[HN Gopher] Physicists identify the engine powering black hole e... ___________________________________________________________________ Physicists identify the engine powering black hole energy beams Author : theafh Score : 96 points Date : 2021-05-20 16:43 UTC (6 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.quantamagazine.org) (TXT) w3m dump (www.quantamagazine.org) | hcrisp wrote: | I want to know if the jets are made up of material that is | swirling towards the black hole from the accretion disk but get | caught up in the magnetic helix (a) before it reaches the event | horizon, or (b) after it passes the event horizon. If the former, | then it's not as impressive since then nothing can escape a black | hole except via Hawking radiation. If the latter, then this seems | like quite a novel mechanism to prevent infinite black hole | growth. | | The illustrations in the article don't provide an answer, though, | since the details ends right where it ought to provide insight. | The article does mention that the new paper puts doubt on the | idea that nothing can escape a black hole, but I still didn't see | any direct mention of the event horizon question. | db48x wrote: | Nothing can return after having crossed the event horizon. | Gravity bends space and time, and in particular it changes | which direction the time axis points. In a black hole, the time | axis is bent all the way over so that it points directly at the | singularity. All paths that enter the black hole must end at | the singularity, because to do otherwise would require going | backwards in time or faster than the speed of light. | vmception wrote: | How does one get to be the "artist" in astronomy article "artist | renditions"? | mhh__ wrote: | If you've read Brian May's (of Queen fame) PhD thesis, he is | the artist of his own pretty sketches | RosanaAnaDana wrote: | Well if its anything like biology, your first bet would be to | get a degree in astrophysics. Doesn't necessarily need to be an | advanced degree, but enough to know how to ask the right | questions of those doing the work. Second step would be to | maintain a continuous love for art/ drawing/ illustration. | Third step is to get your work out there/ build a portfolio. | | Several colleagues of mine have ended up down the road of | scientific illustration in biology. Most of them had BS in | biology, botany, zoo, etc.. | | Also: | | https://work.chron.com/become-scientific-illustrator-17160.h... | kryptn wrote: | Looks like they have a position open for an Interactive Web | Developer [1] but it seems like the header animation is sourced | (and attributed) from a youtube video from 2018 [2] | | [1] https://www.quantamagazine.org/about/ | | [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4a45z36EU4 | wumpus wrote: | That animation was made by an EHT collaboration scientist, | Andrew Chael. The EHT has outsourced some animations to a | firm named CrazyBridge, but only occasionally. | lsllc wrote: | The spiral picture appears to actually be a "photo" of a black | hole, from this article linked in the OP: | | https://eventhorizontelescope.org/blog/astronomers-image-mag... | wumpus wrote: | The spiral is an overlay telling you which way the magnetic | fields point. | ineedasername wrote: | Unobtainium. Probably literally. | arbitrage wrote: | i mean their hypothesis is pretty convincing. have you read the | article? | eloff wrote: | Simulation theory speculation: | | If the universe is a simulation, when there gets too much matter | in an area to simulate all the interactions, a black hole is the | way programmers fixed that - it gets turned into a singularity | and isn't simulated anymore except as one point source of gravity | (or in a more complex way if black holes preserve entropy - jury | is still out on that one.) | | Silly and untestable, but fun to think about, like the rest of | simulation theory. It would be required to do something like that | if you're running a simulation with finite resources. You | couldn't just keep piling matter into a finite area without | bound, eventually you'd overwhelm what you can compute. Same | reason one might want a hard speed limit like the speed of light. | | Interestingly this is a not a discrete function, time slows near | large masses, which would allow the computer to keep up as matter | in an area increased, much as you'd expect in a simulation. | cout wrote: | It's all fun and games until someone underflows velocity. | | In all seriousness, finding such a bug in the software would be | the best possible evidence of living in a simulation. The hard | part is demonstrating that it is a a bug an not a feature. | wise0wl wrote: | Delayed choice quantum eraser. | infogulch wrote: | Agree! This is my favorite crazy pet theory: spacetime is | simulated on a flat 3d substrate with constant compute and | memory per volume, which runs at a fixed rate in time (c) [1], | and to account for a high density of mass requiring more | compute the simulation is slowed down proportionally. Then, | black holes are just the extreme end of this slowing down of | the simulation. | | [1]: You always move at a constant speed: the speed of