Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Black Hole At Center of Milky Way Confirmed

Posted by CmdrTaco on Wed Dec 10, 2008 10:00 AM
from the i-can-see-it-from-here dept.
Smivs writes "The BBC are reporting that a German team has confirmed the existence of a Black Hole at the center of the Milky Way. Astronomers tracked the movement of 28 stars circling the center of the Milky Way, using the 3.5m New Technology Telescope and the 8.2m Very Large Telescope (VLT) in Chile. Both are operated by the European Southern Observatory (Eso). The black hole is four million times heavier than our Sun, according to the paper in The Astrophysical Journal. According to Dr Robert Massey, of the Royal Astronomical Society (RAS), the results suggest that galaxies form around giant black holes in the way that a pearl forms around grit."
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by AltGrendel (175092) <ag-slashdot&exit0,us> on Wednesday December 10 2008, @10:01AM (#26059325) Homepage
    ...dark matter makes a black perl?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 10 2008, @10:01AM (#26059327)

    Boy, that sucks.

  • by John Hasler (414242) on Wednesday December 10 2008, @10:04AM (#26059359)

    n/t

  • About time! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Jugalator (259273) on Wednesday December 10 2008, @10:04AM (#26059361) Journal

    Seriously (surely no one missed the bad relativity joke in that title :-p) though, are black holes really still considered theoretical constructs? For example, Wikipedia starts with "A black hole is a theoretical region of space in which the gravitational field is so powerful that ...". And for Wikipedia haters, this is repeated in literature too.

    Meanwhile, in this article -- "the best empirical evidence that super-massive black holes do exist". And besides, I thought many scientific articles bring up black holes now and then without questioning, anyway.

    • Re:About time! (Score:5, Informative)

      by jonnythan (79727) on Wednesday December 10 2008, @10:12AM (#26059451) Homepage

      Yes, they are. We still have no proof of their actual existence.

    • Re:About time! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by pionzypher (886253) on Wednesday December 10 2008, @10:18AM (#26059525)
      I was more surprised that no one jumped on the statement: "four million times heavier than our sun".
    • Re:About time! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by glaswegian (803339) * on Wednesday December 10 2008, @10:29AM (#26059679)

      are black holes really still considered theoretical constructs? ... I thought many scientific articles bring up black holes now and then without questioning, anyway.

      Black holes do have a solid foundation in theory, and we can observe the gravitational effects they have on their neighbours. However, as far as I know, Hawking radiation [wikipedia.org] is the only way to detect them directly and I don't think that this has been observed.

      The authors of this article are showing observational evidence for a supermassive (millions of solar masses) black hole in the centre of our Galaxy - something that was thought to be at the centre of many galaxies but was still in open question. The observations made during this study have shown that our Galaxy has one, using techniques that are not an option for galaxies further away, thus giving us the best evidence that supermassive black holes exist.

    • Re:About time! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Xelios (822510) on Wednesday December 10 2008, @10:36AM (#26059809)
      That's the nature of an unobservable object. All you can do is infer its existence through its effects on other objects, in this case through the gravitational effects on stars. But then all you've *proven* is that something is causing those effects. The simplest explanation is a black hole, but it could be something else, and that's why black holes are still considered theoretical.

      Dark matter is in the same boat. Same with dark energy and strings. Physics seems to be moving toward explanations involving unobservable objects, whether that's right or not remains to be seen. Question is, can it ever be seen? See?
      • by S.O.B. (136083) on Wednesday December 10 2008, @10:34AM (#26059781)

        If we had absolutely no proof, or means of testing it, it would be considered a 'hypothesis'.

        You mean 'religion'. Oooops, did I say that out loud?

        • Re:About time! (Score:5, Informative)

          by Kagura (843695) on Wednesday December 10 2008, @11:01AM (#26060163)
          The concept of white holes [wikipedia.org] is not new. As far as black holes are concerned, they are naturally dense and occupy very little space with no foray into a "much higher dimension" needed. From the event horizon [wikipedia.org] article on wikipedia:

          For the mass of the Sun the event horizon is approximately 3 km, and for that of the Earth about 9 mm.

          That means the entire mass of the sun or the earth, if compressed down into a black hole, would have a radius of 3km or 9mm, respectively. The rest of your post is very silly and doesn't seem to be based on any facts or reputable research/researchers. :(

  • by cjfs (1253208) on Wednesday December 10 2008, @10:11AM (#26059445) Homepage Journal

    ... that they have names (Antu, Kueyen, Melipal, Yepun) for the individual telescopes in the VLT, but could only come up with "very large telescope" for the whole array.

    Please include at least a transformers reference in the next one. Thanks.

  • by msauve (701917) on Wednesday December 10 2008, @10:31AM (#26059709)
    ...or the remants of it, anyway.

    Someone at the center of our galaxy obviously beat us to getting their Large Hadron Collider [wikipedia.org] working before we did.
  • by 140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) on Wednesday December 10 2008, @10:33AM (#26059743) Journal
    galaxies form around giant black holes in the way that a pearl forms around grit

    Exactly. The pulsars emit gamma rays like the dung beetle emit pheromones. The planets circle their star like insects circle a dome light in the porch. Analogies form in the mind of submitters and editors of slashdot the same way driftwood washes up in the beaches of South Carolina.

  • by SecurityGuy (217807) on Wednesday December 10 2008, @10:42AM (#26059881)

    So black holes are irritating to the Great Space Oyster which deposits stars, dust, and gas around it to prevent irritation?

    There's my nomination for worst science analogy this year.