PDA

View Full Version : Discussion: Second Black Hole at the Heart of ...



Fraser
2004-Nov-05, 05:04 PM
SUMMARY: A French/US team of astronomers have discovered a second black hole is lurking at the heart of our Milky Way galaxy, completely separate from the supermassive black hole that we've known about for years. This new object, IRS 13E, contains only 1,400 stellar masses, which is much less that the 4 million stellar masses of our supermassive black hole. IRS 13E probably used to be located far away from the galactic centre, where a cluster of stars could safely form. All that's left now are a few massive stars whipping around the black hole as it spirals towards the centre of our galaxy.

What do you think about this story? Post your comments below.

antoniseb
2004-Nov-05, 05:18 PM
I'd seen some papers discussing this object a few months back. Intermediate sized black holes are pretty interesting, and will eventually help to tell the tale of the origins of galaxies, globular clusters etc. I look forward to more data on this object.

Guest
2004-Nov-05, 06:21 PM
very good info :D

om@umr.edu
2004-Nov-05, 06:44 PM
I too look forward to more data on exotic forms of matter, like neutron stars and black holes.

Does anyone else have an uneasy feeling that black holes may turn out to be fictional?

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

Duane
2004-Nov-05, 07:17 PM
It would be very interesting (and very cool!) to see either one of the stars left orbiting this object get swallowed, or to see the IMBH get swallowed by the SMBH.

zephyr46
2004-Nov-06, 03:31 AM
Solstation.com (http://www.solstation.com/x-objects/s2.htm) had a link to a newscientist (http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993847) article (09:30 23 June 03)

http://www.solstation.com/x-objects/mw1bh.jpg

Brad Hansen (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~hansen/) and Milos Milosavljevic (http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~pcote/acs/teammembers.html#Milos) of the University of California at Los Angeles

Science News, Vol. 163, No. 25, June 21, 2003, p. 394. (http://www.phschool.com/science/science_news/articles/mystery_in_middle.html)

They estimated it to be 1000 to 10 000 solar masses.

antoniseb
2004-Nov-06, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Nov 5 2004, 06:44 PM
Does anyone else have an uneasy feeling that black holes may turn out to be fictional?
I am not in category of people who think they may turn out to be fictional. I am not confident that black holes are exactly as described by General Relativity, but the observations of Sgr A* and other such objects in nearby galaxies demonstrate that something is there which cannot be very different from the observable qualities we attribute to black holes.

(Q)
2004-Nov-06, 03:20 PM
Does anyone else have an uneasy feeling that black holes may turn out to be fictional?

Only if we ignore observations and General Relativity predictions.

Perhaps your uneasy feeling is connected with the garlic eclaire you had for lunch?

VanderL
2004-Nov-07, 04:57 PM
Does anyone else have an uneasy feeling that black holes may turn out to be fictional?


Yep Oliver, the same feeling for Dark Matter, redshift=distance, dark energy and also neutron stars.
Oh, and also the Big Bang :D .

Cheers.

(Q)
2004-Nov-07, 05:21 PM
VanderL finds agreement:

Yep Oliver, the same feeling (fictional) for Dark Matter, redshift=distance, dark energy and also neutron stars.
Oh, and also the Big Bang

Those assertions attack predictions made by General Relativity, one can therefore assume that it is GR in which you have disagreement.

What exactly is it you disagree with GR?

om@umr.edu
2004-Nov-07, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by VanderL@Nov 7 2004, 04:57 PM
Yep Oliver, the same feeling for Dark Matter, redshift=distance, dark energy and also neutron stars.
Oh, and also the Big Bang :D .

Yep, VanderL.

We agree except on neutron stars.

Measurements indicate a neutron star is at the center of the Sun.

H+ departing the Sun's surface in the solar wind, 3 x 10^43 per year, is a neutron decay product.

Inside the Sun abundance correlates with nuclear stability except for a prominant excess of H from neutron-decay. This is shown in Fig 2, upper right column of page 1.

