back to article Supermassive black hole dominates titchy star formation

Astronomers have spied a supermassive black hole - of the type theorised by some physicists to be portals out of our universe to elsewhere - in an itsy-bitsy ultracompact dwarf galaxy, the smallest ever known to contain such a gigantic light-sucking feature. Artist's View of M60-UCD1 Black Hole "It is the smallest and …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Is that a real picture of the black hole?

    Never mind -- pop-up caption says artist's view.

    1. James 51

      I was thinking exactly the same thing but checked before posting. Who knows, maybe Webb or the one that follows us will be able to produce images like that.

      1. Wilseus

        maybe Webb or the one that follows us will be able to produce images like that.

        Sadly not, it's much too far away for that, and even then there would very likely be dust clouds in the way. We can't even see into the centre of our own galaxy at visual wavelengths because of those.

        1. Nigel 11

          Seeing the centre of our galaxy clearly is much harder than if we had a view "down" on it. Obviously distrance restricts resolution, but there will be a lot less dust in the way if we can look "down" on some other galaxy, rather than at the edge of its disk.

          OTOH being *precisely* on the rotational axis of a disk surrounding a huge black hole might be extremely unhealthy. One can probably say that if there were another galaxy with its axis precisely aligned on us, we wouldn't be here to notice it.

          1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

            A black hole would have to either be pretty dang close or spectacularly enormous - or both - for the GRB to nuke us. I'm pretty sure even if Andromeda were pointed right, it's too far away. GRBs aren't coherent, and even a laser would lose cohesion over those distances.

    2. harmjschoonhoven
      Thumb Up

      Pictures or it did not happen

      For the Hubble Space Telescope image of the M60-NGC4647 system see Figure 1 of the article by Anil C. Seth et al.: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.4769.pdf .

      "M60-UCD1 is the nearly point-like image in the bottom right. The discovery of a black hole in M60-UCD1 provides evidence that it is the tidally stripped nucleus of a once larger galaxy. We note that NGC 4647 is at approximately the same distance as M60 but the two galaxies are not yet strongly interacting. The inset shows a zoomed version of the g band image of M60-UCD1 with contours showing the surface brightness in 1 mag/arcsec2 intervals."

      Image Credit: NASA / ESA

    3. Graham Marsden
      Coat

      "Well, the thing about a black hole...

      "... its main distinguishing feature - is it's black. And the thing about space, the color of space, your basic space color - is it's black. So how are you supposed to see them?"

      - Holly

    4. Jim Birch

      Don't look! Don'tt touch!

      Unfortunately, by the time you get to actually see a black hole your eyes have disintegrated. Likewise, never try to touch one.

  2. The First Dave

    Surely the simplest explanation is that this galaxy _isn't_ able to contain the black hole as such, and most of it has already been eaten from the inside?

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

      You would need something to get rid of the angular momentum, otherwise no eating as stars and gas will just keep going on their preassigned orbits.

      1. Bunbury

        you could transfer that AM to the black hole perhaps. Hmm. Infinitely dense, spinning really quickly

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Black holes aren't infinitely dense -- they have size.

          1. Bunbury

            The hole has size - i.e. the event horizon. But the matter inside it is presumably what has the AM? I had thought that squashed down nicely in a black hole?

            1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

              But the matter inside it is presumably what has the AM?

              No, the AM is an attribute of the Black Hole. How it looks on the other side of the event horizon we are not sure about. In GR, a (noncharged, nonspinning) BH you are handed a new time axis of finite length pointing "inwards" to the center, which is bad prognosis for the falling traveler, but string theory as other ideas, and then there is the gravastar, too.

            2. Vociferous

              The hole has size - i.e. the event horizon. But the matter inside it is presumably what has the AM?

              Whenever you see any statement about a black hole, they refer to the situation at or outside the event horizon. Never inside. The rotation speed/angular momentum is only relevant to the accretion disk outside the event horizon.

              Trying to apply things like angular momentum to the singularity itself gets real ridiculous real quick.

