Black Holes Archives

April 30, 2014December 23, 2015 by Nancy Atkinson

Gas Cloud or Star? Mystery Object Heading Towards Our Galaxy’s Supermassive Black Hole is Doomed

This simulation shows the G2 gas cloud/star during its close approach to the black hole at the center of the Milky Way. Image by ESO/MPE/Marc Schartmann.

Observatories around the world and in space have been honed-in on the center of our galaxy, looking for possible fireworks to erupt as a mystery object heads towards our galaxy’s supermassive black hole. The object – called G2 – is being watched in an intense observing campaign across all wavelengths with multiple observatories. This is the first time astronomers have been able to watch an encounter with a black hole like this in real time, and the hope is that watching G2’s demise will reveal not only what this object actually is, but also provide more information on how matter behaves near black holes and how supermassive black holes “eat” and evolve.

“We’re indeed working on new observation of G2 right now,” astronomer Leo Meyer from UCLA told Universe Today, “and we’re in a position to make a significant new statement about it very soon.”

G2 was first spotted in 2011 and was quickly deemed to be heading towards our galaxy’s supermassive black hole, called Sgr A*. Astronomers estimate G2 has a mass roughly three times that of Earth (versus the black hole, which is 4 million times the mass of our Sun). G2 is not falling directly into the black hole, but it will pass Sgr A* at about 100 times the distance between Earth and the Sun. But that’s close enough to predict that G2 is doomed for destruction.

Shown here are VLT observations from 2006, 2010 and 2013, colored blue, green and red respectively showing a gas cloud being ripped apart by the supermassive black hole at the center of the galaxy. Credit: ESO/S. Gillessen.

By last July, observations from the Very Large Telescope showed the object being stretched over more than 160 billion kilometers by the black hole’s extreme gravitational field.

Closest approach was expected to have happened by now (April 2014), but nobody’s talking publicly yet about what has been observed, although Meyer hinted news would be coming soon.

The last notification on the G2 Gas Cloud Wiki page (put together by Stefan Gillessen of the Max Planck Institute in Germany, who has lead several observing runs) was posted on April 21, 2014. This notification reported no strong flare of Sgr A* although it was around the expected time peri-center passing for G2, but there has been a rather constant radio detection of 22 GHz at that location with Japanese VLBI Network.

Northwestern University’s Daryl Haggard said in an early April 2014 press release that recent Chandra observations do not show any enhanced emissions in X-rays, adding “from the X-ray perspective, the gas cloud is late to the party, but it remains to be seen whether G2 is fashionably late or a no show.”

And that points to one question about G2: what is it exactly? Haggard called it a gas cloud, but UCLA astronomer Andrea Ghez said there’s actually a debate about what it is.

“There are two camps on that,” she told Universe Today. “Some people have suggested this is a gas cloud. But I think it’s a star. Its orbit looks so much like the orbits of other stars. There’s clearly some phenomenon that is happening, and there is some layer of gas that’s interacting because you see the tidal stretching, but that doesn’t prevent a star being in the center.”

Some astronomers argue that they aren’t seeing the amount of stretching or “spaghettification” that would be expected if this was just a cloud of gas.

Montage of simulation images showing G2 during its close approach to the black hole at the center of the Milky Way. Images by ESO/MPE/Marc Schartmann

Meyer said the stretching from the object tidally reacting to the back hole clearly points to gas, but that doesn’t tell you if something is hidden inside it or not.

“While it is getting stretched, the luminosity is staying surprisingly constant, and that is puzzling the theorists,” Meyer said.

Another puzzle is the timing of when G2’s closest approach would take place. When news of G2 first broke, it was thought that the time of closest approach to the black hole would be in mid-2013. But further observations determined that that estimate was not accurate and Spring 2014 was actually when closest approach would occur.

“This makes this year’s observations so relevant and our upcoming report significant — especially regarding the issue whether there is a star inside the cloud or not,” Meyer told Universe Today via email.

But, Ghez said, we’ll soon know the answer of what this object is.

“This is just the process of science and it’s interesting – because we’ll have a limited set of observations to find out what this is,” she said. “And it may be a gas cloud or it may be a star, but it’s pretty exciting in astronomy to have an event that everybody gets to line up and buy tickets for.”

