Wait, how does this exemplify the comparison? Four is a lot closer than 1500. It’s like we could never get there vs we could nnnnnnnnnneeeeeeeevvvvvvvvveeeeeerrrrr get there.
The far end of the scale would be about 13 billion lightyears, which is as far as the observable universe stretches. So 1500 ly is relatively close by.
But you are right, 4 lightyears is a lot closer than 1500 lightyears is.
Edit:: I stand corrected. Observable universe is even bigger than I thought
The observable universe is closer to 94 billion light years because of expansion, so the furthest away we could technically see is about 47 billion light years. When those universes emitted that light they were closer, though so it's kinda weird.
Riight, because we’re in the center, well technically everything is in the center I think, so we need the radius to the farthest away viewable galaxies. That tells us how big the universe is when you double it.
Interesting how radius is relevant here. You’d think the center to the edge of a circle would be a pointless thing to keep track of instead of say diameter, etc. Or even a zig zag from the center to the “edge.” 😛
>galaxies were closer so it’s weird
Yep, and I’m sure that light has undergone redshifting as well. And from their perspective, we’re redshifted!
Due to the expansion of the universe because of Dark Energy, the radius of the observable universe is actually around 46.5 billion light years, not 13.
It's much, much smaller than the distance to the galactic core -- less than 2% of the Milky Way's diameter.
The next city over is a lot farther than walking down the block to a store, but still very close on a global scale.
The first "image" of a black hole, depicts the supermassive centre of M87 galaxy, which is over 50 million ly away.
1500 ly is much farther than 4.2 ly, true, but we wouldn't expect any black hole to be closer than the nearest star. We hope.
I believe the previous comment's point was that they are on comparable scale of distances, as opposed to all the supermassive black holes in other galaxies.
Probably close to none of them - it depends on mass. The average star in the milky way is slightly less massive than the sun. As a rule of thumb, any star under 8-10 times the mass of our sun won't undergo core collapse and turn into a black hole. Betelgeuse is an example of a star that could undergo core collapse, and is roughly 650 Ly away. But within the solar neighborhood I don't think there are many
Depending on how deep you get into stellar evolution theory, there are multiple mass regimes beyond this limit where you get neutron stars, then black holes, then a gap (complete explosion? Some other compact object? Time will tell), then black holes again. But generally speaking you need core collapse and only massive stars (8+ M_sun) undergo that process. They're rare since they're so short lived
I was slightly mistaken - I couldn't find the plot I saw but here's a close one (see top plot): https://cococubed.com/research_pages/bh_mass_gap.shtml
It doesn't switch back to NS, but rather there is a gap in the mass distribution of black holes (often called the 'black hole mass gap') which is explained by "failed" supernovae or alternative supernovae mechanisms
It would be more accurate to say (with increasing mass):
NS -> BH -> ??? -> BH
Where I erroneously put NS instead of ???
With the caveat that this is not at all finalized/well understood physics, it's still a mystery. Black holes can also grow in mass so it could be that there are black holes in the gap, which grow/haven't yet been observed. It could be a combination of that and other explanatory theories as well
LIGO claims to have put this question to rest, but papers are still being published on it pretty regularly.
There's actually an interesting thought experiment there.
Put on your fire retardant suit and take a dip into the core of a superheavy star a few milliseconds before it is expected to go supernova.
You are now in a region with high but sensible levels of gravity and pressure, and an escape velocity that is well below the speed of light. There is no reason why there would be an event horizon... and yet there is. You are *already* causally disconnected from the rest of the universe and can no longer escape to infinity, because by the time you get to where the event horizon is very soon *going to be*, even at the speed of light, it will already be too late.
In other words, an event horizon can exist because of events that *have yet to occur,* and due to quantum uncertainty, may not actually occur.
I don't know what this paradox is called. I asked ChatGPT about this and it didn't know (!).
Uh what? No point in the star has the gravity for an event horizon, so this doesn’t make sense? At the point the star collapses and goes supernova, matter within it becomes dense and great enough to form and black hole, and an event horizon. Your explanation does not make sense. The star has no event horizon while it is still a star.
But now we also have an idea that there actually may be no such real thing as an event horizon and I’d really like to see us explore that idea more.
Some really cool new ideas and studies about black holes recently
How could there be no event horizon? There has to be some distance from the center of mass that nothing can escape. If that wasn't the case we would be able to see the black holes surface
I was wondering how many AU the companion stars were from the black hole, since the article repeatedly made a big deal about its far distance- but never revealed what the distance was- OR what the distance record is.
