Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Wednesday, October 31, 2007 | Science : Astronomy | print version Print | Comments

Document Huge Black Holes May Hold Keys to Galaxy Formation

by Marc Kaufman, Washington Post

Thanks to RDT for the link.

Reposted from:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/30/AR2007103002073.html?wpisrc=newsletter

black hole discoveriesFor years, astronomers speculated that a giant, mysterious force lay at the center of the Milky Way, but it wasn't until four years ago that UCLA astronomer Andrea Ghez definitively showed what it was.

Using new techniques for peering into the dusty heart of the galaxy, Ghez's observations proved that scores of stars were rapidly orbiting what could only be a black hole. But it wasn't the kind of garden-variety black hole created when a star explodes and dies; it was hundreds of thousands of times as powerful -- a "supermassive" black hole, as they are now known.

Her discoveries, along with the work of scientists studying other galaxies, have in a short time led researchers to the surprising conclusion that most, if not all, of the universe's hundreds of billions of galaxies have supermassive black holes at their core. Even more striking, the astronomers have found that the black holes' mass and nature are closely related to the size and makeup of the surrounding galaxies.

It also appears that these cosmic monsters -- which can "eat" stars whole -- are key to understanding how galaxies were formed and are still being formed today.

"Many of these discoveries were unexpected," said Ghez, a self-described "telescope junkie" and rising astronomy star who does much of her galaxy-gazing at the W.M. Keck Observatory in Hawaii, the world's largest optical telescope. "There's tremendous interest in this field now because of the potential that it can tell us so much about the dynamics of very basic galaxy creation."

Black holes appear, for instance, to be both creators and destroyers -- swallowing stars or gases that come too close while also spewing out jets of super-high-energy particles and radiation generated by this violent feeding process. The jets, which can be millions of light-years in length, are believed to seed galaxies with the mass and energy that will, in time, become new stars and perhaps even planets.

With many promising areas to research, the supermassives are drawing astronomers and astrophysicists back into black hole research. In 1915, based on purely theoretical calculations, Albert Einstein laid the groundwork for the existence of these bizarre phenomena, which have such strong gravitational pull that not even light can escape them. But research on them languished for decades because there was no way to observe them directly.

The Hubble Space Telescope provided the first real evidence of the existence of supermassive black holes -- revealing in 1994 that something was orbiting rapidly around the nuclei of some distant galaxies, suggesting the presence of a huge mass contained in a very small area.

astronomerSince then, the Hubble, NASA's orbiting Chandra X-Ray Observatory, the Keck and other very large, high-resolution ground telescopes have begun to unravel more about these central black holes -- which can be as large as the distance from the sun to well past Mars, and as small as New Jersey.

Because nobody knows what happens after a star or gas is swallowed by a black hole, astrophysicists have focused instead on learning and theorizing more about its outer structure. They believe that black holes have an "event horizon" -- the point where anything will be inexorably captured by the gravitational pull -- and that they have "accretion disks," a vast, swirling region where matter is funneled into the hole. The process creates intense friction and heat, and as a result energy and matter can get supercharged and shot out in jets.

As supermassive black holes go, the one at the center of the Milky Way (about 27,000 light-years, or 158 trillion miles, away from our exurbanite sun) is dormant and small. It is believed to have the mass of almost 4 million suns and does not appear to be sending out jets of radiation. Some of the larger supermassives are hundreds of millions to many billions times as massive as our sun. (A typical stellar black hole has five to 10 times the mass of the sun, although researchers yesterday reported discovering an exploded star that was a record two to three times as massive as that.)

To the enormous surprise of those who study the universe, the size of a supermassive black hole appears to have a direct and unusual correlation to the galaxy around it. Researchers calculated a decade ago that the mass of a supermassive black hole appeared to have a constant relation to the mass of the central part of its galaxy, known as its bulge. This relationship supports the notion that the evolution and structure of a galaxy is closely tied to the scale of its black hole.

"Something very profound is going on here, and the formation of black holes and galaxies is related in some way," said Juna Kollmeier, an astrophysicist and fellow with the Observatories of the Carnegie Institution. She focuses on the theoretical side of how the structure of the universe came to be.

"This is an exciting new wrinkle on the old concept of black holes, and that's why so many researchers are drawn to it," she said.

And mysteries do abound. Many researchers have offered theories of how supermassive black holes might have formed, but there is no consensus. Were they created in the early universe when exploding stars were larger, or are they created by the merger of galaxies with smaller black holes at their center?

