Flickering black hole at center of IC 310 shaking up ideas on how jets form

black hole
This artist's concept depicts a supermassive black hole at the center of a galaxy. The blue color here represents radiation pouring out from material very close to the black hole. The grayish structure surrounding the black hole, called a torus, is made up of gas and dust. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

(Phys.org) —A very large team of astronomers and astrophysics from a wide variety of countries has contributed to a research paper published in the journal Science, describing observations made of a black hole at the center of the IC 310 galaxy—a black hole that was observed with a flickering jet that didn't conform to existing theories. The team offers possible explanations for the unique type of flickering observed and suggests more research will need to be done before any real conclusions can be drawn.

The black hole at the center of IC 310 (located in the Perseus constellation, approximately 260 million light years away) was first observed in 2012 by a team using a pair of telescopes that together are known as the MAGIC project located on the Spanish Island of La Palma. What struck the team was that the jet of gamma rays being emitted appeared to flicker (showed variations in brightness) at a very high rate—over a period of just minutes. Flickering jet emissions from aren't something new, of course, but every other one observed thus far has done so over much longer periods of time. When they do occur, researchers have theorized that it occurs due to what they call shock accelerations—particles being suddenly accelerated by shockwaves. But the time rate of the black hole in IC 310 is too fast to be explained by such a theory which means space scientists have had to come up with something else.

In this new effort, the researchers suggest that the flickering is likely caused by the same thing that causes pulsars to flicker, namely, spin. Pulsars are stars that have died and collapsed down to a shrunken core—they tend to emit two beams of light. As the pulsar spins, the light that is seen by observers here on Earth appears to flicker, like a beam from a lighthouse to a ship at sea. In this instance, the team suggests the flicker observed with the black hole jets is likely associated with pulsar-like particle acceleration, caused by an electric field that exists spanning the magnetospheric gap that is thought to exist at the base of the jet.

The team acknowledges that their theory is weak due to insufficient evidence and they express hope that other examples of similar jet flickering will be found offering more evidence that in the end will more firmly explain the nature of such activity.


Explore further

4C+29.30: Black hole powered jets plow into galaxy

More information: Black hole lightning due to particle acceleration at subhorizon scales, Science DOI: 10.1126/science.1256183

ABSTRACT
Supermassive black holes with masses of millions to billions of solar masses are commonly found in the centers of galaxies. Astronomers seek to image jet formation using radio interferometry but still suffer from insufficient angular resolution. An alternative method to resolve small structures is to measure the time variability of their emission. Here we report on gamma-ray observations of the radio galaxy IC 310 obtained with the MAGIC telescopes, revealing variability with doubling time scales faster than 4.8 min. Causality constrains the size of the emission region to be smaller than 20% of the gravitational radius of its central black hole. We suggest that the emission is associated with pulsar-like particle acceleration by the electric field across a magnetospheric gap at the base of the radio jet.

Journal information: Science

© 2014 Phys.org

Citation: Flickering black hole at center of IC 310 shaking up ideas on how jets form (2014, November 7) retrieved 13 October 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2014-11-flickering-black-hole-center-ic.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
1614 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Nov 07, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Nov 07, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Nov 08, 2014
What about, especially now that we know that Magnetics plays such a much larger part in blackholes than we thought, add to that idea a Pait f Super-Massive Blackholes falling into each other, but having attained a relatively long period of stability with the speed at which the black holes orbit each other. My theory has been, for some time, that in such a case, where you have massive Mass, at a high rate of angular speed like that, along with ultra-strong magnetic fields, I think that mass/energy is literally ripped from Both Black holes, across a gravtic-magnetic plane from which the energy/matter bursts would come from, some pass close or have different weights by a large margin, those all can change the way the jet itself forms. So, perhaps with the newer knowledge of magnetics, and from the charts I have seen for their previous runs, based on low magnetics and mainly gravity effects, I saw the 'double plateau', with a membrane across the bottom of it, just as my theory predicted

yep
Nov 09, 2014
Plasmoids not black holes.
Observations never fit theory because theory is based on 19th century assumptions
http://electric-c...aper.pdf
http://www.holosc...tronomy/
http://electric-c...Wind.pdf
No magnetics without current. Gravity does not effect current flow.

yep
Nov 09, 2014
Flickering and oscillations in double layer break downs.
http://orbit.dtu..../content

Nov 09, 2014
Gravity does not effect current flow.


What is gravitational drift? It's like you people don't know anything about plasma physics.

Nov 09, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Nov 09, 2014
http://electric-c...aper.pdf
http://www.holosc...tronomy/
http://electric-c...Wind.pdf
@yep
these are PSEUDOSCIENCE links
you are spreading misinformation and pseudoscience by linking to electric universe

if there was ANY shred of science supporting your conclusions, you would have linked to reputable peer reviewed studies published in journals with an impact in astrophysics

the reason you don't is because you have no actual scientific basis for your conclusions, so you resort to self-reference (essentially: buy my book but referencing a known pseudoscience web site instead) and a web site that is publicly debunked as PSEUDOSCIENCE

you need to find actual papers from other sources supporting your conclusions

as IMP notes, you don't even know about your precious "plasma physics" you are always touting

epic fail

Nov 09, 2014
Gravity does not effect current flow.


What is gravitational drift? It's like you people don't know anything about plasma physics.


Contrary to popular belief, gravity is accounted for in PC/EU theories. It is accounted for with the appropriate 10^39 orders of magnitude weaker influence than that of EM fields influence on this ionized matter.

yep
Nov 09, 2014
You are right my statement was in error, but my toaster still works when it is above the plug maybe its that orders of magnitude influence or maybe it is the electromagnetic nature of gravity?
http://electrogra...gravity/

You guys can only see Gravity and all I can see is Electricity.
https://www.youtu...omeHIxwo
https://www.youtu...Ho#t=225
Maybe, we can meet in the middle or at least not deny observational reality for mathematical theory.

Nov 09, 2014
It is accounted for with the appropriate 10^39 orders of magnitude weaker influence than that of EM fields influence on this ionized matter.


Contrary to popular delusion the coupling constant do not solely determine the magnitude of forces. The strong force has an even higher coupling constant, does that mean it's influence is higher? Of course not. Debye shielding demonstrates this quite nicely where the electric fields can fall off much faster than r^2 in a plasma just like the strong force.

maybe it is the electromagnetic nature of gravity?


No, any force will create a drift in a plasma. It has nothing to do with them being remotely similar, it is simply how helical motion works. It can be derived entirely without electromagnetism.

"This looks like that so they are the same" is not observational reality, it's not science.

Nov 09, 2014
Imp already got it, but, cantdrive.. let's just say 10^39 is the right number... you're still sort of punching yourself in the face with your own statement. You can't see why, and I'm sure you have a vicious reply for me. But, some of us can see why, and those are the ones I care about.

Nov 09, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Nov 09, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

yep
Nov 09, 2014
No, any force will create a drift in a plasma. It has nothing to do with them being remotely similar, it is simply how helical motion works. It can be derived entirely without electromagnetism.

http://en.wikiped..._current
Science life would be a lot simpler without needing to pretend there is all this dark matter black hole nonsense we can not see to make our gravity math work right for what we decided was reality.
Hard not to see that galactic pinch on those super cluster videos if you watched them or the helical motion for that matter.
Why put faith in science based in a priori assumptions. Call me a heretic but the Big Bang is a false Messiah.

yep
Nov 09, 2014
Causation of jets for you tritace which explain radioisotopes without silly black hole nonsense.
http://www.sid.ir...0404.pdf

Nov 09, 2014
Debye shielding demonstrates this quite nicely where the electric fields can fall off much faster than r^2 in a plasma just like the strong force.


Yep, it can, but let's not forget plasma scalability and non-neutral plasmas. Galaxies reside within galactic scale field aligned currents, the galactic web, the presence of galactic scale electric fields must also exist. Such a notion also solves one on the great boondoggles of science, the fictional DM conundrum among other "mysteries" of astrophysics.

https://medium.co...6488ba0e

Nov 10, 2014
Causation of jets for you tritace which explain radioisotopes without silly black hole nonsense.
http://www.sid.ir...0404.pdf


This is a more appropriate link.
http://en.wikiped...osmology

Nov 10, 2014
Imp already got it, but, cantdrive.. let's just say 10^39 is the right number... you're still sort of punching yourself in the face with your own statement. You can't see why, and I'm sure you have a vicious reply for me. But, some of us can see why, and those are the ones I care about.

