Hundreds of Black Holes Found

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."

Had to exist?

[Misanthrope (49269)]

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:

[alexborges (313924)]

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

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

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?

[Black Parrot (19622)]

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?

[pedestrian crossing (802349)]

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?

[Steeltoe (98226)]

Noone has ever "seen" an atom either, or a bunch of molecules.

What did you think you were seeing but incoming photons triggering electrical pulses to your brain?

Makes you think how little we do "see"..

Re:

[khallow (566160)]

As I see it, the only difference between a black hole and an ECO is whether you are in it or not. The point is black holes look like ECOs from the outside, up to emitted radiation and a magnetic field.

Re:

[khallow (566160)]

Glancing through the article some more, I grant that I am somewhat incorrect. The key difference is that an ECO will decay much faster than a pure black hole with no photon radiation pressure would. Recall that we still have Hawkings radiation to eventually eliminate the massive object. Also recall that a considerable portion of the mass of some massive objects (particular those in the center of galaxies) might have a large "dark matter" component which in turn might be matter that won't convert into photon

Huh?

[conner_bw (120497)]

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?

[smitty_one_each (243267)]

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:

[conner_bw (120497)]

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:

[rts008 (812749)]

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

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

Not to be confused with Red Holes

[BadAnalogyGuy (945258)]

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

Re:

[Hao Wu (652581)]

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:

[rts008 (812749)]

"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!

it's funny because it's true

[User 956 (568564)]

'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....

[Jane Q. Public (1010737)]

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

Re:

[Torvaun (1040898)]

Close, but Bush's black nothingness is currently being contained by his skull.

*phew*

[AlphaDrake (1104357)]

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?

pics or it didn't happen

[weirdcrashingnoises (1151951)]

"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:

[clsours (1089711)]

Does hurriedly photoshopped mspaint-style art count, or do you want genuine blurry photographic evidence http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/194195main_A-ssc2007-17a1-330.jpg [nasa.gov]?

Suddenly...

[KillzoneNET (958068)]

Suddenly black holes, lots of them!

Question

[thatskinnyguy (1129515)]

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

[CodeBuster (516420)]

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:

[suv4x4 (956391)]

IANAA (I am not an astrophysicist)

Don't you think people the utility of abbreviations is kinda lost when you have to put the full thing in parens immediately following?

Re:Question

[NeoSkink (737843)]

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

[mazarin5 (309432)]

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

[teebob21 (947095)]

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.

Re:

[splerdu (187709)]

Except, of course those micro-black holes couldn't exist, at least given our current understanding of stellar evolution. Post-supernova, without enough mass, neutron degeneracy will prevent the remains of our dead star from falling below the Schwartzchild radius. It's theorized that the minimum mass to form a black hole is about 2-3 times that of the sun, so the smallest black holes would probably have a 6km event horizon.

Answer

[anandsr (148302)]

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

Think the Earth and the Moon

[Moraelin (679338)]

Well, the Earth is pulling the moon towards it too, and yet we still have a moon after all these billions of years. The Sun is pulling the Earth towards it, but, funnily enough, after all these billions of years we're not quite there yet.

In a sense, the Hitchhiker's guide got that right: ""There is an art to flying, or rather a knack. It knack lies in learning to throw yourself at the ground and miss. Clearly, it is this second part, the missing, that provides the difficulties."" We keep falling in an almost circular orbit around the Sun and ending up (almost) where we started.

What I'm trying to say is that those super-massive black holes obviously do suck everything towards them. But the rest of the galaxy sees it as centripetal force and rotates around them.

The problems with a black holes are at closer ranges.

For a start, if you do get closer to it than its event horizon, then you're properly fucked. There is no way to get out of there, not even theoretically. Not even light can get out of there. Hence, the name black hole.

However, I'll return to the analogy with the solar system. With the Sun's massive gravity well, it's damn near impossible to hit it, even if you wanted to. If you dropped a big rock right at it, even the slighest deviation or initial speed sideways (like would happen if you dropped it from Earth), would cause a clean miss and you'd just get that rock in some kind of orbit around it. The only way to actually hit the sun would be if that orbit was flattened enough that it passes through the sun.

And the same problem applies to black holes too. Remember that it's a more massive gravity well _and_ the "bullseye" is much smaller, at least in relation to the gravity well. As you fall even a little off the centre, your speed would increase enough so at one point the centrifugal force (yes, I know it doesn't even exist, but it makes the explanation easier) just flings you clean around it.

There's even at least one theory that nothing ever finishes falling into a black star. Although there is energy loss due to that X-ray emission and all, basically matter just spirals closer and closer to the event horizon without ever reaching it. Think an asymptotic decay. It gets closer and closer and closer over time, but never quite reaches it.

The second problem is, well, tides. If you get close enough to the centre of a gravity well, say, looking at the centre, then your front is pulled towards it much stronger than your back is.

This is actually true for any gravity well, and, again, you can see it in action in the solar system too. That's why the moon is tidal-locked with the Earth and you always see the same face of it.

But for a massive enough gravity well, the force difference gets larger and can rip a star or a planet apart. That's how stars and black holes end up occasionally peeling another star apart, pretty much syphoning its outer layers.

So basically you could be past the event horizon and still be properly fucked, in slightly different way.

But even that only extends so far. IIRC there are stars orbitting the centre of a galaxy with a period measured in hours. Admittedly, that's not as close as it might suggest, again because of the massive gravity. Even with that angular speed, you still need a heck of a radius to stay in orbit there. But, still, if those survive just fine, then you can probably see how the rest of the galaxy is safe.

Re:

[bigmaddog (184845)]

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?

What about Dark Matter/Energy

[definate (876684)]

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.

must... resist...

[by Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:

[MarkRose (820682)]

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

OK, so someone found them

[Skapare (16644)]

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

It's just grit on the scanner scope...

[Artega VH (739847)]

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.."

Re:It's just grit on the scanner scope...

[ledow (319597)]

Swirly thing alert!

I've got a black hole in my pocket

[mcmonkey (96054)]

Well, half a black hole.

RE: Hundreds of Black Holes Found

[DavidD_CA (750156)]

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.

Those aren't black holes...

[JK_the_Slacker (1175625)]

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

argh!

[sentientbrendan (316150)]

"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.

God squad should be happy

[flyingfsck (986395)]

The universe is now proven to be holier than thou.

Also not to be pedantic...

[Jane Q. Public (1010737)]

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.

Well....

[w1relessm0nkey (1179873)]

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.

Re: Only Problem Is ...

[Black Parrot (19622)]

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:

[pln2bz (449850)]

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 to

Re:

[pln2bz (449850)]

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

Re:

[pln2bz (449850)]

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

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

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 wit