Chandra X-ray Telescope images gas flowing toward black hole

Jul 28, 2011
NGC 3115: A lenticular galaxy located about 32 million light years from Earth. (X-ray: NASA/CXC/Univ. of Alabama/K.Wong et al, Optical: ESO/VLT) This composite image contains X-rays from Chandra (blue) and optical data from the VLT (gold) of the galaxy NGC 3115. Using the Chandra data, the flow of hot gas toward the supermassive black hole in the center of this galaxy has been imaged. This is the first time that clear evidence for such a flow has been observed in any black hole. The new Chandra data also supports the previous optical observations that suggest that NGC 3115’s black hole has a mass of about two billion times that of the Sun. This would make NGC 3115 the host of the nearest billion-solar-mass black hole to Earth. Scale: Full image: 7.5 arcmin (about 70,000 light years) | Inset image: 27 arcsec across (about 4,150 light years)

The flow of hot gas toward a black hole has been clearly imaged for the first time in X-rays. The observations from NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory, analyzed by University of Alabama astronomers, will help tackle two of the most fundamental problems in modern astrophysics: understanding how black holes grow and how matter behaves in their intense gravity.

The black hole is at the center of a large galaxy known as NGC 3115, which is located about 32 million light-years from Earth. A large amount of previous data has shown material falling toward and onto , but none with this clear a signature of hot .  

By imaging the hot gas at different distances from the supermassive black hole, astronomers have observed a critical threshold where the motion of gas first becomes dominated by the black hole’s gravity and falls inward. The distance from the black hole is known as the “Bondi radius.”

“It’s exciting to find such clear evidence for gas in the grip of a massive black hole,” said Dr. Ka-Wah Wong, a post-doctoral researcher at The University of Alabama, who led the study that appears in the July 20 issue of The Astrophysical Journal Letters. ”Chandra’s resolving power provides a unique opportunity to understand more about how black holes capture material by studying this nearby object.” 

As gas flows toward a black hole, it becomes squeezed, making it hotter and brighter, a signature now confirmed by the X-ray observations.

The researchers found the rise in gas temperature begins about 700 light years from the black hole, giving the location of the Bondi radius. This suggests the black hole in the center of NGC 3115 has a mass about two billion times that of the sun, making it the closest black hole of that size to Earth. 

The Chandra data also show that the gas close to the black hole in the center of the galaxy is denser than gas further out, as predicted. Using the observed properties of the gas and theoretical assumptions, the team then estimated that each year gas weighing about 2 percent the mass of the sun is being pulled across the Bondi radius toward the black hole.

Making certain assumptions about how much of the gas’s energy changes into radiation, astronomers would expect to find a source that is more than a million times brighter in X-rays than what is seen in NGC 3115.

“A leading mystery in astrophysics is how the area around massive black holes can stay so dim, when there’s so much fuel available to light up,” said co-author Dr. Jimmy Irwin, assistant professor in UA’s department of physics and astronomy. “This black hole is a poster child for this problem.”

There are at least two possible explanations for this discrepancy. The first is that much less material actually falls onto the black hole than flows inside the Bondi radius. Another possibility is that the conversion of energy into radiation is much less efficient than is assumed.

Different models describing the flow of material onto the black hole make different predictions for how quickly the density of the gas is seen to rise as it approaches the black hole. A more precise determination of the rise in density from future observations should help astronomers rule out some of these models. 

Explore further: How baryon acoustic oscillation reveals the expansion of the universe

Provided by University of Alabama

4.6 /5 (8 votes)

Related Stories

Astronomers calculate mass of largest black hole yet

Jan 14, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Weighing 6.6 billion solar masses, the black hole at the center of galaxy M87 is the most massive black hole for which a precise mass has been measured. Using the Frederick C. Gillett Gemini ...

Black hole blows big bubble

Jul 07, 2010

Combining observations made with ESO's Very Large Telescope and NASA's Chandra X-ray telescope, astronomers have uncovered the most powerful pair of jets ever seen from a stellar black hole. This object, also ...

