Supermassive Black Holes Not So Big After All 153
Posted
by
CmdrTaco
from the puck-will-be-disappointed dept.
from the puck-will-be-disappointed dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Supermassive black holes are between 2 and 10 times less massive than previously thought, according to new calculations published by German astrophysicists (abstract)."
but but (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
but they are still super massive right? If not that totally ruins most of my celestial bodies jokes.
Not all of them, only the "yo momma so fat" jokes. The Uranus jokes are still in effect.
Re: (Score:1)
So to all the people that don't read Slashdot : "Yo momma is so fat. If she gained another pound, she would collapse in on herself and become a black hole."
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
It will only effect geeks that tell and receive insults, because they are the only ones that will be able to reference this. So to all the people that don't read Slashdot : "Yo momma is so fat. If she gained another pound, she would collapse in on herself and become a black hole."
and then became uranus...
Re: (Score:1)
Urectum is the name the planet Uranus was changed to in 2620 to avoid people making the "your anus" joke.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:but but (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
You need some jargon in there to make it a real geek insult. How about "Yo momma's so fat the next Big Mac she picks up will increase her mass beyond the Chandrasekhar limit", then you could score some bonus points by throwing in something about electron degeneracy pressure.
Re: (Score:2)
Errr, "null" ?
While it may or may not be true that "most geeks receive insults", it is also very likely true that most geeks don't notice many of the insults they receive. [grammar-nazi]"affect" here, not "effect"[/grammar-nazi]
Re: (Score:2)
but they are still super massive right? If not that totally ruins most of my celestial bodies jokes.
The downgrade to UltraClumpy should preserve your astronomical punch lines.
Re: (Score:3)
but they are still super massive right? If not that totally ruins most of my celestial bodies jokes.
They like to call themselves "big boned".
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
it's cold in space
Sheesh! (Score:5, Funny)
You mean, they're only hundreds of millions to a billion times the mass of the sun, not several billion times the mass of the sun? Sheesh! Talk about phoning it in! Wake me up when they're serious about being 'super massive'!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whoosh
Math? (Score:3, Insightful)
How can something be X-times less massive than something else? I can understand half as massive, or 1/10 as massive, but two to ten times less massive doesn't make any mathematical sense for a result that must be a positive number.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How can something be X-times less massive than something else? I can understand half as massive, or 1/10 as massive, but two to ten times less massive doesn't make any mathematical sense for a result that must be a positive number.
I agree. That pet peeve ranks right up there with "I could care less".
Like nails on a chalkboard.
Re: (Score:2)
Or blood is thicker than water.
I mean come on! if your gonna use a meme at least use it right.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I agree. That pet peeve ranks right up there with "I could care less".
Like nails on a chalkboard.
The phrase is "I couldn't care less". Indicating that I care so little for something that no matter what you tell me it's not going to make the subject any more insignificant. "I could care less" indicates that I care enough that my feelings on the matter could be swayed to become more apathetic than they currently are. Obviously there's a big difference, though I do hear an awful lot of people misstating it as you have posted.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
*WOOSH*
Perhaps, but in all honesty I hear that phrase misquoted more often than used correctly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
*WOOSH*
Perhaps, but in all honesty I hear that phrase misquoted more often than used correctly.
There is no 'perhaps' involved in this at all. The person you replied to was citing it as his own pet peeve. You wasted your pedantry.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Since the "whoosh" didn't explain it clearly enough: That's why GP called it a "pet peeve". Because it's a misuse of a common phrase.
- RG>
Re: (Score:1)
"I could care less ... but I'd have to really work at it ..." - ie: I don't really care enough to get worked up about it.
"I couldn't care less ... even if I tried" - ie: I don't care at all.
And 10 times less massive is the same as saying "an order of magnitude less", which makes sense. Same as double-entry bookkeeping ...
Just look at "flammable" and "inflammable".
Re: (Score:1)
The expression "five times smaller" gets nearly 1M hits on Google, you have quite an uphill battle! In fact you might want to reconsider whether you're wrong instead of the world.
Re: (Score:1)
You confuse the adverb “less” with the preposition “less”. The adverb “less” means “to smaller extent” or “in lower degree”. The sense of “subtraction” applies only to the preposition (“gross income less expenditure equals net income”).