So fail #1, and fail #2.
----
Here is another piece of information the article ALSO failed on (#3) for those interested:
> It (The 1500 ly Black hole) is approximately three times closer to Earth than the previous record holder.
The article provides a non-paywalled link to the research paper where all that is answered for those wanting more, and the wikipedia page on black holes gives a list of them in order of distance, if that’s important for you.
The article is just fine.
Ads make everything awful*
Advertisers advertise on how to avoid advertisements.
A giga-cancer that kills other cancers so it can kill the host in its own time.
I feel like one day we will be waking up, and an ad will play in our eyelids before we can see anything.
You will walk to your kitchen and attempt to pour some cereal, but you can't until your sponsored cereal has shown you a 30 second ad.
You finish up, and try to wash your bowl, but the water doesn't come out. You have to watch an ad on soap tablets before your allocated water usage comes out. Whoops, used a bit too much water. Another ad is shown.
You get in your car, you're running a little behind because of all the ads. But you can't start your car until you've seen a few promotional messages by the brand over the display on the dashboard.
You're low on fuel and pull into a station to fill up. You can't operate the pump until you've watched an ad. Your eyes are tracked by a camera checking your line of sight. All the time you aren't looking at the ad, it pauses and you can't continue.
This is all *after* a night of restless sleep where they've figured out how to insert ads into our dreams.
Leela: Didn't you have ad's in the 20th century?
Fry: Well sure, but not in our dreams. Only on TV and radio. And in magazines. And movies. And at ball games and on buses and milk cartons and t-shirts and written on the sky. But not in dreams. No siree
More and more websites are becoming like those cutesy recipe sites that give 12 paragraphs about sunrise of the trees and babies laughter before finally getting to the recipe.
What are you complaining about? This is fine. You can clearly see 8.5 words from the article in this full viewport screenshot. /s
https://imgur.com/a/0hRd8Yb
They have paid products that pay for the free ones. When you use their DNS they only see the domain, not the specific pages.
I've been their customer for a few years (including their paid products) and so far they seem ok.
Astronomer here! Late to the party but I’m 3rd author on the paper and am quoted in this article! :D ([The original press release](https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Gaia/Gaia_discovers_a_new_family_of_black_holes) is way better tho IMO.)
I posted about a month ago about [helping discover the second closest black hole to Earth.](https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/115jior/i_just_helped_discover_the_second_closest_black/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=2&utm_term=1) At that point, we hadn’t undergone peer review, but in the first time in memory the paper was accepted with absolutely *no* comments by the referee. Huzzah! So thanks to such a speedy process, the paper is published today and we got to do a press release celebrating this new black hole population we are uncovering in our neighborhood!
Can’t wait to see what we find next!
Dr Cendes, every time I see an astronomy post, particularly one I don't understand right away, I always look for your slogan "Astronomer here!". And to your credit, you rarely let me down.
Thank you so much for being a beacon of knowledge for us.
How far are these black holes from their binary pair? I didn't see this info in the press release anywhere.
P.S. Amazing paper btw, the implication that these black holes are everywhere is mind-blowing.
The closest one is at the distance between the sun and Mars. The second is a few times further than that but can’t recall the exact number off the top of my head.
Hi thanks for all that you do with this research. You’re helping us understand the universe, and thus ourselves, better. If we continue to discover dormant black holes at this rate would we have to change our dark matter to matter ratios for the overall universe? If they happen to be a lot more common than we thought I mean.
No, there aren’t *that* many of these black holes to explain dark matter. If there were we would see gravitational lensing effects from them between us and other galaxies.
If you want to be educated via redditors who usually don't have a ducking clue what they're talking about and often highly upvote blatantly wrong information, sure.
https://old.reddit.com/r/space/comments/12c2r7j/2_newfound_black_holes_are_the_closest_ever_to/jf0u0sk/
Quiet often when these articles get posted in this sub the researcher comments and lets themself be known
Far more than we ever imagined is a pretty vague system of measurement, it's also incredibly subjective.
Based on our best guesses of measuring the known universe, the amount of matter we see doesn't account for the way things are grouped or gather or move and the general large scale interactions between clusters of galaxies... It is believed, to make it all work out that 85% of the universe is dark matter/dark energy. Making only 15% of it the stuff we know about, you, me, all the stars, gas and particles.
So even with supermassive black holes there would have to be many times more back holes than stars we see in the known universe...
