When a galaxy is just a baby, forming out of a ginormous gas cloud a million light years across, two things happen. One is that the cloud collapses into stars. The other is that at the core of the galaxy a black hole forms and grows. It’s unclear if it forms from the core of a supermassive exploding star (or from several that merge), or from some other mechanism. But every big galaxy has one at its heart, and it’s big, and the mass of the black hole in many ways is related to the size of the galaxy itself. So we know that the formation of the galaxy itself and the black hole at its core are somehow linked.
 |
As the black hole grows, it starts to emit a very powerful wind. This is not from the black hole itself, but from a disk of material — called the accretion disk — that forms around the black hole. The disk is made of matter swirling around the hole, eventually falling down the drain. This gas gets extremely hot, and may also have magnetic fields, and these combine to blast out a gale of subatomic particles.
Moreover, at some point that wind would reach out into the galaxy and blow away any incoming gas that might otherwise reach the black hole. It also blows away gas farther out that would otherwise form stars. Pretty much at that point the galaxy stops forming stars near its core, and the black hole stops growing. There’s still plenty of gas in the galaxy, but it’s far out from the center, out of reach of the black hole.
Or so it was thought. However, a new study out of Yale says that may not be the case. Astronomers studied young galaxies, looking at when they form stars, and also looking at when the black holes in their centers were emitting their strongest winds. What they found is that star formation in these galaxies shuts down before the black holes hit their stride, sometimes more than 100 million years before.
In other words, the situation is a little more complicated than we thought. Isn’t it always?
 |
| Matter swirling near the black hole gets incredibly hot, and starts blowing out in a wind. |
So now the timeline looks like this: stars start to form in the nascent galaxy. The black hole in the center forms, and accumulates mass as junk falls in. The rate grows, and a wind is set up. Stars stop forming in the core of the galaxy for reason or reasons unknown, and then many millions of years later the black hole reaches its peak wind blowing capability. Sometime after that, the wind blows out the remaining gas, and we’re all done. We’ve got galaxy.
So what’s that mysterious process that kills off star birth? Well, it’s mysterious: We don’t know. Maybe there is some process we haven’t thought of at all, a third thing happening in galactic cores that throttles back the star formation rate. Maybe the black hole wind changes with time, and its ability to do that quenching isn’t linked with strength as we thought, but some other factor. Or maybe it just takes a lot less wind blowing to stop making stars. From reading the paper, it seems to me that that last one is the most likely. But it’s still hard to say.
Studying young galaxies is itself a young science. We’ve only had the technology to do this recently; these galaxies are far away and therefore small and faint. The astronomers who did this study used Swift, a satellite that launched in 2004, to give them a good sample of galaxies (Swift has telescopes on board that can see through gas and dust and detect high-energy light coming from the accretion disks) and compare that to data from other telescopes that have only been around a few years themselves.
In other words, this type of work was literally impossible just a few years ago. But now we can do it, and learn about how entire galaxies form. This study is another step in our understanding of this enormous, complex, and colossal process.
Black hole wind from NASA and accretion disk from CXC/Harvard/SAO.
January 21st, 2009 at 6:01 pm
Always exciting to read posts like these!
I love to read about us gathering knowledge of how things came to be in our universe. I also find it equally exciting if we find that we were wrong in some things. This keeps the attention up, doesnt it?
January 21st, 2009 at 6:06 pm
What? Science is a continual process of discovery and we have not, in fact, peaked?
Aw shucks Phil, you say the darndest things.
This is my way of saying- hey, let’s not underfund.
I find this really cool, but it raises a question for me about method:
I’m not really up on astronomical methods so this is going to be an
entry-levelintern question:With (I assume) limited time for an astronomer to use SWIFT (which always reminds me of the JREF) what’s the sample size like? I don’t know how easy it is to “see” galaxies, or how long it takes to interpret data, but is there any chance the galaxies they looked at are somehow exceptional? Or can they turn this baby on and have it auto-aim and machine gun shoot a hundred galaxies?
January 21st, 2009 at 6:23 pm
There is an article in this week’s NewScientist about how Dark Matter filaments stoked star birth in early galaxies. Maybe this has something to do with the process of star formation around a Black Hole at the centre of young galaxies?
January 21st, 2009 at 6:58 pm
Why aren’t we considering superstring theory/M theory? If the BH is blowing out the subatomic particles because at the singularity the energy has potentiated a stream so intense it has achieved 11 dimensional attributes that make the stream transparent to the gravitational well and thereby escapes back into spacetime, the stream has altered spacetime by it’s re-entry into spacetime. My hunch.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:04 pm
I saw the title of this article, and I immediately thought of Soundgarden’s Black Hole Sun. Great song.
Anyway, I had an idea while reading this. Perhaps stars stop forming in the core of the galaxy because the black hole causes gravitational time dilation?
January 21st, 2009 at 7:55 pm
I was thinking that maybe when the wind reaches a certain speed/force, it is enough to disrupt star formation and until the gas/matter is far enough away. Maybe the ‘Plait Effect’? Hey, if Picard has his manouver, you can have an effect!
January 21st, 2009 at 7:58 pm
Oh, I forgot to add this question. Does the wind emitting from a black reach a terminal velocity? Is there a certain speed at which all the gas etc. gets swept aways at ‘x’ speed and that is the highest speed the blackhole winds can achive? Once ‘x’ speed is reached, does the black hole remain at that constant speed until it stops feeding?
January 21st, 2009 at 8:06 pm
This sounds like a job for….
[musical stab]
ALMA Man!
Could it be that the jets from the BH only inhibit star formation in those 2 directions, but permit it to continue in the newly defined plane of the galaxy? Just wonderin’…
January 22nd, 2009 at 3:06 am
I love reading about black holes but I must admit to being way behind the curve when it comes to my knowledge about them. Can anyone recommend some good reading on the subject that won’t melt the brain of a layperson with an interest in physics and cosmology?
January 22nd, 2009 at 4:30 am
O U R S U N
Like every cell, molecule, quark, planet, moon or star incorporates a black hole at its nucleus. Instigated reactions to a black hole produce its atomic reactions.
INSTIGATED REACTION is the black hole’s intake or its nutritional feeding of Bruce’s Stuph.
Like all cells etc, our Sun spews its info cells or atomic energy. This energy atomically interacts creating heat, creating light with most of what it encounters, the smallness of Bruce’s Stuph (dark matter) being one exception.
From this encounter or collision, created light feeds on the Aura or Info Cells (Bruce’s Stuph) of what it has come in contact with. Using this continuous magnetic energy connection, info cells of Earth are affectively transported to the sun to be used as nutrition or fuel of its black hole. This of course means we’re no longer #1 on the food chain!
Our sun is a cold, cold activated black hole. It appears to us as being hot and bright but it is not. What we observe as a fiery object is in fact collision or reaction between the force emitting from this black hole and the accumulation of packed STUPH – the sun’s digestive system if you like.
When you stand back from a fire you no longer feel its heat. The sun being no exception; we do not receive heat and light from the sun’s outer fire!
If we could see into the center of the Earth it would appear to us as being hollow (black hole). It’s the same for all cells of matter.
The Earth’s digestive system is that of the sun’s, the difference being size, speed and quantity. To explain these statements multiply the heat and light of just one meteor (shooting star).
Go out on a dark, starry night; every star that you can see is producing food (dark matter) that feeds our Earth’s black hole! The energy created from this food is like any other cell and spews from its poles. Our Earth’s atmosphere, including everything out from its black hole, has and is being created from this energy! A black God if you like!
Bruce Voigt
January 22nd, 2009 at 4:34 am
Great stuff BA! It’s always been challenging study of the early formation stages of universe’s components..galaxies, blackholes even the CMB fluctuations. But it seems we are on a good track to reveal them anytime soon..
@Cannonball Jones
I would recommend a marvelous book about blackholes : “Blackholes and Timewarps” by Kip Thorne.. I think this is the “holly book” of the blackholes written in popular language!
January 22nd, 2009 at 6:31 am
@Cannonball: “A Brief History of Time” – Stephen Hawking?
“Death by Black Hole” – Neil DeGrasse Tyson?
January 22nd, 2009 at 6:34 am
With this new discussion of black holes at the center of the galaxies, I have been wondering if it is possible that Galaxies were at one time much more massive objects that exploded or became black holes. Is it possible that the stars which have formed are the remains of this much more massive object that exploded or turned into a black hole and spewed out a bunch of material. Is any of this possible?
January 22nd, 2009 at 6:35 am
On second thought, I suppose if this were true we’d be able to see some of these objects on the universe horizon.
January 22nd, 2009 at 7:50 am
Is the result that star formation stops before strong winds occur or that it’s specifically before central-black-hole winds occur? Is it possible for the wind generated by supernovae associated the initial starburst to quench star formation before the black hole gets going?
@drsky: I liked Thorne’s Black Holes and Time Warps when I was a layperson.
January 22nd, 2009 at 8:59 am
From this encounter or collision, created light feeds on the Aura or Info Cells (Bruce’s Stuph) of what it has come in contact with. Using this continuous magnetic energy connection, info cells of Earth are affectively transported to the sun to be used as nutrition or fuel of its black hole.
I finally understand plasma theory!
A black God if you like!
That was the only episode of the Sarah Silverman Show I really liked.
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:23 am
Phil, why don’t you post something about astronomy instead of another lefty political rant?
(Sorry, a comment thread never feels complete until someone says that.)
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:27 am
There seems to be a few missing steps:
“The black hole in the center forms, and accumulates mass as junk falls in.”
The black hole had to be a largish star to start with, right? A largish star that just happened to be at or near the center of mass of a nascent galaxy?
Or are the black holes at centers of galaxies what happened to the supermassive Pop III (first generation) stars that we can’t find, whose gravity well caused the galactic mass to aggregate?
In any case, this doesn’t describe cases like our Milky Way, that isn’t sucking down mass at the moment, and so can only be detected indirectly (so far).
Dennis
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:28 am
I think I’ve got some Bruce’s Stuph on the bottom of my shoes. Somebody get me a hose…
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:59 am
Let’s see. What can we know(theoretically) about the characteristics of a black hole,,,
1) Mass
2) Angular momentum, derived form the rotation of its,,,
3) magnetic field and
4) electric static charge
,,,hummm,,,only thing I can see that might have the effect of blowing off infalling matter is the rotational/accelerating effects of that magnetic field. If it is not aligned with the polar rotation, then the field would likely sweep a large volume of space near the BH and accelerate ionized matter away.
There! Glad I could solve your problem for you,,,LOL
GAry 7
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:51 am
@BA “Moreover, at some point that wind would reach out into the galaxy and blow away any incoming gas that might otherwise reach the black hole. It also blows away gas farther out that would otherwise form stars. Pretty much at that point the galaxy stops forming stars near its core, and the black hole stops growing.”
The so called “wind” is the bidirectional jet of material streaming out from the black hole. It’s matter that became ionized due to the compression of gas as it falls closer to the event horizon. It escapes along either the north or south magnetic field axis surrounding the black hole. From what I’ve seen of photos of quasars and active radio galaxies the angular spread of the jets is pretty small, probably less than 4*pi/10 steradians or so. So the point I’m getting at is that the jets should only affect the gas and star formation for gas that happens to be in one of the two beams. Gas outside of the beams should be pretty much undisturbed. Indeed, if the gas in the accretion disk (at a right angle to the two beams) was blown away then the jets would turn off due to a lack of material. So I don’t think the jets can blow away the accretion disk. If they could then they would never have formed in the first place.
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:12 am
A couple of comments on the PDF document for the Yale study. I’m not sure what the definition of AGN (active galactic nucleus) is. Is it the entire central bulge for a spiral galaxy? Or is it only the supermassive black hole, its accretion disk, and its jets? Or is it some intermediate region surrounding the supermassive black hole?
It appears that their interpretation of star formation rates is entirely based on color photometry, although I am not familiar with some of the terms being used such as “blue cloud”, “green valley”, and “red sequence”. Perhaps those are common terms in galactic astronomy but I’ve never heard of them before. So if the galactic nucleus were to produce class K-M orange or red dwarfs in prodigious quantities that wouldn’t count as star formation in this study and would not be included. Thus, the spectral class of the stars being formed makes a big difference in terms of both color and luminosity.
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:37 am
@Gary Ansorge “If it is not aligned with the polar rotation, then the field would likely sweep a large volume of space near the BH and accelerate ionized matter away.”
One important thing to remember, assuming the magnetic field surrounding the black hole is roughly a dipole field, is that most of the charged particles cannot escape. Just like in the geomagnetic field most of the electrons and protons spiral around a magnetic field line and follow it northward or southward until the magnetic field strength reaches a critical value at which they reach a mirror point and reverse course and go the opposite direction. So the overwhelming majority of charged particles are doomed to spiral endlessly between their mirror points until they collide with another particle and end up on a new spiral path. Only a tiny minority have a small enough pitch angle (initial angle relative to the magnetic field line at the magnetic equator) to make it far enough north/south to get to a low enough altitude for interaction with the Earth’s atmosphere (thus causing the aurora).
So it must be with the charged particles trapped in the magnetic field lines of a black hole. Only a lucky few are formed near the magnetic poles so that by following the magnetic field line they can get far enough from the black hole so that exo-black hole field lines come into play and they can escape from the black hole altogether (forming the jets we see). The vast majority of charged particles will be trapped between their mirror points endlessly spirally back and forth. I don’t know what the ratio between permanently trapped particles and escaping particles is but it must be huge. Just think of what those jets would be like if all of the particles could escape. They would be orders of magnitude more intense and thus more deadly.
January 22nd, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Colors of the Sky
Blue, Orange, Green “GREEN”
Only once have I experienced the inside of an active cumulonimbus cloud.
Flying the clocks at about five thousand feet I was met with heavy turbulence, deafening thunder and lightening all around the aircraft – close enough to touch.
At about the time a decision was made to somehow get the hell out of this, I broke out into a humongous cavern. It was medium light getting lighter in elevation, the colour being an eerie green-grey.
It was dead calm and I will swear that the drone of the engines were one half of normal.
I would be enjoying this fantastic experience but for the fact that the ‘outy’ was going to be like the ‘iny’ – and it was.
Guess that I can claim to have flown an aircraft through a Black Hole! “WOW”
Experiment:
On a bar magnet, at center place a small (approx ¼ in) ball bearing. You will notice that it just barely sticks. Give it a nudge towards either end (pole). It will zoom to the end and will be much harder to remove. This will indicate that the magnets power is at the poles.
“This will indicate that the magnets power is at the poles”.—This Statement Could Not be Farther from the Truth.
Power (energy) at the poles is so minute in comparison to the power of the nucleus. Forces of Equal Evolution act upon Forces of Equal Evolution and through reverse evolution each dividing cell (because of nuclei high orbit speed) is smaller than the last. These “many” small cells having the same energy at a nucleus do not interact with matter. This is why it is calm in the eye of a tornado, the cell of a cumulonimbus cloud and my science adding black hole or the nucleus of any cell!
Bruce Voigt
January 22nd, 2009 at 2:29 pm
@Bruce Voigt
So, you’re saying that all matter on the earth (or any other planet, star, or stormcloud) is getting sucked into the center, at ever-increasing velocities, until it reaches a point at which it is moving faster than the speed of light and the matter cannot escape? That’ll be news to astronomers, geologists, physicists…lots of scientists.
January 22nd, 2009 at 4:25 pm
@ SF Reader:
Glad somebody else noticed the contradiction, paradox.
This is like Orwell’s Animal Farm, “Four legs good, two legs better.”
Just over a week ago, it was announced, there was a hypothesis that “black holes” create galaxies, now it’s fact that “black holes” create galaxies. Of course, the only way it works out that gravity creates galaxies is if “dark matter” is also around. But “dark matter” has never been observed.
Even though, astronomy has been looking for them vigorously for 30 years.
IVAN3MAN is one of those that has no problem overstating the scientific evidence.
Oh, I almost forgot, neither have “black holes” been observed. It’s just a hypothesis, dressed up as a theory.
Astronomy has a bad habit of overstating hypothesis and turning them into theories.
And ignoring evidence that contradicts those same hypothesis.
January 22nd, 2009 at 5:00 pm
@Bruce Voigt “Power (energy) at the poles is so minute in comparison to the power of the nucleus. Forces of Equal Evolution act upon Forces of Equal Evolution and through reverse evolution each dividing cell (because of nuclei high orbit speed) is smaller than the last. These “many” small cells having the same energy at a nucleus do not interact with matter. This is why it is calm in the eye of a tornado, the cell of a cumulonimbus cloud and my science adding black hole or the nucleus of any cell!”
Are you for real, Bruce? I was about to call Poe’s Law on you – you seem to be doing a parody of Forest Noble’s PAN theory but I’m not sure. Maybe you are an original crank instead.
January 22nd, 2009 at 5:13 pm
@Anaconda “Glad somebody else noticed the contradiction, paradox.”
Oh, Snake Man is back. Glad to see you. I thought we disposed of your so called “chicken and egg” paradox a while back, didn’t we?
“Just over a week ago, it was announced, there was a hypothesis that “black holes” create galaxies, now it’s fact that “black holes” create galaxies.”
I believe it was slightly different assertion: black holes form first and then the galaxy forms afterward. That’s a little bit different from direct causation.
“Of course, the only way it works out that gravity creates galaxies is if “dark matter” is also around.”
The term “dark matter” isn’t even in the linked Yale study. I suggest you check that out for yourself. Who is asserting that dark matter is necessary for galaxy formation?
“IVAN3MAN is one of those that has no problem overstating the scientific evidence.”
Oh, I thought his main flaw was that he was one of those knife-wielding, crocodile-hunting, crikey saying, …, Aussies.
“Oh, I almost forgot, neither have “black holes” been observed. It’s just a hypothesis, dressed up as a theory.”
I would have thought a plasma cosmologist like you would have been happy with current theories concerning supermassive black holes and their jets. Their jets can’t shine unless they are composed of plasma following magnetic field lines. I would have thought that would be right up your alley.
January 22nd, 2009 at 6:55 pm
@ Tom Marking:
Of course, the only way that magnetic field lines are known to be caused in the laboratory are by, you guessed it, electric current.