Another question is if there actually will be any “fireworks” – as Meyer called it – when G2 meets its ultimate doom as it gets shredded and possibly eaten by the black hole. As the object approaches the black hole and gets disrupted, the gas will rain down onto the back hole, increasing the black hole’s mass, possibly making it brighter. Will this create a “flash” or possibly even a jet from the black hole?

“We don’t know, and there are a lot of uncertainties,” Meyer said at the American Astronomical Society meeting in January 2014. “This is something we haven’t seen before, and even if we don’t know if something will happen or not, it still is worth looking. It’s a unique opportunity to learn about fundamental astrophysics. Even if it’s not super-spectacular, we can still learn things.”

Meyer hinted in January that astronomers might not see much at all.

“Whatever gas might end up in the black hole might get smeared out so much that the amount of mass that gets dumped into the back might be very little,” he said. “This dietary supplement might be very little, like a pea or something!”

Our galaxy’s supermassive black hole has long been fairly inactive, but in 2013, NASA’s Swift Gamma-Ray Burst mission detected the brightest flare ever observed from Sgr A*. However, it’s not certain if this burst was related to G2 or not.

Ghez has said these observations of G2 are similar to the search for extraterrestrial life: the odds to see something are against you, but you still have to look, because if you find something, it will be spectacular.

This is exciting for astronomers, since they usually don’t get to see events like this take place “in real time.” In astrophysics, timescales of events taking place are usually very long — not over the course of several months. But it’s important to note that G2 actually met its demise around 25,000 years ago. Because of the amount of time it takes light to travel, we can only now observe this event which happened long ago.

Unfortunately, this event is beyond what amateur astronomers can observe.

“We really need to use the worlds’ most advanced observatories to observe this,” Meyer said in January, “as we have to go to multiple wavelengths and use adaptive optics since the galactic center is not visible to light in seen by our eyes, and you need a high angular resolution to see it.”

February 25, 2014December 23, 2015 by Elizabeth Howell

Pushy Black Holes Stop Elliptical Galaxies From Forming Stars

Multi-wavelength view of the elliptical galaxy NGC 5044. Credit: Digitised Sky Survey/NASA Chandra/Southern Observatory for Astrophysical Research/Very Large Array (Robert Dunn et al. 2010)

Contradicting past theories, cold gas has been found in abundance in some elliptical galaxies — showing that there must be some other explanation why these types of galaxies don’t form new stars. Astronomers believe that the jets from supermassive black holes in these galaxies’ center must push around the gas and prevent stars from forming.

Researchers spotted the gas for the first time using old data from the recently retired Herschel space observatory, which was able to peer well into the infrared — where it spotted carbon ions and oxygen atoms. This find stands against the previous belief that these galaxies were “red and dead”, referring to their physical appearance and the fact that they form no new stars.

“We looked at eight giant elliptical galaxies that nobody had looked at with Herschel before and we were delighted to find that, contrary to previous belief, six out of eight abound with cold gas”, stated Norbert Werner, a researcher at Stanford University in California who led the study.

“These galaxies are red, but with the giant black holes pumping in their hearts, they are definitely not dead,” added Werner.

NGC 1399, an elliptical galaxy about 65 million light years from Earth. Credit: NASA, Chandra

Previously, scientists thought that the galaxies got rid of their cold gas or had used it all up during a burst of earlier star formation. With cold gas found in the majority of the sample, researchers then used other observatories to try to find warmer gas up to tens of millions of Kelvin (or Fahrenheit or Celsius).

X-ray information from NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory revealed that there is hot gas cooling in six of the eight galaxies, but not in the remaining two of the sample.

“This is consistent with theoretical expectations: once cooled, the hot gas would become the warm and cold gas that are observed at longer wavelengths. However, in these galaxies the cooling process somehow stopped, and the cold gas failed to condense and form stars,” the European Space Agency stated.

“While the six galaxies with plenty of cold gas harbour moderately active black holes at their centres,” ESA added, “the other two show a marked difference. In the two galaxies without cold gas, the central black holes are accreting matter at frenzied pace, as confirmed by radio observations showing powerful jets of highly energetic particles that stem from their cores.”

You can read more about the research in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society or in preprint version on Arxiv.

