Well, they haven’t found the Black Hole yet. That’s the gist of the article. What they found was the largest galactic core yet discovered. The Black Hole remains missing.
Their attempts at explanation involvess the merger of two black holes. I don’t understand why the most obvious explanation is not that there is a black hole and that it simply has sucked in all of the stars that were closest to it in the central core.
Their attempts at explanation involvess the merger of two black holes. I don’t understand why the most obvious explanation is not that there is a black hole and that it simply has sucked in all of the stars that were closest to it in the central core.
That is what crossed my mind.
How can you tell if there is a black hole if there is only a black hole? We never can see any black hole, only the movement of orbiting objects. if the black hole happened to have swallowed everything in its neighborhood (10 thousand LY) how can you tell? It would difficult to see if there is anything showing in the background and if the entire background appears to be black there would be nothing to compare it to.
So it says it’s 1 million light years wide and the core is 3 times bigger than other extremely lit galaxies. However, they don’t say if some of these other extremely lit galaxies are also 1 million light years wide, only that it’s core is the biggest discovered. Maybe that’s why they think it’s two black holes? Does anyone know if there are other million light year wide galaxies out there, but where the cores are approximately 3,000 light years across?
Because it also says
The core of the elliptical galaxy A2261-BCG is about 10,000 light-years across[...]That’s unexpectedly huge, even for a galaxy 10 times wider than our own Milky Way
When they say “even for a galaxy 10 times wider” are they saying the width of the entire galaxy might not be uncommon, only the core’s size? Or did I interpret that wrong… (Jeez I’m starting to confuse myself now… Maybe I’ll read it again tomorrow when it’s not past 3am Any astronomers here? hehe)
Their attempts at explanation involvess the merger of two black holes. I don’t understand why the most obvious explanation is not that there is a black hole and that it simply has sucked in all of the stars that were closest to it in the central core.
That is what crossed my mind.
How can you tell if there is a black hole if there is only a black hole? We never can see any black hole, only the movement of orbiting objects. if the black hole happened to have swallowed everything in its neighborhood (10 thousand LY) how can you tell? It would difficult to see if there is anything showing in the background and if the entire background appears to be black there would be nothing to compare it to.
I think black holes are supposed to give off radiation, which would be the tell tale sign. (This is one of the things that made Hawkings THE Stephen Hawkings).
Since I know very little about astronomy, I have a question. If a black hole sucks everything into it, how come it can be “large”? Shouldn’t it suck the space around it into itself, making it have a much smaller orifice?
By large I think they mean strong, making the event horizon large. Event horizon is the point past which nothing escapes. Kind of like a strong magnet will have a larger magnetic field even though the little metal magnet part might be small. And yes they are infinitely small, which is what makes them so weird. Infinitely small, infinitely dense. Boggles the mind.
Their attempts at explanation involvess the merger of two black holes. I don’t understand why the most obvious explanation is not that there is a black hole and that it simply has sucked in all of the stars that were closest to it in the central core.
That is what crossed my mind.
How can you tell if there is a black hole if there is only a black hole? We never can see any black hole, only the movement of orbiting objects. if the black hole happened to have swallowed everything in its neighborhood (10 thousand LY) how can you tell? It would difficult to see if there is anything showing in the background and if the entire background appears to be black there would be nothing to compare it to.
I think black holes are supposed to give off radiation, which would be the tell tale sign. (This is one of the things that made Hawkings THE Stephen Hawkings).
This only happens when a BH swallows and breaks down whatever it captures. During this process the radiation is created. When all matter in the vicinity has been swallowed up the black hole becomes dormant, untill it encounters something else to swallow up.
Since I know very little about astronomy, I have a question. If a black hole sucks everything into it, how come it can be “large”? Shouldn’t it suck the space around it into itself, making it have a much smaller orifice?
Occam
I believe that a black hole does not grow in size as much as it acquires additional mass and extends it’s gravitational field. This was one of the points of contention. Hawkins proposed a singularity at the “bottom” of a black hole. This started the controversy about “information paradox” By Hawkins model information would be completely lost. Of course he later proposed the multiple universes where some BH actually destroy themselves and lose all information and other universes where this does not happen. Presumably we would be a universe which retains its information, but that just gets way too far out for my feeble mind.
One of the way they think black holes form is when large stars collapse on themsleves when they run out of fuel. So I’d imagine the implosion would be greater the larger the star is. Perhaps this is what makes some resulting black holes “larger” than others, if that’s what you’re asking Occam. Adding to what CuthbertJ said with the magnets, there is a certain distance at which the “tug” will not affect you at all. So I’m guessing the size of this radius is the result of the size of the star it came from.
Any astronomers here? hehe)
