Chandra Captures Giant Ring of Black Holes

[/caption]

From a Chandra press release:

Just in time for Valentine’s Day comes a new image of a ring — not of jewels — but of black holes. This composite image of Arp 147, a pair of interacting galaxies located about 430 million light years from Earth, shows X-rays from the NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory (pink) and optical data from the Hubble Space Telescope (red, green, blue) produced by the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI) in Baltimore, Md.

Arp 147 contains the remnant of a spiral galaxy (right) that collided with the elliptical galaxy on the left. This collision has produced an expanding wave of star formation that shows up as a blue ring containing in abundance of massive young stars. These stars race through their evolution in a few million years or less and explode as supernovas, leaving behind neutron stars and black holes.

A fraction of the neutron stars and black holes will have companion stars, and may become bright X-ray sources as they pull in matter from their companions. The nine X-ray sources scattered around the ring in Arp 147 are so bright that they must be black holes, with masses that are likely ten to twenty times that of the Sun.

This composite image of Arp 147 shows Chandra X-ray data in pink, Hubble optical data in red, green and blue, ultraviolet GALEX data in green and infrared Spitzer data in red. (Credit: X-ray: NASA/CXC/MIT/S.Rappaport et al, Optical: NASA/STScI)

An X-ray source is also detected in the nucleus of the red galaxy on the left and may be powered by a poorly-fed supermassive black hole. This source is not obvious in the composite image but can easily be seen in the X-ray image. Other objects unrelated to Arp 147 are also visible: a foreground star in the lower left of the image and a background quasar as the pink source above and to the left of the red galaxy.

Infrared observations with NASA’s Spitzer Space Telescope and ultraviolet observations with NASA’s Galaxy Evolution Explorer (GALEX) have allowed estimates of the rate of star formation in the ring. These estimates, combined with the use of models for the evolution of binary stars have allowed the authors to conclude that the most intense star formation may have ended some 15 million years ago, in Earth’s time frame.

45 Replies to “Chandra Captures Giant Ring of Black Holes”

  1. the colorful luminous emission filaments are millions of degrees kelvin, and as part of the WHIM, surround connect together all large-scale cosmological structures in the universe as recently proved discovered by top Harvard WHIM specialists. My blog has all links to cosmological articles without gravity models, including that galaxy clusters form WHERE plasma KNOTS are, and stars form by photoionized gas in the IGM entering inside the galaxy by WHIM Oxygen absorbers of black hole x-rays ! the universe is anything but neutral overall for gravity.
    [link removed]

    1. Eh? On first reading of two long sentences I found seventeen errors — a probable record for any EU/PC nutter! Frankly, I can only include you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
      Also advertising insane websites as an anonymous blogger leaves no confidence in what you say.
      You poor dear… I truly feel pity for your quite obvious delusions.

      1. I don’t see what HOLO… is talking about either, but “SN’s exploding into BH’s” and “rings of BH’s” also begin to sound weird to me.
        Am I missing the metaphor?

    2. None of this makes any sense at all. It does not make sense from the perspective of ordinary language.

      Clearly the interaction of these two galaxies resulted in density concentrations which caused lots of star formation and SN’s. This by corollary generated black holes. There is nothing terribly mysterious about this.

      It is interesting to see how people can get various ideas in their head and run away to the emerald city with them. When ever I read something to the effect, “This is cosmology without gravity,” I translate this to mean either, “I am too lazy to learn general relativity,” or “I am not smart enough to grasp general relativity.” General relativity is approaching its 100th birthday (1915) folks! The basic formalism of general relativity is old stuff — ancient by modern physics standards! Anyone who wants to work in astrophysics needs to have a basic understanding of general relativity and gravitation from a spacetime perspective. Anyone who proclaims they do astrophysics with no need of general relativity is announcing their handicap, and anyone who says they don’t need Newtonian gravity (yeah I have seen this crap) may be smoking some serious drugs.

      LC

    3. “the colorful luminous emission filaments are millions of degrees kelvin, and as part of the WHIM, surround connect together all large-scale cosmological structures in the universe as recently proved discovered by top Harvard WHIM specialists.”

      You do realise that WHIM was made in the ultraviolet (not X-ray) and that the temperature of the gas was 100,000K (not “millions of degrees kelvin”)?

