Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space News

Mysterious Stars Surround Andromeda's Black Hole 341

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the hot-young-stars dept.
UltimaGuy writes to tell us that Yahoo is running a story about a recent discovery that shows the source of strange blue light coming from the center of the Andromeda galaxy. The light is actually a cluster of stars circling the galaxy's central black hole with immense orbital velocity. From the article: "Such frenetic activity was thought to prevent star formation. Stars form when a knot of gas and dust collapses under its own gravity."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mysterious Stars Surround Andromeda's Black Hole More

Mysterious Stars Surround Andromeda's Black Hole

Comments Filter:

  • Duh. (Score:5, Funny)

    by ackthpt ( 218170 ) * on Wednesday September 21, 2005 @12:02PM (#13614840) Homepage Journal
    strange blue light coming from the center of the Andromeda galaxy.

    It's the resurgence of K-Mart!

    • > > strange blue light coming from the center of the Andromeda galaxy.
      >
      >It's the resurgence of K-Mart!

      I'm thinking more like blue as in Vedrans, powered by the rapid rotation of Gene Roddenberry's corpse, and all centered around a 140-million solar-mass abyss of suck.

      "That's no resurgence of K-Mart. It's the restoration of the K-ommonwealth!" (You GNOME types, stay out of this!)


      • I'm thinking more like blue as in Vedrans, powered by the rapid rotation of Gene Roddenberry's corpse, and all centered around a 140-million solar-mass abyss of suck.

        I think they are just trying to make a new baby galaxy!
    • "Don't follow the light"
      "I can't help it..."

    • Re:Duh. (Score:4, Funny)

      by Profane MuthaFucka ( 574406 ) <busheatskok@gmail.com> on Wednesday September 21, 2005 @12:14PM (#13614957) Homepage Journal
      The Sears/KMart merger caused the resulting mass of "suck" to collapse into a gigantic black hole, composed of pure suckiness. The proposed Northwest/Delta airline merger will do a similar thing, providing a rare opportunity to observe a black hole of suckiness in the process of formation.

    • Re:Duh. (Score:2)

      by Rei ( 128717 )
      No, no, no. You see, when an object moves away from you, it gets "red shifted", while when it moves toward you, light coming from it gets "blue shifted". Andromeda, a galaxy famous for its bad acting, must have its stars move rapidly toward the viewers, lest they get sucked into the soulless black hole residing in its core that has already consumed much of the galaxy's ratings.
    • "Mysterious Stars Surround Andromeda's Black Hole"

      My guess: R. Kelly

    • Yet another gaping hole... (Score:5, Funny)

      by shrubya ( 570356 ) on Wednesday September 21, 2005 @01:37PM (#13615660) Homepage Journal
      ...in the so-called "Theory" of Gravity. (what, did you think I was going to say goatse?)

      When will those fancy-pants university astrologers accept the truth of Intelligent Falling [google.com]. It's in all the news, so it must be true.

  • Heavy elements (Score:3, Interesting)

    by pcraven ( 191172 ) <[moc.ylimafnevarc] [ta] [luap]> on Wednesday September 21, 2005 @12:05PM (#13614864) Homepage
    Speaking of stars, what is the source of the heavier elements? I thought most came from star fusion, but I don't think that can account for all the elements. Plus planets seem to have a higher distribution than hydrogen-rich stars.

    • Elements past iron (Score:5, Informative)

      by benhocking ( 724439 ) <benjaminhocking.yahoo@com> on Wednesday September 21, 2005 @12:08PM (#13614893) Homepage Journal

      Elements past iron can only be created in a supernova explosion. Google on "supernova elements" for more information. Of course, the element synthesis during a supernova explosion is due to fusion, but I'm not sure one could call it "star fusion".

      • Re:Elements past iron (Score:5, Informative)

        by MaskedSlacker ( 911878 ) on Wednesday September 21, 2005 @12:11PM (#13614922)
        Actually its neutron accretion that produces elements heavier than iron, not fusion. Iron disintegrates at temperatures lower than what it will fuse at.

        • You, sir, (Score:3, Insightful)

          by benhocking ( 724439 )
          are correct. Thanks for the correction.
        • Wouldn't neutron accretion be the fusion of a heavy element with hydrogen?