Nearby black hole is feeble and unpredictable

May 25, 2010

For over 10 years, NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory has repeatedly observed the Andromeda Galaxy for a combined total of nearly one million seconds. This unique data set has given astronomers an unprecedented ...

How do supermassive black holes get so big?

Apr 26, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- At the center of most galaxies lie supermassive black holes that can grow to become more than a billion times larger than our Sun. However, astrophysicists don’t fully understand the formation ...

Galaxy Collision Switches on Black Hole

Dec 10, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- This composite image of data from three different telescopes shows an ongoing collision between two galaxies, NGC 6872 and IC 4970.

Recommended for you

The Great Cold Spot in the cosmic microwave background

Sep 19, 2014

The cosmic microwave background (CMB) is the thermal afterglow of the primordial fireball we call the big bang. One of the striking features of the CMB is how remarkably uniform it is. Still, there are some ...

Mystery of rare five-hour space explosion explained

Sep 17, 2014

Next week in St. Petersburg, Russia, scientists on an international team that includes Penn State University astronomers will present a paper that provides a simple explanation for mysterious ultra-long gamma-ray ...

User comments : 42

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Kedas
not rated yet Jul 28, 2011
It would have been a story if the title was:
"Chandra X-ray Telescope images gas flowing away from black hole"
omatumr
1 / 5 (11) Jul 28, 2011
The flow of hot gas toward a black hole has been clearly imaged for the first time in X-rays. The observations from NASAs Chandra X-ray Observatory, analyzed by University of Alabama astronomers, will help tackle two of the most fundamental problems in modern astrophysics: understanding how black holes grow and how matter behaves in their intense gravity.


Image? or Imagine?

Despite the strong gravitational field of the compact centers of stars and galaxies, there is overwhelming observational evidence that these objects fragment and release the material that surrounds them as as brightly glowing photospheres and nebulae.

Neutron Repulsion", The APEIRON Journal, in press, 19 pages (2011):

http://arxiv.org/...2.1499v1

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
Eoprime
5 / 5 (6) Jul 28, 2011
That is a great shot, I hope someday we get an image of a clear black spot sourrounded by hot gas too. maybe not in my lifetime thou.


... there is overwhelming observational evidence that these objects fragment and release the material that surrounds them as as brightly glowing photospheres and nebulae.


There is not.
Do you actually do science these days or is it too time consuming to promote your Neutron Repulsion in every forum some can find?
Tuxford
1 / 5 (9) Jul 28, 2011
>Making certain assumptions about how much of the gas energy changes into radiation, astronomers would expect to find a source that is more than a million times brighter in X-rays than what is seen in NGC 3115.<

And yet they don't find it?? And do they also assume that the gas must always fall inward? Did I miss that point in the article? Not sure how useful this observation actually is? We observe ejections from other AGN's etc., in multitude.

Recently LaViolette published evidence that our last ice age had a solar cause. The solar cause coincides with other observational evidence of a passing superwave at that time. The premise is that our planet is under an unrecognized cosmic threat from periodic ejections from our galactic core. Dig a hole. Governments are doing it.
jsdarkdestruction
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 28, 2011
tuxford, didnt you notice this part?
"There are at least two possible explanations for this discrepancy."
This LaViolette guy must really get you off. Even though youve admitted you dont know much in the field as it isnt the field you work in and that you cant back up what you say with actual proof because of that. Also, you have a major lack of understanding of current theory when it comes to active galactic nuclei and quasars and supermassive black holes and how it all works.
Oliver, overwhelming observational evidence to you maybe...
Tuxford
2.7 / 5 (10) Jul 28, 2011
And a third explanation might be that the black hole is not black and is instead expelling matter at a furious rate, clearing out the region immediately around the core star. Do you only consider what the experts say? Are you not able to consider other possibilities? Clearly the experts have missed too much in this field to be entirely credible.
Shelgeyr
1 / 5 (2) Jul 28, 2011
"Z-pinch". There, I said it.

I'll spare you the elaboration though.
d_robison
5 / 5 (4) Jul 29, 2011
Do you only consider what the experts say? Are you not able to consider other possibilities? Clearly the experts have missed too much in this field to be entirely credible.


