View Full Version : 'No one has ever seen anything like this': Scientists report black hole 'burping'
https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/no-one-has-ever-seen-anything-like-this-scientists-report-black-hole-burping-1.6120764?cid=sm%3Atrueanthem%3A%7B%7Bcampaignname%7D%7D%3Atwitterpost%E2%80%8B&taid=635475fc1a2f9b00014d5152&utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter
Scientists say a black hole has begun ejecting material years after it consumed a small star, a phenomenon described as similar to "burping" after a meal and a first for researchers.
A study published on Oct. 11 in The Astrophysical Journal suggests the black hole, in a galaxy 665 million lights years away from Earth, is shooting material at half the speed of light after ripping apart a star that wandered too close to it in October 2018.
She’s gone from suck to blow!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgdzo-7HYQI
Next up is to suggest a level of intelligence, or that a black hole is a sentient entity.
Next up is to suggest a level of intelligence, or that a black hole is a sentient entity.
I’ve always been intrigued by the idea of white holes especially the speculation that the Big Bang itself was a white hole.
ViniVidivici
10-22-22, 19:53
Next up is to suggest a level of intelligence, or that a black hole is a sentient entity.
Reminds me of Wan-To, from Frederick Pohl's "The World At The End Of Time". What an epic story.
Straight Shooter
10-22-22, 19:58
Next up is to suggest a level of intelligence, or that a black hole is a sentient entity.
OH, its coming. When they cant figure out why- its coming.
They are so full of shit these days.
BLACK HOLES "MATTER"..get it?
A study published on Oct. 11 in The Astrophysical Journal suggests the black hole
Words mean things. Hawking already DISCOVERED black holes leak radiation beyond the event horizon so our original imaginings of black holes as something subject to absolutes already has been redefined. But this study is almost pure speculation and interpretation.
OH, its coming. When they cant figure out why- its coming.
They are so full of shit these days.
BLACK HOLES "MATTER"..get it?
Well played, sir.
OutofBatt3ry
10-22-22, 20:16
Words mean things. Hawking already DISCOVERED black holes leak radiation beyond the event horizon so our original imaginings of black holes as something subject to absolutes already has been redefined. But this study is almost pure speculation and interpretation.
Cleverly named "Hawking radiation"...
I seem to recall theories about active jets from black holes for years...I suppose this is the first actual "observation?"
The idea is literally hypocritical to the proposed physics of a black hole. Once inside the Event Horizon(EH), nothing gets out...except jets of energy and HR. How does HR circumvent the EH?
Nothing can travel or have "causality" at a faster speed than light, except for, you know...spooky action at a distance and other quantum entanglement theory "stuff"
Who knows?
Too add, one thing that's always stood in the back of my mind, I was taught, as an observer, anything falling into a black hole will stop, just at the event horizon from our perspective; and also time dilation(The faster mass moves, the slower time moves for the outside observer). That always was weird to me. (They touched on it in the move "Interstellar" but I've been aware of the "theory" for decades.)
Early GPS proved time dilation, as they had to adjust the system for the "anomaly" that mimicked Einstein's theories/calculations. (From what I've read..not a scientist)
Cleverly named "Hawking radiation"...
I seem to recall theories about active jets from black holes for years...I suppose this is the first actual "observation?"
....the idea is literally hypocritical to the proposed physics of a black hole...Once inside the EH, nothing gets out...except jets of energy and HR. How does HR circumvent the EH? Nothing can travel or have "causality" at a faster speed than light, except for, you know...spooky action at a distance and other quantum entanglement theory "stuff"
Who knows?
Too add, one thing that's always stood in the back of my mind, that I was taught, that as an observer, anything falling into a black hole will stop, just at the event horizon from our perspective. And time dilation....bleh.
This will be a minor heresy, but I think we will discover Newtonian physics to be mostly a human centric observation of the universe and not really how everything actually behaves.
I think the baby went out with the bath water when we demonstrated the observer effect between two stars millions of light years from each other. I don't know what's actually going on out there, but I don't think anyone else really does either beyond the most basic things so we really need to knock it off with the amazing discover (based upon speculation of data we can't explain) nonsense.
One of the funniest things you can do is read articles from Scientific American from the late 19th century and laugh at all the errors. And generally they held their criteria for discovery to a higher standard than we do today.
Can't help it, got to add to this. Had a physics major before leaving school and becoming a truck driver.