          • Re:Elements past iron (Score:5, Informative)

            by MaskedSlacker ( 911878 ) on Wednesday September 21, 2005 @12:47PM (#13615217)
            No, because hydrogen is a single proton, not a single neutron. I forget the exact mechanics of neutron accretion, as its not my field of direct study, but it occurs in two forms, the r-process (rapid) and the s-process(slow) (we physicists are not known for being creative with names). The r-process occurs in supernovae when heavy nuclei are bombarded by many neutrons, ad rather than splitting the target nuclei, the neutrons stick (at the same time the nuclei are radiating particles away, but not as fast as they are gaining them). Once the process stops, the new, super neutron rich nuclei give off beta radiation (changing neturons into protons) until they reach a stable configuration. The s-process occurs in large, but otherwise stable stars. This process however only produces elements as heavy as lead. Anything heavier is produced by the r-process.
            • we physicists are not known for being creative with names

              Better than astronomers/cosmologists who call carbon a metal and a free neutron "non-baryonic". Being creative with *existing* terms is not a Good Thing.
          • Wouldn't neutron accretion be the fusion of a heavy element with hydrogen?
            An ordinary hydrogen nucleus is a proton.
    • And just why don't you think fusion can account for all the elements?

      The higher distribution of heavy elements is not surprising at all... lighter elements easily escape the light gravity of the smaller planets. The gas giants, on the other hand hava a composition much more similar to stars.
      • Once the star gets to iron, doesn't it stop? I didn't think you could sustain fusion with iron.
        • It's not like the entire star turns to iron.... it's an extremely tiny fraction of the mass of the star that gets converted to heavier elements. Don't forget that the sun is not an especially large star, but it's mass is 168,334.136 [google.com] times the mass of all the inner planets combined

    • Re:Heavy elements (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      There are several methods for the creation of elements including the r-process (supernovae), the s-process (red giants), the cosmic ray interaction, and the big bang. See this thread for more information:

      http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=249157 [bautforum.com]

      and wikipedia:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleosynthesis [wikipedia.org]

    • Re:Heavy elements (Score:3, Informative)

      by cswiger2005 ( 905744 )
      The initial gas mix of stars is approximately 95% Hydrogen (H) and about 5% Helium (He), with a very tiny fraction of Lithium and heavier elements. Anything heavier than Helium is considered a "metal" to an astronomer, BTW.

      Stars produce the most energy by fusing H into He, and they can also gain some energy by fusing heavier elements, but the amount of energy declines until you reach Iron (Fe), after which fusion no longer results in an energy gain. Once a star starts having a lot of Fe in its c

  • Cold fucking cathode (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 21, 2005 @12:07PM (#13614887)
    Stinking ricers have taken over a whole galaxy. If you think galactic undercarriage lighting is bad, wait till you hear them blasting that galactic bass late at night.

  • Get it right.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by beldraen ( 94534 ) <chad,montplaisir&gmail,com> on Wednesday September 21, 2005 @12:10PM (#13614908)
    Stars form when a knot of gas and dust collapses under its own gravity.

    No... Stars form however they damn well please. Our current models suggest it is done under their own gravity, but our models are not reality. They are our understanding of reality and are modified or thrown out when we find our understanding is wrong. The universe is always right.

    P.S. Sorry, it's one of my pet pieves when someone says "that not how physics works!"

    • Re:Get it right.. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Shadow Wrought ( 586631 ) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .thguorw.wodahs.> on Wednesday September 21, 2005 @12:18PM (#13614991) Homepage Journal
      Our current models suggest it is done under their own gravity, but our models are not reality.

      Physicists see equations as a reflection of reality.
      Engineers see reality as a reflection of equations.
      Mathematicians haven't made the connection.

      • Re:Get it right.. (Score:5, Funny)

        by lgw ( 121541 ) on Wednesday September 21, 2005 @01:17PM (#13615488) Journal
        One night a physisist, and engineer, and a mathematician each awoke to a fire in their kitchen. The physisist calculated the precise amount of water necessary to extinguish the fire, measure out just that amount of water, poured it on the fire, and went back to bed. The engineer poour water on the fire till is went out, added some mor for good measure, then went back to bed. The mathematician proved that is was possible to extinguish fire with water, then went back to bed.
      • A physicist, mathematician, priest and lawyer were arguing about whose profession was older.

        The physicist noted that even apes study their world, which was the fundamental practice of a physicist; thusly certainly theirs was the first profession.

        The mathematician retorted that even simple animals could count, such as to check whether all their children remained, and that since counting was the basis of study, his occupation surely was older.

        The priest remarked that more primal was to sort normalcy from chao
    • I have no problem with what you said. In fact, I totally agree. But your signature... is wrong. It's like... that's obviously what Isaac meant. He, you, or I could stand on the shoulders of giants at any time we choose. If you're standing on the shoulders of idiots it means you did it to yourself.

    • Re:Get it right.. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ifwm ( 687373 ) on Wednesday September 21, 2005 @12:24PM (#13615040) Journal
      "No... Stars form however they damn well please"

      No, stars form however the rules of the universe allow them to.

      P.S. Sorry, but it's one of my pet peeves when people anthropomorphize inanimate objects.

