APOD: GRO J1655 40: Evidence for a Black... (2010 Sep 05)

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:D :) :ssmile: :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol2: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :roll: :wink: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen:
View more smilies

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: APOD: GRO J1655 40: Evidence for a Black... (2010 Sep 05)

Re: Properties of black holes [Re: APOD: GRO J1655 40]

by Chris Peterson » Wed Sep 08, 2010 5:18 pm

Henning Makholm wrote:
Chris Peterson wrote:It isn't certain that black holes are described by the Kerr-Newman metric.
I thought the point of the "no-hair theorem" was that they would have to be? But I've only seen popular accounts of that theorem, so it is possible that it has assumptions that are doubtable.
It is important to recognize that this is a theorem, not a theory. It is the consequence of mathematically manipulating the equations of GR, but with assumptions that are not firmly established by observation.

Please understand that I'm not arguing against either the theorem as a valid representation of reality, or against the Kerr-Newman metric. I'm only pointing out that there are other metrics which lead to different conclusions about the fundamental properties of black holes, and that these haven't been completely ruled out. This remains an area of active research, and more observational evidence is required to constrain existing theories.

Re: Properties of black holes [Re: APOD: GRO J1655 40]

by Henning Makholm » Wed Sep 08, 2010 3:56 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:It isn't certain that black holes are described by the Kerr-Newman metric.
I thought the point of the "no-hair theorem" was that they would have to be? But I've only seen popular accounts of that theorem, so it is possible that it has assumptions that are doubtable.

Re: Properties of black holes [Re: APOD: GRO J1655 40]

by Chris Peterson » Wed Sep 08, 2010 3:10 pm

geoffrey.landis wrote:This is rather speculative. If you are inside a galaxy, space is not empty!
Pretty near empty. From the standpoint of a stellar mass black hole, an accretion disc would seem fairly rare- there just isn't enough mass in a stellar system to support one for very long. From the standpoint of a supermassive black hole, it depends on the dynamics of the galaxy. Since we observe galaxies both with and without AGNs, it seems likely that you find black holes both with and without accretion discs in galaxy centers. Which makes sense- even at the center, there isn't much mass to be consumed by a black hole, unless something perturbs that region.
Checking my copy of Misner, Thorne and Wheeler, Gravitation, page 883; the magnetic dipole moment of a Kerr-Newman black hole is M=Qa. (Q the charge, a the angular momentum).
As I said, it depends on how you solve the relevant GR equations. It isn't certain that black holes are described by the Kerr-Newman metric. We also need to distinguish between a black hole supporting a magnetic field in the space external to it, and a black hole having a magnetic moment as a fundamental property. Those are two different things.

Re: Properties of black holes [Re: APOD: GRO J1655 40]

by neufer » Wed Sep 08, 2010 3:03 pm

geoffrey.landis wrote:
Chris Peterson wrote:
geoffrey.landis wrote:
if a black hole has both charge and spin, it must have a magnetic field (although this must be aligned).
That depends on how you solve the equations of GR. It is most commonly believed that black holes do not have a magnetic field, even when they have non-zero valued for both charge and angular momentum. But the question is far from being settled.
Checking my copy of Misner, Thorne and Wheeler, Gravitation, page 883;
the magnetic dipole moment of a Kerr-Newman black hole is M=Qa. (Q the charge, a the angular momentum).
NEWMAN :!:
Well, then, it is most commonly believed that black holes do not have an electric charge of any note.

What's wrong with the quark star idea, anyway?

Re: Properties of black holes [Re: APOD: GRO J1655 40]

by geoffrey.landis » Wed Sep 08, 2010 2:38 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
geoffrey.landis wrote:In the real world, a black hole pretty much always has an additional attribute: an accretion disk.
I'd argue that this isn't an attribute of a black hole, merely a consequence of the behavior of things outside a black hole. A planet may or may not have a moon; that doesn't change the characterization of the planet itself. Things other than black holes can have accretion discs, too, created by the same mechanisms.
The question was whether a black hole could flicker because of an offset magnetic field. Black holes have accretion disks, accretion disks can have magnetic fields, which can be offset.
In reality, many- probably most- black holes don't even have accretion discs.
This is rather speculative. If you are inside a galaxy, space is not empty! It is difficult to think how any galactic black hole would not acquire an accretion disk. (Extragalactic ones could plausibly clear their neighborhood and be disk-free.) But, indeed, this has yet to be observationally confirmed or denied. It would indeed be very difficult to detect black holes with no accretion disks.
Chris Peterson wrote:
geoffrey.landis wrote:To the contrary: if a black hole has both charge and spin, it must have a magnetic field (although this must be aligned).
That depends on how you solve the equations of GR. It is most commonly believed that black holes do not have a magnetic field, even when they have non-zero valued for both charge and angular momentum. But the question is far from being settled.
Checking my copy of Misner, Thorne and Wheeler, Gravitation, page 883; the magnetic dipole moment of a Kerr-Newman black hole is M=Qa. (Q the charge, a the angular momentum).

