Oxymoronic black hole RGG 118 provides clues to growth

August 12, 2015

Astronomers using NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory and the 6.5-meter Clay Telescope in Chile have identified the smallest supermassive black hole ever detected in the center of a galaxy, as described in our latest press release. This oxymoronic object could provide clues to how much larger black holes formed along with their host galaxies 13 billion years or more in the past.

Astronomers estimate this supermassive black hole is about 50,000 times the mass of the Sun. This is less than half the previous lowest mass for a black hole at the center of a galaxy.

The tiny heavyweight black hole is located in the center of a dwarf disk galaxy, called RGG 118, about 340 million light years from Earth. Our graphic shows a Sloan Digital Sky Survey image of RGG 118 and the inset shows a Chandra image of the galaxy's center. The X-ray point source is produced by hot gas swirling around the black hole.

Researchers estimated the mass of the black hole by studying the motion of cool gas near the center of the galaxy using visible light data from the Clay Telescope. They used the Chandra data to figure out the brightness in X-rays of hot gas swirling toward the black hole. They found that the outward push of radiation pressure of this hot gas is about 1% of the black hole's inward pull of gravity, matching the properties of other .

Previously, a relationship has been noted between the mass of supermassive black holes and the range of velocities of stars in the center of their host galaxy. This relationship also holds for RGG 118 and its black hole.

The black hole in RGG 118 is nearly 100 times less massive than the supermassive black hole found in the center of the Milky Way. It is also about 200,000 times less massive than the heaviest black holes found in the centers of other galaxies.

Astronomers are trying to understand the formation of billion-solar-mass black holes that have been detected from less than a billion years after the Big Bang. The black hole in RGG 118 gives astronomers an opportunity to study a nearby small supermassive black hole in lieu of the first generation of black holes that are undetectable with current technology.

Artist's illustration of black hole

Astronomers think that supermassive black holes may form when a large cloud of gas, weighing about 10,000 to 100,000 times that of the Sun, collapses into a black hole. Many of these black hole seeds then merge to form much larger supermassive black holes. Alternately, a supermassive black hole seed could come from a giant star, about 100 times the Sun's mass, that ultimately forms into a black hole after it runs out of fuel and collapses.

Researchers will continue to look for other supermassive that are comparable in size or even smaller than the one in RGG 118 to help choose between the two options mentioned above and refine their understanding of how these objects grow.

Explore further: How massive can black holes get?

More information: "A ~50,000 M⊙ Solar Mass Black Hole in the Nucleus of RGG 118 2015." ApJ 809 L14 DOI: 10.1088/2041-8205/809/1/L14 . On Arxiv: http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.07531

Related Stories

How massive can black holes get?

August 11, 2015

Without the light pressure from nuclear fusion to hold back the mass of the star, the outer layers compress inward in an instant. The star dies, exploding violently as a supernova.

Dark matter guides growth of supermassive black holes

February 18, 2015

Every massive galaxy has a black hole at its center, and the heftier the galaxy, the bigger its black hole. But why are the two related? After all, the black hole is millions of times smaller and less massive than its home ...

VLA reveals 'bashful' black hole in neighboring galaxy

June 17, 2015

Thanks to the extraordinary sensitivity of the Karl G. Jansky Very Large Array (VLA), astronomers have detected what they believe is the long-sought radio emission coming from a supermassive black hole at the center of one ...

Could the Milky Way become a quasar?

February 27, 2015

A quasar is what you get when a supermassive black hole is actively feeding on material at the core of a galaxy. The region around the black hole gets really hot and blasts out radiation that we can see billions of light-years ...

Recommended for you

A catalog of habitable zone exoplanets

January 18, 2017

The last two decades have seen an explosion of detections of exoplanets, as the sensitivity to smaller planets has dramatically improved thanks especially to the Kepler mission. These discoveries have found that the frequency ...

Galaxy murder mystery

January 17, 2017

It's the big astrophysical whodunnit. Across the Universe, galaxies are being killed and the question scientists want answered is, what's killing them?

30 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

mytwocts
1 / 5 (2) Aug 12, 2015
The second picture is entirely unrelated to the subject.
This is not a dwarf galaxy but an optically dark radiogalaxy.
Tuxford
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 12, 2015
This oxymoronic object could provide clues to how much larger black holes formed along with their host galaxies 13 billion years or more in the past.


Standard language once again, since the merger maniacs actually don't have a clue. This supports LaViolette's Continuous Creation model. Smaller core stars expected in smaller galaxies, growing in tandem with the galaxy since the core star grows more active ejecting more and more new gas over time, thereby growing the galaxy.

And consistent from:

http://phys.org/n...tly.html

...a patch of the galaxy, close to the centre, with fewer heavy elements, but hosting vigorously forming stars, suggesting that the material to fuel the star formation was coming from the surrounding pristine gas that is low in heavy elements. This was the smoking gun...


Their mistake is to simply assume that the origin of the pristine gas is from accretion, rather than from the core star itself. Think!
mytwocts
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 12, 2015
"merger maniacs actually don't have a clue"
This kind language turns me off.
Tuxford
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 12, 2015
"merger maniacs actually don't have a clue"
This kind language turns me off.


Merger mania needs mockery. Sorry, but this is the only way forward. The system is heavily invested in a nonsensical model. Blame the physicists.
Psilly_T
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 12, 2015
Tuxford you are not paving a road forward just going more insane day by day. have fun at it
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2015
Merger mania needs mockery.
okay, let's start with something easy – here at the earth's surface, show us how to mock 9.8 m/s/s.

Sorry, but this is the only way forward.
Have at it. Mock away.

The system is heavily invested in a nonsensical model.
Only to the ignorant and misinformed does science seem like nonsense.

Blame the physicists.
No. Blame the ignorance, and if it's willful, the individual.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (5) Aug 13, 2015
Their mistake is to simply assume that the origin of the pristine gas is from accretion, rather than from the core star itself. Think!
I think the origin of the pristine gas was the Big Bang, not some solar flatulence.
Enthusiastic Fool
5 / 5 (2) Aug 13, 2015
@m2c
The second picture is entirely unrelated to the subject.
This is not a dwarf galaxy but an optically dark radiogalaxy.


Is it? I seem to see it referenced as dwarf unless I've missed a nuanced joke.
http://chandra.ha...ore.html

The paper seems to imply optical spectroscopy was important in characterizing it.
http://arxiv.org/...31v1.pdf

Sorry if I'm off base or misinterpreting you.
alextheaboveaverage
5 / 5 (5) Aug 13, 2015
"Smaller core stars expected in smaller galaxies, growing in tandem with the galaxy since the core star grows more active ejecting more and more new gas over time, thereby growing the galaxy."

How exactly does a "core star grow" as it loses mass, as you claim? That's a circular statement.
Tuxford
1 / 5 (5) Aug 13, 2015
"Smaller core stars expected in smaller galaxies, growing in tandem with the galaxy since the core star grows more active ejecting more and more new gas over time, thereby growing the galaxy."

How exactly does a "core star grow" as it loses mass, as you claim? That's a circular statement.


Nope. Study SubQuantum Kinectics. New matter is born largely inside the ultra-dense cores, where conditions are ripe. Yes, it goes against all that is sacred. Oh well....
JustAnotherGuy
5 / 5 (3) Aug 13, 2015
New matter is born largely inside the ultra-dense cores

Ok, then, where came from the matter that formed those cores in first place?
When that process stops?
Just curious about it, no opinion made here.
mytwocts
4 / 5 (4) Aug 13, 2015
@m2c
The second picture is entirely unrelated to the subject.
This is not a dwarf galaxy but an optically dark radiogalaxy.


Is it? I seem to see it referenced as dwarf unless I've missed a nuanced joke.
http://chandra.ha...ore.html

Sorry if I'm off base or misinterpreting you.


I saw the picture in another article, where it was used to show how the radiation from the accretion disk can be blocked by this torus of dust. The context was the unification of radio galaxies and quasars. The statement is that for the right viewing angle the galaxy is a quasar, viewed edge on it is a dark radio galaxy. It seems to be an artist's view that is used in multiple contexts (and not in the papers).
Tuxford
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 13, 2015
New matter is born largely inside the ultra-dense cores

Ok, then, where came from the matter that formed those cores in first place?
When that process stops?
Just curious about it, no opinion made here.


Questions are good! While it seems hard to wrap our minds around at first, it is actually quite simple. Our universe is simply the salt in the ocean. There is a diffusive medium surrounding us composed of much more than can be detected, since all detectors are made of salt which can only detect more salt. When the sodium and chloride ions gather in sufficient concentration, such as in the superdense core stars, they combine to create salt! (Very simple analogy.)
JustAnotherGuy
5 / 5 (3) Aug 14, 2015
Tuxford, thank you. Very simple analogy, indeed. Although it doesn't quite answer my questions...
What I wanted to know is what's the superdense stars' origin. If they 'grow' from smaller to bigger there must be a previous stage. Which process formed them?
And, if you know it amply, where its very matter came from. Let's say, where the "sodium" and "chloride ions" came from?
I suppose the model you mentioned covers these issues.
Tuxford
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 14, 2015
I suppose the model you mentioned covers these issues.


