Astronomers Find Largest Known Extraterrestrial Water Reserve 183
gerddie writes "Two teams of astronomers have discovered the largest and farthest reservoir of water ever detected in the universe. The water, equivalent to 140 trillion times all the water in the world's ocean, surrounds a huge, feeding black hole, called a quasar, more than 12 billion light-years away.
One team, lead by Matt Bradford, made their observations starting in 2008, using an instrument called 'Z-Spec' at the California Institute of Technology's Submillimeter Observatory, a 33-foot (10-meter) telescope near the summit of Mauna Kea in Hawaii. Follow-up observations were made with the Combined Array for Research in Millimeter-Wave Astronomy (CARMA), an array of radio dishes in the Inyo Mountains of Southern California. The second group led, by Dariusz Lisused, used the Plateau de Bure Interferometer in the French Alps to find water. In 2010, this team serendipitously detected water in APM 8279+5255, observing one spectral signature. Bradford's team was able to get more information about the water, including its enormous mass, because they detected several spectral signatures of the water."
The water will be gone (Score:2, Informative)
12 billion light years away means 12 billion years ago. That water will be scattered asunder by now.
Re: (Score:1)
12 billion light years away means 12 billion years ago. That water will be scattered asunder by now.
Very good, you almost understand relativity. Hint: the word "now" in your statement has no meaning.
Re: (Score:2)
He may be correct, so long as he was using the correct place to measure time. "Now" is dependent on your frame of reference, if the frame of reference is earth then "now" there is a metric fuck-ton of water around that super massive black hole, if the frame of reference is there then there may be "now," a lot less. Who know's what "now" via an earth based frame of reference +12 billion years will hold.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Hint: the word "now" in your statement has no meaning.
Sure it does.
If I'm reading this then:
a) I exist
b) The event happened in my recent past.
That narrows it down to within a couple of dozen years from my point of view. That makes perfect sense to me.
Re: (Score:1)
Sure it does.
If I'm reading this then:
a) I exist b) The event happened in my recent past.
That narrows it down to within a couple of dozen years from my point of view. That makes perfect sense to me.
So you don't understand cosmological terminology, then. "Now" means that whatever we see currently, regardless of how long ago it happened (i.e., regardless of distance), is occurring now.
Re: (Score:3)
How can you prove something exists?
Lookin'.
Obligatory [smbc-comics.com]
Re: (Score:2)
a) I exist
Prove that with 100% accuracy.
I kick a chair.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The water will be gone (Score:5, Funny)
12 billion light years away means 12 billion years ago. That water will be scattered asunder by now.
The water will be gathered by the black hole, which is still there. The black hole may contain the rest of the ingredients for Kool Aid.
Probably not as simple as that... (Score:2)
12 billion light years away means 12 billion years ago. That water will be scattered asunder by now.
I wonder if a cosmologist could check the validity of that statement because it seems to neglect universe expansion. Looking online at APM 08279+5255, its redshift is 3.911. Plugging that into wolframalpha indicates the the lookback time is 12bn years, but that the "actual" distance at this time is nearly 23.7bn lightyears. Redshift: http://cdsweb.u-strasbg.fr/cgi-bin/bibobj?2008A%26A...479..703G&APM+08279%2B5255 [u-strasbg.fr] Wolfram: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=redshift+z%3D3.911&a=FSelect_**LookbackT [wolframalpha.com]
that's a lot of water (Score:3, Funny)
we need to make a canal to bring it to earth
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At least 8. I thought they explained the eighth chevron was kind of a galaxy selector, and the 9th defined a target that was constantly on the move.
Feeding? (Score:5, Funny)
In this particular case, I think it's a drinking black hole.
PA-DUM-PUM!
Re: (Score:2)
I strongly suggest that they search for certain hydro-carbon compounds. "Drinking" black hole may have to be revised into "Drunk" black hole.
Re:Feeding? (Score:5, Funny)
...may have to be revised into "Drunk" black hole.
Nah, I bet that black hole can hold its liquor ;-)
Re: (Score:3)
With added benefit of not having to pee.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
With added benefit of not having to pee.
