Biggest black hole blast discovered: New observations reveal most powerful quasar outflow ever found

Nov 28, 2012
This artist’s impression shows the material ejected from the region around the supermassive black hole in the quasar SDSS J1106+1939. This object has the most energetic outflows ever seen, at least five times more powerful than any that have been observed to date. Quasars are extremely bright galactic centres powered by supermassive black holes. Many blast huge amounts of material out into their host galaxies, and these outflows play a key role in the evolution of galaxies. But, before this object was studied, the observed outflows weren’t as powerful as predicted by theorists. The very bright quasar appears at the centre of the picture and the outflow spreads about 1000 light-years out into the surrounding galaxy. Credit: ESO/L. Calçada

(Phys.org)—Astronomers using ESO's Very Large Telescope (VLT) have discovered a quasar with the most energetic outflow ever seen, at least five times more powerful than any that have been observed to date. Quasars are extremely bright galactic centres powered by supermassive black holes. Many blast huge amounts of material out into their host galaxies, and these outflows play a key role in the evolution of galaxies. But, until now, observed quasar outflows weren't as powerful as predicted by theorists.

are the intensely luminous centres of distant galaxies that are powered by huge . This new study has looked at one of these energetic objects – known as SDSS J1106+1939 – in great detail, using the X-shooter instrument on ESO's at the Paranal Observatory in Chile. Although black holes are noted for pulling material in, most quasars also accelerate some of the material around them and eject it at high speed.

"We have discovered the most energetic quasar outflow known to date. The rate that energy is carried away by this huge mass of material ejected at high speed from SDSS J1106+1939 is at least equivalent to two million million times the power output of the Sun. This is about 100 times higher than the total power output of the – it's a real monster of an outflow," says team leader Nahum Arav (Virginia Tech). "This is the first time that a quasar outflow has been measured to have the sort of very high energies that are predicted by theory."

Many theoretical simulations suggest that the impact of these outflows on the galaxies around them may resolve several enigmas in modern cosmology, including how the mass of a galaxy is linked to its central black hole mass, and why there are so few large galaxies in the Universe. However, whether or not quasars were capable of producing outflows powerful enough to produce these phenomena has remained unclear until now.

The newly discovered outflow lies about a thousand light-years away from the supermassive black hole at the heart of the quasar SDSS J1106+1939. This outflow is at least five times more powerful than the previous record holder. The team's analysis shows that a mass of approximately 400 times that of the Sun is streaming away from this quasar per year, moving at a speed of 8000 kilometres per second.

"We couldn't have got the high-quality data to make this discovery without the VLT's X-shooter spectrograph," says Benoit Borguet (Virginia Tech, USA), lead author of the new paper. "We were able to explore the region around the quasar in great detail for the first time."

As well as SDSS J1106+1939, the team also observed one other quasar and found that both of these objects have powerful outflows. As these are typical examples of a common, but previously little studied, type of quasars, these results should be widely applicable to luminous quasars across the Universe. Borguet and colleagues are currently exploring a dozen more similar quasars to see if this is the case.

"I've been looking for something like this for a decade," says Nahum Arav, "so it's thrilling to finally find one of the monster outflows that have been predicted!"

Explore further: Smallest known galaxy with a supermassive black hole found

More information: This research was presented in a paper, "Major contributor to AGN feedback: VLT X-shooter observations of SIV BAL QSO outflows", to appear in The Astrophysical Journal. (PDF)

Related Stories

Galaxy 'hunting' made easy

Sep 14, 2007

Astronomers using ESO's Very Large Telescope have discovered in a single pass about a dozen otherwise invisible galaxies halfway across the Universe. The discovery, based on a technique that exploits a first-class ...

Measuring the black hole environment of a quasar nucleus

Oct 22, 2012

(Phys.org)—Quasars are among the most powerful energy sources known—some are as luminous as one hundred thousand Milky Way galaxies. Astronomers know that quasars have massive black holes at their cores ...

Chandra finds evidence for quasar ignition

Mar 23, 2006

New data from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory may provide clues to how quasars "turn on." Since the discovery of quasars over 40 years ago, astronomers have been trying to understand the conditions surrounding ...

Recommended for you

Mystery of rare five-hour space explosion explained

4 hours ago

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 ...

Glowing galaxies in telescopic timelapse

4 hours ago

We often speak of the discoveries and data flowing from astronomical observatories, which makes it easy to forget the cool factor. Think of it—huge telescopes are probing the universe under crystal-clear ...

