ABOUT COSMIC LOG

Quantum fluctuations in space, science, exploration and other cosmic fields... served up regularly by MSNBC.com science editor Alan Boyle since 2002.

Alan Boyle covers the physical sciences, anthropology, technological innovation and space science and exploration for MSNBC.com. He is a winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society Award and other honors; a contributor to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.

Check out Boyle's biography or send a message to Cosmic Log via cosmiclog@msnbc.com.



Galaxy goes on the black hole diet

Posted: Thursday, June 19, 2008 7:50 PM by Alan Boyle


NASA / JPL-Caltech / CXC / ESA / CfA
Click for video: This composite image of
the spiral galaxy M81 incorporates X-ray,
visible-light, infrared and ultraviolet observations.
Click on the image for a video report from
msnbc.com's Keva Andersen.

The latest X-ray view of a photogenic galaxy shows that the feeding habits of black holes are the same, whether they're 10 times or 70 million times as massive as the sun.

Black holes are thought to come in all sizes, from supermicro proton-size to supermassive galaxy-size. But are all black holes alike? Albert Einstein thought so: General relativity suggests that the collapsed singularities are simple things, varying only in how big they are and how much they spin.

Some astronomers have taken issue with Einstein, however. Stellar-mass black holes are in settings that are much different from galaxy-scale black holes, which might lead to differences in diet and behavior: The smaller ones suck in whirling disks of gas from their companion stars, while the bigger ones feed on the material surrounding them at the dense cores of galaxies.

In an effort to shed new light on a black hole's digestive routine, astronomers observed the spiral galaxy M81, about 12 million light-years from Earth, using NASA's Chandra X-Ray Observatory as well as three radio-telescope arrays, two millimeter-wave telescope arrays and the infrared camera at the Lick Observatory.

In a paper due to appear in The Astrophysical Journal, the international research team reports that M81's monster black hole behaves much the same as stellar-mass suckers, in their pattern of activity as well as in the distribution of radiation given off as whipped-up material falls into the singularity.

"This confirms that the feeding patterns for black holes of different sizes can be very similar," Sera Markoff of the University of Amsterdam's Astronomical Institute, the leader of the study, said in a Chandra news release. "We thought this was the case, but up until now we haven't been able to nail it."

The study confirms earlier work by Andrea Merloni of Germany's Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics and his colleagues: The new model fleshes out the details, using more detailed observations made simultaneously by different telescopes.

X-ray emissions are the hallmark of a black hole's activity, which is why the Chandra observations were key to the latest study. Other wavelengths show up to varying degrees in different regions around the black hole (which emits no radiation on its own):

  • A thin disk of material swirling around the singularity shows up in visible light and X-rays.
  • A region of hot gas emits ultraviolet and X-ray light.
  • The top and bottom jets generated by a black hole produces radio waves and X-rays.

"When we look at the data, it turns out that our model works just as well for the giant black hole in M81 as it does for the smaller guys," said the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Michael Nowak, a co-author of the study. "Everything around this huge black hole looks just the same, except it's almost 10 million times bigger."

If astronomers confirm that the model holds true for all black holes, that could help them confirm the existence of a mysterious intermediate class of black holes. Some candidates for the midsize class have already been identified, but researchers are debating whether they're actually black holes or examples of other cosmic phenomena. Closer observations could reveal whether the objects are following the required black hole diet.

If you're dying to beef up the black-hole content in your information diet, check out these archived stories on the subject - including reports that let you listen to a black hole's emissions and even tell you the key of a black hole's song. And if it's glittering views of the M81 galaxy you're looking for, we've got those too.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

Alan, I love the Universe as Digestive Tract analogy...kinda Humanizes the whole SheBang...
don'tcha think?
have a click on my name to check out something new along the same Humanizing lines from SmythSpace...
gotta love serendipity...even whan ya gotta work at making it happen...semi-serendipitousness?
Wouldn't it me marvelous if we could manufacture miniscule black holes and harness the power from the jets of energy emitted from them?
So the gist of this is that falling into a hole left by uncovering a sewer manhole is basically the same as falling into a hole left by emptying your pool.  I'll have to see if I can find out what the expectations were.  I'll check back for links if any of you know what different things were expected by some.
How does a mass as small as a proton have enough gravity associated with it to become a black hole?  I must misunderstand what a black hole is.
Richard,
Black holes that small cannot come to exist in "the normal way" of stellar evolution.  Their existance is theorized as the result of high energy interactions.  I think they're temporary, having insufficient real mass to sustain themselves, and I don't think they're real black holes but rather naked singularities.  If I understand it correctly we could aim two beams at a point and if we get lucky enough for the stuff of the beams to interact in just the right way, a local gravity anomaly produces a naked singularity for micro-, maybe even milli-, seconds.  It would have the effect of sending out a short burst, catastrophic, gravity wave.  It's one of the many mathmatically possible gravity weapons, most of which fit securely under the heading of "suicide gun."
Making one of these singularities makes all the sense of burning propane to run a refrigerator.  By the way, that's the way camper fridges used to work.  For this to work we'd need to be able to convert energy to gravity, which is what unified theory is all about.  Can it be done?  Maybe.  Should it be done?  Not near my planet.
Such a good question, Richard.  I've just had a mild panic attack from being so unsure after I posted my last comment.  A lot of that is from years back and fuzzy in my head.  So I looked in the universally accepted as always correct because somebody took the time to write it Wikipedia.  They listed a primordial or mini black hole.  It's possible for them to evaporate away.  Neither of these things is what I was thinking.  And they have them as possibly produced by high energy particle interactions.  I was thinking energy beams, but particles could work.  I don't see how you could get particle beams to produce a real black hole.  Even if you collapsed the earth down to black hole density, it still only has the mass of the earth.  It might fit in a teaspoon so you could get a lot closer to it's center.  In that event standing on the surface of the earth would crush you, but I think you wouldn't have a dense enough gravity field to create a horizon.  That's a gut feeling, no math.  But my gut says no black hole, just a hole.  I'd expect it to pull in most passing stuff closer than a few hundred yards.  The moon, of course would be completely unaffected.  Even if it were a black hole.  Because it's still just the mass of the earth.
Back to your original question, though.  There's a lot of empty space in an atom.  In a simple hydrogen atom, all the space not taken up by the proton and the electron is just empty space.  In a black hole that empty space would go away.  What happens then is anyone's guess.  The obvious answer is that a hydrogen atom would take up the volume of a proton and electron.  The unobvious answer is that under conditions in a black hole matter takes on wavelike qualities.  The waves from different particles can co-exist spatially, so the entire universe could be condensed down to billions and billions of waves all in the same space, much smaller than a proton but with the mass of the entire universe.  I made that up, but it could be.  It doesn't matter how small a black hole gets.  As long as it maintains it's apparent mass you couldn't tell the difference gravitationally.


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=1155447

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google