Well there are two enormous jets of material that are light years long coming out of both sides of a quasar. http://www.google.com/search?q=quasar&tbm=isch [google.com]
One might say it is leaking from both ends so to speak...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Boy, when that black hole gets drunk he is a real asshole.
Re: (Score:2)
John Collins, is that you!?
FTFY
Bottled by Time Machine (Score:2)
"Quasar Springs, all natural reverse-spring water. Our time reversal process uses the natural opposite of springs to bring crisp taste to your table, fresh from not being inside a black hole yet, and at under 99 quadrillion bitcoins per serving."
Discoveries which are economically exploitable (like the discovery of North America) tend to generate more interest. Also and also to be ruined. We'd find some way to spill something into the ocean nebula.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Giant Space Ocean? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
"300 trillion times less dense than Earth's atmosphere,"
Re: (Score:2)
It's not really "in the middle of space". Off to one side a bit, actually.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not really "in the middle of space". Off to one side a bit, actually.
Actually, I think that every point in the universe could be considered the center (aka the middle of space.)
Re: (Score:2)
That's what they say about us. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Now, imagine life evolved there...
Re: (Score:2)
Now, imagine life evolved there...
...And due to the time dilation effects of intense gravity wells, we can simply travel to the black-hole, extract their quantum holographic imprint that still exists at the event horizon, and study them (in roughly one more Universe worth of time, providing it takes us about one billion years to create Light-Speed travel.)
Re: (Score:2)
It can't be moving away from us at more than twice the speed of light. Even if we were moving at just ander the speed of light in one direction and it is moving at just under the speed of light in the opposite direction, thats still just under twice the speed of light.
Re: (Score:2)
It can't be moving away from us at more than twice the speed of light. Even if we were moving at just ander the speed of light in one direction and it is moving at just under the speed of light in the opposite direction, thats still just under twice the speed of light.
IANAPhysicist, but the object itself is not moving FTL with respect to the space around it, but the space itself is expanding. Here is some reading the corroborates this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space [wikipedia.org] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light#Universal_expansion [wikipedia.org] http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=575 [cornell.edu] "While special relativity constrains objects in the universe from moving faster than the speed of light with respect to each other, there is no such theoretical
Re: (Score:2)
It is thus possible for two very distant objects to be moving away from each other at a speed greater than the speed of light (meaning that one cannot be observed from the other).
So if it's moving away from us at 2x the speed of light, how did we see it?
Come again (Score:2)
The light left it long ago, when it was much closer.
Let us say it started out a foot away from me. Since it "started" in the big bang which is what started to expansion, from the first moment it is supposedly moving away from me at 2x the speed of light.
Now how, even one foot away, will that light reach me if the light it pushes "out" is also receding from me at the speed of light?
Perhaps this is some aspects of the physics of light I do not understand, but I don't see how something can reach when when mov
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for the very interesting link. It is indeed true that you can exceed the speed of light from the perspective of a distant observer... the only restriction is you cannot exceed the speed of light within your local space-time reference frame.
I like to think of space-time not as a sheet that gets warped, but as a dynamic, flowing thing, like a river. Space-time flows towards objects with mass, and free-falling objects are stationary with reference to the flowing space-time river. Standing on the surf
Re: (Score:2)
Don't objects slow down as they approach light speed?
Re:Giant Space Ocean? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not so much an "ocean"; the water is in the form of vapor, not liquid. It doesn't even look like a cloud, which is condensed water droplets. The density is most likely lower than the best vacuum we've ever pulled on earth. It's a lot of water, but a LOT of space.
Re: (Score:2)
So basically, there's a freakin' huge ocean floating around (well, falling into a black hole) out in the middle of space?
Ka- WOOSH!
Sweet! (Score:2)
At last (Score:5, Funny)
Re:At last (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No.
Next question?
Re: (Score:2)
Define "down"
Re: (Score:2)
Fish in Space!!! (Score:1)
I think I've seen this before... (Score:2)
"The water, equivalent to 140 trillion times all the water in the world's ocean, surrounds a huge, feeding black hole"
Sounds like the business model of the movie "Waterworld," if you ask me...
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like the business model of the movie "Waterworld," if you ask me
I will take 40% profit pretty much any day.
