYWHERE (there's probably an astronomical number in your brain right now, even)
Wow, I'glad to hear that. I thought I had mad cow disease.

Re:*phew* (1)

o_mighty_Halfjack (1162241) | more than 6 years ago | (#21124423)

More seriously, What likely happened is that the ancient black holes, like all black holes, evaprated away into "hawking radiation" its a wierd phenomenon in which virtual particles that form right at the edge of a black holes event horizon do not self-annihilate, because either the particle or its antimatter twin gets sucked into the black hole. the end result is that matter and energy are being emitted by the black hole right at the edge of its event horizon. not a lot, mind you, but over 9 billion years it could really add up.

Those are MY damn black hoes! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21124635)

For decades, a large population of active black holes has been considered missing.

Hundreds of active black hoes? Their mine hoes, been lookin for them everywear, man? You bring them hoes back to me, dont you TOUCH those hoes aight? You bring em back I let you sample em if you want, cause Im a great fella.

I was scared I might have run into one in a dark alley one night, thank goodness they have been found.

What you scared about man, their CLEAN black hoes, check em hoes every month, unposible. Those black hoes been with the whole neighborhood and they done nothing to no one.

And what's with that news there:

spent their youths building monstrous black holes at their cores

Yea I spent my youth growing them hoes, but monstrous? You know nothing man, it's exactly big hoes what you want, I garantee it.

Re:*phew* (1)

Synonymous Bosch (957964) | more than 6 years ago | (#21125223)

If they were black holes 9 billion years ago, it's entirely possible they're no longer there now

LET'S FUCK SOME HOLES! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21124053)

Black holes!

no-not-the-view-studio-audience? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21124055)

I am confused about the intended meaning of the dept. appellation for this story: "no-not-the-view-studio-audience". Can someone please edify me as to the proper parsing of this humor?

Re:no-not-the-view-studio-audience? (1)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 6 years ago | (#21125297)

It's a really terrible daytime television talk show in the U.S.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_View [wikipedia.org]

One of the hosts is Whoopi Goldberg. I'll leave the rest as an exercise for the reader.

Alert the Jenagades. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21124057)

Black is lynchable.

Let me be the first to say ....... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21124063)

Hot damn, we're fucked.

Black == numerous, destructive and feared (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21124067)

Even the universe hates niggers.

pics or it didn't happen (5, Funny)

weirdcrashingnoises (1151951) | more than 6 years ago | (#21124073)

"Those X-rays can be detected as a general glow in space, but often the quasars themselves can't be seen directly because dust and gas blocks them from our view."

pfft yea sure, i'll believe it's a black hole when i see it.

Re:pics or it didn't happen (1)

swordfishBob (536640) | more than 6 years ago | (#21125341)

i'll believe it's a black hole when i see it.

Why do you think they were "missing" for so long??

What does the red spectrum tell us about quasars? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21124093)

RIMMER: My answer: In answering the question, "What does the red spectrum tell us about quasars?" there are various words that need to be defined. What is a spectrum, what is a red one, why is it red, and why is it so frequently linked with quasars?

He pauses and looks puzzled.

RIMMER: What the hell is a quasar? Just put a neat cross through it and we'll do the next one, OK?

Supermassive Black Niggers (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21124097)

Devouring infinite buckets of KFC.

WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21124483)

Why the fuck is this +5 funny. Fucking mods.

Re:WTF? (1)

Fluffy_Kitten (911430) | more than 6 years ago | (#21125157)

Because racism is funny.

Hundreds of watermelons needed (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21124101)

Let's lure them away.

Suddenly... (2, Funny)

KillzoneNET (958068) | more than 6 years ago | (#21124103)

Suddenly black holes, lots of them!

Let's name these new black holes. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21124119)

My ideas:
Sambo
Amos
Andy
Stepin Fetchit

Ships in the night (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21124135)

What happens when two or more black holes collide?

Re:Ships in the night (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21124467)

What happens when two or more black holes collide?
a lot of shit

Question (2, Interesting)

thatskinnyguy (1129515) | more than 6 years ago | (#21124151)

I may be totally inept at this whole astronomy thing, but I am curious. If all or most galaxies have black holes at the center, where does the debris and dust and all the other stuff that makes a galaxy work come from? Obviously the black hole is pulling stuff toward it, but where does that stuff come from? And how did it get there?

Re:Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21124427)

The Big Bang.

Re:Question (1)

gabriel.dain (928879) | more than 6 years ago | (#21124431)

From TFW(ebsite):

Dusty grains - including tiny specks of the minerals found in the gemstones peridot, sapphires and rubies - can be seen blowing in the winds of a quasar, or active black hole, in this artist's concept. The quasar is at the center of a distant galaxy.
Astronomers using NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope found evidence that such quasar winds might have forged these dusty particles in the very early universe. The findings are another clue in an ongoing cosmic mystery: where did all the dust in our young universe come from?
Dust is crucial for efficient star formation as it allows the giant clouds where stars are born to cool quickly and collapse into new stars. Once a star has formed, dust is also needed to make planets and living creatures. Dust has been seen as far back as when the universe was less than a tenth of its current age, but how did it get there? Most dust in our current epoch forms in the winds of evolved stars that did not exist when the universe was young.
Theorists had predicted that winds from quasars growing in the centers of distant galaxies might be a source of this dust. While the environment close to a quasar is too hot for large molecules like dust grains to survive, dust has been found in the cooler, outer regions. Astronomers now have evidence that dust is created in these outer winds.
Using Spitzer's infrared spectrograph instrument, scientists found a wealth of dust grains in a quasar called PG2112+059 located at the center of a galaxy 8 billion light-years away. The grains - including corundum (sapphires and rubies); forsterite (peridot); and periclase (naturally occurring in marble) - are not typically found in galaxies without quasars, suggesting they might have been freshly formed in the quasar's winds.
So the question that follows is; how were these dust-creating quasar formed in a dustless universe?

Re:Question (1)

bigmaddog (184845) | more than 6 years ago | (#21124719)

That question does not follow. As the section you quoted states and you repeat in your question, quasars are the theoretical source of the dust that cannot be otherwise attributed to old stars. Where did you get the impression that the absence of dust impedes quasar formation?

Enter either Theory or Religion (1)

Roger Wilcox (776904) | more than 6 years ago | (#21124543)

These are the qustions that no one can answer, so they just make things up. Some of these people are scientists, others are crackpots. Some are a bit of both. Either way, there is no single, satisfying solution.

What created the precursor to the precursor of the precursor? And the precursor to that? It's almost a silly question because you can quickly see that the line of questioning will never be resolved.

Perhaps they spontaneously appeared. Or, as a facet of their infinite nature, they aways existed. Or, they were tears cried by God at the time of Creation. Pick the explanation you like, and it can be true for you.

Re:Question (4, Informative)

CodeBuster (516420) | more than 6 years ago | (#21124573)

but where does that stuff come from? And how did it get there?

IANAA (I am not an astrophysicist) but I seem to remember, from the astronomy course which I took for fun in college, that stars formed out of hydrogen present after the big bang (the hydrogen formed soon after everything cooled down enough to allow protons and electrons to bind together again) which formed stars due to minute temperature variations throughout the universe (apparently if the temperature were entirely uniform then nothing interesting, including ultimately Humans, would ever have formed out of the large soup of hydrogen that was left over).

Now, depending upon the initial mass of a star and its final disposition (white dwarf, brown dwarf, neutron star, supernova, black hole) which depends upon that mass, the star creates ever heavier elements as the fusion of hydrogen into helium progresses into the fusion of Helium into Lithium and Lithium into Boron and so on all the way up to Iron (which is the heaviest element that can be produced by fusion). The elements that are heavier than Iron are produced in the massive pressure and forces generated by novas and super novas. Obviously this process has happened over and over again as matter and stars coalesced by gravitational attraction into the galaxies that we see today (lots of handwaving here, again IANAA).