light. | But that speed can be broken down into two component directions | which you can trade off: time and space. You typically move | near the speed of light in the _time_ direction, meaning your | speed through the space direction is comparatively low. | shaded-enmity wrote: | My crazy pet theory: computational bandwidth is constant for | any spacetime coordinate. According to Bekenstein bound the | lower the temperature of the system the cheaper it is to flip | a bit of information. As time progresses the CMBR gets | colder, so it's cheaper to flip a bit, but conversely, as | time progresses our Hubble volume gets smaller, limiting our | total available energy budget to perform a bit flip. | goldenkey wrote: | None of these theories are crazy at all. Special relativity | is directly derivable from energy causing a fixed amount of | change (action) per unit time. | | When the information/computational changes that the energy | is allocated, is used for non-local movement, then we | consider this to be an aspect of velocity, and the amount | of changes leftover for internal changes, which effectively | are internal time, is decreased by a ratio equivalent to | the standard time dilation formulas. | | Movement is change...change requires energy allocation, | movement diminishes other interactions, hence time | dilation, hence special relativity. | | Wolfram talks about this in his new graph based model of | physics. Mass is an emergent metric of the amount of | internal changes occurring in an object per unit time. | Essentially, causal loops in the graph. Feynman had a toy | model called the checkerboard model where the amount of | bouncing in an area represented mass. | | https://youtu.be/xQafZ3CvBUs | Strilanc wrote: | Why would gravity follow an inverse square law in this model? | Wouldn't you expect there to be a hard cutoff as you moved | away from a busy region, instead of a gradual decrease? | whoisburbansky wrote: | Wouldn't it have to be a 4d substrate for c to be the "time" | step-rate of the simulation? What does flat mean in this | context? | m3kw9 wrote: | And how do they simulate us having consciousness? | wpasc wrote: | Would any knowledgeable HNers mind providing an ELI5 for this | discovery? | omrjml wrote: | There has been lost of theories to explain how jets from black | hole systems form. New observations of light polarization from | M87 jet show twisting magnetic field lines which suggest one of | the theories might be right. That theory says that spinning | black hole's energy can be extracted by these twisting magnetic | field lines and therefore power these jets. | ISL wrote: | For many decades, people have observed jets of hot gas spewing | from the centers of some galaxies. There are multiple theories | as to how those jets form. | | Radio astronomers got together and built a synthetic telescope | the size of the Earth in order to be able to take a picture of | the gas near the black hole at the center of a nearby galaxy, | M87. | | When they did, and looked at the polarization of the light, | they saw twisting lines, which agreed with the prediction of | one of the most-favored theories for how these jets are | produced. | FredPret wrote: | Things like the above makes me so grateful to be alive in | this day and age | prichino wrote: | Quanta magazine is not a journal and is meant for general | public divulgation; it is written in a very accessible style, | starting from the title. | arbitrage wrote: | some people do not speak English as their native language. | hi41 wrote: | >> "The black hole in M87 is about the size of our solar system," | Issaoun said, yet it produces a 5,000-light-year-long current of | white-hot plasma | | Do both jets put together have a length of 5000 light years or | does each of the two jets have a length of 5000 light years | making a total lenght of 10000 light years? | | Can someone please clarify. I have had this question for a ling | time and it is eating me up. | | Edit: grammar. | omrjml wrote: | That's just one of the jets. In fact, I think only one side is | observable as it pointed close to our direction, making the | other side very difficult to observe. | wumpus wrote: | Yes. The forward jet is already faint despite being enhanced | because it's pointed towards us. We can't see the backward | one until it's way way outside the galaxy. | [deleted] | nvader wrote: | This reminds me of the Hairy Ball Theorem: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hairy_ball_theorem | eevilspock wrote: | If these jets are narrow, and if the radiation is directed in the | same direction as these jets (That's my understanding. Am I | wrong?), how do we (1) see these jets in the first place and (2) | if the answer is that we only see the ones pointed at us, how do | we know they are (narrow) jets since we can't observe them from | other angles? | omrjml wrote: | The radiation is not pointed in the same direction as jets like | a laser. There is bulk motion of the plasma in a given | direction, but the radiation is emitted from particles that are | moving in a different directions within that plasma. So the | radiation spread is wider than the jet