Maybe means finding life now more likely? (Score:2)
I have always hoped we would eventually discover proof of life elsewhere in the universe. Maybe this means it is a bit more likely?
Re: (Score:1)
Doesn't mean it's any more likely. Water is known to be quite abundant in the universe. While finding a whole shitload circling around a black hole is pretty cool, it would be more significant to find a shitload of water on a planet in the so called "Goldilocks Zone" around certain types of stars—for at least the type of life that we know of.
Speed of light (Score:1)
Battle Los Angeles (Score:1)
Someone should go nail this article to the foreheads of everyone involved in creating the movie Battle Los Angeles (in which aliens invade earth in order to steal all of our precious, precious water).
and if the waters gets sucked in?? (Score:3)
galactic enema?
Re: (Score:3)
galactic enema?
Nah, more like pressure fusion steam cleaning. If it's crowded, the matter falling in to the black hole reaches billion of degrees, molecules breaking up, electrons ripped from atoms, nuclei fusing into new elements, before being ripped apart again by tidal forces (something like 10% of the matter is converted to energy per E=mc^2, when falling into a black hole in an accretion disk).
And if it's not crowded enough for it to get hot, then the lone water molecules will get ripped apart by tidal forces anyway,
33ft = 10m? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
33 ft = slightly over 10 meters.
Maybe you are confusing meters and yards?
It Figures (Score:1)
It all goes down the drain..
Okaaaaayyyy... (Score:2)
The water, equivalent to 140 trillion times all the water in the world's ocean, surrounds a huge, feeding black hole, called a quasar, more than 12 billion light-years away.
So a feeding black hole is called a quasar... thanks for the *great* summary!
long time ago ... (Score:1)
12 billion light-years away
Then it means there was water there 12 billion years ago. Is there any left?
Reservoir? (Score:2)
Doesn't "reservoir" imply it's reachable, usable as a water reserve? This water was rotating a black hole 12 billion years ago, and was probably all sucked up by the hole or the water molecules ripped apart in the quasar jets by 11.999 billion years ago. I don't think "reservoir" is quite a right word here.
SURFS UP! (Score:2)
140 trillion times all the water in the world's ocean + huge "tidal" forces from a huge, feeding black hole = KOWABUNGA DUDE!
Somehow there is a Disney movie in here somewhere.
"Space Surfers of APM 8279+5255"... OK its only a working title...
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.
Re: (Score:2)
The black hole will still be there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The black hole is one of those monstrous supermassive black holes at the center of active galaxies. The only known way such a black hole would disappear would be by means of Hawking radiation, however, since the black hole is so big and hence so cold (about 6.46e-17 K), it would today actually be absorbing more radiation from the cosmic microwave background (at 2.7 K) than it would be emitting from Hawking radiation, meaning that it would actually be getting bigger (slowly though) even if it were in empty s
Re: (Score:2)
"Now" = the time it would be 12 billion light-years from here if we could relocate objects without pushing them around through the intervening space. There are other frameworks conceivable for looking at the universe besides spacetime. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Inconceivable != what you think it means
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
That's easy. The third planet from Sol has huge oceans of the stuff, and rivers of it that don't contain much salt at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like the stupid race (who has somehow managed to survive and even understand the universe) will have to make do on Earth.
None but a fool would put all their eggs in one basket.... and do you really want Mr. T after you?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not an egg. If the whole basket breaks, who will be around to miss them? Nobody! Which makes the 'eggs-in-basket' analogy rather inaccurate.
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceres_(dwarf_planet) [wikipedia.org]
Ceres has a great deal of water on it, some say possibly more
fresh water than the earth has.
"200 million cubic kilometres of water, which is more than the amount of fresh water on the Earth."
Re: (Score:2)
& can teach us a thing or two about how to co-exist with others like ourselves, in peaceful cooperation, instead of wars & such
Why would a creature nothing at all like us have the faintest idea, let alone interest in, how to teach us about ourselves? It's like me trying to teach my dog to be a dog. It doesn't work. I can train her. I can correct her. I can reward her. But she will always be what she was born to be, and she will always have the urge to strain at the leash to play with other dogs she sees on the street.
It seems to me that you're looking for the magical beard in the sky here - the wise old man that will make e
Re: (Score:1)
If your life were "FINE" you wouldn't be spending it posting this kind of incoherent, rambling drivel on Slashdot.