Now, to answer your question, since dust is probably mostly carbon type stuff and compounds (which form pretty often in giant red stars) then over time as stars form and explode and form and explode and form and turn into black holes there will ultimately be some black holes surrounded by stray gases and dust from its own nova or surrounding novas or nearby stars over large periods of time. Lots of handwaving here, but does this answer your question?

Re:Question (5, Insightful)

NeoSkink (737843) | more than 6 years ago | (#21124687)

Just because it's a black hole, doesn't mean it has to suck everything around it in. Stuff that's close enough, sure, but you can still get a stable orbit around a black hole, just like you can around any other collection of mass.

Re:Question (1)

BungaDunga (801391) | more than 6 years ago | (#21124975)

I read somewhere that if the sun were to compress to a black hole tomorrow, we'd still be orbiting. Makes sense, but semi counterintuitive (but I thought all black holes sucked?! etc).

Re:Question (5, Informative)

mazarin5 (309432) | more than 6 years ago | (#21125151)

I read somewhere that if the sun were to compress to a black hole tomorrow, we'd still be orbiting. Makes sense, but semi counterintuitive (but I thought all black holes sucked?! etc).
Quite true. The big deal with black holes is that the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light, at some radius that is larger than the object. The distance at which the escape velocity is equal to the speed of light is called the Schwarzchild radius. If the Sun were a black hole, that radius would be about 3 km. Everything outside of that would be fine.

google example [google.com] Replace the mass with any interesting value.

Re:Question (4, Interesting)

teebob21 (947095) | more than 6 years ago | (#21125345)

Interesting Google calc link. In a related vein, a black hole with the mass of Pluto would have an event horizon (Schwartzchild radius) of only 20 microns, or about the width of a hair on your arm. If it were somehow accelerated to a relativistic speed (> 0.95c), such a black hole could theoretically impact a star/planet/moon and pass right through. The only damage would be the curious 20 micron wide tunnel that suddenly appeared in the celestial body. All other matter on the planet would not be sucked in, although any inhabitants might experience some strange gravitational effects. My first-year college physics professor was a big fan of exotic astronomy, and we did several projects involving similar scenarios.

Answer (1)

anandsr (148302) | more than 6 years ago | (#21125587)

The reasoning goes like this.
1) The universe cools down and a vast amount of protons and electrons are generated.
2) These combine to form hydrogen.
3) The universe is still very small but expanding very rapidly.
4) The uncertainty principle makes sure that there are some pockets with very high density (comparatively speaking).
5) Some high density regions develop enough gravity to pull in lots of other hydrogen.
6) Everything does not fall straight it goes in circles like planets don't fall directly towards the sun.
7) The hydrogen clouds are so huge that they contain enough matter to create galaxies.
8) The cloud revolves around its center falling inward.
9) The center does not glow like the sun because of the immense amount of matter. It actually reaches the black hole stage with a very negligible star phase.
10) This is the super-massive black hole at the galactic center. Lighter matter then spreads out because of interactions with heavier matter falling in. The heavier matter eventually becomes a part of the black hole at the center.
11) Normally it becomes a nearly circular disk.

The only weird thing (for me) is that it does not start out as a sphere but as a strip (I believe not a thin strip).

Disclaimer: IANAAP.

StdOverlord (0, Redundant)

VegeBrain (135543) | more than 6 years ago | (#21124163)

I for one welcome our Black Hole overlords.

What about Dark Matter/Energy (2, Interesting)

definate (876684) | more than 6 years ago | (#21124175)

IANAP however it sounds as if this could have some affect on the Dark Matter/Energy theories. Since Dark Matter/Energy I believe was invented to balance out seemingly correct equations on a cosmic scale? Perhaps this accounts for the extra gravity holding a system together?