Ah, and your analysis of the data shows...? Ideas and imagination are great, but they don't necessarily make good science.
LKD
5 / 5 (1) Jul 29, 2011
"A leading mystery in astrophysics is how the area around massive black holes can stay so dim, when theres so much fuel available to light up, said co-author Dr. Jimmy Irwin"

Since we're seeing this galaxy edge on(ish) wouldn't there be occulations that would dim the effective radiation of the gas's entrance into the blackhole?
RayInLv
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 29, 2011
The concept that a black hole's matter is condensed to a singularity can be questioned.

Consider that as matter spirals into a black hole it approaches the speed of light. According to the laws of conservation of momentum, it can not just go to center and stop, rather it would bound past and swirl around inside the event horizon, not concentrating...

Therefore at the exact center of a black hole, just as at the center of the Earth the matter would be roughly equally distributed around that spot, and there at the center, there would be no gravity as the forces in all other directions would cancel out... Enjoy....
yyz
5 / 5 (8) Jul 29, 2011
"Since we're seeing this galaxy edge on(ish) wouldn't there be occulations that would dim the effective radiation of the gas's entrance into the blackhole?"

In dusty spiral galaxies seen edge-on, dust in the spiral arms and central bar/ring(if any) can certainly act to obscure the action up close to the SMBH near the accretion disk.

But NGC 3115 is classified as a (edge-on) lenticular galaxy, in great measure due to the near absence of dust observed. This gives astronomers a relatively unobscured look deep into the nuclear regions, even edge-on, and it is here that Chandra was able to detect a hot component not associated with X-ray emission from the interstellar medium. Characterization of this hot component, within 4-5 arcseconds of the nucleus, leads to an estimated mass of 1-2 billion solar masses for the central SMBH: http://arxiv.org/...69v2.pdf
jsdarkdestruction
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 29, 2011
And a third explanation might be that the black hole is not black and is instead expelling matter at a furious rate, clearing out the region immediately around the core star. Do you only consider what the experts say? Are you not able to consider other possibilities? Clearly the experts have missed too much in this field to be entirely credible.

so white hole theory is something new only your idol has looked at?
omatumr
1 / 5 (9) Jul 29, 2011
Oliver, overwhelming observational evidence to you maybe...


Thanks. Fate decides when observational evidence appears.

I was frightened in January of 1976 when we submitted the abstract and even more so in April of 1976 when Dr. Sabu and I went to the National Meeting of the American Geophysical Union to propose that the Sun itself exploded and gave birth to the solar system.

www.omatumr.com/Origin.htm

These three figures were our best evidence:

1. Meteorites formed directly from supernova debris before isotopes made by different nuclear reactions mixed:

www.omatumr.com/D...Data.htm

2. Isotopes are severely mass fractionated by some unknown process.

www.omatumr.com/D...ata1.htm

3. All primordial He was accompanied by excess Xe-136 at the birth of the solar system:

www.omatumr.com/D...Data.htm

Fate kindly revealed this evidence in April too:

www.omatumr.com/D...Data.htm

Lesson: Fate, not scientists, decide how and when Reality will appear.

d_robison
5 / 5 (5) Jul 29, 2011
www.omatumr.com/Origin.htm
There is no observational data to directly support this series of events.

1, 2, and 3 are easily explained as the result of past supernovae, not necessarily of our own sun. A good scientific theory is effective, a great scientific theory is elegant.
jsdarkdestruction
5 / 5 (5) Jul 29, 2011
I dont see how it proves the sun was "the supernova" that exploded to make up our solar system. It proves supernovae were involved, yes, but not that our sun was a neutron star that fragmented to form our solar system and that a small neutron core remained to become the sun as we know it now, as that is what you are trying to imply after all.
omatumr
1 / 5 (9) Jul 29, 2011
There is no observational data to directly support this series of events.

1, 2, and 3 are easily explained as the result of past supernovae, not necessarily of our own sun. A good scientific theory is effective, a great scientific theory is elegant.