      The observations also were only of a cluster of galaxies and not “all large-scale cosmological structures in the universe” This was therefore not “as recently proved discovered by top Harvard WHIM specialists” (Is this a deliberate deception to fool everyone or simply ignorance of the story?)
      So what has this to do with X-ray and HST observations for Arp 147?

      As for “the universe is anything but neutral overall for gravity.”
      Prove it, with astrophysical citations please. (I’ve yet to see one citation, actually.)

      IMO, what you say here is foolishness one of the biggest scales I’ve yet seen among the PC/EU brethren. (If you want further deconstruction, please keep up this nonsense. I am more than happy to oblige.)

      Note: As for your Web UT avatar here, Michael Talbot would be turning in his grave right now. The Universe is not a hologram, and I do not accept the mysticism you profess is the ultimate theory of reality. Just because you don’t understand the intricacies of our current knowledge of the universe doesn’t mean it is wrong or an illusion. Dumping whole swathes of physics on some whim is just not going to happen.

  2. Many thanks to Ms. Atkinson for bringing us this news article !!!

    The data is what’s important.

    Some of us disagree with the data’s interpretation as presented by the Chandra newswriter, however, but that’s OK, as science doesn’t acheive progress by continuous unanimous concensus.

    Take a look at Hoag’s Object sometime and notice some similarities !

    The ‘spiral galaxy’ on the photo’s right side, is rather looking like a ring of diocotron instabilities, n’est-ce-pas ?

    1. Ad ignorantiam arguments like this just make you silly. I.e. Just because something looks like something else doesn’t mean the two phenomena are related.
      Science is based on the evidence, not what it thinks is the evidence. Evidence also has to be independently confirmed and to be reproducible.
      This is a common misconception of novices like you.
      Ainsi. Aucun il n’est pas.

  3. Why are Chandra’s images always of lower resolution than Hubble’s when x-rays are of shorter wave lengths?

  4. Just to keep the record straight Crumb, that site has NOTHING to do with EU/PC. Nor is the poster (named Pat according to the profile, not THAT anonymous…) known to myself nor any of the EU/PC crowd that I am aware of. I’ve never heard of WHIM Oxygen absorbers nor WHIM anything else, nor does EU/PC posit no gravity.

  5. According to Thunderbolts.Info “A Role for You”; clearly states;

    “In your communications, please be sure that, unless you have developed specific strategies with Thunderbolts management, you not identify yourself as a member of the Thunderbolts group, but as a curious or interested observer.”

    PC/EU is breeding this complete nonsense to all comers (and the rest of us suffer because of it.). No one knows any difference with legitimate IEEE electrician and the nutters being generated by the illegitimate pseudoscience of PC/EU movement. Now wanting to isolate yourself from the fringe element, shows the irrationality of the overall attack on the accepted science. Frankly you all deserve the condemnation.
    As for Thunderbolts.Info means of promoting the abject misery, you only have to read the concepts of “Media Communications.”

    “The editors of scientific media will certainly pay more attention as our Internet presence grows. Communications can also include the science editors of regional newspapers, particularly those who may be looking for emerging scientific controversies. More than once a reader’s simple note, directing an editor or journalist to an “alternative explanation,” has produced surprising results.”

    Don’t bemoan others because of your manufactured deliberate foolishness. The time will so come when the axe will finally kill EU/PC for good, when science editors wake up to the fact that this nonsense needs to be silenced for good. As for whoever this responder, I couldn’t care less. You made your bed, so lie in it, mate.

  6. the evidence has only recently become overwhelming to many WHIM specialists, that ionized baryonic filaments and knots connect together all galaxies and clusters, and form the cosmic web, which obviously is not fictional gravity from dark matter. They are afraid to go against dark matter and the big-bang believers, for fear of commonly accepted scientific rejection. Read and See the scientific truths papers from top Harvard grads in the links at my web blog. Here is proven physics, but sadly is denied and not investigated by gravity minded scientists lacking open observational minds ! They say that Gas often accretes onto galaxies via filaments, and galaxy formation depends more on how galaxies lose gas via outflows as opposed to gravity star formation models. I can’t wait for two new telescopes to be ready, that soon will find deeper startling shocking discoveries about the IGM and WHIM in the universe that will change cosmology ! Wait and see

    1. Silly boy. What does X-ray and Visible light observations of Arp 147 have to do with ultraviolet WHIM?
      If you want to continue with nonsense go right ahead, because the “Harvard grads” you refer have never said what you are confusingly saying here. Go right ahead and quote them, please!
      The only thing “shocking” is the blissful ignorance of yourself. Even your own fellow EU/PC nutters disagree with you!!