Source: European Space Agency

February 20, 2014December 23, 2015 by Elizabeth Howell

Dense Gas Clouds Blot The View Of Supermassive Black Holes

A supermassive black hole has been found in an unusual spot: an isolated region of space where only small, dim galaxies reside. Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech — A team of astronomers from South Africa have noticed a series of supermassive black holes in distant galaxies that are all spinning in the same direction. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

Gas around supermassive black holes tends to clump into immense clouds, periodically blocking the view of these huge X-ray sources from Earth, new research reveals.

Observations of 55 of these “galactic nuclei” revealed at least a dozen times when an X-ray source dimmed for a time as short as a few hours or as long as years, which likely happened when a gas cloud blotted out the signal seen from Earth. This is different than some previous models suggesting the gas was more uniform.

“Evidence for the clouds comes from records collected over 16 years by NASA’s Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer, a satellite in low-earth orbit equipped with instruments that measured variations in X-ray sources,” stated the Royal Astronomical Society.

“Those sources include active galactic nuclei, brilliantly luminous objects powered by supermassive black holes as they gather and condense huge quantities of dust and gas.”

You can read more in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society or in preprint version on Arxiv. Below are some different versions of the YouTube video on top, one with weather symbols and another showing a diagram with varying X-ray emission.

The research was led by Alex Markowitz, an astrophysicist at the University of California, San Diego and the Karl Remeis Observatory in Bamberg, Germany.

There have been a few neat studies lately looking at the environment around these huge objects. One examined how the black hole fuels itself, while another suggested that perhaps these singularities formed as twins before evolving.

Source: Royal Astronomical Society

February 10, 2014December 23, 2015 by Brian Koberlein

Planck “Star” to Arise From Black Holes?

Artistic view of a radiating black hole. Credit: NASA

A new paper has been posted on the arxiv (a repository of research preprints) introducing the idea of a Planck star arising from a black hole. These hypothetical objects wouldn’t be a star in the traditional sense, but rather the light emitted when a black hole dies at the hands of Hawking radiation. The paper hasn’t been peer reviewed, but it presents an interesting idea and a possible observational test.

When a large star reaches the end of its life, it explodes as a supernova, which can cause its core to collapse into a black hole. In the traditional model of a black hole, the material collapses down into an infinitesimal volume known as a singularity. Of course this doesn’t take into account quantum theory.

Although we don’t have a complete theory of quantum gravity, we do know a few things. One is that black holes shouldn’t last forever. Because of quantum fluctuations near the event horizon of a black hole, a black hole will emit Hawking radiation. As a result, a black hole will gradually lose mass as it radiates. The amount of Hawking radiation it emits is inversely proportional to its size, so as the black hole gets smaller it will emit more and more Hawking radiation until it finally radiates completely away.

Because black holes don’t last forever, this has led Stephen Hawking and others to propose that black holes don’t have an event horizon, but rather an apparent horizon. This would mean the material within a black hole would not collapse into a singularity, which is where this new paper comes in.

Diagram showing how matter approaches Planck density. Credit: Carlo Rovelli and Francesca Vidotto

The authors propose that rather than collapsing into a singularity, the matter within a black hole will collapse until it is about a trillionth of a meter in size. At that point its density would be on the order of the Planck density. When the the black hole ends its life, this “Planck star” would be revealed. Because this “star” would be at the Planck density, it would radiate at a specific wavelength of gamma rays. So if they exist, a gamma ray telescope should be able to observe them.

Just to be clear, this is still pretty speculative. So far there isn’t any observational evidence that such a Planck star exists. It is, however, an interesting solution to the paradoxical side of black holes.

February 6, 2014December 23, 2015 by Elizabeth Howell

Black Holes Warmed Up Space Slower Than Previously Thought: Study

This picture was created from images forming part of the Digitized Sky Survey 2. It shows the rich region of sky around the young open star cluster NGC 2547 in the southern constellation of Vela (The Sail). Credit: ESO/Digitized Sky Survey 2. Acknowledgement: Davide De Martin

Black holes are big influencers for the early universe; these singularities that were close to ancient stars heated up gas and affected star formation across the cosmos. A new study, however, says that heating happened later than previously thought.