The jets have been predicted for years. Matter that never made it to the event horizon. Black holes are theorized to spin, fast. Inflow material will be coming in at an angle and accelerating as it does due to the steep gravity well. Some of it will have the velocity and angle to miss the BH. but is held in by the other material inflowing except at the poles (think the top and bottom of a kids top). There it squirts out in almost a straight line along the axis of the BH's spin. And FAST thanks the earlier acceleration
Hawking suggested that quantum fluxations create new particles from nothing. Normally they cancel out, think one matter particle and one equal anti-matter particle which maintains conservation of energy. Except sometimes the two particles are created across the event horizon and they can't cancel each other out. The one outside the E.H. is seen as "Hawking Radiation" and is permanent. The one inside the E.H. will actually find another opposite and cancel it. If it was an anti-matter particle it will shrink the black hole slightly. It's thought that eventually (trillions of years or longer) this process will evaporate the black hole once the black hole runs out of matter to keep growing.
We don’t know half as much as we think we do.
Can't help it, got to add to this. Had a physics major before leaving school and becoming a truck driver.
The jets have been predicted for years. Matter that never made it to the event horizon. Black holes are theorized to spin, fast. Inflow material will be coming in at an angle and accelerating as it does due to the steep gravity well. Some of it will have the velocity and angle to miss the BH. but is held in by the other material inflowing except at the poles (think the top and bottom of a kids top). There it squirts out in almost a straight line along the axis of the BH's spin. And FAST thanks the earlier acceleration
Hawking suggested that quantum fluxations create new particles from nothing. Normally they cancel out, think one matter particle and one equal anti-matter particle which maintains conservation of energy. Except sometimes the two particles are created across the event horizon and they can't cancel each other out. The one outside the E.H. is seen as "Hawking Radiation" and is permanent. The one inside the E.H. will actually find another opposite and cancel it. If it was an anti-matter particle it will shrink the black hole slightly. It's thought that eventually (trillions of years or longer) this process will evaporate the black hole once the black hole runs out of matter to keep growing.
Cogent and plausible reasoning. You will never be able to write for any "pop science" entity.
This will be a minor heresy, but I think we will discover Newtonian physics to be mostly a human centric observation of the universe and not really how everything actually behaves.
I think the baby went out with the bath water when we demonstrated the observer effect between two stars millions of light years from each other. I don't know what's actually going on out there, but I don't think anyone else really does either beyond the most basic things so we really need to knock it off with the amazing discover (based upon speculation of data we can't explain) nonsense.
One of the funniest things you can do is read articles from Scientific American from the late 19th century and laugh at all the errors. And generally they held their criteria for discovery to a higher standard than we do today.
As we have gone beyond Newtonian physics and now starting to go beyond Einsteinian physics, are we starting to see passed human centric POV of the universe and reality itself. We are on the precipice of a new understanding that likley end space-time as anything but another human centric model. It served us well Einstein's breakthroughs, but modern physics appears to be concluding it's a human centric mirage.
Most interesting to me is that a current theory is that time does not exist but is an emergent property of entropy.
I’m the exact opposite.
I think the Big Bang Theory is actually a pretty poorly evidenced theory when you look at it. There are entire sub fields devoted to ever more complex ways of trying to fit physics into the Big Bang constraints.
I’m the exact opposite.
I think the Big Bang Theory is actually a pretty poorly evidenced theory when you look at it. There are entire sub fields devoted to ever more complex ways of trying to fit physics into the Big Bang constraints.
The Big Bang is almost biblical in it’s simplicity so it should be suspect.
In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded...
The Big Bang is almost biblical in it’s simplicity so it should be suspect.
It’s more practical than that. We had to make up huge percentages of both “dark” matter and “dark” energy to make the math work.
Perhaps our understanding of light and red shift are incorrect.
The Big Bang is almost biblical in it’s simplicity so it should be suspect.
In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded...
That is absolutely NOT and in no way what it says. Your high school owes you a refund.
Read "A Brief History of Time."
I’m the exact opposite.
I think the Big Bang Theory is actually a pretty poorly evidenced theory when you look at it. There are entire sub fields devoted to ever more complex ways of trying to fit physics into the Big Bang constraints.
It is one of the best supported theories in all of physics/cosmology and the evidence is beyond extensive and consistent. The unknowns are what happened/existed before that, is where is where things get debated and ongoing.
The Big Bang is almost biblical in it’s simplicity so it should be suspect.
In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded...
It's not anything like that per below and the very term "Big Bang" terribly misleading and no doubt adds to the common misunderstandings. It's also also extremely challenging to understand using common terms and words to describe such a complex topic.
That is absolutely NOT and in no way what it says. Your high school owes you a refund.
Read "A Brief History of Time."