Well, aren’t we in for fine distinctions, however, it seems that my “loose” description is fair. According to the hypothesis, “black holes” form then the galaxy forms around it in reaction to the “black holes” gravity, or is that incorrect?
I stand corrected on the Yale study. And I think you’re onto something, there, Tom. Is it possible that the Yale study was attempting to float a trial balloon where “dark matter” is no longer required to develop and maintain a galaxy? You know, of course, that in the 70’s it was definitely established that a galaxy’s mass didn’t have the gravitational pull necessary to hold a galaxy together? So “dark matter” became indespensible.
Maybe, the researchers at Yale are formulating a new hypothesis that intentionally leaves out “dark matter.” Better to focus on “black holes”, there being less resistence to the concept, if precious little more actual observation and measurement that supports it. But, hey, better to build on what seems more tenable, if not more probable.
Tom Marking states: “Their jets can’t shine unless they are composed of plasma following magnetic field lines.” Ah, the old better to accept half a loaf than no loaf at all argument. Except that the majority view holds that there isn’t electrical plasma currents involved. Electrical current and the concurrent magnetic field are what hold the jet together over light years of distance.
I find it interesting that “black holes”, those elusive creatures, what was once thought to be an anomaly is now the “duct tape” of the Universe…oops, I forgot, “dark matter” and “dark energy” are the “duct tape” and “bailing wire” of conventional astronomy.
But could it be, the “powers that be” are starting to realize the fiction of “dark matter” just won’t cut it anymore?
January 23rd, 2009 at 6:34 am
Black holes attracts the weirdest things … uh, commentators.
Not that the observable physics isn’t weird:
When I was googling trying to understand the BH wind I see that Wikipedia mentions another possible process, a minority view at best: the Penrose process.
AFAIU Penrose suggested that frame dragging will split infalling matter into two parts, one of which is ejected at relativistic speeds. And if it is too broad an effect to explain the jets, I assume it could never the less be part of what drives a wind. (As the process also ejects neutral matter, eventual magnetic field capture wouldn’t be sufficient to confine it.)
FWIW, I found a 2008 arxiv paper that attempts to unify the magnetic dragging mechanism (Blandford-Znajek process) with the frame dragging mechanism (Penrose process) and possibly others. (Click on my name for a link.)
January 23rd, 2009 at 6:39 am
That didn’t work for me. Try this instead.
January 23rd, 2009 at 8:14 am
@ Anaconda:
Not quite, I believe. While being part of astronomical and theoretical physics for a long time, I think dark matter come on its own for the first time when the current cosmology, where it is an essential part, was sufficiently validated, say around 2003.
After that, 2006 onwards(the Bullet Cluster observations), there have been several cases where dark matter is the only remaining explanation for the observations. BA has presented them before.
You are asking for direct observations as validation of a mechanism. That is however not strictly necessary, since we are dealing with a comprehensive theory, not an isolated hypotheses. As long as the current cosmology is the best theory, dark matter is the preferred explanation, whether or not it is directly observed.
And smart money goes to that an improved cosmology, predicting even more data, still retains DM. It is seldom, possibly unheard of, that a powerful theory is totally replaced by later ones.
Btw, if you are looking for similar situations, you can look at evolution theory (published 1858) before the discovery of the chromosomes (~ 1883). They knew that traits were inherited from earlier observation and now predicted by the theory.
But there was no detailed prediction about the form these “trait mediators” took, whether specialized cells, organelles, crystals, molecules, or something completely different. Nothing in the earlier theory allowed such prediction. Never the less, trait mediators were found as theory predicted, and years later their active constituents of genetic molecules (DNA).
Neither the status of the discussed theory, nor suffering misdirected complaints about more direct observations than a theory can predict, I dare say are unfamiliar to science.
Incorrect, as the post above and its links describes. You can separate out the origin processes from the growth processes, and then the claim is that the massive BH has its growth spurt before the host galaxy. How the BH and the galaxies initially form is, I believe, still up for grabs.
The seed for galaxies are, AFAIU, the mass inhomogeneities that comes from quantum stochasticity, blown up by inflation in the early big bang universe, and leaving its imprint in the CMB radiation and the galaxy clustering. I believe the correlation in statistics is verified.
As dark matter would be affected by the above processes, and is associated with galaxies, you can speculate in whether DM is more or less important for seeding, subsequent growth, et cetera, as much as you desire.
Granted, I’m now interpreting the magnetic dragging (Blandford-Znajec) process through a paper attempting of reinterpreting it in a larger setting, but it seems to me they propose that the rotating BH sets up a perfect screening through a charge separation (via BH pair production, I guess) that can take place at its horizon. Except that it isn’t perfect at the poles – imagine a membrane with two punctures.
If so, it is like setting up (electric, but most importantly here, magnetic) field bottlenecks outside the punctures which then enforces the narrowness of the jets, isn’t it? But no need for unobserved plasma currents to extract current observations from theory.
January 23rd, 2009 at 8:36 am
Oops, sorry, I misunderstood the equations there, it is rather the coupling with the magnetic field (technically, via the Poynting vector) that isn’t perfect at the poles. (I blame the reinterpretation, it is too messy to extract the original theory – I won’t try next time.) Same result though.
January 23rd, 2009 at 9:18 am
Torbjörn Larsson,
Nice try, I’m waiting to see how Anaconda will weasel himself out of it.
January 23rd, 2009 at 9:46 am
ND,
that’s easy: He will just reject the “theory” saying that only observation validate everything. Then he will claim that DM, BH and neutron stars have not been observed yet and thus everything is wrong and all we see is just due to some “electric currents in dark mode”.
More or less that will be his answer (or he comes up with completly new things…)
Btw: He did never react to some of my questions about the CMB and the stars that are moving around the galactic center (a star with a period of 13 yrs at a distance to the GC similar to Pluto’s from the sun).
January 23rd, 2009 at 10:29 am
DrFlimmer,
You’re right. He himself has been a black hole of other peoples’ time. But he’ll never believe that either.
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:15 pm
@DrFlimmer “(a star with a period of 13 yrs at a distance to the GC similar to Pluto’s from the sun).”
Intuitively that seems like the wrong number.