Can any physicists elaborate on this for us.

Thanks.

Only Problem Is ... (1, Flamebait)

pln2bz (449850) | more than 6 years ago | (#21124205)

Halton Arp discovered that quasars are in fact observed to be connected to or being ejected from spiral galaxies. Even though the mainstream theories badly need these objects to exist at the edge of space due to their high redshifts, more recent statistics demonstrate that Arp is probably right, and that redshift is not strictly an indication of distance.

But the fact that there is any debate at all on it is rather silly. People can observe the images that Arp discusses and decide for themselves whether or not he is right. The real question is whether or not you believe somebody's math over your own eyes.

Re:Only Problem Is ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21124419)

Stick to believing math. Your eyes lie. If you can show math lying, you'll have a place in history.

Re:Only Problem Is ... (1)

pln2bz (449850) | more than 6 years ago | (#21124655)

Stick to believing math. Your eyes lie. If you can show math lying, you'll have a place in history.

It's not the eyes that lie. It's the brain. The brain wants things. It has preferences for and prejudices against theories. Our brains convince us what to believe by restricting our exposure to information. If something threatens our preferences or prejudices, we will refuse to let our eyes see it. So, in truth, the eyes are innocent bystanders.

Many things that are real, natural and true can seem strange to our brains, and many things that seem normal to us will never in fact occur in nature. Nature has no such preferences or prejudices. It just is.

Re: Only Problem Is ... (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 6 years ago | (#21124539)

Halton Arp discovered that quasars are in fact observed to be connected to or being ejected from spiral galaxies. Even though the mainstream theories badly need these objects to exist at the edge of space due to their high redshifts, more recent statistics demonstrate that Arp is probably right, and that redshift is not strictly an indication of distance.
Cite?

FWIW, Wikipedia says it's Arp that's working with the 40 year old data.

Re: Only Problem Is ... (1)

pln2bz (449850) | more than 6 years ago | (#21124823)

I hope you are joking. Wikipedia is hardly an authoritative resource for controversial subjects. You need to get into the habit of making a distinction. If there is a heated debate about something, you will only get the mainstream view of it from wiki. Hopefully, there is no debate about this ...

Wikipedia used to cite a paper that attempted to disprove Arp's observation of quantized inherent redshift. The thing is, the authors were not even aware that Arp's quantized redshifts were components of the total redshift. The authors disproved that the *raw* values were quantized. Apparently, so long as it is popular and disproves a heretic, accuracy is not all that important on wiki.

As for the citation, it will not matter one bit. People will believe what they *want* to believe, and people *want* to believe that the statistics are flawed.

Re:Only Problem Is ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21124605)

Arp derived his conclusions from outdated data. We are now seeing that the ratio of galaxies with supermassive black holes vs without far exceeds our expectations and furthermore, that the early universe harbored far more than expected.

One tangible strike against Arp's intrinsic redshift theory came in the form of direct evidence that a supermassive black hole exists in the center of the milkyway and yet seems to cause none of the redshift that Arp would expect.

Re:Only Problem Is ... (1)

pln2bz (449850) | more than 6 years ago | (#21124919)

Arp derived his conclusions from outdated data. We are now seeing that the ratio of galaxies with supermassive black holes vs without far exceeds our expectations and furthermore, that the early universe harbored far more than expected.

There is a more recent study out there with an updated dataset, and it supports his conclusions. The thing is, nobody cares.

One tangible strike against Arp's intrinsic redshift theory came in the form of direct evidence that a supermassive black hole exists in the center of the milkyway and yet seems to cause none of the redshift that Arp would expect.

Arp argues that redshift is more an indication of an object's age than its distance, so I fail to see how the effect would be noticed with the core of our own galaxy. Only new objects -- the quasars being ejected from the supposed black holes -- would have a high redshift.

This is hardly convincing logic though. The Sombrero Galaxy does not gravitationally lens either, even though it should. The mainstream theories have many problems of their own. But it is the only set of theories we teach to astrophysics students, so they are quite partial to it. People essentially decide to believe that redshift equals distance when they decide to go to school to learn astrophysics.

must... resist... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21124207)

"The goatse guy could not be reached for comment."

Re:must... resist... (1)

MarkRose (820682) | more than 6 years ago | (#21125273)

This is an article about black holes, not brown stars, silly!

OK, so someone found them (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 6 years ago | (#21124301)

Now I'd like to have them back, now, please.

Really hundreds? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21124319)

Ok, probably many, many more.

they found hundreds of black holes by lookin inside black asshole by goin to a crackhouse there was hundreds of black hoes and hundreds of black pimps and hundreds of black cracksmokers they was niggers and coons and darkies and porchmonkeys and jigaboos who played basketball an asked where da white women at and smokes crack and slapped hoes cuz in rap songs thats what they do its so fucking cool black culture brought to you negroes shaved gorillas baboons and coons kiss jesse jacksons ass and lick al sharptons balls otherwise youre racist and porchmonkeys will call you a cracker but thats okay stevie wonder is always smiling becuause he doesnt know hes black and a black person sorry i mean afro american on a bike is a fucking thief and little black kids dont play in sandboxes because the cats keep tryin to bury them and a cocoon is a negro with a stutter and the difference between a darkie and a bucket of shit is the bucket and you better hide the fat white women and theyre improving the transportation in harlem by plantin the trees closer together, bitches

Suddenly (1)

lukesky321 (1092369) | more than 6 years ago | (#21124389)

black holes, hundreds of them

It's just grit on the scanner scope... (5, Funny)

Artega VH (739847) | more than 6 years ago | (#21124403)

As covered by Red Dwarf...
"Well, the thing about a Black Hole, its main distinguishing feature, is it's black! And the thing about space, the colour of space, yer basic space colour, is its Black! So how are you supposed to see them. ... We've been in space for three million years and there hasn't been one! Then, all of a sudden five of them turn up at once!"

And the cause of all these black holes?
"Five specs of grit on the scanner scope....the thing is about Grit... is it's black.."

First one named "American Culture" (0, Troll)

jihadist (1088389) | more than 6 years ago | (#21124407)

Proposed names for black holes:

1. American culture
2. Human environmental conscience
3. Good TV
4. Disco Comeback
5. Emo
6. Proof of Jesus
7. D.A.R.E.

Giant failures, humanity!

Re:First one named "American Culture" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21124759)

6. Proof of Jesus

There are many references to a man whose name translated to English as Jesus. I think he is also referred to as Yahweh (in Hebrew, I believe) or something like that. These references speak of a man born approx 2000 years ago, give or take a few decades.

Currently, you could also go to many cities around the world and find a few individuals with the name of Jesus.

Now, if you are speaking of Proof of God, then that is an entirely different situation. But you would also have to define what God is. Is he a Creator? The Programmer? The Father? His Noodly Appendage? Without more of a definition your statement is nothing.

Bushy (1)

madbawa (929673) | more than 6 years ago | (#21124491)

a doughnut-shaped cloud of gas and dust that surrounds and feeds a budding supermassive black hole.
Is it just me, or does Dubya come to everyone's mind?

I've got a black hole in my pocket (1)

mcmonkey (96054) | more than 6 years ago | (#21124545)

Well, half a black hole.

RE: Hundreds of Black Holes Found (2, Funny)

DavidD_CA (750156) | more than 6 years ago | (#21124587)

Oh good! I was worried I'd never see them again. The cleaning lady left my garage door open and they sneaked out.

My quazars will be so happy to have them back home.

I wonder... (1)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 6 years ago | (#21124599)

They say these are some of the first but I have another theory. They aren't and there are older ones, but we can't see them. Does anyone else think that maybe there are galaxies so old and fairly small (as in dense) that their supermassive black hole had enough time to literally sucked the entire thing in and now there's no more matter outside it so it's completely invisible to us? Cuz we can only really see black holes by seeing the stuff that's emitted from matter around it that's being sucked in.