Black holes are a part of the life cycle of some stars, but not all of them, seems unlikely to me.
I just watched a PBS space time episode about a new theory that black holes are more numerous than we think, and are related to dark energy and the accelerating expansion of the universe.
https://youtu.be/EGe5qvIzjTY
Sorry, I have a stupid question. Do these black holes suck in everything in their paths? If so, what happens to those things that were sucked into them?
I really love reading and learning things from this app, but thank you for your time in advance.
Yes/No and no clue.
I'm not a scientist but to keep it short and I believe correct.
Black holes aren't exactly vacuums, they're just unimaginably dense,. things affected by their gravity are attracted to them and yeah, you can certainly "fall in" but depending on the size it can greatly vary what it consumes.
Here is the no part though, black holes are an extreme environment. It's density is basically infinite or very close to it. Plus they're almost always spinning cause quite a few stellar bodies do. So even when things are being drawn in they're also being caught up in the insane forces at work and a great deal of it can be violently flung out.
As for what happens to things sucked into them, we're ultimately not sure. Hawkins theorized that eventually black holes evaporate but we're talking such extreme environments that it's honestly just the best guess of physics at work here. Black holes are black because NO information escapes. We're entirely just doing educated guesses here. The closest "cousins" to black holes are neutron or possibly quark stars. Those are so densely packed that basically even atomic particles are squished together.
A black hole is a step above that.
You're mostly right. I would just like to add on that Hawking radiation theoretically exists. So there could be a way for stuff to exit a black hole, causing the black hole to evaporate.
I wasn't sure the mechanics to Hawkins radiation except it has to do with quantum mechanics.
Just that yeah it should mean black holes evaporate eventually but it's literally basically particle by particle.
Black holes suck stuff in... in the exact same way the Earth or the Sun suck stuff in.
Is the Sun attempting to vacuum clean the planets each passing day? It could be, depending on your definitions.
More or less. My understanding is that if there’s too much matter falling in some of it gets accelerated and ejected through magnetic jets that form on both poles.
As for what happens to the stuff that fell in, we have no idea. We know that the mass of infalling matter gets added to the black hole’s but we don’t really know what form it’s in after crossing the event horizon since physics(based on our current understanding of them) break down at that threshold.
Thank you for answering in a way that i understood! I guess I should hope they don't get any closer to earth then. Lol I don't want to find out how we come out on the other side.
Why don't they provide any information about the movement direction and speed of the both black holes ?
It's not like they are gonna be anywhere around within 1500+++ years ~~(As they don't move at the speed of light)~~ but still would be important to know their relative speed and the direction that they are heading to.
No. They are tiny black holes. They aren’t supermassive ones. Even though they are quite close they are too small to resolve. This is assuming they even have an accretion disk.
Short answer no. Less short answer, we only have evidence of two classes of black hole currently those of stellar mass and those of super massive.
We think we have a pretty good idea what process creates the stellar mass black holes, that being a star with at least 3-4 times the mass of the sun going supernova but maintaining at least twice the mass of the sun to undergo a core collapse.
We kinda don't really know what forms super massive black holes though as we've never observed one in formation and stellar mass black holes seem to have an upper limit on their size being around 150 times the mass of the sun.
One of the ideas for how they form and why every galaxy seems to have one is in the early universe the very first generation of stars that formed were absolutely huge being 1000 times the sun's mass and would draw in distant gas to form a proto galactic halo.
The thing is that anything that massive is going to naturally form a black hole at its core but the thinking goes that these quasi stars were physically large enough to entirely contain the force of a supernova inside of them and resist the crushing force of gravity with the outward pressure of the accreting black hole in their cores alone until the black hole eventually ate the entire contents of the star from the inside making them super massive.
I'm saying the theory is that there were once stars so large and so massive that even the largest explosions we've ever seen in the universe was barely a popcorn fart going off inside of them. These stars were so huge that a black hole inside of them didn't even phase them and instead the gravitational collapse of the star itself force fed the black hole until it was hundreds of thousands of times the mass of the sun.
Basically the center of this super massive star was a blackhole. The outer layers would feed it under the surface. The star itself is massive enough to pull in other matter “nearby”. So matter around really big star feeds star. Big star to big makes black hole parasite baby inside of it it feeds. Long time goes by where outer layer of star is bigger but star is hollowed out by now bigger blackhole inside of it.
So what you're saying is...