There is also the puzzling question of why some are active -- feeding regularly on stars around them -- while others are nearly dormant. Ghez added to the mystery recently by reporting that some of the stars orbiting the Milky Way's central black hole are quite young, even though the galaxy is mature and its nucleus has long been dormant.

But dormancy can be temporary, as Suvi Gezari of the California Institute of Technology documented recently. Using the telescope on NASA's orbiting Galaxy Evolution Explorer -- which measures ultraviolet light from the early universe -- her team detected a distinctive flare from a distant galaxy and watched it diminish over time. They concluded that they had seen an unfortunate star stray too close to its galaxy's central black hole, where the star was torn apart and then swallowed by the force of its gravity. The bright flare -- a rarely witnessed event -- was the result of this "feeding."

"Most of these are sleeping cosmic beasts, just sitting there," Gezari said. "So we have to scan the skies to see those very rare times that there's a burst of radiation as the black hole feeds." Like Ghez and Kollmeier, she is young and female -- still somewhat unusual in astrophysics.

Her team's goal is to measure the mass of central black holes and to correlate that with the mass of the galaxies that surround them. Might the activity or dormancy of a central black hole be tied to that surprising relationship between the mass of central black holes and their surrounding galaxies, she wonders, leading a black hole to begin "feeding" when it begins to get out of balance?

David Thompson of the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, a key astrophysicist in the agency's Gamma Ray Large Area Space Telescope (GLAST) mission -- expected to launch next year -- is studying how that connection between a black hole and its surrounding galaxy is maintained. He believes that the high-powered jets created during feedings are probably involved.

"These black holes at the center of galaxies are relatively small but are extremely massive and have a strong influence on a huge amount of space surrounding them," he said. "It looks likely that the jets have to be playing a big part in that process."

Because the jets from supermassive black holes contain substantial amounts of gamma-ray radiation, the most highly energized form, the GLAST mission is expected to answer more questions about what's happening at the center of galaxies. Thompson will be studying "blazars" in particular -- jets aimed directly toward Earth.

The fast pace of the recent discoveries is largely the result of the newer orbiting observatories and extremely powerful ground telescopes that have begun operating in the past decade. NASA's "Beyond Einstein" initiative was approved by Congress several years ago to speed development of space-based observatories and probes designed to tell us more about the early universe and the forces that ruled it.

But tight agency budgets have slowed the initiative, and most of the Beyond Einstein probes won't be launched for years, if at all. The proposed orbiting X-ray observatory Constellation-X would be especially valuable in learning more about the structure and dynamics of supermassive black holes -- measuring, for instance, the powerful spin of the accretion disk -- but that project has been put on hold.

This has black hole researchers concerned, especially since the field has turned so productive.

"Con-X is absolutely essential, or central, to our making major advances in supermassive black hole research," said Harvey Tananbaum of the Harvard-Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, who chairs the science team for the Constellation project. But he said he is optimistic the project will ultimately be funded, because "the science just gets stronger and stronger."

Comments 1 - 36 of 36 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #83949 by HappyPrimate on October 31, 2007 at 7:20 pm

 avatarI find this sort of information extremely fascinating. It is so exciting to know that we are learning so much about the universe every day. Wish Carl Sagan could have lived longer so he could have been a part of it. He was so great at presenting this stuff to the general public on a level that could be easily understood and appreciated.

Other Comments by HappyPrimate

2. Comment #83952 by steve99 on October 31, 2007 at 7:28 pm

 avatar
Wish Carl Sagan could have lived longer so he could have been a part of it. He was so great at presenting this stuff to the general public on a level that could be easily understood and appreciated.


Don't get me wrong - I am a great fan of Carl Sagan. He was great at popularising science, and wrote perhaps one of the best science fiction novels ever (Contact), but I am not convinced that his own credentials as a general scientist were that good. In hindsight, he put forward many ideas, both in his books and in his TV presentations that not only did not stand the test of time, but where easily shown to be wrong at the time. I think he would have done better in some ways to have presented the ideas of others who were more knowledgeable. I see a parallel here with Stephen Gould.

Other Comments by steve99

3. Comment #83954 by Kakashi_monkey on October 31, 2007 at 7:46 pm

 avatarI've always been interested in space, and black holes are just one of many amazing things out there. There's a lot to them: they're the remains of a supernova, nothing escapes them, they help shape galaxies, they might lead to other universes and times, and more!

Other Comments by Kakashi_monkey

4. Comment #83955 by Funny Grievous on October 31, 2007 at 7:53 pm

 avatar
Wish Carl Sagan could have lived longer so he could have been a part of it. He was so great at presenting this stuff to the general public on a level that could be easily understood and appreciated.


:'( yeah, me too.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071031/sc_afp/usastronomy2_071031201428
This is also very interesting!



Other Comments by Funny Grievous

5. Comment #84068 by prettygoodformonkeys on November 1, 2007 at 5:26 am

 avatarThere is a great little movie on this project called: "Horizon: Supermassive Black Holes". I'm sorry I don't have a link because I downloaded it on a bit torrent site a couple of years ago, but you could get it with a quick search. It's about 45 min. long.

Or, come on over, I wouldn't mind watching it again!

Other Comments by prettygoodformonkeys

6. Comment #84077 by Logicel on November 1, 2007 at 5:47 am

 avatarNASA's "Beyond Einstein" initiative was approved by Congress several years ago to speed development of space-based observatories and probes designed to tell us more about the early universe and the forces that ruled it.

But tight agency budgets have slowed the initiative, and most of the Beyond Einstein probes won't be launched for years, if at all.

This has black hole researchers concerned, especially since the field has turned so productive.

________

coretemprising, here's a case in point for your cleverly coined reverse collateral damage.

Fascinating info, but all I could do via my puny earth-bound knowledge base was to translate the descriptions of black hole characteristics into the following: quagmires, vortexes, recycling units, volcanic eruptions, and ecosystems.

Other Comments by Logicel

7. Comment #84084 by coretemprising on November 1, 2007 at 6:17 am

This article only underscores for me the fight between furthering the progress and potential bright future of the human species - and the squandering of funding and attention on the activities currently at hand - the "war on terror" and its diversionary step child, the Iraq quagmire.

The difference between the two just make me want to cry, and hit something very hard.

AKBob, I hear you. I am frequently brought to the edge of despair contemplating just this sort of dilemma. I hope your sons come back to you alive and whole.

Logicel-- ;)

Other Comments by coretemprising

8. Comment #84112 by coretemprising on November 1, 2007 at 7:27 am

Steve99, boo on you.

Quoteth Sagan:

"We succeeded in taking that picture [from deep space], and, if you look at it, you see a dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever lived, lived out their lives. The aggregate of all our joys and sufferings, thousands of confident religions, ideologies and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilizations, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every hopeful child, every mother and father, every inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every superstar, every supreme leader, every saint and sinner in the history of our species, lived there on a mote of dust, suspended in a sunbeam.

The earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that in glory and in triumph they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of the dot on scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner of the dot. How frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds. Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the universe, are challenged by this point of pale light.

Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity -- in all this vastness -- there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves. It is up to us. It's been said that astronomy is a humbling, and I might add, a character-building experience. To my mind, there is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly and compassionately with one another and to preserve and cherish that pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known..."

Hmmmmmm, I guess there is some value to space exploration, if it can give even just one of our own such insights.

Other Comments by coretemprising

9. Comment #84121 by bluebird on November 1, 2007 at 8:04 am

 avatarWonderful article!!


Neil deGrasse Tyson is considered by some to be a '21st century Carl Sagan'. His new book 'Death by Black Hole' has been mentioned a few times on this site, including a thread:(video is unavailable)
http://richarddawkins.net/article,598,interview-with-Neil-deGrasse-Tyson,The-Daily-Show-with-Jon-Stewart

Also,
http://www.research.amnh.org/~tyson/
This site has a schedule for 2008 Nova series.

Other Comments by bluebird

10. Comment #84146 by JFHalsey on November 1, 2007 at 9:37 am

I, too, find this stuff infinitely fascinating. To know that we are made of molecules born in the heart of black holes... it produces a feeling of connection to the universe that can almost be described as "transcendent".

prettygoodformonkeys--love your new avatar.

coretemprising--that was a beautiful quote ^_^. I, too, miss Carl Sagan.

Other Comments by JFHalsey

11. Comment #84148 by artemisa on November 1, 2007 at 9:43 am

Coretemprising

THANK YOU

Other Comments by artemisa

12. Comment #84154 by Logicel on November 1, 2007 at 10:01 am

 avatarThere are several good youtube vids on The Pale Blue Dot, but my fave is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47EBLD-ISyc

Great editing and original music; dont miss Sagan's melodic voice at the end.

Other Comments by Logicel

13. Comment #84158 by aquilacane on November 1, 2007 at 10:13 am

 avatarBefore you read this, I don't know what I'm talking about. I only see things as images in my head, not math equations or words. I can't think that way, so be patient with me as I am a layman.

I wrote a reply to another article in where I suggested that perhaps the big bang was the result of multiple black holes grouping together and releasing there accumulated mass in the form of an explosion, when they reach volatile capacity (when the sum total of mass entering falls below the sum total of mass being ejected, or something like that). Upon devouring a galaxy black holes drift toward the second nearest galaxy (which is also collapsing) and form with it. Like very small drops of water slowly gathering to form a super drop. Of course, these black holes do not have to be from our own universe alone (any black hole will do), they could be black holes from a neighbouring universe (like a carbon atom next to another carbon atom).

This allows the super black hole, the black hole that remains when all black holes coalesce together (except those in the furthest regions as they could be captured by competing black holes from neighbouring universe), to reach volatile capacity without actually having to collect and concentrate all matter in the universe into one point. There is enough bonus material passing between universes to reach the required entropy for big bang action. Maybe this is why we have more mass than we should, or appear to have. It could just be the sum effect of neighbouring universes tossing off matter in the form of escaped black holes. The big bang, in other words, happens all the time, but differently, and with different matter from different universes.

Aquilacane you crazy bastard!

Other Comments by aquilacane

14. Comment #84166 by arogop on November 1, 2007 at 10:56 am

 avatar"Aquilacane you crazy bastard!"


I love it, keep ranting! Now I have something to ponder all day. I can't wait till some future poster (probably also more knowledgeable than me) shoots your theory down so I can ponder that idea too.


AKBob-

I too would like to see more money spent on the pursuit of knowledge. However if stability can be achieved in Iraq, then the result may prove that it is not money wasted. Imagine one more country added to the list of peace loving countries. Especially one in the Middle East.

Andrew

Other Comments by arogop

15. Comment #84229 by mumbles on November 1, 2007 at 1:00 pm

 avatarHas nobody made the obvious New Jersey - blackhole joke yet?

Other Comments by mumbles

16. Comment #84246 by Funny Grievous on November 1, 2007 at 2:13 pm

 avatarAnd now, ladies and gents, a clickable link!!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071031/sc_afp/usastronomy2_071031201428

Other Comments by Funny Grievous

17. Comment #84336 by HappyPrimate on November 1, 2007 at 7:20 pm

 avatarAquilacane - If you come back to this comment thread, please know that I almost fell over when I read your comment. I too have thought almost exactly your scenario on black holes. Why could not have the Big Bang been an accummulation of overstuffed black holes? Bang - new universe. May be not but as a layman, not familar with the physics necessary to explain it or not, I have never said anything. Hope someone competent in that area (Stephen Hawking?) could explain if it might be possible. If we are wrong, okay. Just would like to know.

Other Comments by HappyPrimate

18. Comment #84419 by aquilacane on November 2, 2007 at 3:05 am

 avatarHappyPrimate—Yeah, I've always seen them as intergalactic vacum cleaners. Giant hoovers that suck up matter and join together until they have enough mass to explode again.

Other Comments by aquilacane

19. Comment #84531 by aquilacane on November 2, 2007 at 9:23 am

 avatarI was thinking about the whole multiverse idea, and I came up with a few thoughts that could stand for a bit of intellectual abuse, if you know what I mean.

Now, I've heard the multiverse theory described as the birth collapse and re-birth of a universe, over and over again, as though we are merely in one instance of the universe's many instances of being. And I agree, this is one of the images of the universe that I have visualized in my mind.

I do also visualize the potential of a multiverse, that is not only repetitive in it's coming into existence over and over again, but also the concept of a multiverse that is in fact made up of multiple universes, all existing at the same time. Each universe in a different state of being, whether that be collapsing, expanding, sharing, colliding, and so on.

When I thought about it more, I continued to see a third multiverse theme developing. I always have a problem with beginning and end. Where does it start, where does it end? I need finite boundaries, otherwise my logic breaks down.

This third multiverse, in my mind at least, exists on a notion of scale, and pattern. I've noticed, as many have, that there seems to be an obvious theme with respect to the way matter groups together (what we can see of it that is) and forms our reality.

Atoms, solar systems, galaxies, and the universe are all very similar in their outward appearance. The differences, visually at least, are their scale. We can measure them against one another to compare their relative sizes. This got me thinking, if size is only relevant between two existing objects (for lack of a better word) then size has no meaning when compared to nothing. Huh? What I mean is, the size of the universe, as we know it, is basically the same size as an atom when looked at through the eyes of nothingness. Huh, Huh huh? Nothingness has no scale, there is no smallest or largest, everything is relatively the same size, because there is no scale. Which means, no matter how small you are, or large you are, you are basically the same size when compared to nothingness. Nothingness is what remains when you remove all matter and energy, so the starting point of existence, has no scale.

What? Think of the multiverse, as a fractal image. Those posters that repeat the same image regardless of how far you zoom in. I'm not suggesting that each universe, the further you zoom in, is identical, but I can visualize how they can exist one inside the other.

Our existence in this particular universe is confined by our ability to witness the universes greater than our scale of perception and smaller than our scale of perception. We are only able to see or detect the existence of reality within a very limited window of observation. Why, because, unlike nothingness, we exist, and therefore, we have a reference of scale. Nothingness does not, and so no matter how small or how big something is, to the eyes of nothingness, they are relatively the same size, their detail is as defined and expansive the smaller you get, as they are the larger you get. Similar to a fractal, no matter how small you go, it is as complete and defined zoomed-in as it would be zoomed-out. Have I lost you yet?

The beauty of a multi-multi-multiverse, is the conclusion that a multiverse can not have a beginning or an end. For it to have a beginning or an end, it would require that nothingness had a determined scale on which to base the size and point at which existence would start. That is impossible, nothingness has no scale, right? So existence is infinite, in its comparable scale to us, but barely negligible when compared to nothing (which is the only alternative to something. Existence looks big compared to us, but really it's next to nothing, and always has been.

P.S. there's no such thing as time, so always isn't very long either.

Other Comments by aquilacane

20. Comment #84553 by arogop on November 2, 2007 at 11:42 am

 avatarAquilacane-

I think tommorrow you should have less caffeine.

Other Comments by arogop

21. Comment #84556 by aquilacane on November 2, 2007 at 12:41 pm

 avatararogop—Caffeine... I'd say reefer. Joking aside, having read what I wrote, I must admit it's hard to follow, It was early, and I was in a hurry. perhaps I'll try to sort it out better and post it somewhere else. I can see it though. Seems logical, too. I guess it always does though.
Any takers on the time not existing argument?

Other Comments by aquilacane

22. Comment #84563 by Vinelectric on November 2, 2007 at 1:20 pm

 avatarAquilacane, if time were an illusion then what are we referring to when we talk about increasing entropy? Furthermore, untill the space-time fabric model of Einstein is superceeded by a reliable model then we should accept time as an aspect of reality.


However the concept of time being an illusion is definitely not new and dare I say not all that counter intuitive, certainly not to those without scientific training. I remember my father pointing out a (believe it or not) religious text where a man asks a certain Imam to explain how come people will be rewarded or punished for eternity with no bounding limit.

The Imam (the founder of the Shia sect) responded by saying that if the sun didn't rise and fall every day we would have no concept of time. I seemed to accept the logic instantly and for many years later.

The story is retold slightly differently when some anonymous figure asks the same Imam how God can know the past and the future and the reply being that all existence is one instant and time was a 'creation' of God.

So you see my dear Aquilacane, challenging the concept of time seems to be more philosophy and idle conjecture than true science!

Other Comments by Vinelectric

23. Comment #84565 by Vinelectric on November 2, 2007 at 1:31 pm

 avatarBy the way, if "nothingness" has no scale then you can't even begin to say universes and atoms are the same even if we try to imagine a point of view independent of reality itself as you were trying to demonstrate. If you let go of the scales of comparison, you lose the right to compare anything whatsoever and at any level.

Thus the statement: "nothingness is indifferent to scale" is valid but you can't use this to drive any conclusions to the only observable universe we have where size, for example, does matter.

With "nothing" being such a useless and absurd concept you may want to take your last paragraph to the drawing board and try to refine the argument as to why existence would be timeless.

Other Comments by Vinelectric

24. Comment #84569 by aquilacane on November 2, 2007 at 2:31 pm

 avatarVinelectric—I know what you mean, but if you compare universe to nothingness independant of atom, it is neither large or small. Same goes for comparing atom independant of universe. I don't mean same size in as far as they appear equal, but I mean same size in as far as they can not be determined to be big or small when compared to nothingness. I guess what I am trying to say, I stress the word trying, is that a fraction of a billionth of a trillionth of one half of one proton has as much detail and depth as an entire univers. The only measurement that can destinguish them as being different is when they are measured against each other, but when both are held up against the rule of nothing they are the same. We can not see a detailed view of a fraction of a billionth of a trillionth of one half of one proton, but it is as equally diverse and complicated as our universe. We can only compare the atom to the universe because they both exist within the same fiel of observation.

I think, that's what I am saying. Let me think about it.

Other Comments by aquilacane

25. Comment #84572 by aquilacane on November 2, 2007 at 2:47 pm

 avatarVinelectric—with respect to your time comment, time is nothing more than the observance of energy exchange. I don't assume that all things occur at the same "time". I assume it is linear, but it is linear based on a scale of spent, static, or gained energy. Nothing can be gauged unless there is transference of energy. I recall the atomic clock experiments, and from what I can gather, the argument was that as matter accelerates time slows down. Which isn't true, a force has been applied to the clock (atom). This acceleration affects the atom's energy transfer. We are not affecting time; we are affecting the clock. It would be like holding the hands of a clock and saying, look I've slowed time, when in fact, there is no "time" to slow. Even if the atom were static, the concept of time would continue, even if the ability to gauge it were compromised. Time is nothing more than a constant non-existent, you can't go back in it, you can't go forward; you can only gain or lose energy. Where you would gauge the "time" it took to travel from here to there, another person without the concept of time could gauge it in the pulses of an atom, or the sum of energy expended over distance during the trip. Harder to calculate, but more accurate in as far as gauging what is really happening.

Other Comments by aquilacane

26. Comment #84573 by steve99 on November 2, 2007 at 2:49 pm

 avatar
Have I lost you yet?


The problem with your idea is that there is indeed a set size scale; it the planck length. This is a minimum possible size for any physical object, from quantum theory. The universe is not fractal, and has quite different properties at different scales.

Other Comments by steve99

27. Comment #84579 by Vinelectric on November 2, 2007 at 3:16 pm

 avatarI get you this time. I just find the concept of "nothingness" unfathomable and thus I can't persuade myself to appeal to its non-existent properties to help me understand anything about the observable universe. If I do then I'm automatically assuming that "nothing" is a "thing" which bears some form of meaning, which of course it doesn't by definition.

Why not write to Vic Stegner? His "Comprehensible Cosmos" and its discussion of the independence of material properties (including time) to the materials themselves is relevant to your reasoning.

Other Comments by Vinelectric

28. Comment #84581 by Vinelectric on November 2, 2007 at 3:21 pm

 avatarOK you seem much more informed on the subject than I am so I withdraw my last comment!!

Other Comments by Vinelectric

29. Comment #84583 by steve99 on November 2, 2007 at 3:33 pm

 avatar
with respect to your time comment, time is nothing more than the observance of energy exchange.


Time is actually a very specific type of dimension, as in the equations of relativity.

Other Comments by steve99

30. Comment #84586 by Rational_G on November 2, 2007 at 3:43 pm

 avatarGreat stuff. Just goes to show you what you can find out by building instruments (telescopes in this case) to observe nature.

Sure beats listening to men in robes trying to tell you what's going on.

Other Comments by Rational_G

31. Comment #84587 by Bonzai on November 2, 2007 at 3:49 pm

It feel stoned listening to the psycho-rap songs of
aquilacane.

Other Comments by Bonzai

32. Comment #84592 by weavehole on November 2, 2007 at 4:54 pm

Think i'm going to have to re-read this thread in the morning when i'm more than an eighth awake. It did remind me of this though...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=broQIiBDchQ

Other Comments by weavehole

33. Comment #84597 by sent2null on November 2, 2007 at 5:11 pm

 avatarI remember thinking that giant black holes were the seeds of galaxy formation way back in high school, hind sight or not it does seem like an obvious and logical supposition starting from a big bang model. Glad to see my school boy musings were on the mark. ;) Actually this isn't news at all to anyone that follows developments in astronomy, funny how late the popular media is in getting to "news" that is already well accepted in the field.

Other Comments by sent2null

34. Comment #85356 by tommcc on November 5, 2007 at 2:42 pm

"Because nobody knows what happens after a star or gas is swallowed by a black hole..."

How long before "proof" of an intelligent black hole squatter appears?

Bet gap theorists are working on it now.

Other Comments by tommcc

35. Comment #85949 by Elcristoph on November 7, 2007 at 3:00 pm

sent2nul, has a point, I remember watching a doc on this quiet some time ago...

Other Comments by Elcristoph

36. Comment #85956 by Bonzai on November 7, 2007 at 3:21 pm

time is nothing more than the observance of energy exchange.


Huh?

Other Comments by Bonzai
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: