NOISY NEIGHBORS Two objects aglow in radio images of the star cluster M22 may be low-mass black holes feeding from nearby companions. This artist's conception depicts the black holes drawing material from their binary partners.
Image: Benjamin de Bivort
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Around the cosmos, black holes aren't known for being the nicest neighbors. They tend to make their presence felt in unpleasant ways, pulling nearby matter inward even as they belch out violent blasts of plasma and radiation. Put two of them in the same neighborhood and the resulting tug-of-war can quickly turn ugly. But in a cluster of stars within the Milky Way, two black holes appear to have taken up residence in surprisingly close proximity.
The two relatively lightweight black holes in M22, a so-called globular cluster some 10,000 light-years away containing hundreds of thousands of stars, may represent a much larger total population, which would run counter to predictions that gravitational interactions between black holes in the cluster would eject almost all the black holes in short order. Astronomers from the U.S., England and Australia announced their discovery in a study published in the October 4 issue of Nature. (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group.)
The researchers used the recently upgraded Very Large Array (VLA), a network of radio dishes near Socorro, N.M., to look for an intermediate-mass black hole at the center of M22. These elusive, middleweight objects weigh in at thousands of times the mass of the sun—as compared with the supermassive black holes at the centers of galaxies, which contain millions or even billions of solar masses. What the astronomers found instead was a pair of even lighter black holes that form from the collapse of massive stars. Each of the so-called stellar-mass black holes in M22 carries 10 to 20 times the mass of the sun.
"It's sort of surprising, because the theories that have been made had sort of concluded that there ought to be few or no black holes in these globular clusters," says lead study author Jay Strader, an astronomer at Michigan State University. "We know that black holes get made in globular clusters—black holes get made everywhere that there are massive stars. The question is, What happens to them? Do they stay or do they get kicked out?"
Past studies had favored the "kicked out" hypothesis, but the new finding by Strader and his colleagues suggest that the ejection process may not be as efficient as had been assumed.
"They criticize the theory a little bit, and they should," says Simon Portegies Zwart, an astrophysicist at Leiden University in the Netherlands who did not contribute to the new research. "Once in a while the observers surprise the theorists, and once in a while the theorists surprise the observers."
Strader and his colleagues concluded that the two newfound objects, M22-VLA1 and M22-VLA2, are probable black holes because they appear in VLA radio images of M22 but not in archival x-ray data of the same cluster. That emission pattern all but rules out other types of compact objects common to a globular cluster—M22-VLA1 and M22-VLA2 emit too many radio waves to be white dwarfs (dense remnants of spent stars), and not enough x-ray emission to be neutron stars (even denser remnants of collapsed massive stars).
The fact that the two objects are aglow in radio waves at all requires a special set of circumstances—that each of the black holes is currently feeding on its own close-orbiting stellar companion, most likely a white dwarf. Those unusual conditions make a black hole in M22 a bit like a cockroach in the kitchen—for every one you see, there may be several lurking just out of sight. "For us to see them in the radio, they have to not just be in binaries, but they have to be in binaries that are close enough that mass transfer is actually taking place," Strader says. He and his colleagues estimate that there could be as many as 100 low-mass black holes in the globular cluster. "I think it's pretty unlikely that these objects are the only black holes in M22," he notes.
If black holes can indeed coexist more peacefully than had been presumed, then it falls to theoretical astrophysicists "to scratch their heads and see what they can make out of it," Portegies Zwart says. "It is time to crank the computers up again and see if we can understand this result from first principles. And that will be a major endeavor."
See what we're tweeting about
26 Comments
Add CommentSo what will happen if a black hole is consumed by another??
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt would make an even more massive black hole. For example, eventually our galaxy which is a spiral galaxy with a black hole at its center, will collide with the Andromeda spiral galaxy which also has a massive black hole at its center. The result, most believe, will be an even larger spiral galaxy with an even more massive black hole at its center.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat happens when all the black holes join up? Hmmmmmm.... Or, what happens to all that matter that goes in? Hmmmm.... No one knows... Yet :)
But it sure seems cyclical to me...
