- :: Atom & Cosmos
- :: Body & Brain
- :: Earth
- :: Environment
- :: Genes & Cells
- :: Humans
- :: Life
- :: Matter & Energy
- :: Molecules
- :: Science & Society
- :: Other Topics
- :: Science News For Kids
PASADENA, Calif.—And now for something truly monstrous.
Astronomers report that some of the biggest supermassive black holes in nearby galaxies are at least twice and possibly four times as heavy as previously estimated. The findings come from new simulations by two independent teams of researchers, as well as new observations of stars whipping around a handful of supermassive black holes at the centers of massive galaxies no more than a few hundred million light-years from Earth.
The results, some of which were reported June 8 at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society, may resolve a long-standing puzzle about the mismatch between the masses of giant black holes in distant versus nearby galaxies. The findings may also suggest that supermassive black holes, already known to grow in lockstep with a galaxy’s central bulge of stars, may play an even bigger role in governing the growth and maximum size of galaxies than had been suspected.
In simulations presented at the meeting, Karl Gebhardt of the University of Texas at Austin and Jens Thomas of the Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics in Garching, Germany, used a supercomputer to recalculate the mass of the biggest black hole in the nearby universe, which lies at the center of the galaxy M87, 50 million light-years from Earth. The team’s study is the first to include the presence of dark matter in assessing the mass of a giant black hole. Dark matter, the invisible material believed to make up about 85 percent of the mass in the universe, envelops each galaxy in a vast halo.
By clocking how rapidly stars orbit the galaxy’s center, researchers measure the total mass of stars plus black hole in the galaxy’s central region. To figure out how much the black hole at the core of the galaxy contributes to that total mass, astronomers have to figure out the amount of mass in stars and subtract it from the total. However, it turns out to be trickier than thought to determine the stellar mass.
At first glance, dark matter wouldn’t seem to be important in calculating stellar mass in the galaxy’s center because the invisible stuff is negligible at the core of a galaxy. But it comes into play because of the indirect method astronomers use to measure the stellar mass, the team said.
Astronomers calculate that mass by recording the amount of visible starlight and using a relationship, called the mass-to-light ratio, to translate the intensity of starlight into stellar mass. In the past, calculations of that ratio assumed that all the mass astronomers measured was in stars. But many stars reside in the outer regions of the galaxy, where they are outweighed by dark matter. Subtracting the dark matter from the total mass lowers the amount of mass attributed to stars, reducing the stellar mass-to-light ratio, said Gebhardt.
He and Thomas found that the mass-to-light ratio for stars is about half the old estimate.
Using the revised ratio, and assuming that stars’ mass-to-light ratio is the same in the inner part of the galaxy as in the outer part, the team found a much lower stellar mass near the core and therefore a much higher mass for the black hole. The team reports that the supermassive black hole in M87 weighs the equivalent of 6.4 billion suns, about twice as much as the currently accepted estimate.
Accounting for dark matter “is an effect that in retrospect is obvious,” said Gebhardt, and “in some galaxies like M87, it can be very important.” Unpublished simulations of three other galaxies show signs of a similar increase, he notes. And high-resolution observations of M87 by Gebhardt and colleagues using the Gemini North telescope atop Hawaii’s Mauna Kea agree with the revised theoretical estimate, he said.
“It’s high time that someone included the effect of dark matter,” said John Kormendy of the University of Texas, not a member of Gebhardt’s team. The revised mass estimates, he said, “will have a welcome audience.” That’s because for more than 25 years it has been a puzzle why the most luminous distant quasars are powered by black holes weighing the equivalent of 10 billion solar masses, yet no nearby black holes appear to be this hefty.
With the new mass estimate, the black hole in M87 is now a much closer match to the mass of those that power quasars in the distant universe, said Avi Loeb of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Mass.
Another team, including Remco van den Bosch of the University of Texas, used a different type of analysis that doesn’t include dark matter and also found that supermassive black holes at the cores of massive galaxies may have double their estimated heft.
Van den Bosch and his collaborators realized that massive galaxies tend to be more out of round, like squashed footballs, with stars on highly elongated orbits, than smaller galaxies. If the true orbits of these stars are ignored, astronomers will calculate slower stellar speeds and dramatically underestimate the mass of the central black hole. In the one massive galaxy, called NGC 3379, for which the team did its analysis, the estimated mass of the black hole doubled, the team reported online http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/360230/RvdB_triaxbh.pdf.
