Incredible Light Show: Gas Jet Flaring From M87′s Black Hole

by Nancy Atkinson on April 14, 2009

Hubble image of a gas jet blasing from the core of M87. Credit: NASA, ESA, and J. Madrid (McMaster University)

Hubble image of a gas jet blasing from the core of M87. Credit: NASA, ESA, and J. Madrid (McMaster University)


Sometimes reality is stranger than fiction. The Hubble Space Telescope has been keeping an eye on the very active galaxy M87 for years, and has now captured a flare-up in a jet of matter blasting from the galaxy’s monster black hole. This 5,000-light-year-long, narrow beam of radiation and plasma is as bright as a Star Wars light saber and as destructive as the Death Star. This extragalactic jet is being fueled and ejected from the vicinity of a monster black hole that is 3 billion times the mass of our Sun. “I did not expect the jet in M87 or any other jet powered by accretion onto a black hole to increase in brightness in the way that this jet does,” says astronomer Juan Madrid of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario. “It grew 90 times brighter than normal. But the question is, does this happen to every single jet or active nucleus, or are we seeing some odd behavior from M87?”


The outburst is coming from a blob of matter, called HST-1, embedded in the jet, a powerful narrow beam of hot gas produced by the supermassive black hole residing in the core of this giant elliptical galaxy. HST-1 is so bright that it is outshining even M87′s brilliant core, whose monster black hole is one of the most massive yet discovered.

The glowing gas clump has taken astronomers on a rollercoaster ride of suspense. Astronomers watched HST-1 brighten steadily for several years, then fade, and then brighten again. They say it’s hard to predict what will happen next.

Hubble has been following the surprising activity for seven years, providing the most detailed ultraviolet-light view of the event. Other telescopes have been monitoring HST-1 in other wavelengths, including radio and X-rays. The Chandra X-ray Observatory was the first to report the brightening in 2000. HST-1 was first discovered and named by Hubble astronomers in 1999. The gas knot is 214 light-years from the galaxy’s core.

The flare-up may provide insights into the variability of black hole jets in distant galaxies, which are difficult to study because they are too far away. M87 is located 54 million light-years away in the Virgo Cluster, a region of the nearby universe with the highest density of galaxies.
Hubble gives astronomers a unique near-ultraviolet view of the flare that cannot be accomplished with ground-based telescopes. “Hubble’s sharp vision allows it to resolve HST-1 and separate it from the black hole,” Madrid explains.

Despite the many observations by Hubble and other telescopes, astronomers are not sure what is causing the brightening. One of the simplest explanations is that the jet is hitting a dust lane or gas cloud and then glows due to the collision. Another possibility is that the jet’s magnetic field lines are squeezed together, unleashing a large amount of energy. This phenomenon is similar to how solar flares develop on the Sun and is even a mechanism for creating Earth’s auroras.

The disk around a rapidly spinning black hole has magnetic field lines that entrap ionized gas falling toward the black hole. These particles, along with radiation, flow rapidly away from the black hole along the magnetic field lines. The rotational energy of the spinning accretion disk adds momentum to the outflowing jet.

Gas jet from M87. Credit: NASA, ESA, and J. Madrid (McMaster University)

Gas jet from M87. Credit: NASA, ESA, and J. Madrid (McMaster University)


Madrid assembled seven years’ worth of Hubble archival images of the jet to capture changes in the HST-1′s behavior over time. Some of the images came from observing programs that studied the galaxy, but not the jet.

He found data from the Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph (STIS) that showed a noticeable brightening between 1999 and 2001. In images from 2002 to 2005, HST-1 continued to rise steadily in brightness. In 2003 the jet knot was more brilliant than M87′s luminous core. In May 2005 HST-1 became 90 times brighter than it was in 1999. After May 2005 the flare began to fade, but it intensified again in November 2006. This second outburst was fainter than the first one.

“By watching the outburst over several years, I was able to follow the brightness and see the evolution of the flare over time,” Madrid says. “We are lucky to have telescopes like Hubble and Chandra, because without them we would see the increase in brightness in the core of M87, but we would not know where it was coming from.”

Madrid hopes that future observations of HST-1 will reveal the cause of the mysterious activity. “We hope the observations will yield some theories that will give us some good explanations as to the mechanism that is causing the flaring,” Madrid says. “Astronomers would like to know if this is an intrinsic instability of the jet when it plows its way out of the galaxy, or if it is something else.”

The study’s results are published in the April 2009 issue of the Astronomical Journal.

Source: HubbleSite

  • IVAN3MAN

    P.S. Ditto, Jon Hanford, for the Hubble PDF!

  • ND

    How does one say the following in Klingon?

    black hole
    accretion disk
    cyclotron radiation
    event horizon
    today is a good day for spagitification

  • IVAN3MAN

    @ ND,

    black hole — luSpet
    accretion disk — N/A
    cyclotron radiation — [cyclotron] tlhuD
    event horizon — wanl’ ghangwI’
    today is a good day for spaghettification — Heghlu’meH QaQ jaj vaD [spaghettification]

  • Mr.Obvious

    In the scientific community…
    It is a fact: 80% of papers are theory, in which 95% are proven incorrect within a few years. So, before you go spouting out about some paper you read, do some checking around to see what other tangents are spurred by it.