“It was previously believed that the heating occurred very early, but we discovered that this standard picture delicately depends on the precise energy with which the X-rays come out,” stated Rennan Barkana, a co-author of the paper who is an astronomer at Tel Aviv University.

“Taking into account up-to-date observations of nearby black-hole binaries changes the expectations for the history of cosmic heating. It results in a new prediction of an early time (when the universe was only 400 million years old) at which the sky was uniformly filled with radio waves emitted by the hydrogen gas.”

These so-called “black-hole binaries” are star pairs where the larger star exploded into a supernova and left behind a black hole. The strong gravity then yanked gas away from the stellar companion, emitting X-rays in the process. The radiation, as it flows across the universe, is cited as the factor behind gas heating in other parts of space.

You can read more details of the model in the journal Nature. The study was led by Anastasia Fialkov, a fellow TAU researcher.

February 1, 2014December 23, 2015 by Brian Koberlein

Why Hawking is Wrong About Black Holes

Artist rendering of a supermassive black hole. Credit: NASA / JPL-Caltech.

A recent paper by Stephen Hawking has created quite a stir, even leading Nature News to declare there are no black holes. As I wrote in an earlier post, that isn’t quite what Hawking claimed. But it is now clear that Hawking’s claim about black holes is wrong because the paradox he tries to address isn’t a paradox after all.

It all comes down to what is known as the firewall paradox for black holes. The central feature of a black hole is its event horizon. The event horizon of a black hole is basically the point of no return when approaching a black hole. In Einstein’s theory of general relativity, the event horizon is where space and time are so warped by gravity that you can never escape. Cross the event horizon and you are forever trapped.

This one-way nature of an event horizon has long been a challenge to understanding gravitational physics. For example, a black hole event horizon would seem to violate the laws of thermodynamics. One of the principles of thermodynamics is that nothing should have a temperature of absolute zero. Even very cold things radiate a little heat, but if a black hole traps light then it doesn’t give off any heat. So a black hole would have a temperature of zero, which shouldn’t be possible.

Then in 1974 Stephen Hawking demonstrated that black holes do radiate light due to quantum mechanics. In quantum theory there are limits to what can be known about an object. For example, you cannot know an object’s exact energy. Because of this uncertainty, the energy of a system can fluctuate spontaneously, so long as its average remains constant. What Hawking demonstrated is that near the event horizon of a black hole pairs of particles can appear, where one particle becomes trapped within the event horizon (reducing the black holes mass slightly) while the other can escape as radiation (carrying away a bit of the black hole’s energy).

While Hawking radiation solved one problem with black holes, it created another problem known as the firewall paradox. When quantum particles appear in pairs, they are entangled, meaning that they are connected in a quantum way. If one particle is captured by the black hole, and the other escapes, then the entangled nature of the pair is broken. In quantum mechanics, we would say that the particle pair appears in a pure state, and the event horizon would seem to break that state.

Artist visualization of entangled particles. Credit: NIST.

Last year it was shown that if Hawking radiation is in a pure state, then either it cannot radiate in the way required by thermodynamics, or it would create a firewall of high energy particles near the surface of the event horizon. This is often called the firewall paradox because according to general relativity if you happen to be near the event horizon of a black hole you shouldn’t notice anything unusual. The fundamental idea of general relativity (the principle of equivalence) requires that if you are freely falling toward near the event horizon there shouldn’t be a raging firewall of high energy particles. In his paper, Hawking proposed a solution to this paradox by proposing that black holes don’t have event horizons. Instead they have apparent horizons that don’t require a firewall to obey thermodynamics. Hence the declaration of “no more black holes” in the popular press.

But the firewall paradox only arises if Hawking radiation is in a pure state, and a paper last month by Sabine Hossenfelder shows that Hawking radiation is not in a pure state. In her paper, Hossenfelder shows that instead of being due to a pair of entangled particles, Hawking radiation is due to two pairs of entangled particles. One entangled pair gets trapped by the black hole, while the other entangled pair escapes. The process is similar to Hawking’s original proposal, but the Hawking particles are not in a pure state.

So there’s no paradox. Black holes can radiate in a way that agrees with thermodynamics, and the region near the event horizon doesn’t have a firewall, just as general relativity requires. So Hawking’s proposal is a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.