      • Re:Get it right.. (Score:5, Funny)

        by Rorschach1 ( 174480 ) on Wednesday September 21, 2005 @12:41PM (#13615171) Homepage
        Yeah, and the inanimate objects don't like it either.
      • No, stars form however the rules of the universe allow them to.

        I hate it when people anthropomorphize the universe.

      • Re:Get it right.. (Score:3, Insightful)

        by FreeUser ( 11483 )
        No, stars form however the rules of the universe allow them to.

        P.S. Sorry, but it's one of my pet peeves when people anthropomorphize inanimate objects.

        It is currently an unknown as to whether or not stars are living beings or inanimate objects. Our understanding of plasma physics and the internal electrical structure of stars is simply too small to tell for certain.

        P.S. Sorry, but it's one of my pet peeves when peope assume we know more than we do.

        (this is a little tongue in cheeck, but only a little: I d

        • Re:Get it right.. (Score:3, Insightful)

          by ifwm ( 687373 )
          How exactly could I prove stars are NOT intelligent? You do realize you can't prove a negative.

          In your rush to appear smart, you made a classic mistake. Next time think it through a bit more.

      • Re:Get it right.. (Score:3, Insightful)

        by greg_barton ( 5551 )
        No, stars form however the rules of the universe allow them to.

        P.S. Sorry, but it's one of my pet peeves when people anthropomorphize inanimate objects.

        And you know for a fact that stars are not intelligent and self aware?

        P.S. Sorry, but it's one of my pet peeves when people deny out of hand the possibility of intelligence beyond humans.
    • P.S. Sorry, it's one of my pet pieves when someone says "that not how physics works!"

      I guess you really didn't like Einstein then?

      Stars form however they damn well please
      Unless you can prove otherwise, I am pretty sure Stars don't "please" to do anything. Also, do you have a better - scientifically accepted model as to a stars formation? If you don't have that, can you at least scientifically prove the current understanding is wrong?
      If you cannot do these things, you should not really speak

      • Also, do you have a better - scientifically accepted model as to a stars formation?

        To nitpic, you asked the question wrong. It should be "Do you have a model of star formation that doesn't contradict any known facts, that you are working on getting accepted?" Clearly whatever his model is, it is not currently accepted. Science itself will admit the possibility that the current theories are wrong. So we need to give this guy the benefit of the doubt, if by some chance he has a model that is differen

    • They are our understanding of reality and are modified or thrown out when we find our understanding is wrong. The universe is always right.

      True, but first we have to determine that our understanding is wrong, and this isn't just an unforeseen/unpredicted case within the current system.

  • Neato. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Pxtl ( 151020 ) on Wednesday September 21, 2005 @12:11PM (#13614928) Homepage
    Sounds similar to Saturn's rings. A ton of matter spread into teeny blocks in space by tidal forces, but still with enough mass to pull together into a bazillion little blobs. Perhaps the radiant matter/antimatter/energy from the black hole (I'm fuzzy on Hawking's theory on the subject) is heating the surrounding star-spray enough to light some of them?
    • The intensity of Hawking radiation falls away rapidly with with size. Only miniscule black holes shine brightly and quickly "evaporate". Large ones like this radiate incredibly faintly due to the intense gravity gradient near the event horizon.

      Meanwhile there's massive gamma-ray radiation from the acretion disc due to plain old friction outside of the event horizon (nothing to do with Hawking radiation though).
    • I think that the supermassive black holes that tend to be at the center of galaxies would actually "emit" less energetic photons than a smaller black hole because the energy per photon emitted via the hawking radiation model is inversely proportional to the black hole's radius.

  • Hubble (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bonhamme Richard ( 856034 ) on Wednesday September 21, 2005 @12:12PM (#13614930)
    Just another example of how valuable Hubble is.

    Its too bad we only have one giant eye in the sky...

    • Re:Hubble (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ifwm ( 687373 )
      If I have one major quibble with NASA, it's not blowing up astronauts, but losing Hubble. It seems like the Hubble puts out new stuff all the time, and some if it is absolutely amazing. I think they got their priorities wrong with that decision.

  • One black hole (Score:5, Funny)

    by Black Parrot ( 19622 ) on Wednesday September 21, 2005 @12:13PM (#13614944)


    To rule them all,
    And in the Darkness bind them.

  • I like this one... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by kkek ( 916245 )
    I Loved this link at the bottom of the article... Survival Tips for Black Hole Travelers [space.com]
    ... Since that has SO much to do with a cluster of stars in another galaxy.
    • Since that has SO much to do with a cluster of stars in another galaxy.

      But these stars orbit a black hole. Better understanding of the black hole makes a better understanding of this star cluster.

  • Well... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by slobber ( 685169 ) on Wednesday September 21, 2005 @12:16PM (#13614979)
    IANAA, but could these stars have formed prior to being caught by the gravity of that black hole?

