Black hole hidden within its own exhaust

Black hole hidden within its own exhaust
Artist impression of the heart of galaxy NGC 1068, which harbors an actively feeding supermassive black hole. Arising from the black hole's outer accretion disk, ALMA discovered clouds of cold molecular gas and dust. This material is being accelerated by magnetic fields in the disk, reaching speeds of about 400 to 800 kilometers per second. This material gets expelled from the disk and goes on to hide the region around the black hole from optical telescopes on Earth. Essentially, the black hole is cloaking itself behind a veil of its own exhaust. Credit: NRAO/AUI/NSF; D. Berry / Skyworks 

Supermassive black holes, millions to billions of times the mass of our Sun, are found at the centers of galaxies. Many of these galactic behemoths are hidden within a thick doughnut-shape ring of dust and gas known as a torus. Previous observations suggest these cloaking, tire-like structures are formed from the native material found near the center of a galaxy.

New data from the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA), however, reveal that the black hole at the center of a galaxy named NGC 1068 is actually the source of its own dusty torus of dust and gas, forged from material flung out of the black hole's accretion disk.

This newly discovered cosmic fountain of cold gas and dust could reshape our understanding of how impact their host galaxy and potentially the intergalactic medium.

"Think of a black hole as an engine. It's fueled by material falling in on it from a flattened disk of dust and gas," said Jack Gallimore, an astronomer at Bucknell University in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, and lead author on a paper published in Astrophysical Journal Letters. "But like any engine, a black hole can also emit exhaust." That exhaust, astronomers discovered, is the likely source of the torus of material that effectively obscures the region around the galaxy's from optical telescopes.

NGC 1068 (also known as Messier 77) is a barred spiral galaxy approximately 47 million light-years from Earth in the direction of the constellation Cetus. At its center is an active galactic nucleus, a supermassive black hole that is being fed by a thin, rotating disk of gas and dust known as an accretion disk. As material in the disk spirals toward the central black hole, it becomes superheated and blazes bright with ultraviolet radiation. The outer reaches of the disk, however, are considerably cooler and glow more appreciably in infrared light and the millimeter-wavelength light that ALMA can detect.

Black hole hidden within its own exhaust
ALMA image of the central region of galaxy NGC 1068. The torus of material harboring the supermassive black hole is highlighted in the pullout box. This region, which is approximately 40 light-years across, is the result of material flung out of the black hole's accretion disk. The colors in this image represent the motion of the gas: blue is material moving toward us, red moving away. The areas in green are low velocity and consistent with rotation around a black hole. The white in the central region means the gas is moving both toward and away at very high speed, the conditions illustrated in the artist impression. The outer ring area is unrelated to the black hole and is more tied to the structure of the central 1,000 light-years of the host galaxy. Credit: Gallimore et al.; ALMA (ESO/NAOJ/NRAO); B. Saxton (NRAO/AUI/NSF)

Using ALMA, an international team of astronomers peered deep into this region and discovered a sprinkling of cool clouds of carbon monoxide lifting off the outer portion of the accretion disk. The energy from the hot inner disk partially ionizes these clouds, enabling them to adhere to powerful magnetic field lines that wrap around the disk.

Like water being flung out of a rapidly rotating garden sprinkler, the clouds rising above the accretion disk get accelerated centrifugally along the to very high speeds—approximately 400 to 800 kilometers per second (nearly 2 million miles per hour). This is up to nearly three times faster than the rotational speed of the outer , fast enough to send the clouds hurtling further out into the galaxy.

"These clouds are traveling so fast that they reach 'escape velocity' and are jettisoned in a cone-like spray from both sides of the disk," said Gallimore. "With ALMA, we can for the first time see that it is the gas that is thrown out that hides the black hole, not the gas falling in." This suggests that the general theory of an active black hole is oversimplified, he concludes.

With future ALMA observations, the astronomers hope to work out a fuel budget for this black hole engine: how much mass per year goes into the black hole and how much is ejected as exhaust.

"These are fundamental quantities for understanding black holes that we really don't have a good handle on at this time," concludes Gallimore.

This research is presented in the paper titled "High-velocity bipolar molecular emission from an AGN torus," by J. Gallimore et al., published in Astrophysical Journal Letters on 15 September 2016. [Preprint: arxiv.org/pdf/1608.02210v1.pdf ]


Explore further

ALMA finds a swirling, cool jet that reveals a growing, supermassive black hole

Journal information: Astrophysical Journal Letters

Citation: Black hole hidden within its own exhaust (2016, September 15) retrieved 16 September 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2016-09-black-hole-hidden-exhaust.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.
1657 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Sep 15, 2016
New data from the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA), however, reveal that the black hole at the center of a galaxy named NGC 1068 is actually the source of its own dusty torus of dust and gas, forged from material flung out of the black hole's accretion disk.
This newly discovered cosmic fountain of cold gas and dust could reshape our understanding of how black holes impact their host galaxy and potentially the intergalactic medium.
...
"These are fundamental quantities for understanding black holes that we really don't have a good handle on at this time," concludes Gallimore.

Indeed, you don't! Merger mania forever, however! Long live the mania!

OK, I have told you so for years. Just more evidence for LaViolette's model. The source of the material is largely the core star itself. Unbelievable, but nevertheless, true.

There is a riddle, for all you riddlers to ponder! How could you not understand?? How?


Sep 15, 2016
The outer ring area is unrelated to the black hole and is more tied to the structure of the central 1,000 light-years of the host galaxy.

More nonsense from a committed merger maniac. The outer ring is the result of a recent periodic ejection, when the core star grew into an unstable condition. This process seeds the galaxy with new material, so that galaxies grow largely from within, not without.

But this is just too too much for a merger maniac to even consider, as it disturbs his lifelong world-view. Very disturbing to think a lifetime commitment to the mania could actually be wrong.

Come on maniacs, attack! Defend your fantasy!

Sep 15, 2016
But like any engine, a black hole can also emit exhaust." That exhaust, astronomers discovered, is the likely source of the torus of material that effectively obscures the region around the galaxy's supermassive black hole from optical telescopes.

Indeed! As I have been saying for years, the core star is not black, but rather grey. It is not infinitely dense, but reaches a limited density, unlike the fabled singularity. To think otherwise is simply a math fairy's fantasy.

Astronomers, you have been cajoled into nonsense thinking by math fairies. Don't fall for their tricks anymore. They are lost in math, with no reasoned logic to temper their musings.

Sep 15, 2016
@Tuxford
The problem with the quote you posted about the engine is that you forgot the first portion of the whole quote:
"Think of a black hole as an engine. It's fueled by material falling in on it from a flattened disk of dust and gas,"

Unless you believe in perpetual energy, your engine requires inputs.

Sep 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Sep 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Sep 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Sep 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Sep 16, 2016
@Tuxford: Your La Violette's theory has one major problem which if left untackled it makes the whole theory hard to accept no matter how real you think it is: the problem is it proposes net production of matter from an unknown source. So unless you can describe & test/observe a mechanism for said matter production, your La Violette's theory is just as good as a fairy tale.

Sep 16, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Sep 16, 2016
@Tuxford: Your La Violette's theory has one major problem which if left untackled it makes the whole theory hard to accept no matter how real you think it is: the problem is it proposes net production of matter from an unknown source. So unless you can describe & test/observe a mechanism for said matter production, your La Violette's theory is just as good as a fairy tale

The mechanism is inherently obvious likely only to those very skilled in the art of closed-loop control systems, a very rare breed. So, that physics cannot explain it, does not make it untrue. You simply gift the math fairy's favorite science method too much credit. Nature does not care about your sensitivities.

So, be happy. Ignore the growing evidence. Keep pounding away on your limited method. I prefer clarity to confusion.

One thing is certain, I have been consistent from the beginning, despite the harassment.

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

Sep 16, 2016
Hi again Gigel. :)

I was reading through and saw this from you to Tuxford:
@Tuxford: Your La Violette's theory has one major problem which if left untackled it makes the whole theory hard to accept no matter how real you think it is: the problem is it proposes net production of matter from an unknown source. So unless you can describe & test/observe a mechanism for said matter production, your La Violette's theory is just as good as a fairy tale.
I had occasion to point out to others before, that such an argument against his 'matter from space' angle is not fair when you consider that BB/EXPANSION cosmology readily believes in DARK ENERGY from space.

Either there's an underlying energy-space forming the fundamental universal extent from which all things arise/subside back to in constant cycling up/back through the various levels of emergent features/phenomena, or there isn't.

The same argument you just tried can also be used against BB/DARK ENERGY etc from NOTHING. :)

Sep 16, 2016
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? Oh yeah, I am good like usually I am, thanks for asking.

The same argument you just tried can also be used against BB/DARK ENERGY etc from NOTHING. :)


Well I will tell you one thing true. When it comes to arguing about NOTHING, you are the champion at that, eh? Are you ready to fess up about all the gobbledygook you was using to try bamboozle DaSchnieb-Skippy? You know the NON-Keplerian orbiting galaxies and such?

Sep 16, 2016
Ira, you are too far gone in all intellectual departments and character to be making such innuendoes as if you are in any way relevant or correct. Even the off-the-shelf bot-voting program which you use to skew the metrics here is way smarter than you.

Anyway, you didn't understand when I explained it all to Da Schneib.

And you certainly don't understand now what I explain to Gigel.

You poor dumb slob, outdone by a bot-voting program. Not a good basis from which to make scientific/logical posts from, Ira.

But then, you only have bot-driven drivel to offer. No loss then! :)

PS: I was just again vindicated by mainstream in thread:

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

What do you think about all that? Again, not that you understand any of it, Ira. :)

PPS: No loss! :)

Sep 16, 2016
Ira, you are too far gone in all intellectual departments and character to be making such innuendoes as if you are in any way relevant or correct.
Well, I did not mean to make the innuendos at you. I was trying to be right up front and plain. You write gobbledygook.