"The Sun's Origin, Composition and Source of Energy", 32nd Lunar & Planetary Science Conference, Abstract #1041, Houston, TX, March 12-16, 2001

pdf file: http://www.umr.edu/~om/lpsc.prn.pdf
p s file: http://www.umr.edu/~om/lpsc.ps

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

antoniseb
2004-Nov-07, 06:38 PM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Nov 7 2004, 06:27 PM
Measurements indicate a neutron star is at the center of the Sun.
H+ departing the Sun's surface in the solar wind, 3 x 10^43 per year, is a neutron decay product.
Please keep the direct statements of the Iron Sun theory down in the "Alternative Theories" section.

We don't know how many young people see this site thinking they are seeing commonly accepted mainstream astronomy, but it is non-zero, and we'd like to make sure they are aware they are reading alternative interpretations of the data when that is the case.

Thanks in advance for future compliance.

VanderL
2004-Nov-07, 07:11 PM
What exactly is it you disagree with GR?


Not something I can exactly put my finger on, but there is reason to think that either GR is incomplete (see the above points) or maybe the original theory is hampered by the (faulty) assumption that space is empty.



Btw Oliver, neutron stars are thought to be compact objects composed of extremely dense matter, because they are thought to be spinning at fantastic rates. Suppose the "spinning" turns out to be oscillations in an electric circuit, it could mean that there's nothing spinning, and there's no need to invoke extremely dense matter.

Cheers.

StarLab
2004-Nov-07, 07:36 PM
Either way, what are the predictions as to what'll happen when this new smaller black hole is devoured by the Milky Way SMBH. Wil something cataclysmic happen as a result that'll extend all the way out to us?

And also, how long until the two Black Holes collide?

om@umr.edu
2004-Nov-07, 07:40 PM
Originally posted by VanderL@Nov 7 2004, 07:11 PM
Btw Oliver, neutron stars are thought to be . . . spinning at fantastic rates. Suppose the "spinning" turns out to be oscillations in an electric circuit, it could mean that there's nothing spinning, and there's no need to invoke extremely dense matter.

VanderL,

You are right, "oscillation" may explain the observation attributed to "spin".

But that does not explain H emitted by the Sun nor excess H inside the Sun.

Neutron-decay explains these, whether the parent source is "spinning" or "oscillating".

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

PS - Thanks for the reminder, Anton. I hope neutron decay is okay to discuss here (n -> p+ + e- + anti-neutrino; n -> H + anti-neutrino)

(Q)
2004-Nov-08, 01:58 AM
Not something I can exactly put my finger on, but there is reason to think that either GR is incomplete (see the above points) or maybe the original theory is hampered by the (faulty) assumption that space is empty.

So, in other words, you know very little about general relativity, yet are perfectly willing to claim predictions based on GR are 'fictional.'

As I suspected. :rolleyes:

om@umr.edu
2004-Nov-08, 02:27 AM
Originally posted by (Q)@Nov 8 2004, 01:58 AM
you know very little about general relativity, yet are perfectly willing to claim predictions based on GR are 'fictional.'

I know very little about general relativity and I am the one that expressed concern that black holes might be fictional.

The overall merits of GR will be probably not be decided by the validity of all the predictions attributed to GR.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

VanderL
2004-Nov-08, 09:52 AM
What I do or don't know about GR is unimportant. Generally, theories are only adequate until the next one explains things better. I think you don't want to claim that GR is the be-all, end-all of science, right Q?
I didn't claim it was wrong either, I just have this "uneasy feeling" that we're missing part of the picture (hence all the "dark" stuff that makes up 90+ percent of the Universe).

Cheers.

om@umr.edu
2004-Nov-08, 03:27 PM
Amen, VanderL !

It is the nature of science to evolve.