              1. Bunbury

                @ Vociferous

                I'm not sure you're correct old chap/young lady* (*delete as required)

                Care to explain why if "black hole" is mentioned the reference is to the situation at or outside the event horizon and never inside? So, if as in this article, I read the term "supermassive black hole" should I assume that the event horizon is "supermassive" and not the things within it? I had thought the event horizon was merely a boundary condition: one way light is trapped (well, except for Scarlet Pimpernelling across the boundary), the other way it isn't. Doesn't sound like it should have much weight to me.

                Regarding the angular momentum, it seems to be a tenet of physics that angular momentum must be preserved - by which I mean it's unclear to me whether this is observation or if there's a robust theory behind it but it seems to be accepted.

                Consider a heavy spinning star on it's way to being a black hole. A lot of material is chucked out in the process of formation, but presumably some AM is retained in the central remnant. As that remnant contracts, it must spin faster if the conservation of AM is to be had. As it contracts further, it would spin more. Surely as it contartcs further it spins faster? Granted a limit in the physics could be hit.

                1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

                  "Care to explain why if "black hole" is mentioned the reference is to the situation at or outside the event horizon and never inside? So, if as in this article, I read the term "supermassive black hole" should I assume that the event horizon is "supermassive" and not the things within it? I had thought the event horizon was merely a boundary condition: one way light is trapped (well, except for Scarlet Pimpernelling across the boundary), the other way it isn't. Doesn't sound like it should have much weight to me."

                  Let me put it to you this way, and see if it makes more sense to you:

                  A balack hole forms from ultradense material collapsing to the point that it is so dense that an event horizon forms; a radius inside which even light can't escape. At the point of collapse, physics changes. Light cannot escape. Anything falling inwards towards the singularity takes an infinite amount of time to do so. So the singularity itself should theoretically never increase in size.

                  On the other side of that there is "space" (and that's not really the correct term, since physics basically stops on the other side of an event horizon) that exists between the edge of the singularity and the "surface" of the black hole (which, as far as we know is actually at this point a dimensionless gravitational anomaly in the fabric of space/time.)

                  It is this "space" between the edge of the event horizon and the "surface" of the black hole that fills up with new matter and becomes heavy, as that matter can never actually "hit" the black hole. (Infinite time, and all).

                  Hope that helps some...

          2. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

            "Black holes aren't infinitely dense -- they have size."

            Black holes have event horizons. That's not the same thing as having size. As far as we know, they're point singularities.

        2. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
          Paris Hilton

          > you could transfer that AM to the black hole perhaps.

          But first you need to get your friendly mass on a trajectory that inersects the event horizon. This doesn't happen that easily unless you are already very close.

          Of course, one absorbtion occurs, any momentum remainder will then transferred to the slightly embiggened black hole, as is the local universal custom.

          These holes are probably bathed in a cloud of dark matter (sterile neutrinos or whatnot) and probably getting few from that sector, too. I wonder how much they gain over a billion years just via DM?

          1. cray74

            "But first you need to get your friendly mass on a trajectory that inersects the event horizon. This doesn't happen that easily unless you are already very close"

            This dwarf galaxy has a lot of stars swirling around. They can hand off angular momentum to each other.

    2. Alan Brown Silver badge

      Black holes are messy eaters

      Only about 3% of the material in an accretion disk goes over the event horizon. the rest is blasted off as jets.

  3. Bunbury

    No link to original article?

    I'd been hoping to see what they said about the stripped down big galaxy comment. Do they think that because of any direct evidence or is that on the basis that "everybody" knows the ratio of mass galaxy to black hole should be 50:1 (or whatever it is).

    I guess they need to look at a sample of similar and measure the black hole in the middle of those.

    Going to get a bit frisky when that merges with the M60 hole...

  4. Rich 11

    Optional

    If M60-UCD1 can contain this huge event horizon

    The black hole is about five light-days in diameter, while M60-UCD1 is about 300 light-years across.

    I suppose the question is really "Is this galaxy stable?" Measuring the orbital velocity of a number of its stars might answer this.