Re: APOD: GRO J1655 40: Evidence for a Black... (2010 Sep 05

by Ann » Tue Sep 07, 2010 3:28 am

Romano wrote:
Guest wrote::?:
I am only a fascinated onlooker of your APOD, with little astronomic knowledge.
What does GRO (as in today's APOD) stand for? Is that an acronym like NGC?
Thanks for the time you'll be dedicating to illuminate my ignorance and
best regards,
Romano
Check out bystander's answer. He said:
According to Simbad: Compton Gamma Ray Observatory

http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/06_rel ... 62106.html
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap060528.html
So the answer seems to be yes, GRO is an acronym. NGC means New General Catalogue (although it's not so new, I believe it is from the very early 1900s), and GRO, although it doesn't contain the word "catalogue", apparently designates gamma ray sources that have been detected by the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory.

Ann

Re: APOD: GRO J1655 40: Evidence for a Black... (2010 Sep 05

by Romano » Tue Sep 07, 2010 3:14 am

Guest wrote::?:
I am only a fascinated onlooker of your APOD, with little astronomic knowledge.
What does GRO (as in today's APOD) stand for? Is that an acronym like NGC?
Thanks for the time you'll be dedicating to illuminate my ignorance and
best regards,
Romano

Re: APOD: GRO J1655 40: Evidence for a Black... (2010 Sep 05

by Beyond » Mon Sep 06, 2010 4:58 pm

rstevenson wrote:That was a pun, son. Although puns based on sound similarities probably shouldn't be attempted in ASCII text.

Rob
Rob, your pun was very effective once i heard myself think the words and not just look at them. I, for one, am glad that we do not have smell-o-vision here.

Re: APOD: GRO J1655 40: Evidence for a Black... (2010 Sep 05

by rstevenson » Mon Sep 06, 2010 4:40 pm

That was a pun, son. Although puns based on sound similarities probably shouldn't be attempted in ASCII text.

Rob

Re: APOD: GRO J1655 40: Evidence for a Black... (2010 Sep 05

by bystander » Mon Sep 06, 2010 4:34 pm

rstevenson wrote:Sounds like it might currently be in a pupa stage.
Are you implying it's a black hole in the making, or that is transforming into something else?

Re: APOD: GRO J1655 40: Evidence for a Black... (2010 Sep 05

by rstevenson » Mon Sep 06, 2010 4:24 pm

Sounds like it might currently be in a pupa stage.

Rob

Re: APOD: GRO J1655 40: Evidence for a Black... (2010 Sep 05

by Ann » Mon Sep 06, 2010 3:47 pm

beyond wrote:
Here is an example of a "Black Hole" evolving into a "White Hole." It takes in much material and creates much mass that repels all but the parental Black Holes that created it. The parental Black holes share the task of dealing with the energy input and the mass that is produced as the little "Wonder" grows out of the younger I want it black hole stage, to the more mature adult White Hole stage that puts out useful energies.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Ann

Re: APOD: GRO J1655 40: Evidence for a Black... (2010 Sep 05

by Beyond » Mon Sep 06, 2010 3:29 pm

Ann wrote:
beyond wrote:
VANGELDROP wrote:Could it be a black hole inside a black hole?
Could that possibly be a baby black hole?? if it is, I'd bet that it would be a cute little sucker :!:
Image
Baby dressed in black hole.

Ann
Here is an example of a "Black Hole" evolving into a "White Hole." It takes in much material and creates much mass that repels all but the parental Black Holes that created it. The parental Black holes share the task of dealing with the energy input and the mass that is produced as the little "Wonder" grows out of the younger I want it black hole stage, to the more mature adult White Hole stage that puts out useful energies.

Re: APOD: GRO J1655 40: Evidence for a Black... (2010 Sep 05

by Beyond » Mon Sep 06, 2010 2:43 am

ann wrote: Wall E's vacuum cleaner didn't suck, it spat out.
EGGZAKLY :!: :!: The situation "sucked" because of what happened, at least to whomever had to clean up the mess and to Wall e who went away in a mess. HAHAHAHA. Funny video. Wall e must be related to Johnny 5, he's such a good actor.

Re: APOD: GRO J1655 40: Evidence for a Black... (2010 Sep 05

by Ann » Mon Sep 06, 2010 2:27 am

Wall E's vacuum cleaner didn't suck, it spat out!