Violent origins of disc galaxies probed by ALMA

11 hours ago

For decades scientists have believed that galaxy mergers usually result in the formation of elliptical galaxies. Now, for the the first time, researchers using the Atacama Large Millimeter/sub-millimeter ...

User comments : 42

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (11) Nov 28, 2012
The very bright quasar appears at the centre of the picture and the outflow spreads about 1000 light-years out into the surrounding galaxy

Well, if there was any (intelligent) life within that region it isn't there anymore.
Lurker2358
2.5 / 5 (11) Nov 28, 2012
The team's analysis shows that a mass of approximately 400 times that of the Sun is streaming away from this quasar per year, moving at a speed of 8000 kilometres per second.


Wow. that's five times the radial expansion rate of the Crab Nebula supernova remnant.

That appears to be the velocity of the material after it finishes escaping the gravity well, so net gain in kinetic energy is around 6.4e43 Joules. So the kinetic energy alone for each year's worth of ejecta is about equal to a Supernova explosion.

So the actual energy being spent in the Quasar is exponentially higher than that of the expansion speed of the stream, because you have to figure the "work" of "lifting" the material up out of the gravity well, which is impossible to calculate without knowing the black hole's exact mass, but it could be several orders of magnitude higher than the kinetic energy of the materials' proper motion.
antialias_physorg
3.4 / 5 (9) Nov 28, 2012
because you have to figure the "work" of "lifting" the material up out of the gravity well, which is impossible to calculate without knowing the black hole's exact mass,

Why? Any mass ejected can have come (at closest) from the event horizon (any mass closer than that cannot be ejected). And the gravitational pull at the event horizon is the same for every black hole. So you can well calculate an upper limit.

The mass of the black hole only determines how far out that event horizon is. But that is negligible compared to the distances mentioned in the article
casualjoe
5 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2012
Assuming that the ejected energy is converted near the schwarzchild radius, and not higher up in the atmosphere due to intense inductive heating of infalling matter by the black holes' gigantic magnetic field.
Lurker2358
2.2 / 5 (10) Nov 28, 2012
Why? Any mass ejected can have come (at closest) from the event horizon (any mass closer than that cannot be ejected). And the gravitational pull at the event horizon is the same for every black hole. So you can well calculate an upper limit.


Inverse square law still applies and gravity increases proporational to mass for the same distance.

Which means that being 1000km away from the event horizon of one black hole is not the same as being 1000km away from the event horizon of another.

If you have two black holes and one of 4 times as massive as the other, then the point at which gravity is half as strong as the event horizon will be twice as far away for the first black hole as it is for the second black hole. Which means escaping a point just above the event horizon of the first black hole requires exponentially more energy than escaping from the same distance above the second black hole's event horizon, because the rate at which gravity decreases is much different.
Lurker2358
2.2 / 5 (10) Nov 28, 2012
...cont...

What that means is far more "work" must be done to eject the matter from the first, more massive black hole's environment than the second, less massive black hole's environment and have the same kinetic energy when the material actually reaches "relatively flat space-time" outside the gravity well.

One way to prove this is to integrate Newton's gravity formula with respect to R and solve it on a range from A to B where A is the event horizon and B is some distance outside that horizon.

Now plug in different values for M, in this case use a factor of 4 for the sake of simplicity.

This an easily realistic ratio when dealing with Quasars since they seem to vary from several thousand Suns to several Billions.

You'll see it changes the numbers by an enormous amount, and is roughly modeling the "work" done when exploding matter up out of a gravity well with mass M.
cantdrive85
1.3 / 5 (23) Nov 28, 2012
That's quite the "artist's impression" of a plasma focus discharge.

http://www.thunde...rfly.htm
GSwift7
3.3 / 5 (12) Nov 28, 2012
So the actual energy being spent in the Quasar is exponentially higher than that of the expansion speed of the stream, because you have to figure the "work" of "lifting" the material up out of the gravity well,


As I understand it, the jets are a result of conservation of angular momentum as the material in the accretion disk compacts and draws nearer to the black hole.

The actual energy in the accretion disk would be orders of magnitude greater than this spill-off energy that results in the jets. We estimate that the area which generates these jets should be no larger than our solar system, which means the energy in that volume of space is almost unimaginable.

That is surely enough energy to fuse heavy elements. It would be intersting if we are one day able to discerne the composition of the solid material in those jets. I would venture to guess that there is an abundance of heavy atomic weight materials.

