New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Galactic Black Hole Fireworks Were a Flop

The giant "G2" cloud at the center of the Milky Way could be falling in a continuous stream, thereby inhibiting the spectacle that astronomers hoped for

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Nothing. Nada. Zilch. That’s what astronomers saw this spring when they trained their telescopes on the giant black hole at the Milky Way’s centre, hoping to see galactic fireworks as a huge gas cloud smashed into it.

A team of astronomers now says that it has an explanation for the lack of fireworks around the black hole, called Sagittarius A*, which is four million times more massive than the Sun. The researchers think that the cloud, rather than being isolated, is a dense clump within a continuous but thinner stream of matter. This would act as a constant breeze on the disk of matter orbiting the black hole, rather than as sudden gusts that would have caused fireworks as they hit, as originally expected.

Matching orbits
In 2012, astronomer Stefan Gillessen of the Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics in Garching, Germany, and his collaborators reported that a large gas cloud known as G2 was approaching the center of the Milky Way, and being torn apart by the central black hole's gravity.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The team also predicted that while much of G2 would trace a parabola around the black hole, parts of it would be pulled in and smash into the accretion disk, with a violent collision that would release an intense flash of radiation.

In the new study, Gillessen and his co-authors used images taken by the European Southern Observatory’s Very Large Telescope in Chile. An analysis of infrared light emitted by G2, as well as by G1 — another cloud that passed near the black hole 13 years ago — reveal that the two clouds have almost identical orbits.

This suggests that both clouds, along with a gas tail that the team says is trailing G2, are all part of a large single gas stream, possibly torn from a star that came close to Sagittarius A* some 100 to 200 years ago, Gillessen and colleagues suggest. They report their findings in an article posted on 17 July on the arXiv preprint repository.

James Guillochon and Avi Loeb of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and their colleagues proposed a similar explanation in April in an Astrophysical Journal Letters article.

Gillessen notes that although the Very Large Telescope could not resolve structures within the tail of gas behind G2, it seems to be clumpy, indicating that there may be other gas clouds following G2 for the black hole to feed on in the near future.

However, astronomer Andrea Ghez of the University of California, Los Angeles, who leads another team examining the Galactic Center, does not find that scenario convincing. Her team’s images, which trace the dust associated with G2 rather than the gas, suggest that there is an unseen star in the middle of G2. The gravitational pull of the star would keep the cloud intact, preventing parts of it from falling into the black hole's disk. The team reported its findings in a May 2 telegram of the International Astronomical Union. If that is the case, the stream of gas to which G2 belongs might not be as steady as suggested by Gillessen and his colleagues.

A major light show could still happen in a few years to a few decades from now, when G2 spirals through the disk of gas and dust believed to surround Sagittarius A*. The time it takes for G2 to travel through the disk may speak volumes about the properties of the disk and the eating habits of supermassive black holes similar to Sagittarius A*, Loeb says.
 

This article is reproduced with permission and was first published on July 21, 2014.

Ron Cowen is a freelance science writer specializing in physics, astronomy and the history of science. He is the author of Gravity's Century: From Einstein's Eclipse to Images of Black Holes, and he is working on a book about sound preservation and how the earliest efforts to record sound changed forever how we think about time and memory.

More by Ron Cowen

First published in 1869, Nature is the world's leading multidisciplinary science journal. Nature publishes the finest peer-reviewed research that drives ground-breaking discovery, and is read by thought-leaders and decision-makers around the world.

More by Nature magazine

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe