Science
Related: About this forum
Astronomers find massive black hole is too big for its galaxy
Astronomers have spotted an enormous black hole that grew much faster than its host galaxy. The black hole has the mass of nearly 7 billion suns.
Astronomers made the unexpected discovery while studying the growth of black holes across cosmic time.
The black hole, found in the galaxy CID-947, is among the most massive black holes ever discovered. It has the mass of nearly 7 billion suns.
C. Megan Urry, Yale professor of Astrophysics and co-researcher was quoted in a statement to the Yale News:
"“Our survey was designed to observe the average objects, not the exotic ones, This project specifically targeted moderate black holes that inhabit typical galaxies today. It was quite a shock to see such a ginormous black hole in such a deep field.”"
http://www.digitaljournal.com/science/astronomers-find-massive-black-hole-is-too-big-for-its-galaxy/article/438087
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
tblue37
(65,269 posts)
LuvNewcastle
(16,843 posts)is inside a black hole. We could actually be microscopic compared to the size of the hole. I don't know whether or not that would be possible, but it's kind of fun to think about how tiny and trivial our lives might be.
DJ13
(23,671 posts)Anything is possible.
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)That would actually be the simplest explanation of the myriad of phenomena attributed to black holes, which are purely theoretical entities even though they are often presented as an immutable fact of nature.
from the article:
Black holes are among the most fascinating and bizarre objects in space that sound like science fiction, but are real.
There's not a single person alive who can prove that black holes exist. The more knowledgeable about the subject the more one must admit that the existence of black holes is a speculative explanation for things we don't understand.
Treant
(1,968 posts)That's only one rather esoteric example that's a little hard to grasp for the average person. But it's hardly the only line of evidence, including mass measured at the center of our galaxy with very good constraints on the possible size (but dark to direct observation).
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)Even the authors admit to some of the uncertainty, and the commenters on the bottom note a number of other important caveats.
One simply cannot, without a mountain of "assuming that..." establish with certainty that black holes exist.
bvf
(6,604 posts)Surely you must have a competing theory to explain the observed phenomena. Otherwise you have no idea of how science works.
P.S. Nobody's ever seen a pterodactyl, either. What do you make of that?
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)is that we currently don't have a theory to explain some phenomena and that stuffing the "what we can't explain" into black hole theory is the modern equivalent of attributing the unknown to the whims of gods
My stance is simply this: one should not claim as fact what cannot be confirmed as fact. If all this talk about black holes included the actual level of uncertainty involved (which is huge) then I would have no objection to the speculation. My objection is very specifically "don't call the existence of black holes a fact until said existence can actually be proven".
bvf
(6,604 posts)what "theory" means.
Do you consider the existence of gravity to be a fact?
Has it been proven?
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)As you may be aware, our current conception of gravity is at direct odds with our understanding of quantum mechanics.
It may well be a modern equivalent of Ptolemy's model, extremely accurate within a particular domain yet wrong in the big picture. So while there is definitely something that is creating the forces we call gravity, the specific definition of gravity that we have may not correct, and indeed is likely not to be correct.
Either the theory of gravity is wrong, or our understanding of quantum physics is wrong. I do not know which but strongly suspect it is the former. What I can say with absolute certainty is that one cannot believe both the theory of gravity and current theory in quantum mechanics are correct, and claim logical consistency.
So to head this line of questioning off at the pass, no I don't do the scientific-religionism that denies the actual uncertainty and unknowns in present-day human knowledge. If you lack the humility to admit that these unknowns and uncertainties exist, and the integrity to follow that admission with a reluctance to claim as fact things which are not fact, you will make absolutely no progress with me.
bvf
(6,604 posts)confirming my point.
My question had nothing to do with theory. It had only to do with whether you accept the existence of gravity as fact, regardless of how you explain it.
P.S. Don't flatter yourself--from what I see here, nobody's interested in "making progress" with you.
If there's a competing theory that covers all the evidence I've certainly never heard it.
For now, anyway, the reasonable folks will call it a black hole and work with it. Maybe we'll refine that in the future, but...given that the resulting mass has to be invisible unless it has infalling matter, highly concentrated, and highly...well, massive...the moniker "black hole" will still work just as well. 
haikugal
(6,476 posts)
qazplm
(3,626 posts)sitting at the center of our galaxy that a whole bunch of suns are orbiting quite quickly around, and we can't see it.
Not because it's blocked by dust, or too far away, because it literally is black, like a hole in space.
Black hole theory is pretty well-developed. We don't know all the specifics no, but we don't know all the specifics about gravity either.
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)That we do not see the expected behavior in the rotation of galaxies is a clear sign that there are fundamental processes in play that we haven't even begun to understand. The need to posit the existence of an undetectable amount of mass on the order of 20x what is observed, non-interacting EXCEPT by gravity, to fill the gaps between expected gravitic behavior and observations - this is screaming, begging for a different answer to the question of what forces are determining the movement of matter within galaxies and to what degree.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)the massive stars racing at outrageous speeds at the center of our galaxy are orbiting.....
a peanut?
a pink unicorn?
god?
your skepticism?
I'll go with the current scientific consensus, thank you.
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)has a poor track record
Need I list some of the major ways in which consensus was completely wrong yet treated as fact, even for periods as long as 1500 years (Ptolemaic geocentrism), even when someone had already gotten it right beforehand (Aristarchus of Samos)? Remember, Ptolemy's system was extremely accurate in its predictions and was still completely wrong about the big picture!
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Not unless you also list ALL the times it is correct or has been partially correct and revised to be even more correct.
You really don't understand how science works at all, do you?
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)and know for a fact - with no level of uncertainty - that the approach you suggest is completely wrong and anti-scientific, and more resembles a religion than actual science.
Treant
(1,968 posts)Religion does not change when new data comes to light. Frequently the assumptions are based on minimal to no data at all.
In this instance, I'll be quite happy to change my statement when and if new data that conflicts arises. That's science.
However, any new theory will also have to encompass all earlier predictions and data, plus make its own new, and verifiable, predictions. Quite unlike religion. Plus it won't be widely accepted until the predictions in question are verified as correct.
Given the constraints on the data in question, the resulting theory will need to encompass a low output, exceedingly high mass, incredibly dense region of space of whatever contents. Said region needs to maintain its characteristics of magnetic fields, rotation and mass regardless of how it started as these have been observed, further constraining what it can and cannot be.
This is not an object without copious observations.
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)> Religion does not change when new data comes to light.
I seem to recall a quite famous incident concerning the Catholic Church's view on what lay at the center of the universe, in the wake of Copernicus.
> Given the constraints on the data in question, the resulting theory will need to encompass a low output, exceedingly high mass, incredibly dense region of space of whatever contents.
The mass numbers are computed using the assumption that gravity is the predominant force affecting observable objects, so if gravity as we understand it is wrong, the mass numbers are wrong. A derivative figure from an incorrect theory is not a valid instrument to use to judge the veracity of a different theory.
> This is not an object without copious observations.
There is not one person alive who can truthfully claim to have seen a black hole. Every bit of evidence that is used to assert their existence is based on the assumptions of relativity, assumptions (e.g. continuity of space-time, indifference of gravity to scale) that should be questioned given that they are incompatible with newer, verifiable observations in quantum mechanics.
Actually, while I'm at it, even the scientific establishment is not even in agreement that a black hole is an object at all. It is often described as a region instead, which is quite distinct from an object. The current "consensus" is ironically an uncollapsed Schroedinger's Cat (either an object or a region) and collapsing that waveform in either direction will wreck half the hypotheses asserting the existence of such entities. Nothing that so thoroughly lacks definition can be considered science, as definition is the basis of proof.
Treant
(1,968 posts)Unfortunately, this is the point where you've proven to have such a poor understanding of the subject that the conversation has to end as it's a waste of time.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)See... you really don't get science at all.