      You are clearly far more foolish than even I had initially thought.

    2. I found this item which might help you here. It is the Chandra Coloring and Activity Book, and it might give you some simple ground-work before going off half-cocked on all this other irrelevant nonsense.

      One thing that is important about these images is regarding false colour images, like this one of Arp 147. As this mere colouring book says;

      “Sometimes images taken by telescopes that look at the “invisible” wavelengths are called”false colour images”. That is because the colors we use in them are not “real” but are chosen to bring out important details. For example, the colors can be associated with the intensity or brightness of the radiation from different regions of the image, or in some cases with the temperature or the energy of the emissions.
      The color choice is usually a matter of personal taste, and is used as a kind of code. We can use colors or even shades of black and white to indicate brightness, intensity, temperature or energy on a scale from high to low. In this way we can show the contrasts between different regions in the X-ray source, and highlight features that give us clues to its structure.”

      As you can see, not everything is the reality we perceive or interpret. It is based on the OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE. As with WHIM you obviously stumbled upon, much of the work on this is basically theoretical, not the “absolute truth” you are trying to wrongly claiming here. It is funny that these presumed similar “Harvard guys” you refer is stated in the paper by Williams, R.J. et.al.”Discovery of a Large-scale Galaxy Filament Near a Candidate Intergalactic X-Ray Absorption System” (2010) are not at all making the “fantasies” claims that you are making here.

      Please do explain. Why is that?

      These same “gravity minded scientists lacking open observational minds” you are so fond of, yet are also the same guys whose exact same substantiated conclusions cannot be made simply because of the “lack of conclusive evidence”. I.e to actually quote them(which you seem incapable to do);

      …the primary signature of this warm-hot intergalactic medium (WHIM) is expected to be highly-ionized metal X-ray lines (both in absorption against bright background quasars and diffuse emission; most notably O VII, O VIII, and Ne IX.
      Given the weakness of the signal, detections of the WHIM have thus far been highly uncertain and/or ambiguous. A single z=0.055 OVIII line toward PKS 2155-304 (possibly associated with a small galaxy group) has been repeatedly confirmed, but without other detected lines at the same redshift this result remains uncertain.

      Hence you saying, “…has only recently become overwhelming to many WHIM specialists” is not only wrong, it has been written by you with only deception (or ignorance) in mind. It is clearly not true!!!!

      It is as I’ve already said; Just because you don’t understand the intricacies of our current knowledge of the universe doesn’t mean it is wrong or an illusion.
      (Even your venerated now departed master, Michael Talbot, wouldn’t agree in what you are saying here.)

      I can’t wait to hear some more of your wrong assumptions here, because I’ll promise you I’ll absolutely bury you in your deliberate falsehoods!

      Note: The Interactive version of the colouring book here, by the way, is an absolute blast.

      1. Please, HSBC, can you not just let that dog bay at the moon? Ignoring ignorant remarks usually causes the ignorant to become bored and just go away. Always enjoy your comments, but this horse has been beat.

  7. Imagine seeing this collision of titans from the beginning…. then witnessing the evolving ‘smoke ring’ of matter create new stars. I like the idea that we CAN imagine this scenario… now. The infinitely fascinating universe never ceases to amaze…. Oui?.