LaViolette's model is a modified Turing engine system dynamic model, where the state components are the underlying diffusive 'ion' medium, with each component far too small to ever detect. (Atoms are mostly empty space, but filled with these underlying components.) Under the proper diffusive concentrations the ions spontaneous combine in a self-sustaining reaction, where the propagating reaction is then a sub-atomic particle.

http://starburstf...summary/

http://etheric.co...edition/

I am a control systems engineer. Thus, from experience, I can see why physicists don't quite get it. So what they don't get, they ignore.
Tuxford
1 / 5 (4) Aug 14, 2015
What I wanted to know is what's the superdense stars' origin. If they 'grow' from smaller to bigger there must be a previous stage. Which process formed them?


Ah, if you need an ultimate origin, maybe need to talk to the philosophers. However, this process will also create new matter deep in intergalactic space, albeit very slowly. Thus, it also explains the deep intergalactic gas clouds and large galactic gas halos. In the dense cores of the grey holes, the process is greatly accelerated. Periodic instabilities in these growing core stars causes new matter ejections, seeding the surrounding galaxy. Also, periodic cosmic ray super waves propagate outward, causing ice ages and climate change, and causing inhabitants to live in caves, etc.
Hat1208
5 / 5 (3) Aug 14, 2015
Tuxford

WTF. How does that answer JustAnotherGuy's question. Also I'm sure this has been addressed but how are you creating matter from nothing?

Tuxford
1 / 5 (4) Aug 14, 2015
Tuxford
Also I'm sure this has been addressed but how are you creating matter from nothing?


Again, this is hard to conceive at first, but is quite simple. Space is not empty. It is filled with diffusive elementals that are simply too small to detect by the larger objects of our universe. There are at least seven types, which react together (like a burning fire) under proper initial conditions. Once lit, each reaction propagates through the sea of elementals. That propagating reaction is a sub-atomic particle.

So since at this level seemingly empty space is instead filled with an endless supply of these elementals, when a sub-atomic particle is born, it becomes observable within our realm. The trick is that proper initial conditions are needed, which exist most easily in regions of extreme matter density.

Propagating reactions (particles) create disturbances in the diffusive medium distribution, much like sound waves in air.
Hat1208
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 14, 2015
Tuxford

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Enthusiastic Fool
5 / 5 (7) Aug 15, 2015
@Tux
The trick is that proper initial conditions are needed, which exist most easily in regions of extreme matter density.


Isn't this a bit circular? Broadly put you are saying galaxies are formed by "core stars" that only can form where galaxies are? Matter only forms where there's already matter? Do these "ions" or "diffusive elementals" interact gravitationally? If there's a diffuse medium that is depleted by matter formation should we not find large ring shaped galaxies where the diffuse elementals have been converted wholly to matter thereby starving the "core star?"

each component far too small to ever detect

I believe that Russel's Teapot is actually filled with them.

Also, periodic cosmic ray super waves propagate outward, causing ice ages and climate change, and causing inhabitants to live in caves

Smooth as a congressional earmark.

I'd also like to suggest Diffuse Elemental Radiating Particles as an official name. (DERP)
Hat1208
5 / 5 (3) Aug 15, 2015
DERPS are born
JustAnotherGuy
5 / 5 (2) Aug 15, 2015
Ok Tuxford, thank you. I think I got the "picture"...
So this "diffusive medium" is called ether (not the old one). And its components are "etheron" particles, which through a 'continuous mechanism' these interact and manifest as matter... right?
Matter concentrations, as 'superdense' stars, are simply to exponentially increase the matter creation ratio, since it is stated that:
"...matter is continuously created throughout all of space from ether concentration fluctuations that spontaneously arise from one moment to the next"
Which, basically means the matter pops up everywhere and everytime. Just happens it does so slowly -in lower density environment- that it take eons to accrete...hmm

I still fail to find an origin for the ether. Is this issue bypassed?
Well... quite a theory. As controversial as any other I think. I can't see why the 'mockery' is needed to present it.
Tuxford
1 / 5 (3) Aug 15, 2015
Ok Tuxford, thank you. I think I got the "picture"...

And the changing concentrations of the etherons as they flow toward the sinks (matter particle) causes the four forces. No need to invent fields, as this theory provides an actual physical mechanism for the forces.