Laughter is Life (as we know it) (Score:2)
"Hopefully though, they're NOTHING LIKE US (or rather, the bogus side of us that is), & can teach us a thing or two about how to co-exist with others like ourselves, in peaceful cooperation, instead of wars & such! I think the "real answers" for us, as humanity, won't come from us here, or they would have by now!"
Considering much of industrialized US-centered humanity has been busy wiping out extra-terrestrial ocean-based alien intelligences like octopods and whales, and terrestrial ones like trumpe
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
We eat food because we're animals. We seek knowledge because we're humans.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We seek knowledge so we can FIND OR MAKE MORE FOOD so we can MAKE MORE PEOPLE. I want them to find the CHON floating around in the OORT cloud.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And does anyone else here share the stupendous wonder at life evolving with such a profound desire to know itself and its environment's outer reaches? So profound, in fact, that even in the midst of our darkest hours we still look to the stars for knowledge and the discovery of unimaginable beauty.
We are stardust evolving into self knowledge as we marvel at our own nature. There's little else that is quite as miraculous.
Re: (Score:2)
His answer was meaningful; you just don't understand it. It's "curiosity": wanting to know things regardless of whether they'll be immediately useful. It's a sign of intelligence, and you probably exhibit it in other areas (though perhaps not, some people just lack curiosity altogether). You don't seem particularly "interested in knowing" what the use of this is (as you assert); you're pretty sure you already know the answer, and you're challenging someone else to "admit" that it doesn't qualify as somet
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
For a 'normal' answer, maybe try:
We can better see the proportion of water in the universe, and therefore indirectly deduce other stuff, perhaps say, a more accurate origin of the universe (which in turn will help us unify physics and where the universe is heading, which in turn will give us better technology for other things, which in turn will make us use said technology to stimulate our 5 senses, which in turn will make us happier, and that's where we reach the end of the line, as happiness *really is* t
Re: (Score:2)
Because the more we know about everything, the easier it is to make things that do benefit us. It's impossible to say how this benefits us now but knowing more about how our universe works is always useful. Trying to put a dollar value on knowledge means we'll move more slowly than if we just try and understand it all and let genuises take the bits they need to make things better for all of us.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
It tells us something about how the first stars evolved. That puts constraints on the physical models we use for stellar evolution and also of... well, physics. We can't create universes (yet), so the only way to know what happened during the Big Bang is to study what happened shortly thereafter, and to make sure that our theories of physics make predictions that are in accordance with our observations of the early universe. We now have some new obs
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
what's the benefit for us here on Earth?
Without such knowledge, we would still think the sun goes around the earth, there are only 5 planets which also orbit the earth, the moon is a god, the sun is a god, and there are no real stars just tiny white dots painted on the teeny shell wrapped around our solar system, which is also the entire universe, and which is only 6000 years old.
Such knowledge moved us from the center of a very tiny universe, out to a fairly unimportant rock orbiting a fairly standard star, about half way out from the center of
Re: (Score:2)
Convenient for rather large values of convenient. Though I do agree, I wanna take my asteroid mining ship out and make my fortune.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it won't be water by that point, just a bunch of smushed-together quarks of various flavors.
Re: (Score:3)
There is only one ocean on Earth. The existence of several large landmasses isolating parts of that ocean from each other make it convenient to refer to the various part of the ocean by different names (Atlantic, Pacific, Indian, etc), but it's all one intermingling body of water.
Re: (Score:2)
If we irrigate all of Earth's deserts, the whole Earth is going to heat up. When the sand stops reflecting the Sun's rays back out into space, and the plants absorb the heat instead, it's going to get pretty hot. Add a bunch of water into the mix and it might get a bit more humid too... Not to mention that sea level might be a bit higher, cramping everyone closer together.
I don't know about you, but I don't want to live on that Earth. I'd rather we not bring that alien water to our planet; instead, use our
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt we could answer that one way or another (as we can't resolve the object well enough at those distances) but first, we need to determine which direction is up, and which is down. We have people even on Earth who don't agree on that one.
http://flourish.org/upsidedownmap/ [flourish.org]