  8. Thanks for investigating the WHIM, at least somebody here did. Nobody wants to be labeled as EU/PC and never heard of the WHIM. It is not an Ultraviolet WHIM, Crumb. The WHIM is scientific fact confirmed found! Complicated mathematics that I understand from 3 calculus courses and diff equations, prove that those metals you stated increase in the IGM with increasing galaxy redshifts. Published papers state that at z=0, about 40% of the baryons are in the WHIM, but most metals 80-90% are in stars. At higher redshifts metals are higher in the IGM due to more loss of metals from galaxies. “IGM metals reside in the WHIM throughout cosmic history” NOW, since the HYDROGEN redshift measurements today do not take into account the metals accumulating in the IGM, nobody can even say for sure that the universe is expanding! the IGM becomes more enriched in heavier atomic mass metals and galaxies have less metals in the early universe! Where is the boundary for how you define an expanding galaxy, when we know there is a WHIM surrounding and connecting all of the universe between the galaxies, and it’s astrochemistry composition changes to fill the increasing empty space from dark energy? The early universe big-bang they say was 100% WHIM. Ben Oppenheimer of Arizona Edu has a great website on the WHIM. What is false is that the formation of cosmic structures is entirely done by gravity. Dense filaments connect clusters and filament knots are where galaxy clusters FORM ! YES this means formation of cosmic large-scale structures ! specialists also write that WHIM galaxy halos strongly gravitational lens background x-rays from WHIM KNOTS, which could explain why the all sky background quasars are believed to be tiny solar system sized “galaxies” but actually are background knots being gravitational lensed. Please try to critique a few of my facts, instead of just denying it as not being true. I am convinced to build my own foundation with the WHIM and IGM, and reject the EU/PC Nutters and Gravity believers of dark matter and undetected gravitons or particle waves. I believe the 4 forces do not find a fit for gravity, because it does not exist as a separate force, and that all the forces are in fact the same EM force in the Universe.
    This horse is the best out there bred a genius and never beaten ! Crumb is a nutter worth laughing about.

    1. Accuse the accuser… Nice comeback!
      Again blah, blah, blah.., then the usual diatribe.
      The only thing foolish here is you…

      Now let’s see;

      “…the primary signature of this warm-hot intergalactic medium (WHIM) is expected to be highly-ionized metal X-ray lines (both in absorption against bright background quasars and diffuse emission; most notably O VII, O VIII, and Ne IX.
      Given the weakness of the signal, detections of the WHIM have thus far been highly uncertain and/or ambiguous. A single z=0.055 OVIII line toward PKS 2155-304 (possibly associated with a small galaxy group) has been repeatedly confirmed, but without other detected lines at the same redshift this result remains uncertain.“

      Need I say any more?? Game, set and match, methinks!

    2. “I believe the 4 forces do not find a fit for gravity, because it does not exist as a separate force, and that all the forces are in fact the same EM force in the Universe.”

      Are we talking about faith or science here?

      I far as I can see, there is no evidence for this. (Citations please)

  9. “Please try to critique a few of my facts,…”
    Tell me how to critique “facts”, when you don’t give any?
    Frankly laugh all your like, but the only real fact here is your totally delusional and what you say as I’ve already proven as not being even remotely true. I.e. “The WHIM is scientific fact confirmed found!” It has not!

  10. In May 2010;
    “Confirmed detections of the WHIM have been made difficult because of its extremely low density. Using observations and simulations, scientists calculate the WHIM has a density equivalent to only 6 protons per cubic meter. For comparison, the interstellar medium – the very diffuse gas in between stars in our galaxy – typically has about a million hydrogen atoms per cubic meter.”

    If you knew what you were talking about, you would realise that the emission of POSSIBLE WHIM (Warm-Hot Intergalactic Medium ) have only been the absorption of X-rays by Oxygen VII, and the reemission at ultraviolet wavelengths at 100,000K. The rest still is only theoretical and is still mostly speculative.

    To claim; “…when we know there is a WHIM surrounding and connecting all of the universe between the galaxies.. ” is a obvious falsehood, and you darn well know it!

    The only speculation for the existence of WHIM is that it is thought to be the remnants of the galaxy formation process. Others think it might be the expulsion of matter from galaxies or even the gas remaining form accumulations of dwarf galaxies. The bottom line (12th February 2011) I.e. Now, is we don’t know and the evidence so far is slim to non-existent. Again, it is not; “…as recently proved discovered by top Harvard WHIM specialists.” (A deliberate falsehood by you.)

    Again. Say this is all true doesn’t make it so!

    As I said in another thread ; Il n’y a aucune limite à votre propre sottise.