I think black holes still have a lot to tell us about the nature of the universe. Maybe one day we will find that black holes, or something like them, account for some portions of the universe accelerating. And there will be no need for modified gravity, or to infer compensatory dark matter or dark energy to solve some previously observed discrepancy.
From a related article: "'If most people know one thing about black holes, they probably know that nothing can escape from them, not even light. Yet this most basic tenet about black holes has actually been disproven by the theory of quantum mechanics', explains theoretical physicist Edward Witten of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton… . … Kip Thorne of Caltech describes them as 'objects made wholly and solely from curved spacetime.'"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, here is a question. When a light ray bends, if due to gravity, as Einstein said, and because the geometry is not Euclidean as Einstein said--to say it figuratively, if space is curved and there are no straight lines in the gravitational field--this may seem to explain the phenomenon, but is it good, if it seems to explain but doesn’t explain? If the light bends and the geometry is Euclidean, this means something further about the cause remains to be discovered. Is it good to think we have an explanation, when we should still be looking for the explanation? Check out my Facebook Note:
https://www.facebook.com/notes/reid-barnes/where-20th-century-physicists-went-wrong/399956633390250
The black hole that consumes the other black hole will be full and rest for a while. Then wake up to gobble another one.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe black hole that consumes the other black hole will be full and rest until it's time to gobble up another black hole.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI just returned to SA after reading your Facebook page. Man, you are a "wordy" type of fellow. Or, do you like to hear yourself think?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI like Lawrence Krause and have seen his videos on YouTube and have seen him on various TV programs. And, as for Einstein? Well, Einstein is Einstein.
But, there is one factor you have overlooked in all your long-winded and wordy statements on Facebook. You failed to mention Dark Energy and its' effect on the Universe. I assume you know that Dark Energy is causing the Universe to expand at an ever increasing rate of speed and will, in time, rip the Universe to shreds in something some call, "The Big Rip".
First there was "The Big Bang" (which wasn't very big and there was no "bang", as we like to think). Now, scientists are trying to figure out just what is Dark Energy and why is it causing the Universe to accelerate its' rate of expansion (which will negate everyone's argument about who's math is the "right" math.
Since Dark Energy comprises about 73% of all Matter in the Universe, I tend to think more about that than most anything else, (except for the space probes we have sent to the planets) but, you failed to mention even one word about it.
You have a keen interest in Euclidean vs. Non-Euclidean geometry, and tend to beat it to death and argue about which astrophysicist is correct (as though you are the "Final Authority"). My question is, why do you do this to yourself, when (I think) there are more important matters to worry about? Just saying.
Here is what is actually happening. This universe, like all past universes, will eventually consume itself as 'black holes' multiply and merge. The process will accelerate proportionally. As all matter is funneled thru it re-expands & the whole process begins again on the 'other side'...sort of a new 'big bang', as the last moments of the current universe are accelerated beyond the speed of light it appears as tho the end/ beginning takes place over nanoseconds or millennia. Just like turning a balloon inside out....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCall me a purist, but...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Now, scientists are trying to figure out just what is Dark Energy and why is it causing the Universe to accelerate its' rate of expansion"
Actually, somebody noticed the 'possible' expansion of the universe, and somebody else came up with the dark energy thingy to place the blame for it.
Semantics, probably.
Whatever it is, it certainly (if true) comprises most of the stuff in the universe, so it's funny we don't know the least bit about it; or of it's cousin Dark Matter, who comprises almost all the rest of the universe. We, 'normal' matter and energy, are a drop in the overall soup.
So what do we know, really? Not much, huh. Here, have another beer, chill out.
Big, big boom. Biggish balck hole remains. After spilling most of its 'food' around.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCurrent assumption, though, is that conditions for two black holes to merge have to be 'just right'. It is far more likely that they sling each other away - or one kicks out the other, depending on mass differences. This assumption is what surprises astronomers here; black holes are supposed to expel each other from the neighbourhood, leaving only a few, maybe even none, in there.
More so if the ball involves more than two dancers. Look up 'hypervelocity stars' to get an idea of the effect - it's supposed to be even more pronounced between black holes...
