NASA may have discovered youngest black hole in our galaxy

page: 1
1

log in

join

posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 07:53 PM
link   

hi

Sry if this has been posted I didnt see it

Wow NASA might have discovered a black hole thats only 1000 years old a mere 26,000 light years away
It was discovered by NASA's Chandra X-ray space telescope

1000 years thats is pretty young for a black hole right?

W49B is the first of its kind to be discovered in the galaxy. I guess they think since there is no neutron star present there must be a black hole..

I dont know alot about this stuff lol

www.theverge.com...




Scientists using NASA's Chandra X-ray space telescope have discovered the remnants of a supernova 26,000 light years away that may contain a black hole that is only 1,000 years old, making it the youngest in the Milky Way galaxy.

"It's a bit circumstantial, but we have intriguing evidence the W49B supernova also created a black hole," MIT astrophysicist Daniel Castro said in a NASA news release Wednesday.

That evidence for a black hole is that W49B doesn't contain a neutron star, a tiny ultra-dense ball typically observed at the center of what's left over after a star has gone supernova. If a supernova remnant doesn't have a neutron star, it likely has a black hole at its core instead
edit on 13-2-2013 by goou111 because: (no reason given)
edit on 13-2-2013 by goou111 because: (no reason given)


NASA link
www.nasa.gov...


New data from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory suggest a highly distorted supernova remnant may contain the most recent black hole formed in the Milky Way galaxy. The remnant appears to be the product of a rare explosion in which matter is ejected at high speeds along the poles of a rotating star.

The remnant, called W49B, is about a thousand years old as seen from Earth and located about 26,000 light-years away.


high resolution image here
www.flickr.com...
edit on 13-2-2013 by goou111 because: (no reason given)
edit on 13-2-2013 by goou111 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by goou111
 


nice find!

Although I think it is a little presumptuous on their part to think its the youngest one in the galaxy.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 07:56 PM
link   
double post
edit on 2/13/2013 by VonDoomen because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 08:23 PM
link   
A ridicules claim!!!



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Infi8nity
A ridicules claim!!!


why? Agin I dont know alot about this stuff.. So please do tell



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Infi8nity
A ridicules claim!!!


B stands by Claim, calls A a fool for ridiculing Claim in the first place.

Well, it's a little misleading. Given that the black hole, if it was 1000 years old, would now be 27,000 years old.

But still, how can something be the youngest or oldest, when it exists within infinity?



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 09:07 PM
link   
Would it please everybody if they just pretended it said youngest known black hole in the galaxy?

I mean those things are hella hard to find. We got lucky that this one is young enough to still be surrounded by its expanding supernova cloud.

About that cloud, it is incredibly beautiful. You're looking at the stuff of creation right there. All the elements still glowing with the heat of their making.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 09:29 PM
link   
It could be the youngest black hole in the galaxy. It certianly is the youngest one found. It could be the youngest because the type of supernova which created it is very rare, thought to occur once in 1 to 10 thousand years in any given galaxy. Since this one is about 1,000 years old (from Earth's point of view, which actually makes it 27,000 years old) it well could be the youngest in the galaxy. From Earth's point of view, meaning the youngest we can observe at this stage of it's "life". Stupid speed of light, makes things complicated.


Given the estimated rate of these explosions is ~1 per 10^3 - 10^4 years per galaxy (Lopezet al. 2011), it is feasible that a few of the 274 currently known SNRs in the Galaxy (Green 2009) originate from this kind of SN.

arxiv.org...
edit on 2/13/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)
edit on 2/13/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by winofiend
 


Wouldn't it be in relation to time as we measure it?

just saying



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 09:42 PM
link   
What a stunning photograph! I am stealing it. Haha. It shall be used as a wallpaper.



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 02:35 AM
link   
It's not the most convincing evidence, mind you. "There is no neutron star, therefore there must be a black hole there." Well, what if the star exploded in its entirety, together with the core?

I'm not an expert of black hole formation, but I would've thought that the newly-formed black hole would start pulling the ejected material back in, creating an intense light show.



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 03:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildespace
Well, what if the star exploded in its entirety, together with the core?


According to wikipedia there are three potential outcomes in a core collapse supernova.


When a stellar core is no longer supported against gravity it collapses in on itself with velocities reaching 70,000 km/s (0.23c),[65] resulting in a rapid increase in temperature and density. What follows next depends on the mass and structure of the collapsing core, with low mass degenerate cores forming neutron stars, higher mass degenerate cores mostly collapsing completely to black holes, and non-degenerate cores undergoing runaway fusion.


If you don't know what degenerate means in this context I like the way Cryptonomicon described it


But this is a degenerate case, where "degenerate," to a mathematician, means "annoyingly boring."


Degenerate matter I think means the matter is so tightly packed together that there is no room for it to do much of anything.

Anyways, they proved there is no neutron star but I don't know if you would be able to tell if a core underwent runaway fusion through spectral analysis but I think it is possible.

If they proved there is no neutron star and that the core did not undergo runaway fusion I think it would be safe to say we found a black hole.

I would go and fully read the proof that Phage posted but it is very technical and it is very late where I am
edit on 14-2-2013 by Mkoll because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
1

log in

join