    Secondly, if you are going to use this work, then at least be able to take one main part and disect it, as if you were proving a mathematical equation. Just because you simply believe a paper you read doesn’t mean anything if you don’t fully understand it, nor does it mean it is true.

    Third… evidence is not proof. This is taught to elementary students. Amazingly, people forget it by the time they turn 14.

    There are different ways to create a magnetic field. Not all of them involve electricity. If you understand why a magnet is a magnet, then you wouldn’t spout out that a magnet requires electricity. The Earth isn’t plugged in, and it has a magnetic field. Nothing electrical is lining up electrons in the core. Mars has a really odd magnetic field in its southern hemisphere… definitely not caused by electricity.

    Don’t mind Oills. He hasn’t been the same since he lost the recipe for ice.

    It never ceases to amaze me, how many individuals here read a paper and read into it with ignorance. Applying what they believe to be common sense, or create a probability based on what they believe it should be based on their life experience. Fortunately, real science doesn’t work this way.

    Bring out the proof… so it can be disected. Don’t spout out about someones paper. Layout the main idea, and line up the proof used by it. Show us you truly understand what is being said.

  • Hon. Salacious B. Crumb

    Oblivious

    “It never ceases to amaze me, how many individuals here read a paper and read into it with ignorance.”

    Total hypocrite. You always say absolutely nothing and then when other people do, you just think its OK to condemn them or worst berate them if they think differently for you and your inferiority complex of your own blithering ignorance. (In fact you fall on the old standard of “you must of Goggled it.)
    It is clear to me (and probably other here) you have completely no idea on how scientific information is obtained nor how “science works.”
    I mean, how totally stupid are you to even suggest “It is a fact: 80% of papers are theory, in which 95% are proven incorrect “within a few years”
    What bull ! Published papers mostly are based on actual established or new observations, and the reduction via the scientific method, to draw conclusions. There are very few instances where the “paper being wrong”, it is just new observations (or theories), which confirm or deny the conclusions.
    Frankly OilisMastery is a genius compared to your own stupidity.
    I suggest you keep you mouth shut, before putting you foot in it yet again.

  • DrFlimmer

    long ago, but what the heck:

    @solrey:

    (early “black hole” theory had no jets or “accretion disks” these were added after the jets were observed).

    Yes, and early electromagnetic “theory” had no plasma in mind. They were added after it was observed….

    Electromagnetic theory, as applied to the cosmos, always had plasma in mind, it’s intimately related.

    Either you misunderstood me or you wanted to misunderstand me.
    I was talking about electromagnetic theory in general. Maxwell came up with his equations that describe everything you need about electromagnetism in the early 1870s, decades before plasma was “discovered”.

    @OIM

    According to Wikipedia 2 + 2 = 5.

    Believe it or not, I think you can construct a mathematical structure in which this is true. But you have to proove it. Mathemtics is strictly true and prooven. It means that mathematics (as strange as it sometimes is) is the only thing in the universe, we can be sure of, that is definitly correct.

    @ Ivan3man

    #

    chugh SoH lolo’laHghachlIjyInyImejmechughughobeobejIHjDIchDaqDwamwam SbIngIrurrvetlhtyIHySoHSooH’oH.

    Damn it! It did not up-load properly — it looks more like German than Klingon.

    You mean, like
    “Donauschifffahrtskapitänsmützenschrankschlüssel” ? :D
    Such things are possible in German (and I could have make it much longer ;) ) – I think it’s an advantage….(you English speaking guys always need an “of the” in between; I won’t even try to translate the word from above…)

  • http://www.tomandcathymarking.com Tom Marking

    Here is a recent radio image of the M87 core made via VLBI (Very Long Baseline Interferometry):

    http://images.nrao.edu/589

    It has 100 times the resolution of the Hubble Space Telescope. I image shows that the jet collimation begins within 100 Schwarzchild radii from the black hole or ~30 light-days (one sixth the distance labeled 200 light-days). More and more evidence mounts of structure closer and closer towards the center, something the Peratt model never predicted. One more nail in the coffin of EU pseudoscience.

  • http://www.tomandcathymarking.com Tom Marking

    Polarization studies of the M87 jet have been going on for more than a decade:

    http://aa.springer.de/papers/7317003/2300637.pdf

    This one was done by the HST in the early 1990’s. They show a very complicated polarization structure within the jets. Go to Fig. 4a and 4b on page 641. They show little lines marking the magnetic field direction in the various jet components.

    For the core (left-most bright glob in Fig. 4a) the magnetic field appears to be circularly aligned. The next bright glob going rightward in the jet (I forget the letter label) has the magnetic field line aligned with the jet direction, just as a Birkeland field-aligned current would have it. The next 3 little blobs also have the magnetic field following the jet direction.

    But look at blob A (the brightest one). What the heck happened? Now the magnetic field is aligned perpendicular to the jet direction. Something must have happened to disrupt the magnetic field here. It is definitely no simple Birkeland current anymore. The magnetic field becomes parallel to jet direction in the next blob, but then shifts to perpendicular or even circular in the last blob.