Neither GR nor anything else is the be-all, end-all of science.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

antoniseb
2004-Nov-08, 05:38 PM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Nov 8 2004, 03:27 PM
Neither GR nor anything else is the be-all, end-all of science.
GR is not the last statement in science, but it has been demonstrated to be accurate over a very wide range of phenomena. It would be a big mistake to back a conclusion that GR disagrees with in the tested range of GR.

In the very small, and the very high energy, we may soon find observations that show the GR is just a very good approximation. Who knows.

Duane
2004-Nov-08, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by StarLab@Nov 7 2004, 07:36 PM
Either way, what are the predictions as to what'll happen when this new smaller black hole is devoured by the Milky Way SMBH. Wil something cataclysmic happen as a result that'll extend all the way out to us?

And also, how long until the two Black Holes collide?
Those are very good questions Starlab. It was first thought that the merger of 2 BH. may have been responsible for the Gamma-ray bursts that were seen coming from every corner of the sky. While that seems to have been incorrect, or least for the majority of them, it is still expected that there will be alot fo very weird stuff going on when the merger occurs.

One prediction is that the two objects will produce stong gravity waves. Strong enough that they might be measureable from Earth, with instruments like the Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory (LIGO). There will probably be a huge release of x-rays and gamma rays as the material in the accretion discs of the 2 objects are heated and accelerated by the unbelievable mass of thses two objects, and at the point when they finally merge.


Luuckily we are far enough taway from the event that we will probably not be disturbed.

I am not sure how long it will be before they collapse. I think that the orbit of the IMBH needs to be determined, and I'm not sure they have seen it long enough to determine that yet.

om@umr.edu
2004-Nov-09, 04:06 AM
Originally posted by antoniseb@Nov 8 2004, 05:38 PM
GR is not the last statement in science, but it has been demonstrated to be accurate over a very wide range of phenomena.

. . . we may soon find observations that show the GR is just a very good approximation. Who knows.
I agree, Anton.

We never know how long our current best models will survive.

That is part of the excitement of science.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

GOURDHEAD
2004-Nov-09, 03:01 PM
One prediction is that the two objects will produce strong gravity waves. Strong enough that they might be measureable from Earth, with instruments like the Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory (LIGO).
I need help in visualizng or comprehending in any other way how the merging of these or any other black holes will generate gravity waves detectable at a distance equal to or greater than 10 times the radius of the enclosing sphere of the participating black holes. My naive version from 10 radii away from the center of the resulting configuration goes like this:

Assuming whatever passes for angular momentum and the relativistic speed of whatever passes for mass carriers near the rapidly spinning, frame dragging, peripheral portions of each black hole, just inside the event horizon of each, has not been transferred via either the magnetic field or the Lense-Thirring effect or both to nearby portions of the "ambient" environment, there are two hyper-warped rapidly spinning volumes of local geometry spiraling toward each other. The geometry of space ten radii (STR) away is near "normal" (here ten is a placeholder for whatever the actual number is learned to be) or not significantly different from the average GR curvature of intra-MW space. As the two hyper-warped volumes combine, two unusual volumes become one that is more unusual than either was previously and the event horizon is larger than either was previously and confined to a smaller volume than that previously containing both. What would have caused any change at STR? Is it a modulation of the Lense-Thirring effect as measured at STR. Would such modulation be lost from detection in the GR noise from the myriad of Lense-Thirring sources within a few hundred light years of the event?

Using the above description as a start, please correct it so my understanding of gravitational waves, their propagation, and the likelihood of our detecting them might have a chance of maturing.

(Q)
2004-Nov-09, 03:16 PM
I know very little about general relativity and I am the one that expressed concern that black holes might be fictional.

Then you are obviously in no position to discredit or refute that which you know nothing about. Perhaps you should take a few courses in physics before spouting off.

What I do or don't know about GR is unimportant. Generally, theories are only adequate until the next one explains things better. I think you don't want to claim that GR is the be-all, end-all of science, right Q?

