Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

S-Massive Black Holes Eat Less Than Thought

super massive black hole new data

  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1    cacoseraph

cacoseraph

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 176 posts
  • Joined:27 Aug 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tucson, AZ, USA

  • this user is both more and less wrathful and more and less clever than he seems

Posted 30 August 2013 - 01:42 AM

Why Super Massive Black Holes Consume Less Material Than Expected


Quote

Aug. 29, 2013 — Using NASA's super-sensitive Chandra X-ray space telescope, a team of astronomers led by Q. Daniel Wang at the University of Massachusetts Amherst has solved a long-standing mystery about why most super massive black holes (SMBH) at the centers of galaxies have such a low accretion rate -- that is, they swallow very little of the cosmic gases available and instead act as if they are on a severe diet.
http://www.scienceda...30829145131.htm


The article didn't baby talk exactly what the mechanism that prevents the SMBH from eating more.  I wonder if it is something like the radiant pressure that helps to keep stars from collapsing in on themselves?


#2    spacecowboy342

spacecowboy342

    Traveler of both time and space

  • Member
  • 4,111 posts
  • Joined:22 Aug 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

  • I shall now proceed to entangle the entire area

Posted 30 August 2013 - 01:53 AM

View Postcacoseraph, on 30 August 2013 - 01:42 AM, said:

Why Super Massive Black Holes Consume Less Material Than Expected



http://www.scienceda...30829145131.htm


The article didn't baby talk exactly what the mechanism that prevents the SMBH from eating more.  I wonder if it is something like the radiant pressure that helps to keep stars from collapsing in on themselves?
Sounds to me like it is the velocity of the material itself keeping it in orbit around the BH and not being devoured. I wonder if time dilational effects around the singularity affect observation or if this is taken into account(surely it must be)


#3    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 14,373 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 30 August 2013 - 02:14 AM

Well anything that big needs to go on a diet.


#4    cacoseraph

cacoseraph

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 176 posts
  • Joined:27 Aug 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tucson, AZ, USA

  • this user is both more and less wrathful and more and less clever than he seems

Posted 30 August 2013 - 02:25 AM

View Postspacecowboy342, on 30 August 2013 - 01:53 AM, said:

Sounds to me like it is the velocity of the material itself keeping it in orbit around the BH and not being devoured. I wonder if time dilational effects around the singularity affect observation or if this is taken into account(surely it must be)

I thought maybe something like that, but it seems that the article made more of a point that it is the heat of the gas rather than velocity preventing crossing the event horizon.  That's what made me think maybe it was radiant pressure related.

I could totally see the velocity thing, though...  like a gravity sling for fast moving particles that are not directly pointed inside the event horizon.  Which leads to another question.  Since the mass (and maybe spin? little vague on the physics of it) of a blackhole determines its gravity well and event horizon and I believe gravity slinging transfers the velocity from the more massive object to the smaller object, does that mean that process would diminish the black hole somehow?


#5    spacecowboy342

spacecowboy342

    Traveler of both time and space

  • Member
  • 4,111 posts
  • Joined:22 Aug 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

  • I shall now proceed to entangle the entire area

Posted 30 August 2013 - 02:49 AM

View Postcacoseraph, on 30 August 2013 - 02:25 AM, said:

I thought maybe something like that, but it seems that the article made more of a point that it is the heat of the gas rather than velocity preventing crossing the event horizon.  That's what made me think maybe it was radiant pressure related.

I could totally see the velocity thing, though...  like a gravity sling for fast moving particles that are not directly pointed inside the event horizon.  Which leads to another question.  Since the mass (and maybe spin? little vague on the physics of it) of a blackhole determines its gravity well and event horizon and I believe gravity slinging transfers the velocity from the more massive object to the smaller object, does that mean that process would diminish the black hole somehow?
Is heat of a gas not a measure of the kinetic energy of the molecules of that gas? Kinetic energy would seem to me to equate to velocity, but I'm not a physicist. I don't think the process you describe would diminish the BH(except in the case of Hawking radiation) other than perhaps to affect it's spin somewhat,but I am guessing here


#6    cacoseraph

cacoseraph

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 176 posts
  • Joined:27 Aug 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tucson, AZ, USA

  • this user is both more and less wrathful and more and less clever than he seems

Posted 30 August 2013 - 04:54 AM

View Postspacecowboy342, on 30 August 2013 - 02:49 AM, said:

Is heat of a gas not a measure of the kinetic energy of the molecules of that gas? Kinetic energy would seem to me to equate to velocity, but I'm not a physicist. I don't think the process you describe would diminish the BH(except in the case of Hawking radiation) other than perhaps to affect it's spin somewhat,but I am guessing here

This is past my personal knowledge.  I know that temperature is a measure of movement of molecules or something like that.  So, in a sense, it seems that you would be correct.

The diminish question could be summed up kind of like, our universe seems to never give something for nothing.  If the particles being directed away do gain velocity it seems like their gain requires a loss somewhere else.  Since it seems like in a two actor play when one actor gains velocity the other actor must lose... something.  Of course, limiting the play to two actors could easily be wrong and such a gross over simplification that the only appropriate response is laughter.


#7    sepulchrave

sepulchrave

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,784 posts
  • Joined:19 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 30 August 2013 - 06:51 AM

In this circumstances, temperature is a measure of the incoherent, or randomly directed kinetic energy of an collection of particles.

I am not an expert in this field, but I think the mechanism at play here is that as some particles fall towards the black hole (i.e. take on a coherent direction) they greatly increase the scattering of nearby particles, directing them away from the black hole.

Very simply speaking, I would say it is analogous to the case of ``warm air rising''.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users