No. Item 3 requires a single supernova, concentric with the present Sun.

That is why there is no He associated with "normal" Xe from deep inside the star where He had been consumed by fusion.

Since 1972 global elites have used global climate change as a common enemy to unite nations and avoid global nuclear warfare.

As an unexpected consequence of deception, world leaders and their scientific advisors were diverted from developing the Sun's real energy source - neutron repulsion - and squandered resources and talent in pursuit of fusion - the imaginary energy source of the Sun - instead of developing reliable fission reactors powered by neutron repulsion.

See Kent Clizbe's "Willing Accomplices"

www.willingaccomplices.com/
jsdarkdestruction
3 / 5 (4) Jul 30, 2011
I warned you about going on your off topic climate change conspiracy rants oliver. i guess your slow to learn. you go off topic so do I.
Dr. Oliver Manuel Sr., Professor Emeritus of Chemistry and former chair of the UMR Chemistry Department, was arrested Tuesday, May 30 in his office at UMR for two felony counts of rape, four counts of sodomy, and one count of attempted sodomy. The crimes allegedly occurred from 1967 to 1990 at various locations in Phelps County. Some of the acts allegedly occurred on University property.
jsdarkdestruction
3 / 5 (4) Jul 30, 2011
Btw oliver, saying something occurs because of fate is very unscientifc of you. to me you seem to be trying to wed some supernatural spiritual force with science, why is that? how does that spirituality tie in with your child molesting habit?
frajo
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 30, 2011
jsdarkdestruction is frankherbert.
omatumr
1 / 5 (7) Jul 30, 2011
Updated: World leaders shadowboxed before TV cameras to hide a secret 1972 agreement: Anthropologic* climate change is the common enemy to unite nations, and avoid global nuclear war. The decision that Earth's natural heat source is constant stymied understanding of the Sun and diverted resources to develop fusion - the Sun's imaginary heat source - instead of reliable fission reactors powered by neutron repulsion like the Sun. Eisenhower's warning on elitist science in 1961 failed to prevent the current economic/energy/social crisis that espionage agents forecast from "politically-correct" consensus science [1].

1. Kent Clizbe, "Willing Accomplices" (2011) www.willingaccomplices.com/
jsdarkdestruction
not rated yet Jul 30, 2011
who is frankherbert?
omatumr
1 / 5 (8) Jul 31, 2011
There is no observational data to directly support this series of events.

1, 2, and 3 are easily explained as the result of past supernovae, not necessarily of our own sun. A good scientific theory is effective, a great scientific theory is elegant.


Item 3 requires a single supernova, concentric with the present Sun.

1. Primordial He is not trapped with "normal" Xe in any minerals of any class of meteorites because He and other light element were consumed by fusion in the deep interior of the star supernova:

http://adsabs.har...41..312M

2. Primordial He was trapped with "strange" Xe in carbonaceous minerals of primitive meteorites because these diamonds and graphite-like minerals came from the outer layer of the supernova where He and other lightweight elements (H, C, N, etc) were abundant.

www.omatumr.com/D...Data.htm

3. "Strange" Xe is observed in Jupiter's He-rich atmosphere:

www.lpi.usra.edu/...5011.pdf
jsdarkdestruction
5 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2011
Sure oliver, whatever you say.
jsdarkdestruction
5 / 5 (4) Jul 31, 2011
by fusion in the deep interior of the star supernova:
I thought fusion doesnt happen and its neutron repulsion that causes supernova and powers the sun...
omatumr
1 / 5 (7) Jul 31, 2011
by fusion in the deep interior of the star supernova:
I thought fusion doesnt happen and its neutron repulsion that causes supernova and powers the sun...


Yes, neutron repulsion in the solar core generates 65% of solar energy.

Fusion outside the solar core generates 35% of solar energy.

Solar neutrinos do not oscillate. That is consensus "science."