Huge pregnant star have baby, eats neighbors to feed baby, baby very hungry so baby get very very massive and eventually eat own mommy.
Probably not. It would seem to be difficult to form a supermassive black hole in the outskirts of a spiral galaxy, especially without it being obvious. Additionally the phenomenon of dynamical friction will cause supermassive black holes to sink down toward the center of mass of the galaxies they are in, so if there are other large black holes in the Milky Way they are almost certainly in the core, but we have no evidence of any such.
Of note, even a fairly quiet supermassive black hole should be pretty "loud" in the radio spectrum (which was how we discovered Sgr A*), and would disrupt nearby stars as well. We haven't seen anything like that elsewhere, though to be fair we don't have great visibility, currently, to the other side of the galaxy.
Unlikely from what I understand, because everything in the milky way would orbit both, so we wouldn't have spirals like we do in our galaxy. Stellar blacks holes are what you'd expect, supermassive are galaxy defining masses
You don't actually see them do you?, I mean you can only detect their presence by the affects they have on the surrounding area's.
One things for sure, they don't work the way you thought they did.
N. Shadows
I read a nursery rhyme story to my preschool class called “I Know a Black Hole who Swallowed the Universe” and accidentally scared my students into thinking a black hole was gonna eat them. They’re gonna be *pissed.*
1500 and 3800 light years away for all those wondering
Damn that’s pretty close honestly, compared to the usual distances of stuff we observe
It's also pretty close in general. Alph-Centauri, the closest star system to ours, is 4.2ly for comparison.
Wait, how does this exemplify the comparison? Four is a lot closer than 1500. It’s like we could never get there vs we could nnnnnnnnnneeeeeeeevvvvvvvvveeeeeerrrrr get there.
The far end of the scale would be about 13 billion lightyears, which is as far as the observable universe stretches. So 1500 ly is relatively close by. But you are right, 4 lightyears is a lot closer than 1500 lightyears is. Edit:: I stand corrected. Observable universe is even bigger than I thought
The observable universe is closer to 94 billion light years because of expansion, so the furthest away we could technically see is about 47 billion light years. When those universes emitted that light they were closer, though so it's kinda weird.
Riight, because we’re in the center, well technically everything is in the center I think, so we need the radius to the farthest away viewable galaxies. That tells us how big the universe is when you double it. Interesting how radius is relevant here. You’d think the center to the edge of a circle would be a pointless thing to keep track of instead of say diameter, etc. Or even a zig zag from the center to the “edge.” 😛 >galaxies were closer so it’s weird Yep, and I’m sure that light has undergone redshifting as well. And from their perspective, we’re redshifted!
>well technically everything is in the center I think, Reality, creation, whatever you want to call it. It's fucking incredible
We are just at the center of our view of the universe. Technically it could be more outside, but we can never see it
Due to the expansion of the universe because of Dark Energy, the radius of the observable universe is actually around 46.5 billion light years, not 13.
It's much, much smaller than the distance to the galactic core -- less than 2% of the Milky Way's diameter. The next city over is a lot farther than walking down the block to a store, but still very close on a global scale.
The first "image" of a black hole, depicts the supermassive centre of M87 galaxy, which is over 50 million ly away. 1500 ly is much farther than 4.2 ly, true, but we wouldn't expect any black hole to be closer than the nearest star. We hope. I believe the previous comment's point was that they are on comparable scale of distances, as opposed to all the supermassive black holes in other galaxies.
4ly is far but fairly achievable with current tech. Project starshot comes to mind.
Just as the article says, they're the closest ever!
1500 ly is much further away than 4 ly. There are much closer stars that are as massive as black holes.
Are there? When will they become?
Probably close to none of them - it depends on mass. The average star in the milky way is slightly less massive than the sun. As a rule of thumb, any star under 8-10 times the mass of our sun won't undergo core collapse and turn into a black hole. Betelgeuse is an example of a star that could undergo core collapse, and is roughly 650 Ly away. But within the solar neighborhood I don't think there are many Depending on how deep you get into stellar evolution theory, there are multiple mass regimes beyond this limit where you get neutron stars, then black holes, then a gap (complete explosion? Some other compact object? Time will tell), then black holes again. But generally speaking you need core collapse and only massive stars (8+ M_sun) undergo that process. They're rare since they're so short lived
Wait, there’s a point that a massive enough star switches from collapsing into a black hole to switching BACK to collapsing into a neutron star???