Sorry, meant Runaway stars. Hypervelocity stars are just an extreme case of runaway...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you so much for mentioning that "... Kip Thorne of Caltech describes them as 'objects made wholly and solely from curved spacetime!'"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI thought I'd once seen a snippet of a California professor simply stating that black holes contain no matter. I've taken hold of that idea to explain:
- How a singularity (gravitational focal point) could exist even though no form of (dimensional) matter could be contained within.
- Why relativistic jets expel (disintegrated) elementary particles, x-rays and radio waves when primarily molecules and atoms are being accreted by the disk.
- How separated potential mass-energy can be locally retained to produce the black hole's gravitational effects.
Maybe now I can investigate further...
What related article are you referring to? IMO, this statement is categorically false:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"... nothing can escape from them, not even light. Yet this most basic tenet about black holes has actually been disproven by the theory of quantum mechanics', explains theoretical physicist Edward Witten of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton…"
As I understand, the correct statement is that nothing that has entered the black hole (event horizon) can escape. I don't think that's been falsified.
As I recall, general relativity considers that light traverses a linear path though curved spacetime.
IMO, however, the curvature of spacetime is 'merely' an abstract system of dimensional coordinates that consistently and accurately describe the effects of gravitation - it does not describe the actual physical process that produces those effects. I think the curvature of spacetime represents a gradient field of kinetic energy that actually does curve light and the trajectory of objects with independently directed momentum. But I'm just speculating...
I read your referenced Facebook note and found it interesting. You might find my recent brief essay interesting. It’s descriptively titled "Inappropriate Application of Kepler's Empirical Laws of Planetary Motion to Spiral Galaxies Created the Perceived Galaxy Rotation Problem - Thereby Establishing a Galactic Presence for the Elusive, Inferred Dark Matter."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1419
In my "Supplemental Info." section I reference an earlier study not as well publicized as Moni-Bidin’s but with complementary results. I also reference several research reports that successfully describe the rotational characteristics of spiral galaxies without invoking metaphysical elements or modifying gravity. Properly considered, spiral galaxies do not fly apart simply because their component masses are not each independently orbiting some remote central mass (like planets in the Solar system) – the billions of stars and other masses all interact and locally bind with each other. The galactic disk is a rotating, loosely bound, large scale composite structure. Each peripheral star, for example, is kept from being ejected as a result of centrifugal effects by its gravitational interactions with millions of neighboring massive objects.
There is simply no missing galactic mass. That also poses a problem for cosmologists, since their universal dark matter estimates are primarily derived from galactic dark matter estimates…
In Reply to: Acoyauh2
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Dark Energy" got its' name from the "Integrated Sachs Wolfe Effect", named after Rainer Sachs and Arthur Wolfe. At first, most scientists didn't believe their findings but, further research proved they were right.
Proof of an expanding Universe was discovered (or, rather further developed) by Edwin Hubble, for which the "Hubble Telescope" (that is in orbit above the Earth) was named. For a more accurate understanding of the expanding Universe and Hubble, go to this site:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law
As far as "knowing" is concerned, I look at things this way: "The more you know, the LESS you know". And, believe me; The longer you live the less certain you will become about everything in this dimension (the world we live in). Now we know that empty "space" is really not empty. Even in a "perfect" vacuum, there are sub-atomic particles that constantly come and go in and out of existence, from completely empty space. In one cubic foot (of space), there are millions and perhaps billions of sub-atomic particles that appear from apparently "nowhere". Go figure!
Any idea to any one regarding the size of cluster M22 and the distance between two observed BHs?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpace is not empty and millions of sub atomic particles may pop out and into every moment from space. True. But are those particles the stuff which firm the fabric of space? After popping out and in of sub-atomic particles, some thing is left in empty space? To paraphrase, how to describe emptiness of space?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIMO, however, the curvature of spacetime is 'merely' an abstract system of dimensional coordinates that consistently and accurately describe the effects of gravitation - it does not describe the actual physical process that produces those effects. I think the curvature of spacetime represents a gradient field of kinetic energy that actually does curve light and the trajectory of objects with independently directed momentum. But I'm just speculating..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCurvature of space-time emanates from GR and relativity is based upon vacuum state of space ( emptiness) implying no physicality of space. You are also stating about nil physicality of space.
When curvature of space time is some abstract mathematical system without having any relation with actual physical process at 'ground level of space', how curvature can provide some actual physical field of kinetic energy gradient with some realty at ground level.If basic cause itself is mathematical abstract system without any physicality on the ground level, all its subsequent effects should also be mathematical abstract constructs only
"Empty" space is unstable. Therefore, for some as yet, unknown reason, "empty" space has a "need" to fill itself with matter. But, this sub-atomic particle matter can not be trapped and held in anyone place for any given time. It's as though the Universe has a "mind" of its' own.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAdd to that, the expansion of the Universe where space itself is expanding. Hubble, and others, demonstrated that the Galaxies were moving away from Earth at our vantage point in space. With the exception of the Andromeda galaxy (which is moving closer to our galaxy, the Milky-way Galaxy, and will eventually collide with each other), all the others are moving away at an ever increasing speed. But, that doesn't mean the Galaxies themselves are doing the moving. No, it is the space between the Galaxies that is expanding. So, even though the speed of light is constant "c", and because space itself is expanding, eventually, the Galaxies we see with the naked eye will disappear from view because, their light that is traveling toward us will never reach us. The rate of expanding "space" will eventually, exceed the speed of light and will "out run" the light that is traveling toward us. Pretty wild, huh? This is a very complicated issue. So, if you wish further understanding of all that I just said, here is a good place TO START! So, good luck.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space#How_is_the_expansion_of_the_universe_measured_and_how_does_the_rate_of_expansion_change.3F
sounds like to me the missing candidate for dark matter has likely been discovered.....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWant to see the Black Hole? You can't but you can see an image of the Gas surrounding it. google search for
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIMAGE - 2mass8.jpg Ronald Nussbeck - and it will bring up a series of photos. On June 12, 2009 During a survey of Proxima Centauri by scientist Ron Stewart/ Ronald Nussbeck a Small Black Hole was found. The Black Hole some 20 times the mass of our Sun showed up in a Two Micron All Sky Survey (2MASS) image. The space anomaly is about 10,000 light years from Earth at 82 degrees North of Proxima Centauri which is about 4.2 light years from Earth. The Small Black Hole is collecting the surface structure and Gas of a nearby Star making it visible for all to see.
The image was aquired using a 5000 dpi photo enhancement process with an Electron microscopic enlargement process this gave the world it's first image of a nearby Black Hole. A report was made of the Black Hole to the Naval Observatory in June 2009 and to other Scientists around the world with access to Observatories or equipment to verify the finding. The Black Hole should come up in the second image, just enlarge for a close up look.
I am aware of the concepts as mentioned in your comments and as given in wikipedia entries. This is the conventional commonplace knowledge. I want to draw to your attention to some deep rooted mysterious issues of expansion of universe
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Universe where space itself is expanding. Hubble, and others, demonstrated that the Galaxies were moving away from Earth"
i) In your above quote, you are rightly mentioning the oft repeated fact that expansion of universe implies expansion of space. Yes, I know and agree with this conventional common fact of cosmology. But just try to think over a bit deeper into the following issues;
a) At physical level, when space expands, "what is that?" constituents of space which expands? In other words, whether fabric of space comprises of some physical building blocks or space is purely vacuum implying "nothing". In either case, some physical building block or "nothing" should have some existence.
But when we say "nothing" has some existence, "nothing" will cease to exist as nothing in real sense
b) Space has been expanding since Big Bang. From where additional space has been emerging which appears with expansion?
c)Dark energy or cosmological constant or quintessence have been theorized as energy components required for normal or accelerated expansion of space. With additional expansion of space, additional energy also appears for expansion of space. From where additional expansion energy appears? What is the nature of that energy?
ii) With the expansion of space between galaxies are also displaced away. It implies between matter ( of galaxies) and space, there should be some interacting force which serves as binding between space and galaxies. Had there been no such binding, space would have expanded beneath galaxies ( a sort of slipping away) and galaxies would have remained at same location despite expansion of space.