“The fact that in NGC 3379 the black hole mass goes up does not prove that it will go up in other [out-of-round] galaxies too, but it is very likely,” says van den Bosch.
Kormendy suggests that when both effects — the influence of dark matter and the out-of-round shape of massive galaxies — are combined, the estimated mass of giant black holes in nearby galaxies may be quadrupled.
“Stay tuned,” said Kormendy. “The story isn’t over yet.”
Found in: Atom & Cosmos
- Gebhardt, K., and J. Thomas. In press. The Black Hole mass, stellar m/l, and dark halo in m87. Astrohysical Journal.
- Weijmans, A., et al. 2009. Stellar velocity profiles and line strengths out to four effective radii in the early-type galaxies NGC 3379 and NGC 821. [Go to]
- Sun may not be a 'Goldilocks' star
- Moon crash reveals crater held water
- Plastics ingredients could make a boy's play less masculine
- B vitamin outperforms another drug in keeping arteries clear
- Mummies reveal heart disease plagued ancient Egyptians


This huge black holes exploding all a time and emit/radiate energywaves who have nature of atoms and nature of stars.
Also stars exploding all a time and stars pushing themselfs far away from exploding centre of galxy same way what everyhting exploding all a time.
There is no drawing force at all!
Only pushing force!
We can explain everything with changes of pressure!
Space dont expanding or curving!
Nucleus of atoms exploding and emit energywaves who have a nature of electrons and particle who also exploding all a time. Exploding electrons just moving to next exploding nucleus of atoms and get this exploding faster. Before that, electrons giving some change of pressure for energywaves who pushing themselfs far away from exploding nuclei of atom and then born new elevtrons etc....
galaxys are huge particle who moving in space who dont expanding at all. galaxys moving with one level bigger stuff light speed, far away from energyconcentration who is outside visible universe and exploding and emit energywaves who have a nature of galaxys!
http://www.onesimpleprinciple.com/296
Thanks,
Lowell
There is no drawing force at all!
We can explain pushing force easy way.
Push ball and look how ball hit other ball and how pushing force working!
spcce dont expanding at all.
Nucleus of atoms just exploding/expanding in space who dont expanding at all.
Exploding nucleus of atoms PUSHING themselfs far away same way what they exploding all a time with energywaves what they emit/radiate all a time!
www.onesimpleprinciple.com
You can readily see that even if the central black holes are "a lot larger than previously estimated" - by a factor of two (essentially doubling their masses, which IS "a lot larger"!) it still comes NOWHERE NEAR close to accounting for the extra mass required: we would have to be underestimating their masses by a few thousand-fold! In any case, other observations already discount the idea: if the central black hole in M87 contained all the extra mass attributed to Dark Matter, it would weigh over 10 trillion solar masses. We just do not see stellar velocities in the core that come anywhere need the speeds required to keep them in orbit around it.
That 83% of the total mass that is observed by indirect means consists of dark matter is very well established: it is quite clear that SOMETHING - some diffuse "gas" of particles which are extremely non-reactive with themselves or ordinary matter particles - exerts a gravitational influence - must be responsible. They simply haven't been identified experimentally yet. Those particles are called "dark matter" because we cannot see them EXCEPT indirectly by their presence en masse by how fast ordinary stars and galaxies move. And from thos measurements, we are quite confident in deducing that this "dark matter" must be distributed in diffuse halos around galaxies like our own and M87: that mass id NOT concentrated into the core, or we would have easily noticed it.
There is plenty of precedence for the existence of particles that are extraordinarily difficult to detect because they do not easily react with themselves or other ordinary particles or give off light: neutrinos are a celebrated example of just such a kind of particle (which were first theoretically deduced to account for certain nuclear processes in order to balance the energy ledger). Within the last decade or so experiment has increasingly shown that neutrinos, which were initially regarded as massless DO, in fact posses a tiny mass. Unfortunately, although they are as numerous as photons of light (many billions pass through your body every second, from the sky and up through the Earth from below as if it wasn't there) neutrinos cannot account for the extra mass observed either. There is evidently another major player in nature, and it holds 83% of the total mass bag!