    So there are major shifts in the direction of the magnetic field throughout the jet.

  • http://www.tomandcathymarking.com Tom Marking

    @Jon Hanford “This paper just presents another piece of the puzzle of ‘what is the jet of M 87 representing?’ & ‘what powers this celestial powerhouse?’”

    Thanks for the URL. As usual these papers are pretty tough going to read through and understand them. They always have techniques and procedures that go way over my head.

    I take it that the major results are on page 7 where they break down the results by jet component. Let’s see the jet goes from 13.9 degrees off our line of sight at HST-1, to 21.3 degrees for D-East, down to 6.2 degrees for A. Of course, the brightest jet region A has the smallest line of sight making the relativistic beaming factor the highest. So the relative brightnesses seem to have little to do with intrinsic brightness, just as I suspected.

    What causes the deflection angle from our LOS to vary so much? That jet is definitely not going straight. It is wiggling around like mad.

    Also, if I read right the apparent velocity of HST-1 is 6.14c or six times the speed of light. Did I read that correctly? But the gamma for HST-1 is 7.21 indicating a speed of 0.99c. So I’m not getting what the difference is between these two speeds.

    I’m also not understanding how the highest magnetic field of 871 microgauss can occur at region C-1 which is the 2nd farthest from the center. So these results don’t make a whole lot of sense to me.

  • DrFlimmer

    @ Tom Marking

    Also, if I read right the apparent velocity of HST-1 is 6.14c or six times the speed of light. Did I read that correctly?

    I didn’t check it, but if they say 6.14c, they are most likely referring to superluminol speed. This is a relativistic effect that something seems to be faster than the speed of light. But if you do the math, you’ll find that the thing is still flying slower than c.

  • IVAN3MAN

    @ DrFlimmer,

    Germans love long words, don’t they?

    ;-)

  • DrFlimmer

    @ Ivan3man

    Why do you think so? :D

  • Jon Hanford

    @ Tom Marking, You bring up a good point about the crookedness of the jet and changes in its’ polarization. It is thought that, like a spinning top, the jet(s) from the central black hole wobble or precess over a period of time, illuminating different regions in the galaxy’s outer portions. Active galaxies with 2 jets (in the radio portion of the EM spectrum) are usually good examples of this jet precession, with wildly distorted symmetrical jets. Dr Flimmer posted an accurate reply to your question on superluminal velocities. I’ll have to get back to you on your question about magnetic field strength variations when I get a chance.

  • http://www.tomandcathymarking.com Tom Marking

    @Joh Hanford “You bring up a good point about the crookedness of the jet and changes in its’ polarization. It is thought that, like a spinning top, the jet(s) from the central black hole wobble or precess over a period of time, illuminating different regions in the galaxy’s outer portions. Active galaxies with 2 jets (in the radio portion of the EM spectrum) are usually good examples of this jet precession, with wildly distorted symmetrical jets. Dr Flimmer posted an accurate reply to your question on superluminal velocities. I’ll have to get back to you on your question about magnetic field strength variations when I get a chance.”

    I guess I don’t understand the source of the precession in this case and also in the case of pulsars. Doesn’t there have to be a nearby gravitational object to cause the black hole to precess, similar to the moon causing the earth’s 26,000 year precession period? Or can a black hole/pulsar self-precess for some reason?

    Either way, this is certainly not some simple Birkeland current we’re talking about here, nor some standard dipole magnetic field that falls off as the inverse cube of the distance. These are some seriously complicated structures, these M87 jets. Much more complex than I expected them to be.

    @solrey “There are a number of papers by EU/PC scientists concerning M87″

    Let the record reflect that when pushed, Solrey couldn’t provide a single EU/PC paper dealing with M87.

  • Jon Hanford

    Yes, jets from active galaxies can precess but usually with some help (galaxy mergers & central BH mergers are some sources of energy for precession to occur. I found this link to radio galaxy images, many showing the effects of precession of their jet(s): http://www.cv.nrao.edu/~abridle/radiogal.htm . Check out some of the double-lobed galaxies and the description of their contorted jets. And as you note these jets from Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN) are complex entities. @ solrey: ” Let the record reflect that when pushed, Solrey couldn’t provide a single EU/PC paper dealing with M87. ” Or MACS J0717 . Still waiting.

  • Jon Hanford

    @ Tom Marking: Check out this double-double jet source 3C 75. 2 double-lobed radio galaxies, with both radio jets precessing! It’s one of my favorites! here: http://images.nrao.edu/AGN/Radio_Galaxies/30

  • DrFlimmer

    @ Jon Hanford

    Yes, jets from active galaxies can precess but usually with some help (galaxy mergers & central BH mergers are some sources of energy for precession to occur.

    Since M87 is a HUGH elliptical, mergers have been quite likely. Could be a reason…

  • Jon Hanford

    @ DrFlimmer, Most of the galaxies that possess jet(s) are giant elliptical galaxies near the center of large galaxy clusters( M 87 is in the nearby Virgo Cluster). Merger activity is a common suspect in an explanation of jet formation.

Previous post:

Next post: