Our Nearest Quasar Is Powered By A Double Black Hole

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
My understanding is that a quasar could be the center of, or the formation of, some distant galaxy. The hubble has found that the one closest to us involves a binary black hole. I wonder what that would even look like in motion—or what kind of juicy data TARS would get from it.

If only one black hole were present in the center of the quasar, the whole accretion disk made of surrounding hot gas would glow in ultraviolet rays. Instead, the ultraviolet glow of the dusty disk abruptly drops off toward the center. This provides observational evidence that the disk has a big donut hole encircling the central black hole. The best explanation for the donut hole in the disk, based on dynamical models, is that the center of the disk is carved out by the action of two black holes orbiting each other. The second, smaller black hole orbits in the inner edge of the accretion disk, and has its own mini-disk with an ultraviolet glow.
 
A quasar is a black hole that's feeding. The black hole in the center of the milky way is dormant, and doesn't produce anything.
 
Didn't they come out and say black holes were not real now, or something?
 
HoffY said:
Didn't they come out and say black holes were not real now, or something?
Click to expand...

No, Hawking has proposed that black holes do not have event horizons where information is permanently destroyed. He hypothesizes that the matter / energy reemerge as radiation containing said information, but in a different unrecognizable form. It is his attempt at figuring out the information paradox.
 
I have a very difficult time accepting that theory, although I give him credit for thinking outside the box.
 
I read an article about what Hawking thought about Black Holes and I think he was saying is that once something got inside the blackhole, that thing will be in another dimension of some sort and I guess he hypothesize how to get away from being sucked up into that black hole.

=MIND BLOWN stuffs sheesh

FoolhardySmartDobermanpinscher.gif
 
Grahamkracka said:
No, Hawking has proposed that black holes do not have event horizons where information is permanently destroyed. He hypothesizes that the matter / energy reemerge as radiation containing said information, but in a different unrecognizable form. It is his attempt at figuring out the information paradox.
Click to expand...

Also, and I can't remember where I read this, but I'm under the impression that the super-massive black holes at the center of galaxies already behave differently than the stellar mass black holes created by dead stars. I think it's the stellar mass ones that have been called into question lately.
 
HoffY said:
In other words... my guess is as good as his. Cheers ;)
Click to expand...

Not really.. A hypothesis needs to be sound and theoretically testable. In essence, it needs to stand up against a lot of scrutiny. You can't just go out and make wacky statements that have no foundation and call them hypothesis.
 
"The binary black holes are predicted to spiral together and collide within a few hundred thousand years."

Interstellar divide by zero. Arma-fucking-geddon, ladies and gentlemen.
 
DejaWiz said:
"The binary black holes are predicted to spiral together and collide within a few hundred thousand years."

Interstellar divide by zero. Arma-fucking-geddon, ladies and gentlemen.
Click to expand...

You aren't wrong, on a basic level! Despite being called "holes" and being artistically represented as big black balls, black holes are points of matter that have an infinitely small volume, AKA ZERO volume. the density of an object is mass divided by volume. A black hole is literally dividing by zero.
 
But if he has maths and backup, how can he use words like theorize and hypothetical? Unless there are meanings to these words that are the opposite to what i've known their definitions to be... o_O
 
Grahamkracka said:
He has math that backs up his assertion thus far. What do you have?
Click to expand...

If they backup his assertions, shouldnt that mean its a fact and not up for debate? This is what i find puzzling. (Well, that combined with the reality that no one can get close enough to even make sure any claim is actually close to reality, so surely they are just pretty big stabs int he dark [pun intended]). :D

NB: And before you all go off falling over yourselves accusing me of who-knows-what. i am all for the skyence! I just find these words they use contradictory and it puzzles me.
 
A Hypothesis is based on an EDUCATED guess, usually based on other facts or theories. A theory has been tested in as many ways as possible, but still isn't an absolute. For example, in the case of this proposed double super-massive black hole, it's been detected in multiple ways, and measured. Likely with multiple telescopes, gravitational lensing, and mathematical workup. It's still a theory. Once they can explain every detail of all of the systems involved, it will be fact. However, we obviously can't do that until we know what a black hole actually is, not to mention as you say, get anywhere near one. (not too near :p )
 
J3RK said:
A Hypothesis is based on an EDUCATED guess, usually based on other facts or theories. A theory has been tested in as many ways as possible, but still isn't an absolute. For example, in the case of this proposed double super-massive black hole, it's been detected in multiple ways, and measured. Likely with multiple telescopes, gravitational lensing, and mathematical workup. It's still a theory. Once they can explain every detail of all of the systems involved, it will be fact. However, we obviously can't do that until we know what a black hole actually is, not to mention as you say, get anywhere near one. (not too near :p )
Click to expand...

Also, many of the things people take as facts, still could be considered theories. Depends on where you want to draw lines I guess.
 
Mathematical calculations don't necessarily correspond to real world data. When it doesn't, then you're dealing in theory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top