M = 4*pi^2 * r^3 / (G * T^2)
M = mass of primary (kg)
r = distance (m)
G = gravitational constant (6.67E-11 m^3 / (kg – s^2))
T = orbital period (sec)
Plugging in for Pluto:
r = 39.5 AU = 5.91E12 m
T = 248 years = 7.83E9 sec
M = 1.99E30 kg which is the mass of the sun
If the radius is the same as Pluto’s and the period is only 13 years then:
M = 1.0 solar mass / (13/248)^2 = 364 solar masses
The supermassive blackhole at the center of the Milky Way is supposed to have a mass of 4 million suns. That would mean an object at the distance of Pluto would have an orbital period of only 1.5 months, not 13 years.
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:36 pm
@Anaconda “Of course, the only way that magnetic field lines are known to be caused in the laboratory are by, you guessed it, electric current.”
I believe Maxwell proposed that this holds not just in the laboratory but anywhere in the universe.
“According to the hypothesis, “black holes” form then the galaxy forms around it in reaction to the “black holes” gravity, or is that incorrect?”
That was in one study Phil linked to a few weeks back, yes. But if you read my comments on that I am probably as skeptical as you are on that claim, perhaps maybe more so (since I demonstrated that the supposed correlation between central bulge size and black hole mass doesn’t seem to hold for the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxy).
“You know, of course, that in the 70’s it was definitely established that a galaxy’s mass didn’t have the gravitational pull necessary to hold a galaxy together? So “dark matter” became indespensible.”
Yes, but I am skeptical too concerning this “missing” mass. It all comes down to how you perform your mass census based on luminosity and how prevalent you think certain low-luminosity objects are such as brown dwarfs, planets in no stellar system, interstellar dust, black holes, etc., etc. If any of those particular objects is several orders of magnitude more prevalent than we suppose then the requirement for missing mass goes away completely.
“Except that the majority view holds that there isn’t electrical plasma currents involved.”
Well, if the quasar bidirectional jets, active galaxy bidirectional jets, etc., etc. have anything to do with the north and south magnetic field lines of a dipole field, then it has to be electrical plasma that is following those field lines since uncharged matter won’t follow a field line. Such moving charged particles must constitute an electrical current unless they are saying that the electron current and the proton current cancel each other out. So I’m not sure how this so called “majority view” explains the jets without plasma currents.
“Electrical current and the concurrent magnetic field are what hold the jet together over light years of distance.”
I agree with that statement 100%.
Now, a question for you. I think you agree with me that these quasar jets are a plasma phenomenon. Since you know that quasars were discovered in the 1960’s to have luminosity variations occurring over months or even shorter time intervals, this limits the size of the energy emitting region to something very small, a few light-months (~5,000 AU) to a few light-weeks (~1,200 AU) in a diameter. This must be true even if you reject the Big Bang red shift distances and the extremely large values for quasar luminosity. If it is not a black hole causing quasars, then what type of plasma phenomenon could cause such large energy output in such a small volume of space?
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:16 pm
“Yes, but I am skeptical too concerning this “missing” mass.”
Also, if you will recall, Phil just recently linked to an article in which they revised the mass of our own galaxy. It was only off by a mere 50%! So that gives you some idea of how accurate our mass census is even for our own galaxy. And there is nothing to say that we won’t eventually find out we were off again by a factor of 2 or 3.
January 23rd, 2009 at 6:09 pm
@ ND & DrFlimmer:
No, of course you guys are wrong, again.
I’m pleasantly surprised.
Tom Marking stated: “I believe Maxwell proposed that this holds not just in the laboratory [electric currents cause magnetic fields] but anywhere in the universe.”
And,
Torbjörn Larsson, OM, presented my quote below.
Anaconda stated: “Electrical current and the concurrent magnetic field are what hold the jet together over light years of distance.”
Torbjörn Larsson, OM responded: “Granted, I’m now interpreting the magnetic dragging (Blandford-Znajec) process through a paper attempting of reinterpreting it in a larger setting, but it seems to me they propose that the rotating BH sets up a perfect screening through a charge separation (via BH pair production, I guess) that can take place at its horizon. Except that it isn’t perfect at the poles – imagine a membrane with two punctures.”
So, both these gentlemen agree with my contention that electric currents do exist in space. They both obviously disagree with my contention of what causes the electric currrent, but considering the endless round and round I had with DrFlimmer and ND (to a lesser degree with ND) on that very issue, I’m pleased.
That can be the start of fruitful dialogue, not endless rangling.
ND, you belive don’t challenge the Maxwell equations do you?
So, ND & DrFlimmer, stand down and relax.
January 23rd, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Gordon Bennett! It was not enough for “Anaconda” to clutter up the AAS #5 Galaxies grow from black hole seeds thread with his “Plasma Cosmology” diatribe, that he now feels the compelling urge to do so here as well!
I stated this on that thread and I’ll do so again here: Anaconda is displaying the same symptoms of neurological disorder that one observes in anorexics — thin people who are convinced that they need to lose weight, to the point of putting themselves at risk. Place them on scales and they will say that the scales are wrong! Show them their emaciated reflection in a mirror and they will insist that they see an obese person. Try reason with them and they accuse you of being part of the conspiracy to make them fat!
Anaconda, if this forum were a Court of Law, you would have, by now, been labeled a vexatious litigant and a Civil Restraining Order (here in the UK) would have been imposed on you!
January 23rd, 2009 at 7:47 pm
@ IVAN3MAN:
You forgot to take your meds, mate.
January 23rd, 2009 at 8:54 pm
Anaconda, were it not for people like you, one would not need any medication!
*Haz stiff drink of Jack Daniels*
January 23rd, 2009 at 10:15 pm
@Anaconda
That can be the start of fruitful dialogue, not endless rangling.
A better way would be to avoid starting off your arguments with false paradoxes and an indignant attitude. Then follow that up with an clear understanding of the scientific process and what you’re criticizing. Finally, stop avoiding tough questions. Until then, I can’t imagine any sort of fruitful dialogue with you.