You know nothing of General Relativity yet you and others here attempt to refute its very foundations. Clearly your arguments mean nothing unless you can substantiate what exactly about GR you find disagreeable.

And I didn't say GR is the be-all, end-all of science - please do not put words in my mouth. I stated that those who attack that which they know nothing about cannot possible be taken seriously.

VanderL
2004-Nov-09, 03:55 PM
And I didn't say GR is the be-all, end-all of science - please do not put words in my mouth.

And I didn't say that you said that GR was the be-all and end-all of science, please do not put words in my mouth (or anything else for that matter).


And please read carefully, before you attack comments people make, I never tried to refute/discredit GR, only the general remark that all theories that work are good until the next theory explains things better, and that I have the feeling we are missing something important because it is necessary tp postulate dark matter and dark energy (I could add inflation as well).

Cheers.

om@umr.edu
2004-Nov-09, 05:21 PM
I agree, VanderL.

Science evolves. That is basic.

Hang in there!

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

(Q)
2004-Nov-10, 03:34 PM
I didn't claim it was wrong either, I just have this "uneasy feeling" that we're missing part of the picture (hence all the "dark" stuff that makes up 90+ percent of the Universe).

"Uneasy feelings" do not stack up to evidence, sorry.

Tackle GR, then come back and make comment, otherwise you're merely spinning your wheels.

VanderL
2004-Nov-10, 03:58 PM
"Uneasy feelings" do not stack up to evidence, sorry.

So what, I don't claim it as evidence. Besides, feelings can be correct.


Tackle GR, then come back and make comment, otherwise you're merely spinning your wheels.

Isn't this whole forum more or less "spinning one's wheels"? If you go by your line of reasoning, it would take peer-reviewed articles before being allowed to comment in this forum.

Cheers.

om@umr.edu
2004-Nov-10, 07:31 PM
Q is right, "uneasy feelings" do not stack up to evidence.

But "uneasy feelings" may be useful premontions something isn't right.

For example, in the early 1960s I had an "uneasy feeling" after studying Professor Robley Evans description of Coulomb energy in his text book, "The Atomic Nucleus". He used measurements of the decay energies of "mirror image nuclides" to estimate the nuclear charge radius.

"Mirror image nuclides" are a pair of nuclei which can be made from each other by interchanging all neutrons and protons. E.g., H-3 (2 neutrons + 1 proton) and He-3 (2 protons + 1 neutron).

Days later I suddenly realized that Professor Evans had not considered the lightest pair of "mirror image nuclides", the neutron (1 neutron) and the H-1 nucleus (1 proton).

Including the n -> H decay energy changed the slope of the line and the value of the nuclear charge radius.

About 40 years later, we included the n -> H decay energy in Figure 2 of a paper where an accurate correction for Coulomb energy was needed in order to decipher the interactions between neutrons and protons inside the nucleus.

"Neutron Repulsion Confirmed as Energy Source", Journal of Fusion Energy 20 (2003) pages 197-201.

http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2003/jfe-n...-neutronrep.pdf (http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2003/jfe-neutronrep.pdf)
http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2003/jfe-neutronrep.ps

Although "uneasy feelings" do not stack up to evidence, these may indicate your subconscious mind has noticed that something isn't right.

Scientists spend a lot of time and energy trying to decide what part of the current model may have to be modified. That is not considered to be "spinning one's wheels."

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

(Q)
2004-Nov-11, 03:20 PM
Nice paper Oliver, lots of hand-waving. Funny how most of the references are yourself and there is virtually no math.

But lets get back to your so-called disagreement of a theory you know nothing about.

Tell us all please how you can possibly disagree with a prediction of a theory when you admittedly acknowledge you know nothing about the theory? That is clearly a contradiction you need to clarify.

Then, if you can, please tell us all your interpretation of the hundreds of observations of objects that fit the theory? I know that will be incredibly difficult considering you don't know anything about accepted theory, hence you can't possibly offer an alternative theory.