And it provides an explanation for the double-slit experiment.

Does not violate the laws, since our universe is simply a subset of a greater structure.

Light speed is then the limit of the propagating reaction speed. As one approaches the limit, most of the reaction speed is used simply in propagation, leaving little bandwidth for changes in the particle. Thus, time effectively slows.

And the theory predicts tired light in intergalactic space, and blue shifted light within galaxies. LaViolette predicted the Pioneer Anomaly long before it was discovered by NASA.

And it predicts energy generated within larger bodies such as planets. No need for left over radioactive elements within the planets.
JustAnotherGuy
4.7 / 5 (3) Aug 15, 2015
Huh... yes... It is supposed to have "solved" a lot of things. It looks like too many things... but I can't solve how all of this starts...

Lots of curious stuff:
"Through these reaction and diffusion processes the ether is not only alive with activity, but is bound together into an organic whole"
Nice! Sounds like The Force...
This is from the 4th edition link:
"... Implications for telepathy and telekinesis are considered."
Just WOW... stop this car...

Ok.... just joking... mockery... I mean no ofefnse.
Allow me an observation: easy is not always better. Hard to tell whether the issues are solved, or just bypassed by a mechanism.
Thanks for your time.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Aug 17, 2015
so this "diffusive medium" is called ether (not the old one). And its components are "etheron" particles, which through a 'continuous mechanism' these interact and manifest as matter... right?
Oh.

My.

God.

Well, I knew I had Tux on ignore for some reason or other. Nice to know I was right.

"Etheron particles?"

Really?

Really?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Aug 17, 2015
Diffuse Elemental Radiating Particles


Thanks, I needed a good laugh just then.

"Smaller core stars expected in smaller galaxies, growing in tandem with the galaxy since the core star grows more active ejecting more and more new gas over time, thereby growing the galaxy."

How exactly does a "core star grow" as it loses mass, as you claim? That's a circular statement.
They're DERPs. They don't need any mass.
JustAnotherGuy
5 / 5 (2) Aug 17, 2015
Etheron particles? / DERPs
.."Interesting" huh?
If I got it right, seems to be they do misuse the word 'creation', since the known matter is never created. It already exist (in a "form"): ether and its particles (don't shoot me!)

Instead it's "ostensibly created" when a bunch of "etherons" are induced (unknow reason) to interact together in a (probably) perpetual "mechanism" which manifest as a single subatomic particle and/or energy. This is supposed to (as chain reaction) induce even more particles to act alike (..don't shoot!)
Hence, the matter isn't created nor is radiated. It's a "behavior" of this preexisting "ether". (..just DON'T)

So, very slowly, little clouds begin to pop up here and there. Which, through hundreds billions of years, evolves into stars, clusters, galaxies, etc... all we see today... (save the bullets, I'm leaving!)

As far I know, there isn't an origin, nor a "trigger", nor an end...
Well, sorry about all this.. curiosity was "killing" me
Tuxford
1 / 5 (3) Aug 17, 2015
Instead it's "ostensibly created" when a bunch of "etherons" are induced (unknow reason) to interact together in a (probably) perpetual "mechanism" which manifest as a single subatomic particle and/or energy.


Guy, you are likely the first to attempt an understanding. The particle forms spontaneously when the proper diffusive conditions arise occasionally (statistics), as shown in this simulation.

http://starburstf...lations/

This is from systems theory, not from physics. So physicists are automatically biased against this model. As a control systems engineer, the model makes sense to me. To fully appreciate requires a detailed read of SubQuantum Kinectics, originally published in General Systems Journal, in 1985. Still, without the proper background, it is difficult to appreciate.

http://www.tandfo...65ygQFGE

Here is a summary:

http://starburstf...ther.pdf
JustAnotherGuy
5 / 5 (1) Aug 17, 2015
So physicists are automatically biased against this model

Actually almost everybody exhibits symptoms of biased opinions against others' stances, whatever the "faction" they belong.
You shouldn't expect much acceptance/credit on your arguments if they lack the "proper background". And present them with disqualifying/aggressive statements shall do it worse..... just a thought.
Well, no more questions. Thanks. Have nice day.
Tuxford
1 / 5 (2) Aug 18, 2015
Thanks Guy.
Now that you have considered, can you speculate: It seems to me that if the smallest particle exists in our 3D universe, it must have a volume? If so, then what is it composed of? Obviously, something even smaller. Otherwise, it is just math. What is the counterargument?

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

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.