Artist’s impression of the huge outflow ejected from the quasar SDSS J1106+1939
Image: ESO/L. Calçada
Astronomers have seen a distant galaxy that blasts away material with two trillion times the energy the sun emits—the biggest such eruption ever seen. That ejection of matter could answer an important question about the universe: why are the black holes in the centers of galaxies so light?
Computer models of the early universe usually produce a virtual cosmos that looks like ours except for one thing. The ratio of the mass of black holes in galaxy centers to the rest of the matter in galaxies is larger in the simulations than in the real universe.
Scientists think somehow galaxies are ridding themselves of much of the mass that would have ended up falling into their central black holes. However, until now researchers have been at a lack for an explanation of how this might happen.
To expel matter from galaxies takes energy. "We needed some input of energy from supermassive black holes," Nahum Arav, an astrophysicist at Virginia Tech told SPACE.com.
Supermassive black holes are obvious candidates, because they are the most energetic objects known. Some galaxies containing active black holes, called quasars, shine more brightly than anything else in the universe. "Our simulations showed that if we allowed the quasar to release a lot of mechanical energy, then the masses of galaxies would match observations," Arav said.
Arav led a team that observed a quasar, called SDSS J1106+1939, which dates back to when the universe was only 3 billion years old (it is now about 13.7 billion years of age). Most quasars are millions or even billions of light-years distant, which means we see them as they were long ago. As such, they offer a unique window back in time, to when galaxies were young.
The researchers used an instrument called a spectrometer, which spreads light out into its constituent wavelengths, attached to the European Southern Observatory's Very Large Telescope in Chile. This instrument revealed a giant cloud of hot, ionized gas that was blasted away from the galaxy at nearly 5,000 miles per second (8,000 kilometers per second), or about 2.6 percent the speed of light. The gas is mostly hydrogen with some helium and traces of other elements such as carbon. [Most Powerful Black Hole Quasar Discovered (Video)]
The energy needed to fire that blast is five times greater than any other quasar has displayed to date.
The sheer size of this ejection demonstrates a way for young galaxies to off-load mass: The energy in a quasar we usually see as radiation can be turned into kinetic energy, or energy of motion. This eruption is throwing up some 400 times the mass of the sun every year, and such events last for anywhere from 10 million to 100 million years.
That, Arav said, could be the key to why galaxies are generally less massive than they should be, and why the black holes at their centers are the sizes that they are. "It gives the theorists something to work with," he said.
Arav said the exact mechanism for these mass ejections still isn't clear, and his own observations don't yet point to what it might be. Future work might enable astronomers and cosmologists to build hypotheses.
Saavik Ford, an associate professor of astronomy at Bronx Manhattan Community College and research associate at the American Museum of Natural History, said that if this phenomenon proves to be common, then it could also help answer a lot of other questions. One is why there some clusters of galaxies are embedded in gas radiating X-rays, which would require some source of energy. The finding could also help astronomers understand why star formation in some massive elliptical galaxies seems to stop when it does.
But the discovery isn't a clear-cut smoking gun. Arav said he wants to do more observations and see if he and his colleagues can't find more quasars like this one. If not, or if such outflows are more rare, then there is some other phenomenon at work. "I hope in two years to have a nice sample of about 10," he said.
The new observations will appear in a paper led by Benoit Borguet of Virginia Tech, to be published in an upcoming issue of The Astrophysical Journal.
- Photos: Black Holes of the Universe
- The Strangest Black Holes in the Universe
- Black Hole Quiz: Test Your Knowledge of Nature's Weirdest Creations
Copyright 2012 SPACE.com, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
See what we're tweeting about
18 Comments
Add Commenti have always believed that black holes are only doorways anyway, where the energy/mass goes is the real mystery. how it gets recycled is the mystery. im not suprised they seem to be "too" light or "less massive"...is it possible that the quasar is the other side of the intake? such a transfer in space/time doesnt seem like such a strech if one could imagine a different dimension/system that allowed for the surpasing of the limits of this universe...obviously this could not be proved or disproved so as to seem silly but would it be such a strech to find the back door to a black hole somewhere/somewhen?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOr perhaps the simulations simply misrepresent the interactions of large scale aggregations of masses! Our familiarity with the centralized distribution of mass in the Solar system, where 99.86% of total system mass is contained within the Sun, often seems to bias our gravitational expectations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've seen simple n-body galaxy simulations that appear to represent the the galaxy's mass only as a central massive 'black hole' and 'n' numbers of fixed mass 'particles' that then primarily interact with the often oversize black hole. In any case, the specification of 'particles' of identical mass restricts the actual self gravitating properties of vast planar distributions of many billions of massive objects.
In any case, in the case of models representing galaxy development producing results that do not reflect observed galactic characteristics, it must be considered that the models' processes simply misrepresent actual processes.
Perhaps dispersed matter is more self gravitating and less likely to fall into some distant black hole than the models presume!