And if you feel really energetic, please tell us all why you think black holes are fictional?

And if you need reference material to study, Carroll has some excellent notes on the subject:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9712/9712019.pdf

(Q)
2004-Nov-11, 03:24 PM
So what, I don't claim it as evidence. Besides, feelings can be correct.

Possibly, but one needs to have a firm grasp of the subject matter, which you admittedly acknowledged you did not.

If I looked out my window my 'feelings' would suggest the Earth is flat.

Therefore, I offer the notes from Carroll in my above post. Please try to familiarize yourself with these notes and then make your comments. That way, you won't be spinning your wheels... as much.

Duane
2004-Nov-11, 06:00 PM
Excellent reference Q, thanks :)

zephyr46
2004-Nov-13, 03:20 AM
I thought that the Idea of a black hole was just a convenient way to leave a lot of questions answered in a way that would make Astronomy more interesting.

Particularly SMBHs in galactic centers. I have always thought the first comparison for galaxies was Hurricanes and Cyclones. They both have an 'Eye' not a black hole.

My second nagging theory was that you would find a concentrated center of gravity for billions of stars and massive clouds of Hydrogen. If there wasn't a black hole at Sag A* there was certainly a resononant point that everything in the milky way was orbiting around. That would come down to the fundemental nature of gravity, does it compound? If it Compounds does it stretch? If it does, then there is a central point in our galaxy that all mass is counter balanced on, thus why our, and every other spiral rotatates, and why Elliptical galaxies exist, they reach equalibrium, rather than just getting sucked into a Super super massive black hole, ( if this is so, then we have an explination of the supergalactic voids! :D )

But yeah, like VanderL, these are just my uneasy feelings, no maths, thats why I don't talk about them much. But I like asking uncomforatable questions, like, who as actually seen a black hole?

I don't doubt that there are large neutron stars, and we call them black holes, but they are still just the best explanations for observation that we have. Everything is open for review in my opinion, and I like dealling with uneasy feelings by letting them out.

om@umr.edu
2004-Nov-13, 04:09 AM
Originally posted by zephyr46@Nov 13 2004, 03:20 AM
I don't doubt that there are large neutron stars, and we call them black holes, but they are still just the best explanations for observation that we have. Everything is open for review in my opinion, and I like dealing with uneasy feelings by letting them out.
I share your "unease" about black holes.

The relationship between measured values of M/A (mass or potential energy per nucleon) and Z/A (charge density) for all 2,850 known nuclei reveal a repulsive interaction between neutrons that was not know when it was suggested that neutron stars collapse into black holes.

"Neutron Repulsion Confirmed as Energy Source", Journal of Fusion Energy 20 (2003) pages 197-201.

http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2003/jfe-n...-neutronrep.pdf (http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2003/jfe-neutronrep.pdf)
http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2003/jfe-neutronrep.ps

This finding may not disprove the existence of black holes, but it certainly leaves room for doubt.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

(Q)
2004-Nov-13, 03:32 PM
I share your "unease" about black holes.

The relationship between measured values of M/A (mass or potential energy per nucleon) and Z/A (charge density) for all 2,850 known nuclei reveal a repulsive interaction between neutrons that was not know when it was suggested that neutron stars collapse into black holes.

That's very interesting Oliver considering that whatever you're talking about has absolutely nothing to do with black holes or their formation.

This finding may not disprove the existence of black holes, but it certainly leaves room for doubt.

Aside from your so-called paper having nothing even remotely to do with black holes, why is there no math?

VanderL
2004-Nov-15, 10:15 PM
QUOTE Q:
"Uneasy feelings" do not stack up to evidence, sorry.

VanderL:
So what, I don't claim it as evidence. Besides, feelings can be correct.




Q:
Possibly, but one needs to have a firm grasp of the subject matter, which you admittedly acknowledged you did not.