Enquiring minds would like to know.
After that - and ONLY after that assignment - you may attempt to redescribe GR without curvature, that the universe "dont expanding at all" and etc. I trust this is not too much to ask. After all, your claim is based on "one simple principle", yes? Surely we should be able to understand it.
Two magnetic emit particle who absorbs energy what particle who coming other magnetic emit/radiate and now this particle dont giving pushingenergy/kineticenergy for magnetic nucleus. After this particle coming out magnetic, they get other particle who going inside magnetic, exploding energy more to magnetic nucleus of atoms and thats why magnetic nucleus of atoms exploding more energy far away from other magnetic, you know.
Explaination of the OneSimplePrinciple Model
From: gadzometer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omgQ6kLlHdE&feature=channel_page
check it out!
A Commonsensible Epilogue, And A Prologue To Life Evolution
Origin Of Gravity And Formation Of Life
http://www.sciencenews.org/index/generic/activity/view/id/42988/title/Blob_may_signal_monster_galaxy_feeding
**The onset of big-bang's inflation started gravity, followed by formation of galactic clusters that behave "classically" as Newtonian bodies while continuously reconverting their shares of pre-inflation masses back to energy, and of endless intertwined evolutions WITHIN the clusters in attempts to resist this reconversion.
Astronomically there are two "physics", a "classical physics" behaviour of and between galactic clusters, and a "quantum physics" behaviour within galactic clusters.**
A. "Heavyweight galaxies in the young universe", at
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/42419/title/Heavyweight_galaxies_in_the_young_universe
New observations of full-grown galaxies in the young universe may force astrophysicists to revise their leading theory of galaxy formation, at least as it applies to regions where galaxies congregate into clusters.
B. Some brief notes in "Light On Dark Matter?", at
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=22994&st=0entry373127
- "Galaxy Clusters Evolved By Dispersion, Not By Conglomeration"
- Introduction of E=Total[m(1 + D)]
- "Dark Energy And Matter And The Emperor's New Clothes"
- "Evolutionary Cosmology: Ordained Or Random"
- "“Movie” Of Microwave Pulse Transitioning From Quantum To Classical Physics"
- "Broken Symmetry" Is Physics' Term Of Biology's "Evolution"
- "A Glimpse Of Forces-Matter-Life Unified Theory"
C. Commonsensible conception of gravity
1. According to the standard model, which describes all the forces in nature except gravity, all elementary particles were born massless. Interactions with the proposed Higgs field would slow down some of the particles and endow them with mass. Finding the Higgs — or proving it does not exist — has therefore become one of the most important quests in particle physics.
However, for a commonsensible primitive mind with a commonsensible universe represented by
E=Total[m(1 + D)], this conceptual equation describes gravity. It does not explain gravity. It describes it. It applies to the whole universe and to every and all specific cases, regardless of size.
2. Thus gravity is simply another face of the total cosmic energy. Thus gravity is THE cosmic parent of phenomena such as black holes and life. It is the display of THE all-pervasive-embracive strained space texture, laid down by the expanding galactic clusters, also noticed within the galactic clusters in the energy backlashes into various constructs of temporary constrained energy packages.
3. "Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time to the early hot dense "Big Bang" phase, using general relativity, yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past. At age 10^-35 seconds the Universe begins with a cataclysm that generates space and time, as well as all the matter and energy the Universe will ever hold."
At D=0, E was = m and both E and m were, together, all the energy and matter the Universe will ever hold. Since the onset of the cataclysm, E remains constant and m diminishes as D increases.
The increase of D is the inflation, followed by expansion, of what became the galactic clusters.
At 10^-35 seconds, D in E=Total[m(1 + D)] was already a fraction of a second above zero. This is when gravity started. This is what started gravity. At this instance starts the space texture, starts the straining of the space texture, and starts the "space texture memory", gravity, that may eventually overcome expansion and initiate re-impansion back to singularity.
D. Commonsensible conception of the forces other than gravity
The forces other than gravity are, commonsensibly, forces involved in conjunction with evolution within the galactic clusters:
http://royalsociety.org/downloaddoc.asp?id=4770
The farthest we go in reductionism in Everything, including in Life, we shall still end up with wholism, until we arrive at energy. Energy is the base element of everything and of all in the universe. At the beginning was the energy singularity, at the end will be near zero mass and an infinite dispersion of the beginning energy, and in-between, the universe undergoes continuous evolution consisting of myriad energy-to-energy and energy-to-mass-to-energy transformations.
The universe, and everything in it, are continuously evolving, and all the evolutions are intertwined.
E. PS to "On Cosmic Energy And Mass Evolutions"
As mass is just another face of energy it is commonsensible to regard not only life, but mass in general, as a format of temporarily constrained energy.
It therefore ensues that whereas the expanding cosmic constructs, the galaxies clusters, are - overall - continuously converting "their" original pre-inflation mass back to energy, the overall evolution WITHIN them, within the clusters, is in the opposite direction, temporarily constrained
energy packages such as black holes and biospheres and other energy-storing mass-formats are precariuosly forming and "doing best" to survive as long as "possible"...
F. From "Strings Link the Ultracold with the Superhot"
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/42632/title/Strings_Link_the_Ultracold_with_the_Superhot
"Perfect liquids suggest theory’s math mirrors something real.
When the universe was very young, and still superhot from the aftermath of the Big Bang, plasma should have been the only state of matter around. And that’s what scientists at Brookhaven expected to see when they smashed gold ions together at 99.99 percent of the speed of light using a machine called RHIC (for Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider). RHIC physicists thought the ion collisions would melt the gold’s protons and neutrons into a hot plasma of quarks and gluons at a temperature of a trillion kelvins, replicating conditions similar to those a microsecond after the birth of the universe. But instead of a gaslike plasma, the physicists reported in 2005, RHIC served up a hot quark soup, behaving more like a liquid than a plasma or gas."
G. The expectation of Brookhaven scientists was a bit unrealistic
The "aftermath of the Big Bang" lasted much less than 10^-35 seconds. This is evidenced by the fact that "Gravity Is THE Manifestation Of The Onset Of Cosmic Inflation Cataclysm":
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/184.page#1950
and
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/184.page#1982
With all respect due to the scientists at Brookhaven it is unrealistic to expect that they can recreate the state of pre big-bang energy-mass singularity. Commonsense is still the best scientific approach.
H. PS To "Gravity Limits Link Ultracold And Superhot": Our Inability To Create Singularity
a. From "Strings Link the Ultracold with the Superhot"
A new truth always has to contend with many difficulties,” the German physicist Max Planck said decades ago. “If it were not so, it would have been discovered much sooner.”
b. IMO gravity is attempted reversal of inflation
To me, a simple uninformed one, E=mc^2 is a derived formula, whereas E=Total[m(1 + D)] is a commonsensical descriptive concept.
I intuitively regard both the ultracold and superhot liquids as being in a confined space and "striving but unable" to overcome D, to render D=0.
I also intuitively regard our accelerated collisions smashups as attempted "reverse inflations" in the sense that Newton's law of universal gravitation seems to me as "reverse inflation".
I. An epilogue and a prologue
Here ends the basic story of Energy, Mass, Gravity and Galaxies Clusters. For us, humans, this is the prologue to the story of Life's Evolution, briefly presented in "Updated Life's Manifest May 2009".
Dov Henis
(Comments from 22nd century)
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-P81pQcU1dLBbHgtjQjxG_Q--?cq=1
Updated Life's Manifest May 2009
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=14988&st=480entry412704
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/140/122.page#2321
EVOLUTION Beyond Darwin 200
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=14988&st=405entry396201
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/100/122.page#1407
A. "Dark Matter May be Easier to Detect than Previously Thought"
http://www.physorg.com/news169121408.html
And
"Dark Energy From the Ground Up: Make Way for BigBOSS"
http://www.physorg.com/news168858441.html
B. On The Origin Of Origins
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/160/122.page#2753
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=14988&st=525entry420991
Enough Is Enough!
Beyond Einstein-Hubble And Beyond Darwin
Dark Matter-Energy And Higgs Particle?
Energy-Mass Superposition
The Fractal Oneness Of The Universe
All Earth Life Creates and Maintains Genes
Dov Henis
(Comments from 22nd century)
http://profiles.yahoo.com/blog/2SF3CJJM5OU6T27OC4MFQSDYEU
Please login or register to participate.