January 24th, 2009 at 1:16 am
@ José:
No, there is nothing indignant about pointing out the paradoxes of “black holes” and the “big bang.” Although, for many, to challenge in anyway those two concepts is to engage in unacceptable behavior. And even more unaceptable is to continue pointing out the contradictions in response to others attempts to ignore the evidence against those ideas and ignore the evidence for alternative explanations.
José, what tough questions am I avoiding?
Frankly, if the paradoxes and contradictions had little validity, I doubt others would care, but it’s for that very reason (the strength of the paradoxes and contradictions) that irritates proponents of “big bang” and “black hole” theory.
And also I suggest having an alternative theory supported by observation and measurement is irritating, too, because most folks don’t even know there are paradoxes and contradictions or that a coherent alternative theory exists and some in conventional astronomy want to keep it that way.
If more people knew of the above, conventional astronomy would have more to answer for.
And that makes some people uncomfortable.
January 24th, 2009 at 4:31 am
Until you get my view about double layers in the AAS5 thread, Anaconda, you can answer me two questions, please:
1) How do you explain the motion of a star around the galactic center that is probably on a greater orbit than Pluto’s around the sun but needs only 13 years? Pluto needs more than 200 (for a smaller orbit!). And a note to add: The star is on an (almost) perfect Keplerian orbit!
2) What has PC to say about the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB)?
CU, later.
January 24th, 2009 at 5:48 am
No, there is nothing indignant about pointing out the paradoxes of “black holes” and the “big bang.”
I agree. The indignant part is in the way you present your arguments. How about no more “the man is keeping me down” in your comments. It’s a lame tactic, and no one here’s falling for it.
Frankly, if the paradoxes and contradictions had little validity, I doubt others would care, but it’s for that very reason (the strength of the paradoxes and contradictions) that irritates proponents of “big bang” and “black hole” theory.
Nope. If they had any validity, people would jump on board. I sure would. Your paradox relies on the notion that, according to conventional theory, galaxies had to exist in order for black holes to form in the first place. Maybe I’m missing something here, but I’ve never even heard it suggested that black holes could not form in the early universe before galaxies as we know them today came to be. The notion that there’s a paradox here is silly.
If more people knew of the above, conventional astronomy would have more to answer for. And that makes some people uncomfortable.
Special relativity, general relativity, and quantum mechanics have all made crazy predictions that are far more “uncomfortable” for me to swallow that anything plasma theory has.
José, what tough questions am I avoiding?
In addition to DrFlimmer’s questions, don’t forget Tom Marking’s quasar question.
January 24th, 2009 at 9:26 am
@Anaconda “So, both these gentlemen agree with my contention that electric currents do exist in space. They both obviously disagree with my contention of what causes the electric currrent”
The existence of electrical currents in outer space is not exactly some news flash in 2009. It was discovered back in 1958 when the Van Allen radiation belts were detected by the first American satellite Explorer 1. I guess I missed the part where you tell us the cause. I haven’t heard you elaborate on that one – I sure hope it’s not PAN.
January 24th, 2009 at 9:33 am
@Anaconda “No, there is nothing indignant about pointing out the paradoxes of “black holes” and the “big bang.””
Except AFAIK the alleged paradoxes that you have put forward are bogus. May I suggest you use the following bona fide paradox concerning black holes:
Paradox 1: Current black hole theory asserts that the supermassive black holes contained in the centers of many galaxies grow by the merger of smaller black holes. But black hole theory also predicts that from the viewpoint of an external observer it should take an infinite amount of time for an object to fall through the event horizon. That should apply to a black hole falling towards the event horizon of another black hole. Therefore it should take an infinite amount of time for black holes to merge. How can the supermassive black holes we observe already be merged in less than an infinite amount of time?
January 24th, 2009 at 9:53 am
@DrFlimmer “2) What has PC to say about the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB)?”
One of the disappointments I have about Anaconda is that he’s not even presenting an adequate representation of Plasma Cosmology. PU was developed by Hannes Alfven back in the 1960’s. Alfven was an authentic genius who discovered many new properties of plasma (e.g., Alfven waves) and went on to win the Nobel Prize.
Some of the stuff about PU that Anaconda isn’t telling you about is the concept of ambiplasma linked in with matter/antimatter. So the PU explanation of CMB would be something like this: Our region of the universe is composed of matter but we are surrounded by other regions composed of antimatter. Matter/antimatter annihilation at the boundaries of our region and the other regions is what is driving the CMB. Perhaps spatial expansion of our local region red shifts the initial gamma ray spectrum at the boundary all the way into the microwaves we see today (although I think Anaconda probably rejects Doppler explained red shifts – there appear to be different flavors of PU). So with a lot of hand waving PU does have explanations for some of these phenomena.
January 24th, 2009 at 10:04 am
Sorry, I mixed my acronyms
PC = Plasma Cosmology
PU = Plasma Universe
PC = PU in my posts in case there was any confusion.
January 24th, 2009 at 10:15 am
@Torbjorn Larssen “FWIW, I found a 2008 arxiv paper that attempts to unify the magnetic dragging mechanism (Blandford-Znajek process) with the frame dragging mechanism (Penrose process) and possibly others.”
Nice paper there. I did scan it and I notice that the magnetic fields in the accretion disk don’t seem to be an important part of this theory. So they didn’t seem to model the gas in the accretion disk spiraling inward, heating up, ionizing, and then dragging and twisting the magnetic field lines which were embedded in it (similar to what happens to sunspots on the sun). Instead, all of the action seems to be very in close to the event horizon, near the ergosphere and what not. Can’t help but think that the magnetic field structure surrounding the black hole plays a more important part. In fact, allow me to make a prediction. I predict that black hole jets will one day be found in which more than 2 jets are found (i.e., 4 jets for a quadrupole field, 8 jets for an octopole field). If the quadrupole and octopole terms of the magnetic field expansion are high enough then plasma will escape along more than 2 field lines.
January 24th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Anaconda,
Maxwell’s Equations?! Are you kidding me? Who wants to base their ideas on 19th century science?
“… leaves astrophysics relying on an essentailly 19th century theory.”
“It’s a 19th century theory.”
January 25th, 2009 at 10:05 am
@ Tom Marking
This is not really a paradox. First of all: It is also quite possible that a SMBH has grown just by capturing “normal” matter. There has been a numerical work with self-gravitational disks around the black hole. The model was able to “rise” a SMBH in less than 10^9 yrs. And as more massive the SMBH got at last as faster it grabbed the surrounding matter.