    1. squigbobble

      Re: Optional

      Just had the bizarre thought that it's so big even the light in the photon sphere will take about 15 days to orbit it...

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Optional

      "The black hole is about five light-days in diameter, while M60-UCD1 is about 300 light-years

      Can you measure black holes in any "light" denominated measure?

    3. Roj Blake Silver badge

      Re: Optional

      "I suppose the question is really "Is this galaxy stable?" Measuring the orbital velocity of a number of its stars might answer this."

      Unfortunately measuring the orbital velocities of the stars in any galaxy will lead you to believe that the system is unstable.

      Which is where dark matter comes in.

  5. Chris Miller

    When that happens, the black hole we found in M60-UCD1 will merge with that monster black hole

    That should be worth watching - from a safe distance, couple of Mpcs perhaps.

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

      Who is afraid of gravitational waves, then?

  6. Havin_it
    Joke

    So?

    Isn't this just like locking a fat guy in your pantry for a fortnight and expressing surprise when you're left with a very fat guy and a rather bare pantry?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: So?

      Talkin' of fat guys and pantries, I wonder if this was in fact a picture of where the Scottish sun don't shine.

      1. Mpeler
        Flame

        Re: So?

        If you look closely, you can see all the Haggis and fried Mars Bars, erm, orbiting the galactic ring-stinger...

        Quick, someone help me put out this fire....

  7. WalterAlter

    Black Hole belongs in Alice in Wonderland

    The so-called "Schwarzschild" solution is not due to Karl Schwarzschild at all. The experts have either not read Schwarzschild's 1916 memoir or have otherwise ignored it. Go here to get Schwarzschild's original paper, in English. The so-called "Schwarzschild" solution is due to David Hilbert, itself a corruption of a solution first derived by Johannes Droste in May 1916, whose paper has also been buried or ignored at the convenience of the experts. It appears that the experts have not read Hilbert either. Go here to get a copy of Hilbert's erroneous derivation, in English. Hilbert's mistake spawned the black hole and the community of theoretical physicists continues to elaborate on this falsehood, with a hostile shouting down of any and all voices challenging them. Schwarzschild's solution has no black hole, and neither does Droste's solution. And while you're at it you might as well go here to get a copy of Marcel Brillouin's 1923 paper, in English, in which he demonstrates that the black hole is nonsense. Brillouin's paper has also been ignored.

    The experts are always quick to conveniently brand anyone who questions the black hole as a crackpot. Unfortunately for the experts that does not alter the facts. The experts must also include Schwarzschild himself as a crank since his paper invalidates the black hole outright, as does Brillouin's, and Droste's. They must also label Einstein a crackpot, because Einstein always rejected the idea of the black hole, asserting in his research papers and other writings that it is not physical, and that singularities in his gravitational field nullify the theory of General Relativity.

    More here:

    http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
      Thumb Down

      Re: Black Hole belongs in Alice in Wonderland

      Weird physcal theories with not particular reason to exist and dollops of ranting?

      ----->------- alt.sci.physics.alternative ----->-------

      that it is not physical, and that singularities in his gravitational field nullify the theory of General Relativity

      We know that it is not physical, genius. He was also talking about singularities (the hint in in "singular", geddit?) not black holes, which are trivial consequences of GR. Singularities are unphysical because GR is a classical theory living in a real-valued infinitely dense manifold. There are serious reasons to believe this is not actually where we currently are.

    2. Kubla Cant

      Re: Black Hole belongs in Alice in Wonderland

      @WalterAlter The experts are always quick to conveniently brand anyone who questions the black hole as a crackpot.

      I'm not an expert, but when I read your post I could see why they might come to that conclusion.

      Also, none of your "here"s seem to go anywhere. I think you're several hrefs short of a hyperlink, to coin a phrase.

    3. Mad Chaz

      Re: Black Hole belongs in Alice in Wonderland

      To continue with stereotypes, crackpots are also always quick to refuse other's opinions.