direction. | Interestingly, depending on if the jet we are viewing is | pointed towards us or not can impact on the radiation signature | in the form of blue shift and red shift. If the orientation is | just right, bits of jet appear to move faster than to the speed | of light, but it's just a geometric effect. | FredPret wrote: | I'm speculating, but maybe it lights up a conveniently located | dust cloud | ISL wrote: | I believe that this is generally correct. Relativistic | particles impinging upon even dilute gas will have bright | signatures in many bands. | gotstad wrote: | Perhaps reflection from other bodies? Or simply some kind of | radiation emitted from the jets? | btilly wrote: | How do you see the beam of a flashlight in the dark? Because it | hits stuff in the air and bounces off. | | And the particles previously in the beam that already hit | something are likely to hang around and be candidates for being | hit themselves. And eventually they wind up as part of a big | glowing cloud that you can see in the pictures. See | https://d2r55xnwy6nx47.cloudfront.net/uploads/2021/05/cyga_v... | linked in the picture for what it looks like. And for evidence | that we can still see the beam when it isn't pointed directly | at us. | ectopod wrote: | > Many jets are thin and bright all along their length. "How | does it shine? How do we see it?" Chen wonders. | | It looks like nobody knows for sure. | eloff wrote: | Noob question: if not even light can escape from a black hole, | magnetism can't either, right? | | So these fields must be produced by matter falling into the black | hole, but before it crosses the event horizon? | nostromo wrote: | Another noob question I've never heard explained in a way I can | understand: | | How does gravity escape from a black hole? It, like light, | travels at the speed of light. So if light cannot escape, how | does gravity? | ncmncm wrote: | That one, anyway, is easy. Sort of. Gravity is our perception | of space itself being stretched, squeezed, even twisted. So, | no gravity is escaping; instead, the black hole is warping | the space it is in. | | The mathematics describing this process are intractable | except in very special cases. In most cases, physicists are | obliged to use an approximation that produces an answer that | they hope has much of the character of the correct answer. At | one extreme, they just use Newtonian gravity, which produces | almost-exactly correct answers for small-scale systems | involving just regular stars and planets. It is only when | warpage gets very large compared to the size of the system, | or when e.g. galaxy-scale mass is involved, or the | differences between Newtonian gravity and reality are what is | interesting, that they have to resort to more complicated | approximations. | | It was recently discovered that calculations of the motion of | galaxies were using an insufficiently accurate approximation | that made it seem like stuff is orbiting too fast for the | visible mass, requiring "dark matter"-extra, invisible mass- | to hold the galaxy together. But using a more accurate | approximation makes the need for dark matter evaporate. This | created a problem because astrophysicists and cosmologists | have come up with lots more uses for dark matter, to explain | lots of other things. Without dark matter, they have dug | themselves into a hole. The response has generally been to | ignore the more accurate galactic gravitational model, and | double down on dark matter. They can do this because | ultimately it is all just a matter of papers being published | and careers advanced or blighted; there are no other real- | world consequences. | willhslade wrote: | Can you point us to something to illustrate this more | accurate gravity estimate reducing the need for dark | matter? Sounds fascinating. | ncmncm wrote: | It was on HN a few weeks ago. | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26450664 | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26442021 | neom wrote: | PBS Space Time to the rescue: | | What Happens at the Event Horizon? - | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mht-1c4wc0Q | | What's On The Other Side Of A Black Hole? - | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4oYvSH6jJ8 | | How Time Becomes Space Inside a Black Hole - | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KePNhUJ2reI | | The Black Hole Information Paradox - | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XkHBmE-N34 | tzs wrote: | I'd recommend the two episodes released right before the | one about the black hole information paradox too. They set | up for what is covered in the information paradox episode. | | "Why Quantum Information is Never Destroyed" - | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HF-9Dy6iB_4 | | "What Survives Inside A Black Hole?" - | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GscfuQWZFAo | | Maybe the episode before those two also. I vaguely recall | that something from the information paradox episode used | something from that (and if I'm misremembering, it was | still a neat episode): | | "Noether's Theorem and The Symmetries of