Now, your paradox. I will go through it step by step.
“But black hole theory also predicts that from the viewpoint of an external observer it should take an infinite amount of time for an object to fall through the event horizon.”
That is actually not true. You can say it that way, but what really matters is the point that the information (light) does not reach us (it is red-shifted to a wavelength that reaches infinity). The particle goes straight in, but the light it emits becomes redder and redder. In the frame of the particle nothing really terrible happens. It never even feels when it crosses the event horizon.
“Therefore it should take an infinite amount of time for black holes to merge.”
Nope. The black holes merge quite fast. As I said, in their frame nothing strange happens.
.
The “paradox” seems to be that the information of the merger is not reaching us but we can see the black hole growing since it gets more massive and hence the event horizon increases. But I think this is just a problem with our imagination. I do not have a proper explanation right now. But since the particle goes straight in, the black hole must grow. Probably it is the potential dip that becomes steeper farther out. That would be an “information” of space-time itself that is not bound to light-speed. That would prevent a paradox – I consider that as an explanation
January 25th, 2009 at 10:38 am
@DrFlimmer “That is actually not true. You can say it that way, but what really matters is the point that the information (light) does not reach us (it is red-shifted to a wavelength that reaches infinity). The particle goes straight in, but the light it emits becomes redder and redder. In the frame of the particle nothing really terrible happens.”
Yes, I know that. To to astronaut/particle/etc falling in nothing strange happens at the event horizon (except it may get fried to a crisp by Hawking radiation but that’s another story). I was talking from the point of view of an external observer in which case infinite time elapses before the astronaut/particle/etc reaches the event horizon.
Perhaps things change slightly when talking about an event horizon falling towards another event horizon since the event horizon is not a physical object. I’m not sure about that one, but I would think from an external observer’s point of view the two singularities have not yet merged and never will. From their point of view they merge quickly but an infinite amount of time goes by in the outside universe. So there is still something about the paradox that remains.
January 25th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Yeah. But as I said, I think it is just our imagination. Physics have revealed many strange and unimaginable things. I consider this to belong to such things, too.
January 26th, 2009 at 11:44 am
@ ND: Nice one there. Okay, so far nobody has challenged Maxwell’s equations on electromagnetics and it was postulated in the 19th century.
I stand corrected, but you, ND, never responded to the question. Do you dispute the Maxwell equations? If yes, why? And, if no, then there is only one way for magnetic fields to form: Electric current. And, therefore, with all the observations of megnetic fields in space, that must mean electric currents exist in space. Do you now admit to electric currents in space?
I want to go to the bigger point:
Tom Marking states: “The existence of electrical currents in outer space is not exactly some news flash in 2009. It was discovered back in 1958 when the Van Allen radiation belts were detected by the first American satellite Explorer 1. I guess I missed the part where you tell us the cause. I haven’t heard you elaborate on that one – I sure hope it’s not PAN.”
I don’t have an answer for you. Nobody knows what the ultimate “dynamo” is.
Possibly, it’s because the fundamental state of matter is plasma. But why that is so, is a mystery.
Sadly, there were a number of individuals who obviously had no clue at all about plasma physics, but who reflexed against anything I said simply because I objected to the existence of “black holes.” And that says a lot about the attitude of those commenters.
And that was the point that could not be let go: A number of individuals commenting on this website carried on the old party line among astronomers that electromgnetism doesn’t happen in space. And, Tom, I appreciate your comments because apparently your say so influenced some of them to reconsider. Too bad, the evidence wasn’t enough:-(
No, I don’t think my arguments against “big bang” theory are bogus:-)
Tom, you asked my view on the Cosmic Background Radiation. Good question. Electrical currents emit microwave radiation. As sure as your microwave oven.
The tough thing for science is that scientists, in effect, sit inside a window, the heliopause. So, everthing, scientists observe must first penetrate the heliopause. There are observations that aren’t materially effected, others probably are effected. Science needs to determine what observations and measurements of phenomenon and objects are effected by the heliopause and which are not.
But I tend to lean in the direction that suggests so-called Cosmic Background Radiation is effected by the Sun’s heliopause and therefore I’m not convinced that the CBR tells scientists much of anything other than microwave radiation happens beyond the heliopause.
It most certainly fails to prove “big bang” theory.
January 26th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Anaconda,
I answered your question. Since it required a yes or no answer and that it was an idiotic question to begin with I decided to wrap it in sarcasm for fun. I’m not going to cut through the sarcasm for you, I’ll leave that up to you.
My issue has never been about the existence of electric currents in space at all. My issue has been with your overestimation of your understanding of science concepts and specific points that you make that I can answer myself as best as I can. It’s not about the general statement “there are or not currents in space in any shape or form.”
January 26th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
“But I tend to lean in the direction that suggests so-called Cosmic Background Radiation is effected by the Sun’s heliopause and therefore I’m not convinced that the CBR tells scientists much of anything other than microwave radiation happens beyond the heliopause.”
Sorry, dude. But the heliopause is everything but symmetric. It is heavily influenced by the sun’s motion and its energy output. The size of the heliopause depends critically on the strength of the solar wind. The heliopause is elongated “behind” the sun. How can such a fluctuating thing produce such a uniform radiation in ALL directions?
And: Have you ever read what I told you about thermal and blackbody radiation? I don’t think so. Because I have told you that the CMB is the best blackbody spectrum that human kind has EVER detected! It is definitely a thermal spectrum. There is no doubt about that. And it’s a spectrum of a body that is really cool – just about 2.7 degree (Celsius) above absolute zero. The spectrum has been measured with an astonishing accuracy over years.
The heliopause cannot be responsible for such a precise spectrum that does NEITHER depend on place nor on time.
January 26th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Unknown to education and science are the true workings of fire, water, air, light, magnetism, sound, sight, cold, hot. electricity, earthquakes, tides–and I could go on and on. I ask you, without knowing the truth of such things, how in bloody H can one determine the simple working of our universe?!