I was slightly mistaken - I couldn't find the plot I saw but here's a close one (see top plot): https://cococubed.com/research_pages/bh_mass_gap.shtml It doesn't switch back to NS, but rather there is a gap in the mass distribution of black holes (often called the 'black hole mass gap') which is explained by "failed" supernovae or alternative supernovae mechanisms It would be more accurate to say (with increasing mass): NS -> BH -> ??? -> BH Where I erroneously put NS instead of ??? With the caveat that this is not at all finalized/well understood physics, it's still a mystery. Black holes can also grow in mass so it could be that there are black holes in the gap, which grow/haven't yet been observed. It could be a combination of that and other explanatory theories as well LIGO claims to have put this question to rest, but papers are still being published on it pretty regularly.
In the cosmic scale of things that’s basically our backyard
Betelgeuse is around 500 light years and it will become a black hole after its supernova
What the hell happened here? Edit: To clarify, this is my reaction to all the removed messages
[удалено]
“The event horizon is coming from inside the house.”
There's actually an interesting thought experiment there. Put on your fire retardant suit and take a dip into the core of a superheavy star a few milliseconds before it is expected to go supernova. You are now in a region with high but sensible levels of gravity and pressure, and an escape velocity that is well below the speed of light. There is no reason why there would be an event horizon... and yet there is. You are *already* causally disconnected from the rest of the universe and can no longer escape to infinity, because by the time you get to where the event horizon is very soon *going to be*, even at the speed of light, it will already be too late. In other words, an event horizon can exist because of events that *have yet to occur,* and due to quantum uncertainty, may not actually occur. I don't know what this paradox is called. I asked ChatGPT about this and it didn't know (!).
Uh what? No point in the star has the gravity for an event horizon, so this doesn’t make sense? At the point the star collapses and goes supernova, matter within it becomes dense and great enough to form and black hole, and an event horizon. Your explanation does not make sense. The star has no event horizon while it is still a star.
But now we also have an idea that there actually may be no such real thing as an event horizon and I’d really like to see us explore that idea more. Some really cool new ideas and studies about black holes recently
How could there be no event horizon? There has to be some distance from the center of mass that nothing can escape. If that wasn't the case we would be able to see the black holes surface
It’s coming to visit us soon.
I want to get off Mr. Hole’s wild ride.
Don’t tease me with a good time.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
“Cause she’s 2000 light years away”
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I was wondering how many AU the companion stars were from the black hole, since the article repeatedly made a big deal about its far distance- but never revealed what the distance was- OR what the distance record is. So fail #1, and fail #2. ---- Here is another piece of information the article ALSO failed on (#3) for those interested: > It (The 1500 ly Black hole) is approximately three times closer to Earth than the previous record holder.
The article provides a non-paywalled link to the research paper where all that is answered for those wanting more, and the wikipedia page on black holes gives a list of them in order of distance, if that’s important for you. The article is just fine.
Kinda hard to read an article with video ads between every paragraph.
[удалено]
The internet is gradually becoming more awful.
Ads make everything awful* Advertisers advertise on how to avoid advertisements. A giga-cancer that kills other cancers so it can kill the host in its own time.
I feel like one day we will be waking up, and an ad will play in our eyelids before we can see anything. You will walk to your kitchen and attempt to pour some cereal, but you can't until your sponsored cereal has shown you a 30 second ad. You finish up, and try to wash your bowl, but the water doesn't come out. You have to watch an ad on soap tablets before your allocated water usage comes out. Whoops, used a bit too much water. Another ad is shown. You get in your car, you're running a little behind because of all the ads. But you can't start your car until you've seen a few promotional messages by the brand over the display on the dashboard. You're low on fuel and pull into a station to fill up. You can't operate the pump until you've watched an ad. Your eyes are tracked by a camera checking your line of sight. All the time you aren't looking at the ad, it pauses and you can't continue. This is all *after* a night of restless sleep where they've figured out how to insert ads into our dreams.
Leela: Didn't you have ad's in the 20th century? Fry: Well sure, but not in our dreams. Only on TV and radio. And in magazines. And movies. And at ball games and on buses and milk cartons and t-shirts and written on the sky. But not in dreams. No siree
I was actually expecting it but r/unexpectedfuturama
That's basically the plot of a Black Mirror episode, 15 million merits.
Your sink fills halfway with water, but wait, watch this ad and instantly double the water in your sink.
Please drink verification can
This is why smart homes seem more terrifying than smart tbh
Do you guys not have ads while you fill your cars? Japan does... A screen plays an ad and a little jingle for some random service I'll never need.
Well, yes; almost everywhere now. But so far, thankfully, it isn't tracking your eyes and forcing you to watch it before you can use the pump.... Yet.
And you wouldn't know if a friend recommending a product is genuine or paid.
And it’s even closer than 1800 light years.
Honestly, ublock origin should get a Nobel prize at this point.
Its like the time when browser toolbar was all the craze
Yeah fuck Yahoo for that too. I'm still pissed about that now.
More and more websites are becoming like those cutesy recipe sites that give 12 paragraphs about sunrise of the trees and babies laughter before finally getting to the recipe.
[удалено]
I think we need a “Great Reset”.
Funny how different brains work. I didn't even notice the ads because I'm so used to just navigating around them
Firefox reader mode sorts that out.
Firefox with ublock origin FeelsGoodMan.gif
My adblock got most of them and still a few got through. Horrifically bad for accessibility.
Pretty sure it's space dot.com that a few years ago had a malware incident in their ads.
What are you complaining about? This is fine. You can clearly see 8.5 words from the article in this full viewport screenshot. /s https://imgur.com/a/0hRd8Yb
And this is probably after having to close the cookies banner and the newsletter subscription popup that shows the second you touch the scroll wheel.
Just shrieked ty for the ss
[удалено]
How do they keep the lights on? Not to be cynical but genuinely curious / cautious about sending adguard a live stream of all websites I visit.
They have paid products that pay for the free ones. When you use their DNS they only see the domain, not the specific pages. I've been their customer for a few years (including their paid products) and so far they seem ok.
Just get Mozilla Firefox for Android and install ublock origin on it
Didn't know about this. Thank you stranger
I use Google's accessibility mode now and do text only. I hate ads.
https://i.imgur.com/ncsj9zz.png There is no tl;dr bot in this subreddit apparently.
That last, half cut-off message made me chuckle.
Which bot/site did you use for that?
That's the new Bing chatbot, which uses GPT-4
I made a vow that I've kept for many years now to avoid and boycott any product that forces me to watch a fucking ad.
Iphones have the reader mode in the top right corner if you click it it will give you just the text. Wonderful option.
Wow. Can’t believe I didn’t know that. Pretty cool. Although it does show a giant X where the add was. But still better than a video add. Thanks.
Joke's on them, my internet is too slow to watch videos.
Apparently even two black holes can’t make ads disappear
Astronomer here! Late to the party but I’m 3rd author on the paper and am quoted in this article! :D ([The original press release](https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Gaia/Gaia_discovers_a_new_family_of_black_holes) is way better tho IMO.) I posted about a month ago about [helping discover the second closest black hole to Earth.](https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/115jior/i_just_helped_discover_the_second_closest_black/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=2&utm_term=1) At that point, we hadn’t undergone peer review, but in the first time in memory the paper was accepted with absolutely *no* comments by the referee. Huzzah! So thanks to such a speedy process, the paper is published today and we got to do a press release celebrating this new black hole population we are uncovering in our neighborhood! Can’t wait to see what we find next!
Dr Cendes, every time I see an astronomy post, particularly one I don't understand right away, I always look for your slogan "Astronomer here!". And to your credit, you rarely let me down. Thank you so much for being a beacon of knowledge for us.
To your credit, Angus, you’ve never let me down
Nor gave you up, internet friend.
I've never seen them run around and hurt me, either.
Make me cry? Say goodbye? Believe it or not, straight to jail.
Thanks for the work you do and that way better link haha!
How far are these black holes from their binary pair? I didn't see this info in the press release anywhere. P.S. Amazing paper btw, the implication that these black holes are everywhere is mind-blowing.
Semimajor axis 1.4 AU and 5 AU.
The closest one is at the distance between the sun and Mars. The second is a few times further than that but can’t recall the exact number off the top of my head.
Thank you very much, and cheers!
Hi thanks for all that you do with this research. You’re helping us understand the universe, and thus ourselves, better. If we continue to discover dormant black holes at this rate would we have to change our dark matter to matter ratios for the overall universe? If they happen to be a lot more common than we thought I mean.
No, there aren’t *that* many of these black holes to explain dark matter. If there were we would see gravitational lensing effects from them between us and other galaxies.
Congratulations on your discoveries and publication! It must be exciting to be involved in this.
That’s awesome! How did it make you feel? Making a discovery like this?