      Your mistakes, and you made 2, are as follow.

      1: you expected that a IT tabloid and it's comment forum were good places to discuss dense implementations of physics developed by people who, while brilliant, didn't have all the facts we have now about quantum mecanics. (remember, Einstein didn't believe in QM. We also find something very much like his biggest mistake (his words) accelerating the universe when we look out)

      It's the wrong forum because at best you'll start a troll war. At worst, you'll get laughed into Oblivion.

      2: That if experts ignore a paper or think it's not worth taking into account, they generally know what they are talking about.

      If you know better, write a paper, prove it, and they will listen to you.

  8. This post has been deleted by its author

  9. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

    Also, that title!

    Astroboffins spot PORTAL TO ELSEWHERE in small galaxy far, far away

    Yes, quite likely directly into the universe's best implementation of blend-it-all Moulinex.

    Which reminds me of Greg Egan's "Glory" (not his best story, but still):

    Pirit hesitated. “Did you come through the Cataract?”

    The Cataract was a black hole, a remote partner to the Noudah's sun; they orbited each other at a distance of about eighty billion kilometers. The name came from its telescopic appearance: a dark circle ringed by a distortion in the background of stars, like some kind of visual aberration. The Tirans and Ghahari were in a race to be the first to visit this extraordinary neighbor, but as yet neither of them were quite up to the task.

    “Through the Cataract? I think your scientists have already proven that black holes aren't shortcuts to anywhere.”

    “Our scientists aren't always right.”

    “Neither are ours,” Joan admitted, “but all the evidence points in one direction: black holes aren't doorways, they're shredding machines.”

    Take-away: Don't go there.

    1. Mad Chaz
      Coffee/keyboard

      Re: Also, that title!

      "Yes, quite likely directly into the universe's best implementation of blend-it-all Moulinex."

      You, sir, are a genius. You also now have to send me a new keyboard.

      well played.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Also, that title!

      They could be both a portal and a shredding machine. You might go somewhere else, with your atoms "slightly reorganized" at the destination.

  10. Vociferous

    I guess two supermassive black holes merging might be a violent event?

    21 million solar masses black hole getting accelerated to near speed of light and ripped apart by a 4.5 billion solar masses black hole == big badaboom? Or are black holes merging a peaceful affaire and the rest of the universe only see the event horizon of the bigger black hole expanding a little?

    Also I guess the smaller black hole will swing back and forth inside M60, flinging stars hither and dither, before it merges?

  11. Scott Broukell
    Meh

    Doorways / Portals

    Or just a bi-directional universe. One which is massively small, no less. We search so intently, in either direction - drilling down into the sub-atomic quantum zone whilst also starring out at the big (relatively), stuff beyond. In either direction we see, or at least, interpret, some pretty awesome things, material and strangeness. Perhaps one day we will see the connection and understand the origins of it all. But just what does happen to both time and matter that goes beyond the event horizon of a black-hole? I find it intriguing to think that it may behave in a manner not unlike our present understanding of the quantum state of time and matter. Alternatively, and I'm no astrophysicist (you may be able to tell), maybe time/matter/the universe just stops within a black-hole, a bit like a 3D model of a rabbit warren, where some tunnels just come to a dead end - but those 'dead ends' still have their uses - everything has a purpose. (I'm tired now - nurse!)

    1. Mad Chaz

      Re: Doorways / Portals

      you're starting to sound like amanfrommars ....

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Portal?

    Sounds plausible, a solution to the Kerr metric is actually a pair of quasi objects separated by an Einstein-Rosen bridge.

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    That image reminds me of some cosmic goatse

    1. Vociferous

      It'll certainly tear you a new one if you get close.

  14. HairyHaggisKeeper
    Paris Hilton

    But what about the flip side?

    The artists impression looks great - but what about the other side? What exactly would a black hole look like if you were to fly round behind one and then look back at it????

    Paris because the answer is probably so simple......

    1. Wilseus

      Re: But what about the flip side?

      It'd look pretty much the same, because it's a completely uniform sphere.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like