BTW, if "The energy needed to fire that blast is five times greater than any other quasar has displayed to date," then perhaps mass ejections of this magnitude are not generally a significant factor in early galactic evolution. This could be an outlyer or periodic event.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you visualize the Universe just before the BB as eternally balanced dynamic entity which for some reason suddenly became unbalanced resulting in a simultaneous eruption which flowed through Spacetime like a ripple in an ocean then it would not take much of a great leap to visualize that such a ripple in the fabric of Spacetime would alter both the spacial and temporal coordinates of everything in its path, and furthermore that the effects of such a ripple would forever alter the balance of Spacetime itself. Then it may be that the so called BB which we credit with the Creation of our Universe, may in fact, be the final Death throes of a once eternal entity and all that we are witnessing is the inevitable results of that deathblow inflicted 13.7 billion years ago.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile <jtddwyer> gives his pointed, yet informed, skepticisms about the article I'm going to express my irratation at the headline "Biggest Black Hole Blast Ever Could..." My first reaction is "Really? Biggest one ever? This one is it? No chance that we'll ever oberve one this big again...ever?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisQuasars are actually a function of the matter around a black holes event horizon. Not an expression of energy from beyond the event horizion (sic. Inside the black hole.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm with JTDwyer on this. This is like seeing a speck of dust and inventing an enormous story about a volcano. Until we get out beyond the solar gravity well I will remain skeptical about these grand proclamations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe pushed hydrogen and helium from the extremely luminous object (quasar) confirm the existence of the photational force which is derived and described in the book "Attraction and Repulsion in the Universe".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPhotational force is repulse force that emerges from collision of photons with matter.
When photons collide with matter they change their speed in some materials. Experimental observations of light electronic transited through transparent materials, as at hydrogen, reveal that light moves more slowly through these materials than it does through a vacuum. The photon lost its linear momentum and our object (hydrogen) gains this lost. So its linear momentum has increased.
Therefore I say that photons push objects which collide with them. That is why above mentioned quasar blasts away a giant cloud of gas that is mostly hydrogen with some helium and traces of other elements such as carbon.
http://outskirtspress.com/attraction_repulsion/
"Computer models of the early universe usually produce a virtual cosmos that looks like ours except for one thing. The ratio of the mass of black holes in galaxy centers to the rest of the matter in galaxies is larger in the simulations than in the real universe."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Scientists think somehow galaxies are ridding themselves of much of the mass that would have ended up falling into their central black holes. However, until now researchers have been at a lack for an explanation of how this might happen."
From the problem statement, that the ratio of black hole mass to galactic mass is more in simulations than actually observed, a process that ejected mass from galaxies (before it could be absorbed into black hole mass) might reduce black hole mass but would also reduce galactic mass. As a result, unless the simulations' galactic mass is also larger than that of observed galaxies, the proposed mechanism would not fit the simulations' "ratio of the mass of black holes in galaxy centers to the rest of the matter in galaxies" to observations.
I strongly suggest that the simulation models represent that galactic matter is far too strongly attracted to the center of galactic mass - grossly underestimating the self-gravitation of disperse galactic masses, as I suggested in comment #3 above.
As I understand, photons traversing even a transparent medium are not slowed except for their continual interactions with the medium's atoms, through their absorption and re-emission by charged particles. For example, the effective speed of light in water is about 3/4 of its speed in vacuum, even though photon propagation speed between particles is the same as it is in a vacuum.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light#Speed_of_visible_light
Sheesh! Let's all hope this is not what the Mayans meant by the Universe ending in about a month. Also, let's hope that most scientists and engineers who predict a phase-change of Entropy changing from 0 (disorder) to 1 (perfection) in the date range 2010-2013, according to many fundamental equations of natural law used ubiquitously today, aren't also talking about the same thing. Just sayin'--it fits the theory. Shazam!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"But the discovery isn't a clear-cut smoking gun."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, it could well be for the final paradigm for the evolution of celestial bodies. That is to say, the eruption here of matter from a quasar could show not how galaxies shed weight but reveal something far more important - how galaxies are really born from fragmenting quasars,as the one observed here!
Moreover, black holes are absolute nonentities in our universe and are pure theoretical, ad hoc constructs.
Again, from above,
"Computer models of the early universe usually produce a virtual cosmos that looks like ours except for one thing. The ratio of the mass of black holes in galaxy centers to the rest of the matter in galaxies is larger in the simulations than in the real universe."
In fact there are more such conundrums in astrophysics today. May I now request the computer team here to kindly down their blinkers momentarily to consider what a prominent set of other researchers in their very field have to say following their own computer simulations and study, in:http://www.sittampalam.net/StarFormation.htm?
Ihe quasar, as the one seen here, spews out, or spawns, new-born galaxies; a galaxy, in turn, fragments into stars and planets in this fractal universe of ours. Get the whole, illustrative pictures in:
http://www.sittampalam.net/TheCosmos.htm,
http://www.sittampalam.net/TheGalaxy.htm and
http://www.sittampalam.net/Synopsis.htm
Thank you all for your time here.