What I’ve presented here is a very rough overview of the situation. I’ve glossed over some of the more subtle aspects. For a more detailed (and remarkably clear) overview check out Ethan Seigel’s post on his blog Starts With a Bang! Also check out the post on Sabine Hossenfelder’s blog, Back Reaction, where she talks about the issue herself.

January 28, 2014December 23, 2015 by Elizabeth Howell

What Fuels The Engine Of A Supermassive Black Hole?

Orbiting near a moving black hole doesn't seem like the safest mode of transportation, but time dilation might make it worth the risk. Credit: NAOJ

If you could get a good look at the environment around a supermassive black hole — which is a black hole often found in the center of the galaxy — what factors would make that black hole keep going?

A Japanese study revealed that at least one of these black holes stay “active and luminous” by gobbling up nearby material, but notes that only a few of the observed galaxies that are merging have these types of black holes. This must mean something unique arises in the environment near the black hole to get it going, the researchers say. What that is, though, is still poorly understood.

Supermassive black holes, defined as black holes that have a million times the mass of the sun or more, reside in galaxy centers. “The merger of gas-rich galaxies with SMBHs [supermassive black holes] in their centers not only causes active star formation, but also stimulates mass accretion onto the existing SMBHs,” stated a press release from the Subaru Telescope.

“When material accretes onto a SMBH, the accretion disk surrounding the black hole becomes very hot from the release of gravitational energy, and it becomes very luminous. This process is referred to as active galactic nucleus (AGN) activity; it is different from the energy generation activity by nuclear fusion reactions within stars.”

Figuring out how these types of activity vary would give a clue as to how galaxies come together, the researchers said, but it’s hard to see anything in action because of dust and gas blocking the view of optical telescopes. That’s why infrared observations come in so handy, because it makes it easier to peer through the debris. (You can see some examples from this research below.)

Examples of infrared K-band images of luminous, gas-rich, merging galaxies. Credit: NAOJ

The team (led by the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan’s Masatoshi Imanishi) used NAOJ’s Subaru’s Infrared Camera and Spectrograph (IRCS) and the telescope’s adaptive optics system in two bands of infrared. Researchers looked at 29 luminous gas-rich merging galaxies in the infrared and found “at least” one active supermassive black hole in all but one of the ones studied. However, only four of these galaxies merging had multiple, active black holes.

“The team’s results mean that not all SMBHs in gas-rich merging galaxies are actively mass accreting, and that multiple SMBHs may have considerably different mass accretion rates onto SMBHs,” Subaru stated.

The implication is more about the environment around a supermassive black hole must be understood to figure out how mass accretes. Knowing more about this will improve computer simulations of galaxy mergers, the researchers said.

You can read the published study in the Astrophysical Journal or in prepublished form on Arxiv.

Source: Subaru Telescope

January 24, 2014December 23, 2015 by Brian Koberlein

Black Holes No More? Not Quite.

Where is the Nearest Black Hole — Artist concept of matter swirling around a black hole. (NASA/Dana Berry/SkyWorks Digital)

Nature News has announced that there are no black holes. This claim is made by none other than Stephen Hawking, so does this mean black holes are no more? It depends on whether Hawking’s new idea is right, and on what you mean be a black hole. The claim is based on a new paper by Hawking that argues the event horizon of a black hole doesn’t exist.

The event horizon of a black hole is basically the point of no return when approaching a black hole. In Einstein’s theory of general relativity, the event horizon is where space and time are so warped by gravity that you can never escape. Cross the event horizon and you can only move inward, never outward. The problem with a one-way event horizon is that it leads to what is known as the information paradox.

Professor Stephen Hawking during a zero-gravity flight. Image credit: Zero G.

The information paradox has its origin in thermodynamics, specifically the second law of thermodynamics. In its simplest form it can be summarized as “heat flows from hot objects to cold objects”. But the law is more useful when it is expressed in terms of entropy. In this way it is stated as “the entropy of a system can never decrease.” Many people interpret entropy as the level of disorder in a system, or the unusable part of a system. That would mean things must always become less useful over time. But entropy is really about the level of information you need to describe a system. An ordered system (say, marbles evenly spaced in a grid) is easy to describe because the objects have simple relations to each other. On the other hand, a disordered system (marbles randomly scattered) take more information to describe, because there isn’t a simple pattern to them. So when the second law says that entropy can never decrease, it is say that the physical information of a system cannot decrease. In other words, information cannot be destroyed.

The problem with event horizons is that you could toss an object (with a great deal of entropy) into a black hole, and the entropy would simply go away. In other words, the entropy of the universe would get smaller, which would violate the second law of thermodynamics. Of course this doesn’t take into account quantum effects, specifically what is known as Hawking radiation, which Stephen Hawking first proposed in 1974.

The original idea of Hawking radiation stems from the uncertainty principle in quantum theory. In quantum theory there are limits to what can be known about an object. For example, you cannot know an object’s exact energy. Because of this uncertainty, the energy of a system can fluctuate spontaneously, so long as its average remains constant. What Hawking demonstrated is that near the event horizon of a black hole pairs of particles can appear, where one particle becomes trapped within the event horizon (reducing the black holes mass slightly) while the other can escape as radiation (carrying away a bit of the black hole’s energy).

Hawking radiation near an event horizon. Credit: NAU.

Because these quantum particles appear in pairs, they are “entangled” (connected in a quantum way). This doesn’t matter much, unless you want Hawking radiation to radiate the information contained within the black hole. In Hawking’s original formulation, the particles appeared randomly, so the radiation emanating from the black hole was purely random. Thus Hawking radiation would not allow you to recover any trapped information.

To allow Hawking radiation to carry information out of the black hole, the entangled connection between particle pairs must be broken at the event horizon, so that the escaping particle can instead be entangled with the information-carrying matter within the black hole. This breaking of the original entanglement would make the escaping particles appear as an intense “firewall” at the surface of the event horizon. This would mean that anything falling toward the black hole wouldn’t make it into the black hole. Instead it would be vaporized by Hawking radiation when it reached the event horizon. It would seem then that either the physical information of an object is lost when it falls into a black hole (information paradox) or objects are vaporized before entering a black hole (firewall paradox).

In this new paper, Hawking proposes a different approach. He argues that rather than instead of gravity warping space and time into an event horizon, the quantum fluctuations of Hawking radiation create a layer turbulence in that region. So instead of a sharp event horizon, a black hole would have an apparent horizon that looks like an event horizon, but allows information to leak out. Hawking argues that the turbulence would be so great that the information leaving a black hole would be so scrambled that it is effectively irrecoverable.

If Stephen Hawking is right, then it could solve the information/firewall paradox that has plagued theoretical physics. Black holes would still exist in the astrophysics sense (the one in the center of our galaxy isn’t going anywhere) but they would lack event horizons. It should be stressed that Hawking’s paper hasn’t been peer reviewed, and it is a bit lacking on details. It is more of a presentation of an idea rather than a detailed solution to the paradox. Further research will be needed to determine if this idea is the solution we’ve been looking for.

January 23, 2014December 23, 2015 by Elizabeth Howell

Black Hole Steals Gas From Trillions Of Stars

A composite image (X-ray and optical wavelengths) showing galaxy cluster RX J1532.9+3021 and the black hole at its center. Credit: X-ray: NASA/CXC/Stanford/J.Hlavacek-Larrondo et al, Optical: NASA/ESA/STScI/M.Postman & CLASH team

Got gas? The black hole in galaxy cluster RX J1532.9+3021 is keeping it all for itself and stopping trillions of stars from coming to be, according to new research. You can see data above from NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory (purple) and the Hubble Space Telescope (yellow).

The drama is taking place about 3.9 billion light-years from Earth, showing an extreme phenomenon that has been noted in other galaxies on smaller scales, Chandra officials stated.

“The large amount of hot gas near the center of the cluster presents a puzzle,” a statement read. “Hot gas glowing with X-rays should cool, and the dense gas in the center of the cluster should cool the fastest. The pressure in this cool central gas is then expected to drop, causing gas further out to sink in towards the galaxy, forming trillions of stars along the way. However, astronomers have found no such evidence for this burst of stars forming at the center of this cluster.”

Black hole with disc and jets visualization courtesy of ESA

What’s blocking the stars (according to data from Chandra and the National Science Foundation’s Karl G. Jansky Very Large Array) could be supersonic jets blasting from the black hole and shoving the gas in the area away, forming cavities on either side of the galaxy. These cavities, by the way, are immense — at 100,000 light-years across each, this makes them about as wide as our home galaxy, the Milky Way.

The big question is where that power came from. Perhaps the black hole is “ultramassive” (10 billion times of the sun) and has ample mass to shoot out those jets without eating itself up and producing radiation. Or, the black hole could be smaller (a billion times that of the sun) but spinning quickly, which would allow it to send out those jets.

You can find more details in a November 2013 paper from The Astrophysical Journal (also available in a prepublished version on Arxiv.) The research was led by Julie Hlavacek-Larrondo from Stanford University.

Source: Chandra X-Ray Observatory

January 13, 2014March 14, 2017 by Fraser Cain

What is on the Other Side of a Black Hole?

Picture an entire star collapsed down into a gravitational singularity. An object with so much mass, compressed so tightly, that nothing, not even light itself can escape its grasp. It’s no surprise these objects have captured our imagination… and yet, I have a complaint.

The name “black hole” seems to have created something of a misunderstanding. And the images that show the gravitational well of a black hole don’t seem to help either.

From all the correspondence I get, I know many imagine these objects as magnificent portals to some other world or dimension. That they might be gateways which will take you off to adventures with beautiful glistening people in oddly tailored chainmail codpieces and bikinis.

So, if you were to jump into a black hole, where would you come out? What’s on the other side? Where do they take you to? Black holes don’t actually “go” anywhere. There isn’t an actual “hole” involved at all.

They’re massive black orbs in space with an incomprehensible gravitational field. We’re familiar with things that are black in color, like asphalt, or your favorite Cure shirt from the Wish tour that you’ve only ever hand-washed.

Black holes aren’t that sort of black. They’re black because even light, the fastest thing in the Universe, has given up trying to escape their immense gravity.

Let’s aim for a little context. Consider this. Imagine carrying an elephant around on your shoulders. Better yet, imagine wearing an entire elephant, like a suit. Now, let’s get off the couch and go for a walk. This what it would feel like if the gravity on Earth increased by a factor of 50. If we were to increase the force of gravity around your couch up to a level near the weakest possible black hole, it would be billions of times stronger than you would experience stuck under your elephant suit.

And so, if you jumped into a black hole, riding your space dragon, wearing maximus power gauntlets of punchiness and wielding some sort of ridiculous light-based melee weapon, you would then be instantly transformed … by those terrible tidal forces unravelling your body into streams of atoms… and then your mass would be added to the black hole.

Just so we’re clear on this, you don’t go anywhere. You just get added to the black hole.
It’s like wondering about the magical place you go if you jump into a trash compactor.
If you did jump into a black hole, your experience would be one great angular discomfort and then atomic disassembly. Here’s the truly nightmarish part. ..

As time distorts near the event horizon of a black hole, the outside Universe would watch you descend towards it more and more slowly. In theory, from their perspective it would take an infinite amount of time for you to become a part of the black hole. Even photons reflecting off your newly shaped body would be stretched out to the point that you would become redder and redder, and eventually, just fade away.

Artist concept of a view inside a black hole. Credit: April Hobart, NASA, Chandra X-Ray Observatory

Now that that is over with. Let’s clear up the matter of that diagram. Consider that image of a black hole’s gravity well. Anything with mass distorts space-time. The more mass you have, the more of a distortion you make….And black holes make bigger distortions than anything else in the Universe.

Light follows a straight line through space-time, even when space-time has been distorted into the maw of a black hole. When you get inside the black hole’s event horizon, all paths lead directly to the singularity, even if you’re a photon of light, moving directly away from it. It sounds just awful. The best news is that, from your perspective, it’s a quick and painful death for you and your space dragon.

So, if you had any plans to travel into a black hole, I urge you to reconsider. This isn’t a way to quickly travel to another spot in the Universe, or transcend to a higher form of consciousness. There’s nothing on the other side. Just disassembly and death.
If you’re looking for an escape to another dimension, might I suggest a good book instead?

Here’s an article I did about how to maximize your time while falling into a black hole.