Only if you're planning on challenging the theory in question, not if you're asking questions and try to understand what is offered as explanations by the experts. It is never wrong to question basic concepts, there is nothing wrong in expressing doubt on the explanations. You're basically relying on authority, if you're such an expert it would be easy to explain why we shouldn't doubt current theory. Remember, this is a forum where people with very different backgrounds and educations openly discuss the wonders of the Universe.


Cheers.

om@umr.edu
2004-Nov-16, 03:39 AM
Originally posted by (Q)@Nov 13 2004, 03:32 PM
why is there no math?
Hi, (Q).

There is a great deal of math in our paper, "Neutron Repulsion Confirmed as Energy Source", Journal of Fusion Energy 20 (2003) pages 197-201:

http://web.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2003/jfe-n...-neutronrep.pdf (http://web.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2003/jfe-neutronrep.pdf)
http://web.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2003/jfe-neutronrep.ps

The math is mostly expressed in graphs rather than equations.

Linear mathematical relationships of the form y = mx + b are shown by correlation diagrams in Fig. 2 and Fig. 5.

Over 100 mass parabolas of the form y = a( x+b )^2 are shown in Fig. 3.

The y intercepts of these mass parabola at x = 0 are shown in Fig 4.

Differences in values of the y intercepts at x=0 and x = 1 are shown in Fig. 5 and Fig. 6.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

(Q)
2004-Nov-16, 02:46 PM
Only if you're planning on challenging the theory in question, not if you're asking questions and try to understand what is offered as explanations by the experts.

But you did challenge the theory, you said its predictions were 'fictional.' You weren't asking any questions, you simply 'felt' they were wrong.

It is never wrong to question basic concepts, there is nothing wrong in expressing doubt on the explanations.

You admitted not knowing the basic concepts of the theory - how is it possible to doubt them? You're contradicting yourself.

You're basically relying on authority, if you're such an expert it would be easy to explain why we shouldn't doubt current theory.

I offered notes on the theory in a previous post and asked you to familiarize yourself with them, did you do that? If not, how am I supposed to explain anything to you?

Remember, this is a forum where people with very different backgrounds and educations openly discuss the wonders of the Universe.

What I see is people making extraordianary claims to refute theories they know nothing about. Big difference.

(Q)
2004-Nov-16, 03:12 PM
There is a great deal of math in our paper

I've yet to find it.

The math is mostly expressed in graphs rather than equations.

Then it is useless to anyone.

VanderL
2004-Nov-16, 04:10 PM
What I see is people making extraordianary claims to refute theories they know nothing about. Big difference.

You're still not grasping the reason people join the forum: learning, asking questions and do so in a liberal way. I didn't see anyone refuting GR, what I see (and also do) is expressing unease about the apparent need for extraordinary stuff (dark matter/dark energy, black holes and alas the Big Bang itself).

The questions I have is how firm is the redshift/distance relation?
Why can't we find the dark matter (there are a lot of candidates, but nothing seems to pan out), the evidence for black holes is based on mathematical derivations that are subject to the pitfall of all math: they are based on models and simplification that could have nothing to with reality, even though they seem to work perfectly.


You admitted not knowing the basic concepts of the theory - how is it possible to doubt them?
You're contradicting yourself.

No, I admit I don't know enough to explain where the error can be found, but I do think that some of the results of the theory (like dark matter) are reason to say that we propably don't know "the whole truth" yet. That's where the doubt stems from, and if you want to tell me to shut up because I don't know enough of the theory you're missing the point of this forum. I'm not telling people that there's something wrong, I'm only expressing doubt.

In general I oppose to postulating things that aren't testable, like Guth's inflation theory (just as an example), I know it is hard to test things in cosmology, but I resent it when it is presented as fact, while in reality it could be completely different.


What I see is people making extraordianary claims to refute theories they know nothing about. Big difference.

Then try to be specific in you counter arguments, share your knowledge,

Cheers.