Also see See today's news on Michael Mozina's discovery:

http://chiefio.wo...ite-sun/

and conclusions to a fifty-one year journey to the Sun's core:

http://dl.dropbox...oots.doc

http://dl.dropbox...oots.pdf

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Burnerjack
3.3 / 5 (6) Jul 31, 2011
JSDD Aquestion for YOU: This Dr. Oliver Manuel Sr. was arrested. OK, was he convicted? More to the point: Whether convicted or not, how does this invalidate his work? I'm not choosing sides, just looking for clarification. My girlfriend would term you "Katty". Science is using facts to validate or invalidate theory, then build on the results. I am at a loss to see where this comes into 'Scientific discussion'.
jsdarkdestruction
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 31, 2011
Yes, he is on probation. he got lucky and statue of limitations stopped him from doing a prison bit. Where does olivers conspiracy theory fit into science? it doesnt, im trying to make a point here, he talks about scientists lying and conspiring some massive plot and are not credible in anyway, yet i cant question his credibility? Oliver doesnt use the scientific method he just repeats the same stuff and claims it proves he's right. how many of dr manuels posts have you read? ive read them all.
jsdarkdestruction
3 / 5 (4) Jul 31, 2011
you should read it for yourself and see how oliver lied his whole life, it effects his credibility .
put http in the front
://mominer.mst.edu/2006/08/30/dr-oliver-manuel-arrested-for-multiple-counts-of-rape-and-sodomy-of-his-children/
Zed123
4.6 / 5 (5) Jul 31, 2011
Oliver,

I have a sciencey question. If the Sun is powered by neutron repulsion, does that affect the solar rays bombarding the Earth? If so, do you need to modify that tin foil hat you wear in any way? Just wondering.....

Shelgeyr
1 / 5 (1) Aug 01, 2011
@Kedas: A better story perhaps, but I still think they'd be misinterpreting their data.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 02, 2011
This Dr. Oliver Manuel Sr. was arrested. OK, was he convicted?
Most of the counts were dropped due to statute limitations. One count was taken to court where Oliver plead guilty.

how does this invalidate his work? I
His work invalidates his claims. However how can anyone trust a man that lived a lie for decades? The children were HIS male and female five out of six children. The sixth had already committed suicide.

Beside he is full of crap. His claims about He and xenon don't hold water. Indeed the rocks don't hold He. Rubber doesn't hold it. Very little does.

My girlfriend would term you "Katty".
Try telling here what the charges were and who the victims were.>>
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Aug 02, 2011
Science is using facts to validate or invalidate theory, then build on the results.
Yes. Too bad Oliver doesn't do that. He uses speculation about xenon and than build a castle out of bullshit. He even insists the Sun has a RIGID iron surface. Its 6000 degree K and he insists it rigid. That is patently ludicrous. He won't answer questions about the range of neutron repulsion. He refuses to explain how it has never been observed in labratory experments. He refuses to explain what differentiates his favorite table of atomics masses from the Pauli Exclusion Principle which covers the table just fine.

He really doesn't like hard questions.

I am at a loss to see where this comes into 'Scientific discussion'.
Try pointing out Oliver's errors, and they are many, and see how fast he starts to try bullying you.>>
Ethelred
5 / 5 (3) Aug 02, 2011
However it very much effects Oliver's ability to do any new work except math and he refuses to do the math. He has nothing to do but spam science sites so he really should try learning the math he needs. I don't care how old he is he should be able to learn if he is fit to claim scientific competence. He isn't all that much older than me.

Ethelred
jsdarkdestruction
not rated yet Aug 03, 2011
He really doesn't like hard questions.

sorry ethel, but you are wrong there i think. He doesnt like any questions. In fact i dont think any of those should be considered hard questions, if he really was onto something those should be easy questions for him to answer.
frajo
1 / 5 (2) Aug 03, 2011
Try pointing out Oliver's errors, and they are many, and see how fast he starts to try bullying you.


Didn't see anything that qualifies him as bullying other PhysOrg users.

There are, however, (at least) three users around here who are indeed massively bullying other users. One of them by operating with a second account specifically created for bullying purposes. I don't appreciate this kind of behaviour, no matter how correct these users are in their non-bullying comments.