  11. your deliberate falsehood of denying the proven existences of many separate whim location detections shows you are delusional with your beliefs and not a reputable source of facts. Why believe you crumb, anymore then the EU/PC nutter who had never even heard of it?? You know it has been confirmed to contain the missing big-bang baryon mass.

    1. Let’s see. You say; “…your deliberate falsehood of denying the proven existences of many separate whim location detections.”

      You are kidding aren’t you?
      So far I have not seen one citation nor even one quote backing up your statements.
      If this is all so true, then either show us all the evidence instead of all the posturing and deceptions.

      I have already given you the paper by Williams, R.J. et.al.”Discovery of a Large-scale Galaxy Filament Near a Candidate Intergalactic X-Ray Absorption System” (2010), [ http://arxiv.org/pdf/1008.5148v2 ] with the statement;

      “…the primary signature of this warm-hot intergalactic medium (WHIM) is expected to be highly-ionized metal X-ray lines (both in absorption against bright background quasars and diffuse emission; most notably O VII, O VIII, and Ne IX.
      Given the weakness of the signal, detections of the WHIM have thus far been highly uncertain and/or ambiguous. A single z=0.055 OVIII line toward PKS 2155-304 (possibly associated with a small galaxy group) has been repeatedly confirmed, but without other detected lines at the same redshift this result remains uncertain.“

      If that is “denying the proven existences of many separate whim location detections”, then either you can’t comprehend what you are reading or just closing your eyes to the obvious truth.

      Citations and quotes, please.

  12. many forums have a feature which allows the reader to block all posts from one or more posters. that would be nice here.

  13. Benjamin Oppenheimer explains that he was afraid to publish findings because of accepted beliefs of star formation. Oppenheimer states “a lot of astronomers still find this idea heretical.” The “Wind Prescription” by Romeel who coined the term “halo fountains” for Recycled winds, provides accretion mechanisms and star formation, by photo-ionized gases from the IGM entering into the galaxy. XSHOOTER and FIRE instruments soon they state will turn early big-bang IGM enrichment on its head! “Only 1% of the z=6 early universe is enriched with C IV which holds great potential for tracing true volume filling metals in the still mostly pristine IGM today.” At z>5 galaxies lose metals cause IGM contains more, and the decline in global star formation is certainly they state related to the formation of hot structures from which accretion onto galaxies is more difficult. Metals have higher overdensities near galaxies at z=0 then at z>3 and IGM chemical enrichment, winds, forms galaxies and regulate growth they state. This is all new science, and as we find more information from better telescopes, the arrogant view that the entire conceivable universe began in a big explosion will become outdated. see the best scientists website by Benjamin Oppenheimer at Arizona.edu

    1. “…the arrogant view that the entire conceivable universe began in a big explosion will become outdated.”

      So how old will the universe turn out to be then?

  14. Stars, Galaxies, and Galaxy Clusters are found to form by plasma physics. The largest known “gravitational bound” system is a galaxy cluster, having 10 times its baryonic gravity mass distributed NOT IN THE CONSTITUENT GALAXIES, but in a plasma coronal structure far larger then the local bubble of a star, the corona of the milky way galaxy, the ISM, WHIM, even the IGM… its the hottest largest and most vast distance spanning medium known, called the Hot Intergalactic Medium that prevades the space between galaxy clusters. Obviously the big-bang is outright silly and somebody would have to be doing some serious drugs to really believe in all of its ramifications purported by those making a living supporting it. I see no maximum size scale for these large plasma clouds, meaning they surround and prevade even superclusters, and superduperclusters. They get larger, hotter, and vaster and fool people into believing the universe is expanding by dark energy from the big-bang. NO METALS ONLY HYDROGEN HAS BEEN MEASURED AND USED TO DETERMINE THE REDSHIFT EXPANSION. I don’t trust anybody who claims to be an expert on the universe. People are outright ignorant and deluded that they believe the universe actually began 14 billion years ago when they are just a tiny speck of dust on a planet earth that is parasitic by nature ! The only hope for all you lost souls like Crumb, and anyone else who denies JC amongst others, is FAITH ALONE and rejection of the world beliefs of others like crumb here! Why for example has no kind of life been found on Mars, but it prevades every nook and cranny on earth?

  15. .. all this time, two or three days, and still you still cannot give relevant citations or definitive examples of WHIM phenomena. Theory is one thing, examples of observational evidence is another.

