Supermassive Black Hole at the heart of dwarf galaxy possibly confirmed

A super-massive black hole (SMBH) has been found lurking in an unexpected location – at the heart of an ultra-compact dwarf galaxy.... this is the smallest galaxy known to host a black hole.

At the core of this discovery is speculation that there may, in fact, be more SMBHs in our relative vicinity, than scientists had previously supposed.

Observations made at the University of Utah appears to confirm that ultra-compact dwarf galaxy M60-UCD1 is host to a(n) SMBH.

"We've known for some time that many ultra-compact dwarf galaxies are a bit overweight. They just appear to be too heavy for the luminosity of their stars," says team member Steffen Mieske from the European Southern Observatory in Chile. "We had already published a study that suggested this additional weight could come from the presence of super-massive black holes, but it was only a theory. Now, by studying the movement of the stars within M60-UCD1, we have detected the effects of such a black hole at its center."

An excellent read, for those who keep track of such things....

Source: physicsworld.com...

Very interesting Max. Just had a quick thought I wanted to throw out there for any resident experts to think about. What if all the dark matter/energy stuff is just a by-product or result of the black holes at the centers of galaxies? Like they radiate more energy/mass than we can account for with our current theories and models. Just spit balling, don't tear me apart too bad .

a reply to: thov420

It was certainly an imbalance between the gravity they expect and what they seem to be detecting that lead to the correlation. I understood that the observatory detected excess gravity and deduced the rest. The connection between mass and matter is evident, but I'm never sure if more gravity necessarily means more mass - this dark energy/matter notion adds a new wrinkle to examine... to a layman like me.

a reply to: Maxmars

Are Black holes not at the center of every Galaxy? What else could cause galaxies to look like water going down the drain?

Also, what is an "inactive" Black hole?

It has been in the models for a while that most/all galaxies are expected to have a high mass black hole at their heart. The difference is really the questions - How big and if they are active or not.

So many people have this impression of a black hole as being this object you cannot see. Well if material falls into a black hole, you would observe that process as the object is accelerated towards the event horizon. Most objects would also not fall directly into the object, they would spiral around it for a while first. This process is called accretion and it has been observed that the more distant the galaxy, the more active the centre of the galaxy appears, producing a wide range of signatures from x-ray right through to radio.

An inactive black hole is one that is relatively lonely and doesn't accrete material onto it very readily and thus appears to be dark/invisible just as the classical representation. And we dont stand a chance other than lensing to observe its presence.

The supermassive black hole theorized to be at our own galactic centre is inactive, or at least inactive throughout recorded history. It will however likely become active fairly soon, a gas cloud has been observed to be falling in towards the centre for some time now, thus we might expect to see some nice fireworks.

originally posted by: Heruactic
a reply to: Maxmars

Are Black holes not at the center of every Galaxy? What else could cause galaxies to look like water going down the drain?

Also, what is an "inactive" Black hole?

Yes, but the difference is that this black hole is supposed to be super-massive. In other words, much bigger than originally theorized about.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

But from the explanations so far, the only difference between active and inactive Black holes is whether or not there is something in proximity about to be pulled in further. In addition do we have a reference to a regular mass black hole or a small black hole? Chances are the black hole can only get so big until all new matter starts running off it to the north poles and turns into those enormous eruptions from galactic cores.

It could be possible that all black holes are not too powerful but have a reverse cascade effect on surrounding matter. Let's say a black hole only attracts 5-10% of the galaxy matter, that matter also has mass and gravity. As the stars and gases start gathering around the pull of the black hole, they pull in other objects gases themselves. The effect continues but with more-so in a weakening effect, where at the edge of our Galaxy, the new matter just clumps more inward.

But then we have the future merger of our galaxy and Andromeda. Do they just happen to be traveling on intersecting paths, or is the combined gravity reaches far enough to pull them together? Personally i think it could be both. Gravity would only need to reach out and intersect with the gravity of Andromeda, so the Gravitational field does not need to reach all the way, but rather 51%+ of the distance to interact with gravity from Andromeda. This argument is mute if our 2 galaxies are just on intersecting paths.

Super strong black holes are too scary and illogical for life, since it will "eat" everything up and nothing will be left very fast. Regular black holes that have a maximum limit to mass are favorable, because they would just be the the force that gathers otherwise scattered stars and solar systems close to each other and promote early explorations and contact between sentient life.

I am pretty cool with space stuff and pretty interested in it. But when it comes to Dark matter, black holes and galactic inflation that keeps speeding up, it just feels wrong. Math be damned it just does not compute.

originally posted by: Heruactic
a reply to: Krazysh0t

But from the explanations so far, the only difference between active and inactive Black holes is whether or not there is something in proximity about to be pulled in further. In addition do we have a reference to a regular mass black hole or a small black hole? Chances are the black hole can only get so big until all new matter starts running off it to the north poles and turns into those enormous eruptions from galactic cores.

That is the only difference between the two descriptors. If a black hole exceeds a galaxy's escape velocity (yes galaxies have them too) and exits the galaxy it originated in, then nothing will be nearby for it to absorb so it just stays at its constant mass and becomes inactive. Eventually it may intersect with matter somewhere else and become active again. Nothing has physically changed about it, it's just not doing anything because it is unable to.

Well "normal" sized black holes are generally pretty small in size because they are the result of a supernova from a super red giant. How big is a black hole?

As for your point about the eruptions, that happens when too much matter tries to enter the black hole at the same time. They usually occur in far distant galaxies with super massive black holes. But that doesn't mean the black hole has reached the maximum size or anything. There is no theoretical limit to how big a black hole can get. Black holes can also absorb other black holes and increase their size.

It could be possible that all black holes are not too powerful but have a reverse cascade effect on surrounding matter. Let's say a black hole only attracts 5-10% of the galaxy matter, that matter also has mass and gravity. As the stars and gases start gathering around the pull of the black hole, they pull in other objects gases themselves. The effect continues but with more-so in a weakening effect, where at the edge of our Galaxy, the new matter just clumps more inward.

No that is a violation of the theory of gravity. All matter attracts all other matter. The more matter in one spot, the higher the gravitational pull. So there is no way that a black hole only attracts 5 - 10% of the matter around it. You'd have to rewrite the theory of gravity to make that hypothesis work. The gravitational pull of the super massive black hole in our galaxy (or any galaxy) is just so MASSIVE that even the stars extremely far out orbit it (just like satellites orbit our planet).

Black holes are SUPER dense and have an enormous gravity. By the way, what you or I would consider the size of a black hole is actually just its event horizon (beyond which everything is trapped by its gravity and is going to get sucked in); beyond the event horizon, we have no idea whats going on though.

But then we have the future merger of our galaxy and Andromeda. Do they just happen to be traveling on intersecting paths, or is the combined gravity reaches far enough to pull them together? Personally i think it could be both. Gravity would only need to reach out and intersect with the gravity of Andromeda, so the Gravitational field does not need to reach all the way, but rather 51%+ of the distance to interact with gravity from Andromeda. This argument is mute if our 2 galaxies are just on intersecting paths.

They are being pulled towards each other. Again all matter attracts all other matter. Andromeda is a bigger galaxy than ours and the black hole at its center has a MUCH higher gravitational pull.

Super strong black holes are too scary and illogical for life, since it will "eat" everything up and nothing will be left very fast. Regular black holes that have a maximum limit to mass are favorable, because they would just be the the force that gathers otherwise scattered stars and solar systems close to each other and promote early explorations and contact between sentient life.

No such thing as a maximum limit to a black hole. A small black hole made from supernovas could potentially become a super massive black hole if it absorbs enough matter (other black holes or star matter).

I am pretty cool with space stuff and pretty interested in it. But when it comes to Dark matter, black holes and galactic inflation that keeps speeding up, it just feels wrong. Math be damned it just does not compute.

That is the stuff I am TRULY fascinated with, especially black holes. The math does compute by the way. The physics is sound if you know calculus. There are many crazy things that go on in our sky and we understand FAR less than 1% of it all.

should also be pointed out that they are not just big cosmic vacuum cleaners going around sucking everything into them. They still and objects around them still, are governed by gravitational mechanics. Meaning for example that if the sun magically turned into a black hole, instantly without blowing off any matter etc, would result in a dark solar system, but nothing much would actually change. All the planets would not suddenly spiral into the black hole. They would continue to orbit it as usual.

Now the difference between a black hole and a regular star is that I think due to its density there is a different behaviour when it comes to loosing energy via gravitational waves (depends on discovery, all speculative thus far, but not without evidence.) So you probably generate unstable orbits more readily than regular ones. Even so it isn't the case that the spiral arms are the same effect as water flowing down the drain

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Interesting. Thank you for all this cool information. Maybe i am just stubborn, but i still believe black holes have more to them than basic mathematical explanation. I just hope i don't sound religious. (no i don't think they are portals. but i'm open to the idea) Quoting Inception, "We have to go deeper...".

a reply to: Heruactic

Well in that case, check this thread out:
Creations - from Big Bang to Big Crunch, and beyond (before and after)

I didn't write it, but I enjoyed reading it. You may as well if you are interesting in this topic.

a reply to: Heruactic

Well that is for sure! much like most of these things there is always a simple explanation that is typically a mathematical construct and reasoning for their existence. Then when you look a little deeper and think about what evidence there is, how these objects should interact with their surroundings, it is very difficult to really come away with a simple "large object piled up on a singular point"

I dont think it has to be that way at all. If you look at some of the phenomenological models of black holes you will see it is a very vibrant and models undergo a great deal of scrutiny.

Many of the points people make about problems of the simple model are not denied by science, instead science is still figuring out alternatives to explain this mysterious object.

a reply to: ErosA433

Beating a dead horse but, It as much as flight of thought as it is some of the stuff we learn about like that new space thruster that defies laws of physics and that energy generator that can process more energy cheaply. If things like that exist and verified (the engine was verified to work) then laws of physics will become Breakable laws of physics and any thing that was once calculated using old laws and variables would have to be recalculated again. There is no evidence that i know of to support my idea but at one point everyone thought the planet was flat and sun revolved around it meanwhile people who lived then thought themselves to be "smart". Then few people were like "what is its not true what if..." and started a snowball rolling that was picked up and cascaded into new discoveries.