I'll assume you are referring to the matter involved, not sure why beating around the bush is necessary. Being 99.999% of the Universe is plasma, it's plain to see EM effects will dominate.

Nov 10, 2014
Causation of jets for you tritace which explain radioisotopes without silly black hole nonsense.
http://www.sid.ir...0404.pdf

This is a more appropriate link.
http://en.wikiped...osmology


Not hardly, the censorship of information is alive and well at Wiki. And quite obviously taking place on this particular page as indicated by the "comparison to mainstream astrophysics" section which is quite unusual for this type of entry.

https://www.liber...nection/

Nov 10, 2014
In AWT
@ZEPHIR
TL;DR
also contained known falsified debunked reference to aw/daw
which is NOT a theory because the following evidence falsifies it and shows it does not axist to a very, VERY high degree of accuracy
http://exphy.uni-...2009.pdf
also note that you have no empirical evidence proving this wrong
nor do you have any supporting your conjectures
another epic failure
Science life would be a lot simpler without needing to pretend
@yep
this is very true
iu suggest you study some and become versed in reality before continuing to claim your pseudoscience eu with youtube links
http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm
youtube is not a published peer reviewed study in a reputable journal

Nov 10, 2014
the censorship of information is alive and well at Wiki.
@cd
conspiracy leanings?
no, the censorship that you are claiming is not censorship, but the refusal to publish unsubstantiated PSEUDOSCIENCE

also, libertariannews is NOT a scientific journal
is this the best you can do for your eu bullsnot?

why not just skip right to the Chronicles of Narnia? it has a farther reach and more readers

the problem you have with Wiki is that they want links to reputable peer reviewed journals publishing science that is not violating the laws of physics

and eu cannot give them that for most of their fecal matter which they push onto the unsuspecting public

your eu is a con-job


Nov 10, 2014
the problem you have with Wiki is that they want links to reputable peer reviewed journals publishing science that is not violating the laws of physics


Cap'n Stupid,
You can look up the references as easily as anyone else. The ref's are from reputable relevant sources. And there are zero examples that "violates the laws of physics", unlike much of the pseudoscience standard theory.

Nov 10, 2014
You can look up the references as easily as anyone else
@cd
i don't even buy fiction books... why would i visit a fringe website supporting pseudoscience? it is not news: you promote pseudoscience and you are angry that wiki wants references that you cannot provide
DEAL
And there are zero examples that "violates the laws of physics", unlike much of the pseudoscience standard theory
the eu is riddled with BS that violates the laws of physics!
case in point:
grand canyon formation conjectures
asteroid conjectures (vs the OBSERVED asteroid formation)
your support of it being a primary driver of weather/climate (it has a minor effect, not a major one, moron)
Saturn storm
and many more

the list is too long to list here with 1000 character limit
the eu can't even get the "prediction" part down-pat
you come in AFTER the fact with conjecture and claims!

epic failure
cantdrive should be cant-think

you really should use the MIT link
http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm

yep
Nov 10, 2014
Captain you are silly sometimes. The content is what is important.
Here the same video so it can be valid in your mind.
http://irfu.cea.fr/laniakea
and the article the other video is based on
http://www.nature...674.html

Of course Black holes are REAL....because we made up the physics to prove it...and like unicorns we have pictures of them...http://www.bing.c...dIndex=0

Nov 10, 2014
the presence of galactic scale electric fields must also exist


No. Explain in detail why these fields would not be screened out. Plasma behaviour is not scale independent, this is why won the Nobel Prize, for extending plama physics to larger scales. Above the Debye scale it behaves differently.

Nov 10, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

yep
Nov 10, 2014
You might have missed this in an article CD posted above.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.3096
The formations on those videos posted for the Captain above are visually informative and I believe you may enjoy them whether or not you agree with anything else.

Nov 10, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more