    How do you explain Williams, R.J. et.al. quote, eh?

    Have you ever considered that the simple reason why we rarely see metal lines in distant galaxies, is that they are so far away that only the prominent lines of Hydrogen and Helium can be seen? The problem is the sensitivity of the instrumentation not with theory) (Also after all, the stars shine by converting Hydrogen into Helium, and they make up most of the gas in galaxies.)

    As for; “Benjamin Oppenheimer explains that he was afraid to publish findings because of accepted beliefs of star formation” Eh? If he has valid science he should publish it without fail. If true, this guy would be just as nutso as you are.

    However, it is funny that Benjamin’s simulation cosmological movies says; http://luca.as.arizona.edu/~oppen/IGM/general.html

    “These movies begin soon after the Big Bang. Soon after in this case is tens of millions years, which is relatively small compared to the age of the Universe today, about 14 billion years. The early Universe initially has no stars, which do not form until the Universe is a few hundred million years old. As the Universe ages it expands; this is a key discovery made by Edwin Hubble that our Universe is in a constantly evolving state with galaxies moving away from us and each other. These movies follow a volume of space that expands at the same rate as the Universe expands, therefore the actual distance between objects grows with time.”

    I seems he is not denying about the Big Bang occurring. So if “People are outright ignorant and deluded that they believe the universe actually began 14 billion years ago..”, then logically, like me, I guess Benjamin Oppenheimer must be one too. (Amazingly the person you quote “see the best scientists website by Benjamin Oppenheimer at Arizona.edu”, seems to disagree with you. Why is that?

    Bottom line. The only thing that is outright silly is not the big bang, but clearly you!

    Please tell me of some ACTUAL observed objects showing definitive evidence of WHIM. (You have still yet to give one!)

    1. I’ll tell you what, let’s solve this nonsense once and for all….

      I’m just about to write a short email to Benjamin Oppenheimer at Leiden Observatory about you crazy words here. Let’s see if he denies the 14 billion year time since the Big Bang.

      Note: It is also funny that on his CV, he received VENI Fellowship is entitled “Fourteen Billion Years of Baryonic Galaxy Formation.” Why is that??

  16. According to our Hologram here; “The only hope for all you lost souls like Crumb, and anyone else who denies JC amongst others, is FAITH ALONE and rejection of the world beliefs of others like crumb here!
    But really wow! How desperate people become when their “pet theories” are exposed and then taken apart. Now apparently I am one “who denies JC amongst others”. Amazing, I have mentioned nothing of religion nor profess anything about any Creation.

    Don’t they say the truth will set you free?

    Laughing my tail off!!

    As I said; “Science is based on the evidence, not what it thinks is the evidence.”

    1. I checked out his website, just for giggles, and it turns out that he has a bachelor degree in science.

      I wonder how you get that degree, because when I got mine, I had to pick a specific field of science to study. Maybe I went to the wrong university. I didn’t know that all of science could be contained in one degree plan.

      1. His real degree is probably really in theology, not actually science.
        I am totally amazed, if this is were true, that he could get through some university without learning how to think and even apply basic reasoning.
        It seems he wants and expects the universe to match up with his own faith, even if it is against the scientific evidence or what we observe.
        I don’t know what he expects, but I’d think he thinks the universe is unbound, infinite in size and age — leaving the Biblical account of the creation to occur. He also likely thinks the scientific method also is equally applicable to faith, which is a dangerous and unsolvable mixture.
        If he returns, no doubt he will either now rigorously defend his faith or just go on with the same nonsense as if nothing has happened.

        The big question now is; Is he silly enough to return to this thread to defend his position? (I doubt it.)

        (I am still amazed that he professes that Benjamin Oppenheimer is on his side, but still does not realise he also supports the standard cosmology (Big Bang). This here is not just some minor typo, nearly everything he currently believes seems to all hinges on just Oppenheimer’s work. Hologram here just picks out the best bits he likes, ignores swathes of other facts, then comes up with a unique solution, regardless of the evidence. Then calls this science by a presumed trained scientist!! It beggars belief.)

      2. It really makes me laugh when Creationists try to prove their faith through science. Just setting themselves up for failure.

Comments are closed.