‘Overmassive’ black hole holds the mass of 17 billion suns

A very quick post tonight. I was interviewed to comment on the discovery of a very massive black hole, much more massive than we would expect from the galaxy in which it is found.

This is a big black hole. Say it slowly... 17 billion times more massive than the Sun. That is a lot of mass in a very small volume.

The article is presented in The Conversation. You can read it here, and, as ever, I am happy to address any questions in the comments spot below.

Black holes. You have to love them!
Location: Sydney NSW, Australia

Comments

  1. Ggreybeard1 December 2012 at 00:46

    That is an impressive black hole!

    It's in a fairly obscure galaxy in Perseus and I've tracked down an image showing the galaxy as one of a cluster at redshift 0.17:

    http://spider.seds.org/ngc/ngcdss.cgi?obj=NGC!1277&r=3:19.8&d=+41:34&e=J2000&h=15&w=15&f=GIF&c=none

    I'm not convinced the red image from "The Conversation" is even NGC 1277. (The image is also published in many other news items on this topic, so I know it isn't your image).

    I would like to know if you think it is a genuine image? If so, at what wavelength? Is it purporting to actually show the evidence of a black hole at the centre? Or is it a hyped up picture for the consumption of the mass media?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Cusp1 December 2012 at 10:03

    Yes, it is an image of NGC 1277 - They imaged it in a narrow V filter and wide r filter.

    Compare it to this ground based images

    http://cseligman.com/text/atlas/ngc1275wide.jpg

    You can see the same stars and small galaxy near NGC 1277.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Falling into a black hole: Just what do you see?

Image
Everyone loves black holes. Immense gravity, a one-way space-time membrane, the possibility of links to other universes. All lovely stuff. A little trawl of the internets reveals an awful lot of web pages discussing black holes, and discussions about spaghettification, firewalls, lost information, and many other things. Actually, a lot of the stuff out there on the web is nonsense, hand-waving, partly informed guesswork. And one of the questions that gets asked is "What would you see looking out into the universe?" Some (incorrectly) say that you would never cross the event horizon, a significant mis-understanding of the coordinates of relativity. Other (incorrectly) conclude from this that you actually see the entire future history of the universe play out in front of your eyes. What we have to remember, of course, is that relativity is a mathematical theory, and instead of hand waving, we can use mathematics to work out what we will see. And that's what I did. ...
Read more

Journey to the Far-Side of the Sun

Image
There was a movie, in the old days, Journey to the Far-Side of the Sun  (also known as Doppleganger) which (spoiler alert) posits that there is a mirror version of the Earth hidden on the other side of the Sun, sharing the orbit with our Earth. The idea is that this planet would always be hidden behind the Sun, and so we would not know it there there. This idea comes up a lot, over and over again. In fact, it came up again last week on twitter. But there's a problem. It assumes the Earth is on a circular orbit. I won't go into the details here, but one of the greatest insights in astronomy was the discovery of Kepler's laws of planetary motion , telling us that planets move on elliptical orbits. With this, there was the realisation that planets can't move at uniform speeds, but travel quickly when closer to the Sun, while slowing down as their orbits carry them to larger distance.  There has been a lot of work examining orbits in the Solar System, and you can  s...
Read more

Moving Charges and Magnetic Fields

Image
Still struggling with grant writing season, so another post which has resulted in my random musings about the Universe (which actually happens quite a lot). In second semester, I am teaching  electricity and magnetism to our First Year Advanced Class . I really enjoy teaching this class as the kids are on the ball and can ask some deep and meaningful questions. But the course is not ideal. Why? Because we teach from a textbook and the problem is that virtually all modern text books are almost the same. Science is trotted out in an almost historical progression. But it does not have to be taught that way. In fact, it would be great if we could start with  Hamiltonian and Lagrangian  approaches, and derive physics from a top down approach. We're told that it's mathematically too challenging, but it really isn't. In fact, I would start with a book like  The Theoretical Minimum , not some multicoloured compendium of physics. We have to work with what we have! ...
Read more