Reality" - | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04ERSb06dOg | | I have a question about the episodes you cited. They cover | how beyond the event horizon space becomes time and time | becomes space. They go over how that means that inside you | can't go backwards in space for the same reason that out | here in the normal universe you can't go backwards in time. | You are doomed to only go forward, which inside means | toward the singularity. | | (Much better than the ridiculous analogy often given that | you can't get out of a black hole because the escape | velocity equals or exceeds the speed of light. That's a | ridiculous analogy because it only explains why you can't | get out ballistically). | | But all their explanations used a simplified black hole in | a spacetime with just 1 space dimension and 1 time | dimension. We've actually got 3 space dimension. Does that | mean that in a real block hole past the event horizon, you | end up in a spacetime with 3 time dimensions and 1 space | dimension? | | If so, does anything interesting happen due to having more | than one time dimension? | neom wrote: | I think that's the million dollar question. :) | | This episode touches on that a bit, and we're getting | into holographic universe theory - | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klpDHn8viX8 | Jun8 wrote: | Exactly your question is answered here: | https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/937/how-does- | gra... | | Quick summary: gravitational field is different from | gravitational radiation. | thaumaturgy wrote: | There are a handful of replies already and I'm not any sort | of authority on this subject. But, I'd like to share a few of | the things about this that have made sense to me; maybe | someone will add to or correct one of them and I'll learn | something more. | | Black holes and gravity are hard to get a satisfactory grasp | on for laymen (like me) because they behave in ways that are | unlike anything else in the natural, observable world around | us. People try to understand difficult concepts by relating | them to familiar things, but gravity and black holes don't | relate to anything we're familiar with. | | Gravity for example isn't, we think, a "thing". It's a | property, or a consequence. [1] Lots of people are looking | for some way to relate it to the physics of particles and | electromagnetic forces, but that hasn't happened yet. So, | gravity doesn't escape, or travel, because it isn't a | "thing". There's no particle of gravity. There is a force, in | that when we observe large masses, they seem to be acted upon | by some kind of invisible action, but that force is actually | a consequence of things attempting to travel in straight | lines along a curved surface. | | _Changes_ in gravity do travel, apparently at the speed of | light. So, in that sense, the gravitational _effect_ of a | black hole does extend beyond its event horizon. But, that 's | totally okay, because gravity itself isn't a thing and | doesn't travel and therefore doesn't need to escape a black | hole. | | Rather, a black hole is a consequence of gravity, or | relativity. It's a division-by-zero [2] in the equations that | describe matter, gravity, and curved spacetime. Thinking of | black holes as being somehow similar to really really dense | planets is one of the misconceptions that misled me for a | long time. They are instead more of a place where physics, as | we understand it so far, stops working. | | That place has a boundary region where physics still mostly | works, and things happen there that we can sort of understand | and relate to. We can observe some of the effects of this | extreme curvature of spacetime in this boundary region. | | But beyond that, the curvature goes to infinity and volume | goes to 0 and time stops existing. | | [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdIjYBtnvZU -- A video | with 3 Blue 1 Brown on Feynman's "lost lecture", which | describes gravity in geometrical terms. There is also a | Feynman lecture on this: | https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_42.html | | [2]: https://old.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1dox03/phys | ics_... | curtainsforus wrote: | From the perspective of an outside observer, nothing ever | reaches past the event horizon- it just asymptotically | approaches it. The same goes for the whole mass of the black | of hole- from an outside perspective, it's smeared across the | surface. | | There isn't an object that messes with the warping of | spacetime- the black hole IS the warp in spacetime. If | changes in spacetime couldn't propagate away from the black | hole, it wouldn't exist. | bollu wrote: | As best as I understand: light travels in space. Thus, if | space is scrunched up, light can't escape. Gravity IS space. | The scrunching up IS gravity. There is no "escaping", because | gravity is literally the substrate. | Koshkin wrote: | > _Gravity IS space_ | | More accurately, gravity is the curvature of _spacetime_. | whoisburbansky wrote: | "The scrunching up IS gravity" seems to imply that fairly | adequately. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-05-20 23:00 UTC)