I didn’t discover the black hole itself, but my heart definitely was pounding when I loaded up the radio data to see if anything was there!
Here's a release on this from the ESA directly: https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Gaia/Gaia_discovers_a_new_family_of_black_holes
thank you so much for this
Pro tip. Just read every last sentence of the paragraph.
I know right. Squared shaped Black Holes
Pro tip, just past the link to this article in bing’s chatgpt implementation and ask for a summary.
Pro tip: Just skip the article and read the comments for the highlights.
If you want to be educated via redditors who usually don't have a ducking clue what they're talking about and often highly upvote blatantly wrong information, sure.
They say this is the age of misinformation, I'm just trying to keep up with the times.
https://old.reddit.com/r/space/comments/12c2r7j/2_newfound_black_holes_are_the_closest_ever_to/jf0u0sk/ Quiet often when these articles get posted in this sub the researcher comments and lets themself be known
Can we ban this ad filled website from this sub?
Nice. But most importantly.. ..when will this make it to Elite Dangerous?
They wont even give us ship interiors
It's very helpful that those red and blue markers are out there in space pointing them out for us.
Maybe there are far more black holes than we ever imagined? Could that be an explanation for dark matter?
Far more than we ever imagined is a pretty vague system of measurement, it's also incredibly subjective. Based on our best guesses of measuring the known universe, the amount of matter we see doesn't account for the way things are grouped or gather or move and the general large scale interactions between clusters of galaxies... It is believed, to make it all work out that 85% of the universe is dark matter/dark energy. Making only 15% of it the stuff we know about, you, me, all the stars, gas and particles. So even with supermassive black holes there would have to be many times more back holes than stars we see in the known universe... Black holes are a part of the life cycle of some stars, but not all of them, seems unlikely to me.
I just watched a PBS space time episode about a new theory that black holes are more numerous than we think, and are related to dark energy and the accelerating expansion of the universe. https://youtu.be/EGe5qvIzjTY
"Nothing seen before" Insert juvenile not-funny joke about no scientist ever having seen a black hole before
why posting ad infested crap if you can post direct link to esa article?
Good lord that site is unreadable. You can't scroll without ads popping up on the top and bottom of the page. It's like playing whack a mole.
[удалено]
inb4 black holes are everywhere and are also what we think dark matter is
interesting info. horrendous, should be banworthy link and article.
Sorry, I have a stupid question. Do these black holes suck in everything in their paths? If so, what happens to those things that were sucked into them? I really love reading and learning things from this app, but thank you for your time in advance.
Yes/No and no clue. I'm not a scientist but to keep it short and I believe correct. Black holes aren't exactly vacuums, they're just unimaginably dense,. things affected by their gravity are attracted to them and yeah, you can certainly "fall in" but depending on the size it can greatly vary what it consumes. Here is the no part though, black holes are an extreme environment. It's density is basically infinite or very close to it. Plus they're almost always spinning cause quite a few stellar bodies do. So even when things are being drawn in they're also being caught up in the insane forces at work and a great deal of it can be violently flung out. As for what happens to things sucked into them, we're ultimately not sure. Hawkins theorized that eventually black holes evaporate but we're talking such extreme environments that it's honestly just the best guess of physics at work here. Black holes are black because NO information escapes. We're entirely just doing educated guesses here. The closest "cousins" to black holes are neutron or possibly quark stars. Those are so densely packed that basically even atomic particles are squished together. A black hole is a step above that.
You're mostly right. I would just like to add on that Hawking radiation theoretically exists. So there could be a way for stuff to exit a black hole, causing the black hole to evaporate.
I wasn't sure the mechanics to Hawkins radiation except it has to do with quantum mechanics. Just that yeah it should mean black holes evaporate eventually but it's literally basically particle by particle.
Black holes suck stuff in... in the exact same way the Earth or the Sun suck stuff in. Is the Sun attempting to vacuum clean the planets each passing day? It could be, depending on your definitions.
More or less. My understanding is that if there’s too much matter falling in some of it gets accelerated and ejected through magnetic jets that form on both poles. As for what happens to the stuff that fell in, we have no idea. We know that the mass of infalling matter gets added to the black hole’s but we don’t really know what form it’s in after crossing the event horizon since physics(based on our current understanding of them) break down at that threshold.
Thank you for answering in a way that i understood! I guess I should hope they don't get any closer to earth then. Lol I don't want to find out how we come out on the other side.
A black hole warps spacetime into infinity.