Moreover, these bullying users expose an intellectual inconsistency when proposing that social misbehaving implies general scientific inability as bullying is itself a social misbehaviour.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Aug 03, 2011
sorry ethel, but you are wrong there i think.
I am not. I am perfect and thus never wrong. I not leave words ever from magnificent argments either.

He doesnt like any questions.
He is fond of softball questions. Even thanks people for those.

if he really was onto something those should be easy questions for him to answer.
Except for the math. I couldn't do it either but I am not retired on a pension with lots of time. If I was in his position I would be learning the math. It would be VERY hard but I would have little choice except perhaps to find someone else to help. This is not a case of taking classes because you need to according to a list they keep in the deans office. It is a case of learning something that is necessary like when Einstein learned tensor calculus for GR.

Then again neither of us are Roger Penrose who seems to learn new math for breakfast.

Ethelred
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Aug 03, 2011
Didn't see anything that qualifies him as bullying other PhysOrg users.
Keep looking. I am NOT the only one he has tried to bully. Nor is this the only site where he has done so.

three users around here who are indeed massively bullying other users.
SO how did you miss Oliver?

One of them by operating with a second account specifically created for bullying purposes.
Who? I have seen someone accuse Frank Herbert of it but I have not seen evidence to support it being him. I know Zephy does it but he is so bad at it that it becomes silly.

Someone that wanted to physically attack me accused me of doing that as well.

I have exactly four accounts here. Two were created specifically to counter Zephyr's sockpuppets and I also use them to look at my own posts and profile to see meself as ithers see it. I created a third one to make a joke post with a silly name. It still amazes me that no one noticed that it was my post despite the use of terms I coined.

Ethelred
jsdarkdestruction
3 / 5 (4) Aug 03, 2011
if you are trying to say im frankherbert again im not. How could you miss all of olivers bullying others and talking crap about modern science and how its all a global conspiracy and how he attacks their integrity and credibility over and over again? Do you not read his posts? I dont blame you if you dont but ive seen it many many times on here and other science sites, enough to respond to these repeated bashings of science and its integrity and honesty by pointing out olivers own integrity and honesty being questionable.
frajo
2 / 5 (4) Aug 05, 2011
Keep looking. I am NOT the only one he has tried to bully.


Your defense is poor. Maybe that's why you prefer to attack over the top and with closed visor. Without honor.
jsdarkdestruction
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 05, 2011
Well, I thank you for sharing your opinion with me, again. I believe you and I disagree quite a bit on what is honorable and when something is over the top compared to the bullies actions. Have a nice day.(note- i know your last post was in response to ethelreids post but you and i are basically having the same comversation and your arguments are sure to be the same. )
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Aug 05, 2011
Your defense is poor.
It is reality not a defense.

Maybe that's why you prefer to attack over the top and with closed visor
I did no such thing. I was clarifying what others said. Not one thing was false or over the top. Oliver plead guilty. He was accused by ALL his surviving children. One committed suicide. If you have a problem with those FACTS please state it.

I looked up the court case AFTER Barakan brought this stuff up to find out if the accusations held up in court. You seem to be going on pique. No one else has bothered to find out the truth not here nor on other forum where Oliver has pissed people off. I did check as I did not want to accuse him of things that weren't true. Its how I found about the suicide as more than one case come up when I did the search and that one was an estate case.>>
Ethelred
5 / 5 (3) Aug 05, 2011
If by closed visor you are trying to get me to tell others who I am you are wasting your time. Most people here are anonymous, you included. And I am not stupid enough to tell Oliver or anyone else here who I am. There are far too many people that would try to get me fired, something that cannot be done to Oliver or you as you claim to be retired. I work retail for a living.

Without honor.
Bullshit. Oliver is without honor of any kind. I did not bring this up. I merely clarified. Someone asked if he was only accused and apparently found the whole thing hard to believe. I find it hard to believe but unfortunately is is true.

If you think this irrelevant to his Crank science I disagree. He lived his life as lie. He refuses to answer questions about his science. I feel the two are related to his living a lie for all his adult life.

And you owe me an apology for implying that I am using another account to attack Oliver.

Ethelred