This usage of “less” is symmetrical with that of “more”, except for the less/fewer distinction. Observe:
You have two dollars. I have two more dollars than you. I have
Re: (Score:2)
Me: Hello, I would like to order 10 bags of cement.
Hardware Store: yes sir, we will deliver those today.
Me: Wait, make that two times less bags.
Hardware Store: But Sir, there is no such thing as a negative bag of cement.
Re:Math? (Score:4, Insightful)
How can something be X-times less massive than something else? I can understand half as massive, or 1/10 as massive, but two to ten times less massive doesn't make any mathematical sense for a result that must be a positive number.
Don't worry, it's only you. Everybody else understood perfectly that they are now estimated to be between 10% and 50% of the former estimate. Or can you imagine any other reasonable interpretation for that?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, it's only you.
No, it's not. It's a ridiculous way to express things like that, and it's actually misleading. To say that something is ten times less massive means that you consider the thing to which it's being compared to already be not very massive (compared to what?). That leaves a bunch of implications dangling open and unanswered. Saying it's "a tenth the size" is far more appropriate, and doesn't imply anything about the larger item to which you're comparing it. If you mean to say that the ten-times-larger thing i
Re: (Score:2)
To say that something is ten times less massive means that you consider the thing to which it's being compared to already be not very massive (compared to what?).
No, you are incorrectly parsing the statement. "X is ten times less massive than Y" is clearly comparing X to Y, finding the difference to be a ratio of ten, and specifying the sense to be that X is less than Y. There's no implication about the absolute massiveness of Y.
There IS a very slim opportunity for ambiguity, but it's not the one you're suggesting. Because of the parallel structure to "X is ten kg less massive than Y" so, if one is not very perceptive, he might conclude that mass(X) = -9 * mass(Y
Re: (Score:2)
it's part of common language now
How commonly a phrase is used has nothing to do with how useful it. People use out of context or annoyingly vague/misleaning phrasing all the time (especially with regard to percentages in comparisons or in relating a change in size). It's laziness, or sometimes a deliberate attempt to distort. In this case, it's more work to parse the misleading "A is ten times smaller then B" than it is to parse "A is a tenth the size of B." The word smaller, when used along side the multiplier times is used to multiply
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Everybody else understood perfectly that they are now estimated to be between 10% and 50% of the former estimate.
So 10x less massive = n - (1/10)n
2x less massive = n - (1/2)n
and by extension:
1/2x less massive = n - (1/(1/2))n
= n - 2n
If the terminology is used consistently, then that last step doesn't make sense. It also doesn't make sense how "ten times" translates to "one tenth", its inverse.
- RG>
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Math? (Score:4, Insightful)
The 'ambiguity' is a standard phrasing that has been part of the language for more than 100 years. Language is not math, language is not 100% logical. This argument is equivelent to yelling at someone for saying that they're "as hungry as a horse" because they are incapable of eating as much as a typical horse. It's a stupid and pedantic argument that tries to apply strict logic and mathematical rules to a system (language) that does not follow them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
"2 * less" == (x * -1 * -1);
"10 * less" == (x * -1 * -1 * -1 * -1 * -1 * -1 * -1 * -1 * -1 * -1).
Is my guess.
Re:Math? (Score:5, Insightful)
ten times less massive: 1/10 * m
Really, if you want to make it in the world out there, you've gotta get off of your high pedestal, and accept that the scientific world is only a small percentage of the "regular folk" out there. Theoretically, you're right, but practically, noone cares about theory so you're screwed.
Re:Math? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not even uncommon language in science, though maybe you'd be more precise when writing a paper. In this context, "times" is understood as colloquial shorthand for "by a factor of", and factors can be either multiplied or divided, depending on whether it's "greater" or "less" by that factor.
The translation from "two times less massive" to "less massive by a factor of two" is pretty straightforward and easily understood...
Re:Math? (Score:4, Interesting)
The translation from "two times less massive" to "less massive by a factor of two" is pretty straightforward and easily understood...
The real problem happens in the opposite direction. A star that's 200% as massive as the sun is smaller than one that's 150% more massive than the sun, but many people will give the wrong answer if asked.
Re: (Score:2)
Why use percentages in an intentionally confusing and inconsistent way like that?
Re: (Score:3)
Why use percentages in an intentionally confusing and inconsistent way like that?
I don't know, but people do it. When they say things like "n times more than", a slight variation in words might mean either (y = x * n) or (y = x + x * n). I'm not nitpicking, it can be very confusing.