Antialias is right. These things could melt planets.
GSwift7
3.2 / 5 (11) Nov 28, 2012
As a side note: With an energy density that large, you must start thinking outside our 'normal' laws of thermodynamics and newtonian mechanics. With energy/matter density that high, strange things are happening there, like time dilation and frame dragging. The energy of the matter there is also high enough that you probably see quantum effects dominate over classical chemistry. I wouldn't be surprised to see dissociated subatomic particles at the core of the accretion disk, as opposed to actual in-tact atoms.

Under those conditions, we have no theory which is predictive of what it is really like there. All of our best theories break down before you get to energy levels that high.

On the 'cool' scale, quasars have GOTTA be one of the coolest objects in the Universe. Observing them in more detail that currently possible will surely lead to 'breakthrough' technology, when/if we are ever able to see them better.
GSwift7
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 28, 2012
Inverse square law still applies and gravity increases proporational to mass for the same distance


Actually, it may not. As I mentioned in my previous posts, if we are correct in our assumptions based on observations, the energy density in the accretion disk is sufficient to cause various terms of the mass/energy equations to go towards infinity or zero, causing violations of classical mechanics. You can't just use your 'normal' equations here. You MUST use the relativistic versions of the equations in this environment.
GSwift7
3.1 / 5 (14) Nov 28, 2012
That's quite the "artist's impression" of a plasma focus discharge


Oh good grief. Give it up. You probably don't even have electrons there. The accretion disk is more likely to contain pieces of electrons. The material in the accretion disk is orders of magnitude more energetic than a beam in CERN. You can't have electric properties without protons, neutrons and electrons. Bits and pieces of electrons is all you'll find in this giant atom-smasher. Plasma effects cannot be the 'cause' of this, since the subatomic quasi-particles do not re-associate into atoms until they are well outside the quasar itself.
Tuxford
1.8 / 5 (10) Nov 28, 2012
Under those conditions, we have no theory which is predictive of what it is really like there. All of our best theories break down before you get to energy levels that high.


Certainly have to agree with that one!

Is there realistic accretion model that fits this observation?

http://www.thereg...06_1939/

Maggnus
3.8 / 5 (10) Nov 28, 2012
You can't just use your 'normal' equations here. You MUST use the relativistic versions of the equations in this environment.


Exactly right, temperature, density, momentum, etc are off the scale in this enviroment. Most of our laws break down well before we can reach the state matter reaches here. (Um, as GSwift7 already said lol!)

That's quite the "artist's impression" of a plasma focus discharge.


Wow, only an EU nut could say that!
GSwift7
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 28, 2012
Exactly right, temperature, density, momentum, etc are off the scale in this enviroment. Most of our laws break down


Yep, that's why some of the most massive ones seem to have superluminal speeds in their jets. It's an effect caused by time dilation in that reference frame making it look like the material is going FTL from our reference frame.

Assuming that the ejected energy is converted near the schwarzchild radius, and not higher up in the atmosphere due to intense inductive heating of infalling matter by the black holes' gigantic magnetic field


The spectrum of the light emitted rules out all known mechanics. We can see that it is far more efficient than nuclear fusion as well. Whatever is going on there is totally next-level @#$%. Forget about all your familiar natural processes in this case.

I don't think you are even close to understanding the energy involved here. Let me give you a little analogy that might help you understand. Continued:
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.6 / 5 (20) Nov 28, 2012
That's quite the "artist's impression" of a plasma focus discharge


Oh good grief. Give it up. You probably don't even have electrons there. The accretion disk is more likely to contain pieces of electrons. The material in the accretion disk is orders of magnitude more energetic than a beam in CERN. You can't have electric properties without protons, neutrons and electrons. Bits and pieces of electrons is all you'll find in this giant atom-smasher. Plasma effects cannot be the 'cause' of this, since the subatomic quasi-particles do not re-associate into atoms until they are well outside the quasar itself.
"Isolated electrons cannot be split into smaller components, earning them the designation of a fundamental particle."