Cheers!
www.toe.tv
Sorry, but a few instances of the possible redirection of reheated flows of gas clouds illuminated by quasars is not compelling evidence for a general theory of galaxy formation through 'Quasar' fragmentation. It is a highly imaginative interpretation, though!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjtdwyer - you say
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this<From the problem statement, that the ratio of black hole mass to galactic mass is more in simulations than actually observed, a process that ejected mass from galaxies (before it could be absorbed into black hole mass) might reduce black hole mass but would also reduce galactic mass. As a result, unless the simulations' galactic mass is also larger than that of observed galaxies, the proposed mechanism would not fit the simulations' "ratio of the mass of black holes in galaxy centers to the rest of the matter in galaxies" to observations.> in fact, if you remove mass from a galaxy that would otherwise end up in the central black whole, the ratio of mass in the black whole in the future will be different than what it presently is. think of it like this: picture a quarter on the table surrounded by 75 pennies. your current ratio is 25%. the nearest 5 pennies are destined to fall in to the black whole, which would give a 30% ratio. If those 5 were instead ejected, the ratio would be 25/95ths, or about 26%. So you can see ejecting mass near the black whole would lower the ratio.
Sorry, but your arithmetic illustration does not clarify the actual processes involved. A process that ejects matter from galaxies necessarily reduces both the mass of the galaxy and, presuming that matter would otherwise have been ingested by the black hole, the mass of the black hole.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn other words, the earlier mass of the galaxy would necessarily have been larger than the sum of the observed galaxy mass and black hole mass - larger by the amount of mass ejected.
This ejection process is only necessary if it is presumed that supermassive black holes grow significantly larger during galaxy evolution. It must be assumed by the simulation models that SMBHs significantly increase in mass during galaxy development by ingesting galactic matter.
I suggest that it's this fundamental presumption that SMBHs must grow during galaxy development that is false.
"The mean ratio of black hole mass to bulge mass is now believed to be approximately 0.1%, i.e., a bulge of one billion solar masses contains a black hole of approximately one million solar masses."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-sigma_relation
We don't get to know what the M-sigma relation will be in the future - only what they have been throughout the past. The evidence supports a model in which black hole mass DOES NOT significantly increase by some mechanism in which SMBHs ingest large amounts of galactic matter.
The simulation models seem to falsely include a fundamental gravitational process in which SMBHs inherently increase in mass during galaxy evolution. The proper correction to those models is to directly eliminate that growth, rather than devising yet another process that compensates for the inherent SMBH growth that is not in evidence.
jtdwyer, thank you for your above response (comment 14)to my preceding comment there. The fragmentary model may now seem a highly imaginative interpretation, but the model, though not currently recognized, is empirically solid and is found all over in this universe of fractals. Even here on mother Earth, our various continents are the fragmentary outcome of the once single and mega-continent, Pangaea.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps the findings of the famous astronomer, Halton C. Arp, who stood steadfast by his convictions following his observations of galaxies and quasars, forfeiting his lucrative career in the US and returning dismayed to his home country, Germany, will be good reading for anyone here with an open mind, a prerequisite for that long-overdue paradigm shift for our modern age. Please Google search his name and see what he has to say. A typical press release by him may be accessed on: http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/astronomy_by_press_release.pdf
Thanks again, and Cheers!
www.toe.tv
Thanks for explaining further, but I specifically don't understand how the redirection and reacceleration of some outflow gasses (fragmentation of gasses) that are illuminated by quasar radio emissions constitute evidence for the fragmentation of a quasar (which is a black hole that strongly emits radio and other EM radiation).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBeyond that, I also don't understand the relationship between any process of fragmentation and fractal effects, which as I understand specifies that topological (or edge) features appear to be self-similar at all scales.
As for the the fragmentation of Pangaea, please see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercontinent_cycle
"... The last supercontinent, Pangaea, formed about 300 million years ago. The previous supercontinent, Pannotia, formed about 600 million years ago, and its dispersal formed the fragments that ultimately collided to form Pangaea. But beyond this the time span between supercontinents becomes more irregular. For example, the supercontinent before Pannotia, Rodinia, existed ~1.25 billion to ~750 million years ago - a mere 150 million years before Pannotia. The supercontinent before this was Columbia: ~1.8 to 1.5 billion years ago. And before this was Kenorland: ~2.7 to ~2.1 billion years ago. The first supercontinents were Ur (existed ~3 billion years ago) and Vaalbara (~3.6 to ~2.8 billion years ago)."
Thank you jtdwyer for the elaboration which I found most informative especially about the supercontinents we have had down below here; but up above there, concerning the biggest black hole explosion, I'm afraid we will have to reconsider and reevaluate our current abstract theories, starting with General Relativity, that conjured up the black hole. To save us all time here, please check out this one last website in my armoury:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.sittampalam.net/BlackHoles.htm
Thanks and Cheers!