Do they even mention Inflation Theory in high school?
I see neither of you are Terry Pratchett fans... :sad:
I see neither of you are Terry Pratchett fans... :sad:
Sorry if that was sarcasm. I've met way too many people who actually use that wording verbatim to dismiss everything.
It is one of the best supported theories in all of physics/cosmology and the evidence is beyond extensive and consistent. The unknowns are what happened/existed before that, is where is where things get debated and ongoing.
That theory posits that NINETY something percent of the universe is somehow invisible to us.
Science is fallible, and easily captured. Much more than many are willing to admit.
That theory posits that NINETY something percent of the universe is somehow invisible to us.
Science is fallible, and easily captured. Much more than many are willing to admit.
You are moving goals posts in an attempt to make a point. None of the people at the top of physics, cosmology etc deny science is fallible. It's unrelated to the extreme preponderance of evidence for the "Big Bang" which is a terrible and useless term to explain it to boot.
Sorry if that was sarcasm. I've met way too many people who actually use that wording verbatim to dismiss everything.
Wasn’t mocking just an attempt at humor.
That theory posits that NINETY something percent of the universe is somehow invisible to us.
Science is fallible, and easily captured. Much more than many are willing to admit.
So big bang and visible universe are two completely different things.
Science is a method for trying to understand everything, it has limits and vast knowledge gaps but currently it is our best method for trying to understand everything. Much of what gets presented as science...isn't.
Wasn’t mocking just an attempt at humor.
No worries, I jumped to an assumption.
Much of what gets presented as science...isn't.
Most of what gets presented is theory, speculation and conjecture with the idea that others in said field will test it and either prove it, tweak it or falsify it, which is how it's supposed to work.
So big bang and visible universe are two completely different things.
What? The Big Bang expanding universe doesn’t work without dark energy and dark matter.
Either ninety plus percent of the universe is both invisible and the exact amount needed for the math to work.
Or our understanding of red shift is wrong and the universe simply exists as we see it without a giant correction factor.
My guess is someone wanting to explore the second option that goes against the orthodoxy won’t be getting any grant funding to find out.
The_War_Wagon
10-23-22, 22:38
OH, its coming. When they cant figure out why- its coming.
They are so full of shit these days.
BLACK HOLES "MATTER"..get it?
Yeah, but he was banned from NASCAR this weekend! :jester:
Sentient black holes - sounds like a 2-part ST:TNG episode, & Q will be behind it.
What? The Big Bang expanding universe doesn’t work without dark energy and dark matter.
Either ninety plus percent of the universe is both invisible and the exact amount needed for the math to work.
Or our understanding of red shift is wrong and the universe simply exists as we see it without a giant correction factor.
My guess is someone wanting to explore the second option that goes against the orthodoxy won’t be getting any grant funding to find out.
Dark matter / energy wasn't even an idea when Hubble noticed the expanding universe. It is just a current placeholder trying to explain some things we don't understand. But the universe is expanding so that strongly implies everything might have come from a singularity. Obviously we have zero understanding of the nature of that singularity because space itself wouldn't have existed yet.
Again, HUGE knowledge gaps. But just because some people are throwing in current ideas that make the math work (and honestly if you allow for enough variables you can always make the math work) doesn't make those ideas valid nor does their inclusion make the original idea invalid. We might discover dark matter / dark energy don't exist at all but we will still be dealing with an expanding universe, we simply will have to accept we don't understand all of the things in play.
Most of what gets presented is theory, speculation and conjecture with the idea that others in said field will test it and either prove it, tweak it or falsify it, which is how it's supposed to work.
Yes, but you wait until one of those things happen (prove or falsify) before you announce your discovery. Sadly pop science has become the publishing of ANY idea with even the slightest scientific basis in a click bait fashion that all but suggests it's been proven conclusively.
If I published an article based upon the observer effect of quantum mechanics as it relates to two stars millions of light years form each other (which we've already shown time and again) but posited that humans on Earth are actually controlling the entire universe with their minds, I'm sure you'd take exception. But that is very much the level of speculative ideas we are pumping out in these articles.
Don't even get me started on the articles that describe the conditions on exoplanets, especially in the goldielocks zone of distant star systems.
Dark matter / energy wasn't even an idea when Hubble noticed the expanding universe. It is just a current placeholder trying to explain some things we don't understand. But the universe is expanding so that strongly implies everything might have come from a singularity. Obviously we have zero understanding of the nature of that singularity because space itself wouldn't have existed yet.