-What pieces of electrons would you expect to find then?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (11) Nov 28, 2012
That's quite the "artist's impression" of a plasma focus discharge


Oh good grief. Give it up. You probably don't even have electrons there. The accretion disk is more likely to contain pieces of electrons. The material in the accretion disk is orders of magnitude more energetic than a beam in CERN. You can't have electric properties without protons, neutrons and electrons. Bits and pieces of electrons is all you'll find in this giant atom-smasher. Plasma effects cannot be the 'cause' of this, since the subatomic quasi-particles do not re-associate into atoms until they are well outside the quasar itself.
"Isolated electrons cannot be split into smaller components, earning them the designation of a fundamental particle."
Theoreticists have never allowed the presence of facts get in the way of their fanciful ideas. Stephen Crothers has shown indisputable proof of the flaws of GR and the black holes idelogues.
http://www.sjcrot...dex.html
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Nov 28, 2012
Inverse square law still applies and gravity increases proporational to mass for the same distance.

So? The energy needed to escape is still the same (integral over the potential field outside the event horizon).

The energy needed is directly related to the escape velocity. And from the event horizon the escape velocity for all black holes is identical (speed of light).
GSwift7
2.5 / 5 (11) Nov 28, 2012
Continued:

The energy required to get a single bottle of Guinness Extra Stout (hey, there's no reason we can't make science cool) up to almost the speed of light is a phenomenal amount of energy. In a quasar we have a dense body of material the size of a solar system, with the mass of 100's of thousands of stars (the material in the jets is only a small portion of the total mass in the accretion disk), and the whole disk is spinning near the speed of light. Imagine that!! The mass of hundreds of thousands of stars has been accelerated to nearly the speed of light!!

The physics in there is far beyond magnetic fields or any such thing. Besides, as I already mentioned, at that energy level there won't be any charged particles, so even if you have a monster magnetic field, there aren't any particles to hold a charge, and there aren't any electrons, even if there were charge carriers.
wavettore
1 / 5 (9) Nov 28, 2012
New and old Science
A new and Progressive Science shows how Wavevolution, or the transformation from waves to atoms, is the connecting link that closes the circle of science to open our eyes toward new horizons never seen before.

The bureaucracy of traditional science prevents the recognition of any event unless certain criteria are first met. The problem in this science is buried deep in the compilation of these "laws" or criteria introduced by a few scientists in the name of all science and from their erroneous understanding of the relation between Space and Time.
GSwift7
2.6 / 5 (14) Nov 28, 2012
Isolated electrons cannot be split into smaller components, earning them the designation of a fundamental particle."

-What pieces of electrons would you expect to find then?


Oh boy, doesn't anybody bother to look stuff up any more?

Electrons split into what they call a spinon and an orbiton. The idea that an electron is a fundamental particle is outdated.

They just released an article in Nature earlier this year. Here's a link to the press release:

http://www.scienc...4847.htm
Q-Star
2.9 / 5 (15) Nov 28, 2012
Stephen Crothers has shown indisputable proof of the flaws of GR and the black holes idelogues.


Stephen Crothers? Man oh man, your sources are getting better and better. He's even funnier than Charles W. Lucas (the creationist/fingerprints of god/god in the electromagnetic force guy).

Stephen Crothers? The guy who got mad because Paul Davies had the temerity to pretend to know more than a poorly performing graduate student?

Stephen Crothers? The guy who had a tantrum because Sky & Telescope refused to publish one his ridiculous "papers"?

Stephen Crothers? The guy who couldn't keep an adviser and got booted out his program because he insisted on trying to teach his teachers rather than learn from them?

Not to wonder that you sound so foolish all the time. The only people you take seriously are fools.

Your brain is the most chaotic body of superluminal plasma I've ever witnessed in action.

Maggnus
3 / 5 (6) Nov 28, 2012
Your brain is the most chaotic body of superluminal plasma I've ever witnessed in action.


Bawhawhawhaw! Minus the charge!
barakn
5 / 5 (11) Nov 28, 2012
Isolated electrons cannot be split into smaller components, earning them the designation of a fundamental particle."

-What pieces of electrons would you expect to find then?


Oh boy, doesn't anybody bother to look stuff up any more?

Electrons split into what they call a spinon and an orbiton. The idea that an electron is a fundamental particle is outdated.

They just released an article in Nature earlier this year. Here's a link to the press release:

http://www.scienc...4847.htm

No where did the paper state that the electron's charge disappears. Plus the split states are probably quasi-particles in much the same way that an electron-hole in a semiconductor is treated as if it were a positively charged particle. I don't think it has much to say about the fundamental nature of an electron.
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (14) Nov 28, 2012
When untenable facts are revealed, the ignorant tend to resort to derision and name calling.
Q-Star
2.8 / 5 (13) Nov 28, 2012
When untenable facts are revealed, the ignorant tend to resort to derision and name calling.