The EDUCATION SYSTEM has not been able to explain the attraction and repelling of MAGNETISM. With out knowing this the EDUCATION SYSTEM can not explain the separation of rain, the attraction of a water droplet to a window, why one drop follows another, why a falling rain drop does not kill a small fly etc.
The EDUCATION SYSTEM with out knowing the true workings of MAGNETISM will not be able to correctly explain water and H20.
Wouldn’t it be Aw some to change the world for the better with just two sheets of rolled up paper!
LETS DO IT!
Take one sheet and role it up making a tube (just tiny pieces of tape to hold). At the center of the tube start marking small arrows away from you at an angle spiraling to the end (mark that end south. Go back to center and in the same direction start marking arrows to the other end (mark that end north.
Do the same with the other sheet but make it a bit bigger so one will fit inside the other.
You have just made two pretend bar magnets!
Taking the two magnets insert the north pole into the other north pole. Note the arrows are clashing (repelling).
Now insert the north pole into the south pole and the arrows are melding (attracting).
This is where it gets real interesting! Looking at the north pole end, the arrows show the direction of magnetic force to be counter clock wise. Turning it around the south pole shows the arrows or force to be clock wise. Now “what is this” one direction has turned into two directions at the same time! yes but, yes but you say Its just how you look at it Two directions at the same time indeed.
OK lets bend one around (horse shoe) and look at both ends at the same time. Don’t miss any thing here because this is how the world works. Note that the forces meld into a figure eight and that is how every thing in this world is held together.
Joining the two ends (circle) show the forces in one direction.
Place 3 tubes on top of one another having the north poles together. At center stick a pin or nail through all three.
Lay ed out in front of you it is now easy to see the pretend AURA of the six poles. Clock wise the north repelling the north the north repelling the north the north attracting the south the south repelling the south the south repelling the south and the south attracting the north. This is the spacing of mature pole nuclei. (LIFE as we know it)hexigon
The immature chips (nuclei) of the nucleus or the center of your pretend bar magnets are in orbit horizontally of the tube and are much smaller and faster with out much AURA producing the void or black hole of the nucleus.
Because Forces of Equal Evolution act upon Forces of Equal Evolution the three tight orbits of the nucleus chips are separated the same way the poles of the nucleus are.
Bruce Voigt
January 26th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Bruce Voigt is a babbling cylon hybrid.
January 26th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
@ ND:
Your problem was that I disagreed with “black holes” and then I offered reasons for my position.
@ DrFlimmer:
You may well be right, but we really don’t know the full effect of the heliopause. Most likely, it is greater than the Earth’s magnetosphere.
If you think background radiation is proof of how the Universe started, you’re welcome to it.
Science doesn’t do miracles. Something from nothing is a miracle.
January 26th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
@Anaconda
Science doesn’t do miracles. Something from nothing is a miracle.
If it’s the something from nothing that’s bothering you, then you can rest easy. The big bang isn’t really a something from nothing model. It just rewinds the universe back to a point where the universe was much hotter and denser than it is today. Eventually we reach a point where we can’t say what came before.
You may not be a fan of General Relativity, but it did a more complete job of describing our universe on day one than plasma cosmology has been able to manage after being around for 40 years. You complain about General Relativity needing to use fudge factors like dark matter, but Plasma Cosmology is just one giant fudge factor.
January 27th, 2009 at 1:44 am
As most of us here already know, “Intelligent Design” is just a new veneer over an old chest of drawers (dresser) known as Creationism that is full of woodworm holes; it’s the same with “Plasma Cosmology”, which is just a new and fancy veneer over that old chest of drawers known as “luminiferous aether” — a late 19th century hypothesis that has long since been superseded by Theory of General/Special Relativity. That is why Plasma Cosmologists are so pissed-off!
January 27th, 2009 at 3:22 am
If the heliopause is really responsible for a tremendous output of radio and microwave waves, how does it come that we are still able to gain very precise measurements of faint galactic or extragalactic radio sources? I would think that those sources should at least be smeared. But the resolutions are VERY high and we can detect very faint things. How is that possible if the heliopause would indeed emit high amount of radio waves?
And I also told you that physical things are far from being imaginable. You cannot imagin a day without a yesterday, fine, me either. But where does the PC-universe come from? Is it infinite? I cannot imagine that, either. Btw: We do know that the universe was not a dot in the beginning. QM prevent that because space and time must begin to fluctuate rapidly on such small scales. And such fluctuations (Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle) prevent us from the need to say “what was before”. Just because of that principle it is meaningless to ask this question. It’s just like asking “where is the electron in an atom”. This question is meaningless in quantum mechanics! There is no “where” for an electron, just a possibility!
January 27th, 2009 at 4:25 am
DrFlimmer, you forgot to mention the fact that the space probes Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 are traveling outward through the Solar System and will eventually pass through the heliopause.
It is believed that Voyager 1 crossed the termination shock and entered the heliosheath in the middle of December 2004, at a distance of 94 AU.*
Voyager 2 crossed the termination shock on August 30, 2007 at 84 AU, showing evidence of denting in the heliosphere, believed to be caused by an interstellar magnetic field.*
Both of these probes are still communicating!
*Source: Wikipedia — Heliosphere (click on my name for the link).
January 27th, 2009 at 4:55 am
ADDENDUM
DrFlimmer:
We can also detect the very faint signals from the two Voyager probes, and, AFAIK, they have not detected any unusually high radio/microwaves over there.
January 28th, 2009 at 10:38 am
@ DrFlimmer:
You state: “If the heliopause is really responsible for a tremendous output of radio and microwave waves…”
No, that’s not what I intended. What I meant is that the heliopause is like a window, which doesn’t include emitting “stuff” and, yes, a window will let someone see quite clearly through it, but other detectors are limited.
The Voyager probes aren’t all the way out yet.
http://www.planetary.org/image/voyager1_jpl-location-diagram.jpg
So, there could be more surprises on the way.
January 28th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
The heliopause must be really precise. An elongated window will somehow stretch the image that is let through. And such an elongated and fluctuation thing will let pass the BEST (and it is beyond any imagination how uniform it is) blackbody spectrum we can detect? Really?
August 20th, 2009 at 3:49 am
hiiiii,
i really don’t know anything about it.i always think about whatever happening in the space.