Red spectrum (1)

wylderide (933251) | more than 6 years ago | (#21124657)

What does the red spectrum tell us about quasars?

Okay, take it easy folks (1)

jigyasubalak (308473) | more than 6 years ago | (#21124659)

It's only that someone just came back from a nudist colony.

is this a mac os x joke? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21124709)

the space and everything
the timing is so perfect

m10

Those aren't black holes... (2, Funny)

JK_the_Slacker (1175625) | more than 6 years ago | (#21124739)

...they're honeypots powerful enough to bog down the Storm botnet!

argh! (4, Informative)

sentientbrendan (316150) | more than 6 years ago | (#21124779)

"This is pretty big, as it's empirical evidence proving the existence of objects that theoretically had to exist but could not be detected previously."

look closely

"empirical evidence proving"

should never occur in any sentence ever. By definition empirical evidence cannot prove anything. Empirical evidence lends support to inductive arguments, which don't concern themselves with proof. Only analytic statements may be proven.

Please, for the love of god remember, there are two forms of logic, inductive which has arguments from experience (physics), and deductive which has arguments from pure reason (mathematics). Only deductive arguments can be proven because you can always argue with the strength of the evidence in inductive claims. It is a fact (supported by inductive evidence and deductive proofs) that inductive claims may be false no matter how strong the evidence for them is. Thus they can never be proven, but you can say "there are strong practical reasons to believe."

People getting basic logic wrong has led to a lot of poor decisions in our society lately, so please do not contribute to the problem by adding to confusion over terms.

Experimental not empirical (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21125515)

I agree in principle but you are missing the point. Deductive logic can result in proofs, but it cannot prove anything useful (as Arthur Eddington observed, reliance on deductive logic alone would reduce all of physics to a tautology.) As a simple example, Euclid's apparently deductive logic is nothing of the sort because it assumes the existence and nature of the things it describes. A demonstration that spacetime is curved immediately invalidates Euclidean geometry, even though it is a good enough approximation at small scales.



The fact is that empirical (i.e discovered by investigation) evidence can easily prove things. This is because it can falsify, but every falsification of a negative statement can be reversed into a non-universal affirmation. If I deny the existence of a postulated entity called a black hole, and empirical study turns up a black hole, my denial is falsified and the positive (the existence of black holes) is confirmed.

You are confusing experimental evidence about the specific with inductive logic about the general. If I find a black hole at the centre of galaxies A,B,C....N where A..N is my current list of observable galaxies, I have proven that some galaxies have black holes at the core, but not that all do. A single new galaxy without a black hole would disprove any universal statement, but would have no effect on the statement that _some_ galaxies have black holes.

It's true that a very common logic error by the ignorant is to promote the observational to the universal, but that's unfortunately an aspect of how our brains seem to work.

God squad should be happy (3, Funny)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 6 years ago | (#21125037)

The universe is now proven to be holier than thou.

Also not to be pedantic... (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 6 years ago | (#21125077)

I am sure some people will think I am nitpicking, but I am not. I just like to see a bit of precision about the topic of discussion.

Quote: "This is pretty big, as it's empirical evidence proving the existence of objects..."

It is nothing of the sort. It is empirical evidence OF the existence of certain objects. It proves absolutely nothing.

I knew it (0, Troll)

EEPROMS (889169) | more than 6 years ago | (#21125101)

OH!, MY GOD! its full off assholes.

Well.... (2, Funny)

w1relessm0nkey (1179873) | more than 6 years ago | (#21125379)

Finding Black Holes is an intense job, it's not hard to get Sucked in, and there are always new Events on the Horizon. // Sucky job but somebody's got to do it?? /// Having seen "Event Horizon" I don't think I'd really want to go looking for black holes....ugh.
Load More 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>