But I'll bet there's an Electrolux vacuum cleaner at the bottom of today's APOD black hole!

(And hey... now I understand what a "white hole" is. It is a black hole that spits out the dust it has sucked up, like Wall-E's vacuum cleaner. You only have to wonder why they call it a "white" hole? Did Wall-E look white in that video when he was covered in all that dust?)

Ann

Re: APOD: GRO J1655 40: Evidence for a Black... (2010 Sep 05

by Beyond » Mon Sep 06, 2010 2:05 am

Neufer's Wall e Vacuum cleaner clip video pretty much define's the word "suck" under most conditions.

Re: APOD: GRO J1655 40: Evidence for a Black... (2010 Sep 05

by Beyond » Mon Sep 06, 2010 2:01 am

Ann, I've got a long canister model, but with a different hose then it came with. They really SUCK!! :lol:

Re: APOD: GRO J1655 40: Evidence for a Black... (2010 Sep 05

by Ann » Mon Sep 06, 2010 1:57 am

This is an Electrolux vacuum cleaner, a Swedish brand (or it used to be, I don't know if it is any more):

Image

In the 1950s the Electrolux people tried to come up with a great advertisement that would make American customers interested in buying this Swedish vacuum cleaner. In Swedish "vacuum cleaner" is "dammsugare", literally "dust-sucker", that is, it is something that sucks in dust. So the advertisement the Swedes came up with for the American market was:

NOTHING SUCKS LIKE ELECTROLUX!

So beware, black holes, you little suckers! You've got nothing on an Electrolux vacuum cleaner!

Ann

Re: APOD: GRO J1655 40: Evidence for a Black... (2010 Sep 05

by neufer » Mon Sep 06, 2010 12:28 am

beyond wrote:
Henning Makholm wrote:
beyond wrote:AH, so the 'suck' factor is just the result of a really strong gravity caused by all the mass that has been sucked up?
Black holes do not suck!
Or at least, do not "suck" any more (or any differently) than the same amount of mass in any other form would do.
I think that if you happened to get caught in the gravity well of a black hole, you would most likely say it sucks as it begins to deform you on the way to being totally gravitized or whatever it is called when something enters into the black hole. I can't speak from personal experience, so it is much of a guess. But i figure that the word "sucks" would probably fit the situation pretty good.
Click to play embedded YouTube video.

Re: APOD: GRO J1655 40: Evidence for a Black... (2010 Sep 05

by Beyond » Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:58 pm

Henning Makholm wrote:
beyond wrote:AH, so the 'suck' factor is just the result of a really strong gravity caused by all the mass that has been sucked up?
Black holes do not suck! Or at least, do not "suck" any more (or any differently) than the same amount of mass in any other form would do.
I think that if you happened to get caught in the gravity well of a black hole, you would most likely say it sucks as it begins to deform you on the way to being totally gravitized or whatever it is called when something enters into the black hole. I can't speak from personal experience, so it is much of a guess. But i figure that the word "sucks" would probably fit the situation pretty good.

Re: APOD: GRO J1655 40: Evidence for a Black... (2010 Sep 05

by Henning Makholm » Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:30 pm

beyond wrote:AH, so the 'suck' factor is just the result of a really strong gravity caused by all the mass that has been sucked up?
Black holes do not suck! Or at least, do not "suck" any more (or any differently) than the same amount of mass in any other form would do.

Re: APOD: GRO J1655 40: Evidence for a Black... (2010 Sep 05

by bystander » Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:16 pm

kfsone wrote:Question: Why do artists always seem to depict a black hole as being below the plane of the incoming material? Is it a misunderstanding of the gravity well?
It may not be that unreasonable to assume the thickness of the accretion disk is larger than the diameter of the black hole.

Re: APOD: GRO J1655 40: Evidence for a Black... (2010 Sep 05

by Henning Makholm » Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:02 pm

kfsone wrote:Question: Why do artists always seem to depict a black hole as being below the plane of the incoming material? Is it a misunderstanding of the gravity well?
I don't think it's "always". But in those cases where they do, your hypothesis is probably as good as any.

In this APOD I'm more concerned about the lampshade around the central object. Cosmic censorship?

Re: APOD: GRO J1655 40: Evidence for a Black... (2010 Sep 05

by kfsone » Sun Sep 05, 2010 9:59 pm

Question: Why do artists always seem to depict a black hole as being below the plane of the incoming material? Is it a misunderstanding of the gravity well?

Re: APOD: GRO J1655 40: Evidence for a Black... (2010 Sep 05

by orin stepanek » Sun Sep 05, 2010 9:35 pm

The shape of a black hole's event horizon? http://www.bautforum.com/archive/index.php/t-80286.html

Top