Again, HUGE knowledge gaps. But just because some people are throwing in current ideas that make the math work (and honestly if you allow for enough variables you can always make the math work) doesn't make those ideas valid nor does their inclusion make the original idea invalid. We might discover dark matter / dark energy don't exist at all but we will still be dealing with an expanding universe, we simply will have to accept we don't understand all of the things in play.
Which came as a shock to him and others at the time.
Adrenaline_6
10-24-22, 10:04
I find it hilarious that every century the same thing happens. The "new science" and "scientists" now say they know better now and now have a better understanding of things and put forth their new theories of how they think things are. This time they are closer to being right because technology tells us so. OK...that's what the previous generation said...and the previous before that. Guess what...the next generation will also look at you as dumb asses and put forth what they now "know" is right.
Hilarious.
I find it hilarious that every century the same thing happens. The "new science" and "scientists" now say they know better now and now have a better understanding of things and put forth their new theories of how they think things are. This time they are closer to being right because technology tells us so. OK...that's what the previous generation said...and the previous before that. Guess what...the next generation will also look at you as dumb asses and put forth what they now "know" is right.
Hilarious.
So true. It's funny to think about current science as being always wrong. No matter what we think we know, it will always be incomplete. Not to get too far afield, but look at all the so called science that brought us the lockdowns, vaccine mandates, and can't tell the difference between a man and woman. To a great degree scientific understanding is curtailed by the limits of our knowledge and imagination (and capacity to process and coherently integrate that information), but it is also limited by political correctness and peer pressure from other scientists.
Humanity is its own worst enemy by far.
HUGE knowledge gaps. …
…We might discover dark matter / dark energy don't exist at all but we will still be dealing with an expanding universe, we simply will have to accept we don't understand all of the things in play.
All I’m saying is that our understanding of red shift might be one of those gaps.
If red shift is wrong the expanding universe may not be, and thus no Big Bang.
But so many are caught up in the orthodoxy that you refuse to even consider it.
We still don’t have a Hubble Constant, every time they measure it they come up with a different number.
We don’t know as much as we think we do.
All I’m saying is that our understanding of red shift might be one of those gaps.
If red shift is wrong the expanding universe may not be, and thus no Big Bang.
But so many are caught up in the orthodoxy that you refuse to even consider it.
We still don’t have a Hubble Constant, every time they measure it they come up with a different number.
We don’t know as much as we think we do.
There's a loooooooot more evidence for inflation theory and universal expansion and the universe originating from a single point then red light shift, so there's that...
The reason there's not alternative hypothesis of any note is because there's no evidence suggesting otherwise and "I don't believe it, science has been wrong before" is not evidence that counters the evidence that exists, even with the gaps.
And no one of any prominence in the field denies there's a huge amount left to learn and many unknowns. With quantum mechanics turning all sorts of things on its head, such as space-time which likely does not exist at all, just starting to realize what is just the surface we are looking at.
Why you et al keep pretending those in the field are not also very clear about that means you either don't follow them or the topic closely, or just looking for confirmation bias it's not as you wish it to be.
What is true is scientists are often very conservative types very slow to change their minds, some times in the face of overwhelming evidence.
That can be frustrating. Me, been dealing with that from the nutrition/health, etc POV for 30+ years, and it's a PITA and never ending battle where hard evidence exists, it challenges their (debunked) paradigms, and they stick their heads in the sand.
So true. It's funny to think about current science as being always wrong. No matter what we think we know, it will always be incomplete. Not to get too far afield, but look at all the so called science that brought us the lockdowns, vaccine mandates, and can't tell the difference between a man and woman. To a great degree scientific understanding is curtailed by the limits of our knowledge and imagination (and capacity to process and coherently integrate that information), but it is also limited by political correctness and peer pressure from other scientists.
Humanity is its own worst enemy by far.
What startles me the most is just how much faith people have put into "The SCIENCE!". I use that phrasing specifically because many adherents of "The SCIENCE!" are no less fervent than some of the staunchest religious zealots. It's like they don't understand that so many of the things they take as scientific gospel, are simply not completely tested to the point that no other "fact" can exist in opposition of their belief. Science is all about formulating a hypothesis, testing it to the best of our abilities and drawing conclusions (an oversimplified example of the scientific method https://scijinks.gov/scientific-method/ ).
The disconnect lies in understanding what science actually is, or more importantly, what it isn't. Outside certain laboratory tests, almost all science is based on conclusions that cannot possibly control for all variables. The biggest variables of all are the ones we don't even know exist at the time of a study. This is especially true in the science of space. If you take all the things we didn't know before Hubble and compare them to what we know now, the difference is huge. We still have to remember there are an unknowable amount of variables due to the fact we're still observing things from a telescope, regardless of how advanced it is. It's like the Captain of a 14th Century ship looking at a shore through his brass spy glass at an unknown shoreline. He can prove its existence because he can see it, but he has no idea whether it's mostly like the shores he departed from, or a completely foreign land with heretofore unseen wonders and dangers.
We aren't going to know for certain what a black hole is or isn't until we go there and find out. Obviously that's not going to happen in our lifetimes and if/when it ever does, will be done with probes. All we'll ever be able to say is what we think it is or isn't. As far as space goes, we're at the point we were thousands of years ago with medical science for our own internal systems. Even with the human body, we still discover so many things we thought we knew a year ago, a decade ago or a century ago, isn't true or isn't the full truth.
Even if you accept Redshift Theory, it can't account for unknown variables. There may be space and matter we can't perceive with our eyes or instruments. One hypothesis I find appealing is a phased universe. I'm not talking about Bubble Theory, Brane Theory or Parallel/Multiverse Theory exactly. It's more that matter and anti-matter exist in the same universe or plane of existence, so what other unseen/unknown types of particles might exist? And might these particles interact with matter and anti-matter, without any observable reactions because they're "out of phase". Yet because they exist is the same space-time, the universe is far more densely packed than we can perceive. There may even be ways for these particles (and ours) to move through phase shifts where interactions can be perceived. So it's not that something would wink into or out of existence, but that it would move from observable in one phase to observable in another.
If that were the case, it would far more easily explain so-called "alien" encounters than interstellar travel, which presents the challenges of time, cosmic radiation, unavoidable objects of matter along the path of travel, etc. That feeling of "someone walking over your grave" might not stem from chemical signals in the brain. They might be particles of matter that are "out of phase" moving through your own particle field with slight resistance. Who knows? Well, it may never be us. Or someday in the far-flung future, we might be able to manipulate the phase of our own matter and travel to unknown dimensions of existence without ever crossing space or time? :confused:
^Wow, good post. Interesting theory there. I can see the merit in it. Going to see what I can dig up about it.
You talk about the medical field problems, a science that has fairly obvious and observable results, but doubt that theoretical physics may have systemic problems?
I don’t have any biased need for anything in the universe or physics to work in any particular way. That you want to dismiss me as a heretic for questioning the orthodoxy proves my point.
Not to get too far afield, but look at all the so called science that brought us the lockdowns.
You misspelled politics.
All I’m saying is that our understanding of red shift might be one of those gaps.
If red shift is wrong the expanding universe may not be, and thus no Big Bang.
But so many are caught up in the orthodoxy that you refuse to even consider it.
We still don’t have a Hubble Constant, every time they measure it they come up with a different number.
We don’t know as much as we think we do.
So we definitely agree on that last sentence. But I think we can figure out which way things are moving.
I would actually prefer a steady state / infinite / somehow has always existed universe, it's an easier model. I think if we weren't damn sure (because of things like COBE) nobody would want the Big Bang because it comes with a lot of luggage and serious psychological implications. If the universe is actually expanding from an original point eventually it will run out of stellar matter and become a cold, dead and dark place OR if sufficient matter exists (even stuff we can't see) it will eventually stop, reverse and collapse on itself. Neither situation would be survivable for any species anywhere.
But a steady state universe could conceivably exist forever and even though I will only exist for a blink of time, I could accept that easier if I thought everything would somehow still go on forever.
So we definitely agree on that last sentence. But I think we can figure out which way things are moving.
I would actually prefer a steady state / infinite / somehow has always existed universe, it's an easier model. I think if we weren't damn sure (because of things like COBE) nobody would want the Big Bang because it comes with a lot of luggage and serious psychological implications. If the universe is actually expanding from an original point eventually it will run out of stellar matter and become a cold, dead and dark place OR if sufficient matter exists (even stuff we can't see) it will eventually stop, reverse and collapse on itself. Neither situation would be survivable for any species anywhere.
But a steady state universe could conceivably exist forever and even though I will only exist for a blink of time, I could accept that easier if I thought everything would somehow still go on forever.
You'll exist forever within all current models, you'll just exist in other forms of matter. :)
You'll exist forever within all current models, you'll just exist in other forms of matter. :)
If everything collapses back to a singularity, space and all forms of matter will no longer exist. Also I was referring to some kind of life, somewhere, which won't happen in a continuously expanding universe.
If everything collapses back to a singularity, space and all forms of matter will no longer exist. Also I was referring to some kind of life, somewhere, which won't happen in a continuously expanding universe.
The Big Crunch as it were.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.