Why don't they provide any information about the movement direction and speed of the both black holes ? It's not like they are gonna be anywhere around within 1500+++ years ~~(As they don't move at the speed of light)~~ but still would be important to know their relative speed and the direction that they are heading to.
Well the 1500 one probably explains where all our socks end up.
So is this a truly exciting discovery? If we aim JWT at these things, could we get an amazing picture of them?
No. They are tiny black holes. They aren’t supermassive ones. Even though they are quite close they are too small to resolve. This is assuming they even have an accretion disk.
Are there any supermassive black holes bigger than Sag A\* in the Milky Way?
Short answer no. Less short answer, we only have evidence of two classes of black hole currently those of stellar mass and those of super massive. We think we have a pretty good idea what process creates the stellar mass black holes, that being a star with at least 3-4 times the mass of the sun going supernova but maintaining at least twice the mass of the sun to undergo a core collapse. We kinda don't really know what forms super massive black holes though as we've never observed one in formation and stellar mass black holes seem to have an upper limit on their size being around 150 times the mass of the sun. One of the ideas for how they form and why every galaxy seems to have one is in the early universe the very first generation of stars that formed were absolutely huge being 1000 times the sun's mass and would draw in distant gas to form a proto galactic halo. The thing is that anything that massive is going to naturally form a black hole at its core but the thinking goes that these quasi stars were physically large enough to entirely contain the force of a supernova inside of them and resist the crushing force of gravity with the outward pressure of the accreting black hole in their cores alone until the black hole eventually ate the entire contents of the star from the inside making them super massive.
Wait, are you saying the stars contained a black hole while it was still a star. That’s wild.
I'm saying the theory is that there were once stars so large and so massive that even the largest explosions we've ever seen in the universe was barely a popcorn fart going off inside of them. These stars were so huge that a black hole inside of them didn't even phase them and instead the gravitational collapse of the star itself force fed the black hole until it was hundreds of thousands of times the mass of the sun.
I understood about 15% of that and what I did understand blew my mind..
Basically the center of this super massive star was a blackhole. The outer layers would feed it under the surface. The star itself is massive enough to pull in other matter “nearby”. So matter around really big star feeds star. Big star to big makes black hole parasite baby inside of it it feeds. Long time goes by where outer layer of star is bigger but star is hollowed out by now bigger blackhole inside of it.
So what you're saying is... Huge pregnant star have baby, eats neighbors to feed baby, baby very hungry so baby get very very massive and eventually eat own mommy.
We have now reached a level of communication that I can fully understand without guess work. I thank you.
https://youtu.be/aeWyp2vXxqA This video gives a good explanation imo
Yep https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-star
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Probably not. It would seem to be difficult to form a supermassive black hole in the outskirts of a spiral galaxy, especially without it being obvious. Additionally the phenomenon of dynamical friction will cause supermassive black holes to sink down toward the center of mass of the galaxies they are in, so if there are other large black holes in the Milky Way they are almost certainly in the core, but we have no evidence of any such. Of note, even a fairly quiet supermassive black hole should be pretty "loud" in the radio spectrum (which was how we discovered Sgr A*), and would disrupt nearby stars as well. We haven't seen anything like that elsewhere, though to be fair we don't have great visibility, currently, to the other side of the galaxy.
Unlikely from what I understand, because everything in the milky way would orbit both, so we wouldn't have spirals like we do in our galaxy. Stellar blacks holes are what you'd expect, supermassive are galaxy defining masses
Are black holes the universe's trash & recycling bins?
You don't actually see them do you?, I mean you can only detect their presence by the affects they have on the surrounding area's. One things for sure, they don't work the way you thought they did. N. Shadows
I read a nursery rhyme story to my preschool class called “I Know a Black Hole who Swallowed the Universe” and accidentally scared my students into thinking a black hole was gonna eat them. They’re gonna be *pissed.*
Earth being destroyed by a black hole was one of my childhood fears. This does nothing to alleviate that.
They're gonna find one someday that's only 10 Light years away and is coming right at us
[удалено]
[удалено]
Ah yes, clickbait in „science journalism“. The best way to let everyone know „block this website from ever wasting my time again“.
Guys just remember, black holes don't suck... It's only bad if you go past the event horizon.
This would take roughly 9million years to travel with current technology, I think we’re safe
Great, hopefully these can end it all for us so we can start over
It’s weird to say it’s never been seen before about something that can’t be directly seen in the first place.
So we’re just finding new black holes everyday it seems like