It's not a list of facts, y'know. Science thrives on uncertainty, unlike religion. It is an ongoing, morphing process. Scientists talk like what they get from observations and experiments and mathematical proofs are facts (until new information comes in to change things....and then they talk like that is fact) because having to start every scientific discussion sounding like Donald Rumsfeld:
"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."
.... is time consuming and a ridiculous bore. People who understand science don't need such a disclaimer.
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)You have established to me without a doubt that your opinion on the subject is invalid, and that you search for rationalizations rather than truth. Please don't respond to me any further.
bvf
(6,604 posts)But you can keep sticking your fingers in your ears, going "buh, buh, buh!" like you've been doing since you got here.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Oooooo... touchy! You have enough interest to get all huffy.
too much "without a doubt"....
Try a little doubt sometime..... about other than peer reviewed science that is.
rock
(13,218 posts)about teaching a pig to sing? Which I found out was a rework of a George Bernard Shaw quote:
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it. "
All of what you say makes sense to me, but I'm not gonna argue with a pig.
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)I give everyone at least one shot to be reasonable, and if they go all science-as-religion on me then I stop responding to them as soon as it's clear that I'm arguing with faith-based dogma - same way I handle fanatics of any other religion.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Then someone has a LOT of work to do to explain gravitational lensing.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)the way that mathematics is about proving things, then it's quite clear you haven't the least understanding of science.
cstanleytech
(26,273 posts)early super massive stars that have been predicted to exist early on I dont see what the problem is because wouldnt those early stars vary in size so doesnt it make sense that the mass of the blackholes would also vary? Plus there is the whole problem of us only being able to see a slice of time as we look at something from a distance but whos to say that it didnt merge with another of those early blackholes when it was forming?
Treant
(1,968 posts)The issue here is that the black hole in question is very far away, hence very far back in time. So it shouldn't have had time to get this large.
The other black hole merging with it also wouldn't've had a host galaxy, or that mass would still be kicking around (and it isn't).
It's possible to get a free black hole; our own Milky Way has a rather undersized black hole, comparatively speaking. Theory says an earlier hole may have been kicked out by an interaction, leaving us with a light-weight.
So it's possible this was a wandering black hole.
snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)comforted reading that it it very far away hence way back in time. My comfort was short-lived upon reading that it may be wandering. I hope you meant to say it 'was' wandering, as in it happened in the past and is there no more.
Treant
(1,968 posts)The nearest super-massive hole we know about is at the center of our galaxy. Any other one in the galaxy would be producing an obvious pull on the stars around it, so it's unlikely that there's one in our visual range as it would be warping the masses around it. A lot.
Black holes can occur when any star goes supernova; it simply requires a core collapse in the 2 to 3 solar mass range or larger. So they can range up to several hundred solar masses that way (depending on the star and how it died, the more massive ones tend not to get created today as easily).
They get bigger by eating mass, or absorbing other black holes (also technically eating mass).
The hole, or series of holes, that made that big one aren't wandering any longer and they're not likely to since the higher the mass, the harder it is to dislocate from the galaxy. Plus they're really far away.
Our galaxy and Andromeda are going to combine in the future. After a bunch of slingshots and dancing around each other, eventually our central supermassive black holes will combine together, making one mondo-enormous one. Which will sit like a big black slug in the center of the combined galaxies.
There's certainly some chance that Andromeda's hole, of higher mass, will manage to slingshot ours out of the galaxy, but that chance is pretty slight.
snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)Astronomy is so interesting but mind-boggling. It's not so bad having one's mind boggled but it's really nice to actually understand what is happening out there. Thank you. 
cstanleytech
(26,273 posts)so if that kind of system can exist I dont see why its not possible that a similar thing happened with some of these early theoretical super large stars that were close enough that when they became blackholes they merged soon afterwards in the far distant past.
Just to bad we cant go back in though and find exactly how it formed for sure, it would be one heck of a show I imagine.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)I thought it was just slang.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Its etymology comes from military slang in the 1940s.... Merging "gigantic" and "enormous" (duh!)
cui bono
(19,926 posts)