    • Re:Well... (Score:5, Informative)

      by swelke ( 252267 ) on Wednesday September 21, 2005 @01:28PM (#13615578) Homepage Journal
      That's quite possible. If they formed in a wider orbit around the black hole, for example, they could well have been caught by tidal drag and slowly moved into lower orbits.

      The real question is how they can exist at all in such a low orbit (or, more accurately, how they can exist in such a strong gravity gradient). What happens is that if they tidal difference between the two sides of the star (the difference between the black hole's gravity at the closest edge of the star and that on the furthest edge) exceeds the star's escape velocity, matter will be able to leave the star and it just falls apart. The implication (which the Yahoo! article was too low-tech to get right) was that the stars must be very dense. A dense star will have both (a) less distance between that nearest and furthest edge and (b) a steeper gravity well for material to get out of in the first place.

      The other interesting bit is the rather close estimate of the black hole's mass. Most of the other estimates of galactic center black hole masses I've seen are based on things orbiting them far more distantly, such as 10-100 light years.

  • Get your tin foil hats (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Perl-Pusher ( 555592 ) on Wednesday September 21, 2005 @12:19PM (#13614997)
    "Such frenetic activity was thought to prevent star formation. Stars form when a knot of gas and dust collapses under its own gravity."

    Maybe this group of stars is not a natural phenomena? Que the twilight zone theme.

    All kidding aside, they could have formed outside the vicinty and got pulled in. What keeps them from ripping apart from tidal forces is interests me.

  • It's the terrible secret of space!

  • power center of advanced civilization (Score:5, Interesting)

    by peter303 ( 12292 ) on Wednesday September 21, 2005 @12:20PM (#13615008)
    If it appears to be physically difficult to explain these stars, perhaps it is an artificial constuction. I'd expect an advanced extra-terrestial civilization to exploit the immense power of the galactic core black hole. Who knows what they are doing with it? Sustanence? Wormhole transport? Communication? Entertainment? Maybe one hundred infant stars whizzing around the center has something to do with this.

    • bad explanation? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by peter303 ( 12292 ) on Wednesday September 21, 2005 @12:24PM (#13615041)
      My explanation is almost as bad as the fundamentalists. If something complicated happens, they say God made it rather some scientific explantion. I'm just substituting advanced aliens for God.

      • Re:bad explanation? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by thesandtiger ( 819476 ) on Wednesday September 21, 2005 @02:41PM (#13616260)
        That's a fair statement, except for one thing:

        We know we exist, and we advance. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to think that it is possible that other species, like us, exist, and are just more advanced.

        However, we've absolutely no reason what-so-ever to believe in god. We don't see little gods, running around, creating things out of thin air, so what possible reason for extrapolating to a bigger/more advanced god is there?

    • It's a reality show. Each week, one star gets voted into the black hole.

      You know that if we could do this, we would.

  • Secondary eddies (Score:5, Interesting)

    by revscat ( 35618 ) on Wednesday September 21, 2005 @12:45PM (#13615193) Journal
    Like most of the morons around here, I am not a physicist, but I'm going to toss and idea out there anyhoo.

    I've noticed that sometimes when dealing with spiral phenomena (hurricanes, tornadoes, whirlpools, etc.) there are secondary, much smaller spirals that are thrown off from the main body. Could this be in effect here? Could the black hole be throwing off gravitational "eddies" that cause stars to be formed?

  • Thats just rude (Score:3, Funny)

    by waterlogged ( 210759 ) <crussey@hotmail.COFFEEcom minus caffeine> on Wednesday September 21, 2005 @12:48PM (#13615228)
    "Mysterious Stars Surround Andromeda's Black Hole"

    Thats just rude to refer to Kevin Sorbo's career that way. Sure I know he sucks in stars that are never heard from again, but thats no cause to put the man down.

  • Nasa site had this as well (Score:3, Informative)

    by qray ( 805206 ) on Wednesday September 21, 2005 @01:14PM (#13615460)
    An artist's rendition on their picture of the day:

    http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_ feature_411.html [nasa.gov]
    --
    fu

  • I read TA and have a theory and a question; (Score:3)

    by Progman3K ( 515744 ) on Wednesday September 21, 2005 @03:29PM (#13616633)
    Some black hole rotation could be caused by matter falling onto the event-horizon, imparting its kinetic energy onto the black hole, causing it to start turning.
    I can imagine that as a method to start black-hole rotation, but what I can't figure out is why a black hole such as cygnus x1 ISN'T rotating.
    Maybe cygnus x1 originally inherited its progenitor-star's rotation, but matter falling on the even-horizon since has braked the rotation? Doesn't seem likely...

Slashdot Top Deals

Single tasking: Just Say No.

Close