"untenable facts",,, What does that mean? Is it sort of like a tenable falsehood?

But then I've never understood the phrase "creation science" either.

They call these things oxyMORONs for a reason.

TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (17) Nov 28, 2012
Isolated electrons cannot be split into smaller components, earning them the designation of a fundamental particle."

-What pieces of electrons would you expect to find then?


Oh boy, doesn't anybody bother to look stuff up any more?

Electrons split into what they call a spinon and an orbiton. The idea that an electron is a fundamental particle is outdated.

They just released an article in Nature earlier this year. Here's a link to the press release:

http://www.scienc...4847.htm
From your press release which you didnt read:

"The electron's break-up into two new particles has been gleaned from measurements on the copper-oxide compound Sr2CuO3. This material has the distinguishing feature that the particles in it are constrained to move only in one direction, either forwards or backwards."

-That is, within a solid. Which isnt what you were talking about was it?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.5 / 5 (19) Nov 28, 2012
"Spinons are one of three QUASIPARTICLES, along with holons and orbitons, that electrons in solids are able to split into during the process of spin–charge separation, when extremely tightly confined at temperatures close to absolute zero."

"...quasiparticles and collective excitations (which are closely related) are emergent phenomena that occur when a microscopically complicated system such as a solid behaves as if it contained different (FICTIOUS) weakly interacting particles in free space."

"Fictitious - 1.Not real or true, being imaginary or having been fabricated."

-So.
The idea that an electron is a fundamental particle is outdated.
-Pretty reckless for someone who doesnt bother to look stuff up eh?
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (15) Nov 28, 2012
There's that derision and name calling again, glad to see you stay where you belong, shrouded in your myopic ignorance.

BTW, you do understand the Big Bang is a creation story?
Q-Star
2.9 / 5 (15) Nov 28, 2012
There's that derision and name calling again, glad to see you stay where you belong, shrouded in your myopic ignorance.


Shrouded I am? Myopic too? Ignorance on top of all else.

Sir I'll have you know I haven't worn a shroud since I was ten years old. On the myopic I may agree with you, in fact I am so myopic, there are people who actually pay me good money to use multi-million dollar telescopes. On the ignorant I must vehemently disagree.... my mother and father spent a small fortune on diverting me from ignorance. (Unlike the guy who you claim showed Einstein the door, I didn't get kicked out of my program, I actually got paid to stay in it and complete my studies.)

What's your alma mater? The Art Bell School of Metaphysical Sophistry? Maybe it was the Common Sense School of Scientific Gobbledegook?

BTW, you do understand the Big Bang is a creation story?


The Big Bang story (if we must use that term) is the best story going, we'll wait for your better one.
jsdarkdestruction
2.5 / 5 (11) Nov 28, 2012
When untenable facts are revealed, the ignorant tend to resort to derision and name calling.

something which you do on a regular basis when science doesnt fit your eu worldview. you love to whine about conspiracies amd scientists all being mindless pawns and stuff like that. so what does that say about you? ive shown so many times now how hypocritical you are. maybe you should try thinking before you speak.
jsdarkdestruction
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 28, 2012
from this very thread cantdrive....
"Theoreticists have never allowed the presence of facts get in the way of their fanciful ideas."
cantdrive85
1.3 / 5 (12) Nov 28, 2012
Well, Q, I think Hannes has identified your type, that would be the 'yes sir' ass kisser. Being that's pretty much all that makes it through PhD programs these days, I am not surprised.