Please try to think out of conventional paradigm of red shift or mathematical equations and try to appreciate the depth of above issues on physical ground. If you find some genuine solution, please share with me. I admit that I do not know the real solution for the above issues of expansion despite my mulling over for a long
"(N)othing that has entered the black hole (event horizon) can escape."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs far as I know, this is true. That does not make the other statement false. What escapes is not the same as that which entered. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation )
"I think the curvature of spacetime represents a gradient field of kinetic energy that actually does curve light and the trajectory of objects with independently directed momentum."
This is meaningless. Please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy the first paragraph for an explanation of the expression "kinetic energy."
You may consider the curvature of space to be merely "an abstract system of dimensional coordinates that consistently and accurately describe the effects of gravitation," but at least the effect can be seen in photographs. Kinetic energy on the other hand, like all forms of energy, has never been measured directly. It is just as much an abstract concept as curved spacetime is. The concept of energy has just been around for much longer, and is better correlated with something most people intuitively think they understand, so very few would question the reality of energy. And those who do, are more likely to question the distinction between "reality" and an abstract model that accurately describes observable effects, than to question whether energy is real. In physics there is no distinction, because in the very nature of things, you cannot measure the difference between an accurate description of observable effects and reality.
Ref.21-vinodkumarsehgal's Blog post, " At physical level, when space expands, "what is that?" constituents of space which expands? In other words, whether fabric of space comprises of some physical building blocks or space is purely vacuum implying "nothing".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour above para requires your careful analysis,the edict word -"Nothing ", is not applicable in Experimental Physics,mathematics and Space Time Cosmologies of Nature Bounds---as the pure vacuum of space always keeps topping up, with 1/2 SPIN PARTICLES,& as yet unknown Negative Mass Particles' that flit and fro, in the so called erroneous word, which misguides the factual entity and meaning of the word used as, "VACUUM IN PHYSICS."
KEEP IN MIND THAT LIGHT --confirms-that light speed appears "Constant in" any "Inertial Frame" ,
"TIME FREEZES IN CONICITY TRIANGULATION UNDER DYNAMIC INERTIA GRAVITY "
I like your explanation. Maybe we are ejecta from a universal black hole reunion 13-billion years ago.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTime. Lots of energy unused. Masses of matter. Patterns. Lack of pattern. The universe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOur brains. Charges of energy (chemicals and electricity). Matter - brain tissue.
Patterns. Lack of patterns.
Lots to figure out, though considering what I learned in elementary school in about 1967 or so, we as scientists have come a way way long way!!!
Our Universe was created from a Black Hole of a parent Universe in what is no less than a birthing process and transfer of information from one Universe to another. As scientists know from studying WMAP images our Universe is nearly flat with each Galaxy containing a Super massive Black Hole and many small to medium sized Black Holes scattered about from ancient Super Nova's. All Black Hole tails dangle below the Universe surface and could number in the Billions if not Trillions, all combined by gravity to create a Ultra massive tail below the Universe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs Matter enters the Black Hole gravity disassembles Particles predictably unlike the LHC that crashes them together braking the subatomic particles into pieces.
The gravity of the black hole takes each piece of a particle and removes it from its orbit around the nuclei until completely disassembled and converts each into a distinctive wave that is connected to that particle for ever. The particle wants to reunite in it's proper place in the particle's orbit but is held back by the enormous strength of gravity, reassembly is inevitable and will seek it's proper position as gravity wanes.
As the waves travel down the tail of the black hole it reaches the end of the tail, a point where gravity dissipates and a collection of all material is held in a chamber. The gravity that held the pieces of the particle (waves) now is pushing back building unthinkable pressure finally exploding into a massive fireball of energy.
The Tail (umbilical cord)at the end of the Black Hole brakes away from the birthing Black hole giving rise to expansion and creation of a new Universe. This birthing process gives the new Universe the same laws of physics as the parent Universe along with the genetic code for life as we know it successfully transferred. Black Holes do not destroy matter or information, they transfer matter and information as if it is a living organism.
Ronald Nussbeck