OTOH, when they say "n times less than" it always means (y = x / n), it's only the Slashdot anal-retentive trolls who find any problems about it.
Re:Math? (Score:4, Informative)
It's also a difficulty with language. In physics, mass and weight are two separate concepts. We have comparison words for weight: heavier and lighter. But we do not necessarily have the same comparison words for mass. So we're stuck with the English default construct of more massive and less massive. Sure, we could use lighter in this context and hope everyone understands we really are discussing the concept of mass, not gravitational attractive force to the local big rock, but most physicists dislike that imprecision.
Re: (Score:2)
Really, if you want to make it in the world out there, you've gotta get off of your high pedestal, and accept that the scientific world is only a small percentage of the "regular folk" out there. Theoretically, you're right, but practically, noone cares about theory so you're screwed.
Scientific and mathematical language is precise for a reason, which is that both depend on long chains of rigorous reasoning, and ambiguity wastes the time of the reader at minimum. At worst, it renders the description unusable. This actually matters in science and math. For "regular folk" who just skim superficially from science as a form of entertainment, we could just as well make up something for all the difference it would make.
Your complaint reminds me of the defensive "You know what I meant!" the dum
Re: (Score:2)
Besides you not knowing anything about me, about my education or success, you assume that I am a burger flipper at White Castle or something. You presume that my spelling and grammatical errors are indicative of my intelligence. Well, believe what you want, but by the time your skills in Dutch, German, French and English are as good as mine, please, be free to comment on my grammatical errors. You see, not everyone comes from the land of fatties and diabetics and has English as the
Re: (Score:3)
x^-2
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The pattern "x as massive" isn't the same as the pattern "x times less massive". You understand the first pattern. Now you need to learn the second pattern.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Personally, I'm also bothered when I hear "5 times more". Is it 6 times as much or 5 times as much?
Re:Math? (Score:5, Insightful)
Welcome to the English language, you will notice that it is not actually a branch of Mathematics.
Re: (Score:2)
Fucking Multiplicative inverses.... how do they work?
Re: (Score:2)
Fucking music... how does it work?
Re: (Score:1)
Fucking moon... how did it get there?
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen these popping up lately.
As a non-American, can someone explain it for me? Who is it? My best guess is that it's a ultra-conservative Christian who uses the phrase 'you can't explain that' as evidence of god.
Re: (Score:2)
The Tides references are about Bill O'Reilly, who has cited the behavior of the tides as evidence that there is a god.
"Tide goes in, tide goes out. Never a miscommunication."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BCipg71LbI [youtube.com]
But that's neither here nor there, my joking comment is just to point out that people are making too big of a deal over "times less", which most of us realize is used to express a multiplicative inverse relationship (reciprocal).
As for the "music" comment, don't mistake my reference to ICP as
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
You _can't_ be 2 times less or 10 times less.
You can. However, only a fluent speaker of the English language will understand what you mean when you say that, as the transformation of that into mathematical language is not straightforward.
Re: (Score:2)
My tolerance for this sort of pedantry grows smaller by the day.
Re: (Score:1)
My tolerance for this sort of pedantry grows smaller by the day.
Yeah, my tolerance is ten times smaller than it used to be.
Re: (Score:1)
My tolerance for this sort of pedantry grows smaller by the day.
But how much smaller? 20%? 50%? How are we supposed to know how to correct you if you don't give us these details?
Just as I thought... (Score:2, Funny)
This shows that science is just a mass of arbitrary assertions.
This abject, craven, flip flopping about face allows me to justifiably substitute my own preferred notions into the debate as fact.
This effectively proves that global warming, vaccination, evolution, and all other liberal plots are bald faced lies.
Its an outrage! If scientists can revise their theories based on improved evidence, science is untrustworthy claptrap that must be excluded from debate.
Re: (Score:3)
It's just a really weird defect.
Re:Just as I thought... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Just wait until the mods eventually flip flop on their broken sarcasm detectors.
How does this affect our long term plans? (Score:1)
We will colonize the Galaxy with our chemical rockets and frail bodies that give 10-20 years of useful life at best. How will this change our plans?
Re: (Score:1)
The real question is (Score:5, Funny)
Will MUSE release a followup called "Not So Supermassive - Black Hole"
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately, with this new information, the subject of the song will actually suck less than the Twilight movies.
Glaciers refreezing in the dead of night? (Score:1)
Will MUSE release a followup called "Not So Supermassive - Black Hole"
Or perhaps melting in the light of day? Food for thought!
Not so puny (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I'm not so sure. My latest calculations show you could walk on the surface completeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't the internal structure of a black hole vary with time - and not just trivially?
After all, it takes from now until the end of the universe for something to fall into the event horizon of a black hole, from our perspective.
Doesn't that mean that right now every black hole out there is just a neutron star with one extra electron an infinitesimal distance inside the event horizon radius? Sure, it will become a singularity - but from our perspective perhaps not before it evaporates.
Now, from the perspe
Re: (Score:2)
Here is another way of looking at my argument:
We know that it takes an infinite amount of time from our point of view for a piece of matter to fall one inch beyond the event horizon.
We also know that it takes a finite amount of time from our point of view for the entire black hole to evaporate into Hawking radiation.
So, doesn't it stand to reason that even internally a black hole evaporates before its interior evolves at all? If somebody fell into a very large black hole is it unreasonable for them to see
Phallic similarity? (Score:1)
I am sure there is a great joke here, but I am not witty enough to put it in words
-1 Offtopic, I know.
Anti-Phallic similarity? (Score:2)
We are talking about black holes NOT black pillars...
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but my pillar suddenly seems between 2 and 10 times bigger than before!
dark matter (Score:3)
How would this relate to theories of dark matter? I don't know what formulas they use to determine this so would this lessen the necessity for dark matter or exacerbate the problem further (more dark matter than previously thought), if said formulas are accurate?
Re: (Score:1)
How would this relate to theories of dark matter?
It doesn't. Changing theories of how much of a galaxy's mass is or isn't in its central black hole have no impact on the estimates about of mass of the galaxy, much less the amount of mass in the universe, it only impacts where we think it's located.
2 and 10 (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
You've completely misunderstood. They're not saying a particular black hole is 2 to 10 times smaller than thought, or that all black holes are 2 to 10 times smaller than thought, they're saying some estimates we've made are off by a factor of two, and some are off by a factor of ten, and others are at various places in between. It's like saying people in the audience are between 12 and 77 years old. That doesn't indicate uncertainty, it indicates the fact that the youngest member is 12, and the oldest is
When will we ever learn (Score:2)
This should say, "Supermassive black holes are now thought to be between 2 and 10 times less massive than previously thought..." Scientists would do everyone a favor if they dropped the formula "we used to think, but now we know". Appearing to have certainty about the newest scientific model gives the impression they are little different from the religious believer.
I could have dismissed this as the reporting being at fault, but the abstract ends with "Knowing the rotational velocities, we can derive the ce
Re:When will we ever learn (Score:4, Insightful)
Scientists would do everyone a favor if they dropped the formula "we used to think, but now we know".
Kinda hard to drop something that's never been used.
I could have dismissed this as the reporting being at fault, but the abstract ends with "Knowing the rotational velocities, we can derive the central black-hole masses more accurately; they are two to ten times smaller than has been estimated previously."
Emphasis added. Hope that helps with your parsing problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Moe: Why do you think so?
Larry: I don't think. I know.
Moe: I don't think you know either.
Obligatory (Score:2)
Science reporting (Score:3)
Then we do the same. The interesting results from this paper is a relationship between the spectra of the active galatic nucleus(AGN), which we infer to be a so-called black hole, the motion of the the AGN, and the geometry of the AGN. Given the inferred rotational velocity, the mass of central black-hole can be derived. If all this is true, the mass would be at most an order of magnitude less than previously thought. An order of magnitude correction is significant. It gives us something to test to confirm the assertions of the author. OTHO, I do not see that, in the absence of further work, these results are to be taken at face value that there is an order of magnitude discrepancy in the mass of these AGN.
Things are looking up (Score:5, Funny)
Well, it's nice to know that something in the Universe now sucks less.
Supermassive Black Holes Not So Big After All (Score:2)
this down sizing only applys to distant AGNs (Score:1)
Black hole masses of those measured from nearby systems where Keplerian velocities are resolved will not shrink.
My favorite quote FTA: (Score:2)
"Gas can potentially corrupt results"
Yes it can... especially on a first date.
I want to be the grammar nazi today (Score:1)
Muse has re titled their song (Score:1)
subject (Score:2)
Your mom thought they were pretty big, CmdrTaco.