I guess this following statement is rather obvious in it truth;
"Students using astrophysical textbooks remain essentially ignorant of even the existence of plasma concepts, despite the fact that some of them have been known for half a century. The conclusion is that astrophysics is too important to be left in the hands of astrophysicists who have gotten their main knowledge from these textbooks. Earthbound and space telescope data must be treated by scientists who are familiar with laboratory and magnetospheric physics and circuit theory, and of course with modern plasma theory." — Hannes Alfvén
You see that, it's too important to be left with the stewards of ignorance, step aside and let some real science commence. Now I understand your POV, job security. You wouldn't be worth much to plasma science
ritwik
1 / 5 (2) Nov 29, 2012
artist's impression ?? or for aesthetic impression ?? why is it not like polar jet streams ? this seems like an explosion
Widdekind
1 / 5 (4) Nov 29, 2012
i understand, that the scientists suggest, that Quasar spectra could reveal time evolution of the Fine Structure Constant (alpha). Evidently, matching absorption lines from metals to absorption lines from hydrogen, in Quasar spectra, sometimes show, that alpha was slightly lower, in the ancient past (far far away, long long ago). Inexpertly, the energy levels of electrons in atoms are proportional to (the square of) alpha. So, atomic transitions seen in Quasar spectra may sometimes occur at energies lower, and wavelengths longer, than expected. Or, the metal lines are redshifted slightly more than the hydrogen? If Ly-a clouds are ~1Mpc across, then perhaps the clouds evolve, as Quasar light traverses them? Perhaps metals are neutral on the initial cloud side; then Myrs later, the cloud has become ionized? Or, perhaps metals are involved in outflows, moving faster away from earth, on the far side, than on the near side, from grav. collapse of cloud, in intervening Myrs. ?
barakn
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 29, 2012
I guess this following statement is rather obvious in it truth;
"Students using astrophysical textbooks remain essentially ignorant of even the existence of plasma concepts, despite the fact that some of them have been known for half a century. The conclusion is that astrophysics is too important to be left in the hands of astrophysicists who have gotten their main knowledge from these textbooks. Earthbound and space telescope data must be treated by scientists who are familiar with laboratory and magnetospheric physics and circuit theory, and of course with modern plasma theory." — Hannes Alfvén
This was first quoted by Anthony Peratt in 1988, and thus originated even earlier. What makes you think this is relevant to today's astrophysics textbooks? Have you ever cracked one open?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (8) Nov 29, 2012
This was first quoted by Anthony Peratt in 1988, and thus originated even earlier. What makes you think this is relevant to today's astrophysics textbooks? Have you ever cracked one open?

Yes, as a matter of fact. Have you read any astronomy articles lately? Hot gas? Clearly, the ignorance continues, especially considering most who are in the field have been so for years, i.e. you can't teach an old Q (or Torb for that matter) new tricks, their dogma precludes it.
Q-Star
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 29, 2012
Well, Q, I think Hannes has identified your type,,,,,


I'm glad "He" identified me. I bet you wish you had the opportunity to do what I have done? Your frustrated envy cloaked in "I KNOW THE TRUTH" is dominating your observable universe.

"Students using astrophysical textbooks remain essentially ignorant of even the existence of plasma concepts,


There is plenty of plasma in textbooks. But the other stuff is in there too. It must all work together.

Earthbound and space telescope data must be treated by scientists who are familiar with laboratory and magnetospheric physics and circuit theory, and of course with modern plasma theory." — Hannes Alfvén


See above,,,

step aside and let some real science commence.


Commence with creationists? Failed students? So far you've given us nothing that is not: 1) Out of context. 2) God-like/Metaphysical. Or 3) Contrary to the physical universe. Often 4) All of these combined.

Step up and commence then.
Q-Star
3 / 5 (10) Nov 29, 2012
Hot gas?


Is this where your education ended. This seems to be an obsession with you. Two words. Get over it. You will never be able to write the dictionaries, even if you think you will do a better job.

After a while a reasonable intelligent person would notice that the limited number of oft repeated "posts" is only drawing ridicule. Don't you have any new "material"?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (7) Nov 29, 2012
Commence with creationists?


Who? Monsignor Georges Lemaître, the Roman Catholic priest? Isaac Newton the theologian? You're the one supporting creation theory, I support legitimate scientific research regardless who produces it. You support who you are told to support.
http://www.sherv....427.html

Hot gas? You may as well call it ice, or fruit loops.
Q-Star
2.5 / 5 (8) Nov 29, 2012
Monsignor Georges Lemaître, the Roman Catholic priest? Isaac Newton the theologian?


At least they graduated. Did you? If so, from where? If not, why not? Maybe your professors did not want to listen to the TRUTH ACCORDING TO CANTDRIVE?

You would have flunked out of any legitimate school for being "disruptive and argumentative". (That's PC for Borderline Personality Disorder.)
GSwift7
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 30, 2012
Otto:

Good points. I stand corrected. Electrons should still be present in the accretion disk, though the behavior of electrons in this environment is rather difficult to imagine.
rubberman
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 30, 2012
Otto:

Good points. I stand corrected. Electrons should still be present in the accretion disk, though the behavior of electrons in this environment is rather difficult to imagine.


I would add that they are more likely in pieces in the jets.

In an energy "soup" like the accretion disk around this quasar, I doubt there are even boundary conditions in the mass/energy closest to the event horizon.