Anyway, you didn't understand when I explained it all to Da Schneib.
That don't hurt my feelings none. He did not understand you either. Nobody understands you.

And you certainly don't understand now what I explain to Gigel.
Yeah, he probably don't understand you either non.

PS: I was just again vindicated by mainstream in thread:
Well alright, if you feel good saying so fine. You tell us all the time about you being the vindictive objectionable observer while you are biasing the mainstream.

What do you think about all that?
I just tell you what I think.

Again, not that you understand any of it, Ira.
Nobody else does either Cher so that is okayeei with me.

Sep 17, 2016

The mechanism is inherently obvious likely only to those very skilled in the art of closed-loop control systems, a very rare breed. So, that physics cannot explain it, does not make it untrue.

No, it's not. Any human being, including control specialists and factory workers would have some very general problems with accepting matter production from an unknown source. Physics in particular has a very strong problem with that.

Say a factory faces a kitten explosion in one of its sections. Nobody will accept the kittens just appeared from nowhere or that the local equipment has somehow spawned kittens. They'll think of a more knowledgeable hypothesis: the kittens come from a cat, or they have been brought there by humans. In the same way, a factory won't be built with sudden out-of-nowhere kitten explosion prevention procedures in mind.

Sep 17, 2016
that such an argument against his 'matter from space' angle is not fair when you consider that BB/EXPANSION cosmology readily believes in DARK ENERGY from space.

The dark energy hypothesis is a VERY BIG PROBLEM in physics.The point of it is it is not yet clarified. It's not really accepted, it is a hypothesis with major support elements.

Sep 17, 2016

The mechanism is inherently obvious likely only to those very skilled in the art of closed-loop control systems, a very rare breed. So, that physics cannot explain it, does not make it untrue.

No, it's not.

Well, perhaps you are right. Even with my extensive defense industry aerospace controls background, it took me a year of study to catch the obvious. I just have a hard time accepting so few others can get it. But I know from aerospace that they can't. They don't speak control systems, and the implications arising therefrom.

First, you must think different, and consider that sacred conclusions supported by experience are likely wrong. For example, you must accept the possibility that all that exists is not necessarily observable, ever.

If it is not ever observable, then how can it exist?? There is the riddle!

The science method cannot then apply. The existence must be inferred by other means. And these means arise from General Systems theory.

Sep 17, 2016
Matter production should be an observable phenomenon, just as matter is. Inference can lead to a hypothesis, still a verifiable conclusion is available if matter is involved.

Sep 17, 2016
Physics is simply not equipped to solve this riddle.

In hindsight, it seems inherently obvious to me that if sub-atomic particles are made of ever smaller particles, there must be a limit for how small the particle can become. And then what?

If the smallest particle occupies a volume, it must be composed of some material (non-mathematical place-holder). If it occupies no volume, then does it exist?

And what is the physical mechanism that produces the effects labeled a field or a force (other math place-holders).

So SQK answers these questions, quite elegantly in my view. It needs work, yes. But it is a start.


Sep 17, 2016
Matter production should be an observable phenomenon, just as matter is. Inference can lead to a hypothesis, still a verifiable conclusion is available if matter is involved.


It is observable only under proper conditions, that are not likely producible in a lab. So does that mean it does not exist? No, just not in the minds of physicists.

Intergalactic gas clouds, galactic halos, AGN ejections, and now black hole exhaust itself. These are observations, just not as convenient as physicists insist upon. That is why physics simply does not have the tool set to solve this riddle.

Sep 17, 2016
Is there an experiment that shows that SQK is right where classical theories are wrong? It shouldn't be too hard to test SQK in laboratory since it's a quantum theory (at least by name).

Sep 17, 2016
Is there an experiment that shows that SQK is right where classical theories are wrong? It shouldn't be too hard to test SQK in laboratory since it's a quantum theory (at least by name).

Right now LaViolette is involved in setting up a superconducting magnetic thruster experiment. The coil is in production. A small demonstration experiment was witnessed by a number of physicists in Greece recently. We may know more next year.

But, been a while since I reviewed SQK, since I am mostly interested in cosmology. But some indirect evidence is LaViolette's prediction of the Pioneer Anomaly, and subsequent confirmation by NASA. Very slight blue shifting is predicted within our galaxy, while red shifting is predicted in intergalactic space.

Also, unexplained heating of various planetary bodies is easily explained by this same photon blue shifting.

So far, much of it is indirect from cosmology, since it is so difficult to observe in a lab.


Sep 17, 2016
@Tuxford
Firstly, Subquantum Kinetics is science (or it would be pseudoscience).
However is it viable science? For example, but be my guest to correct me,
SQK holds that the cosmological redshift is a tired light effect.
How then does it deal with the objections on http://www.astro....dlit.htm .
I will wave the first, the fact that there is no _known_ mechanism that can do the job only makes the hypothesis more attractive. There is no known mechanism to explain expansion either.
How does it explain time dilation?
How does it predict the black body spectral density of the CMB ?

You are quoting Ned Wright?? Give me a break. He is a very committed merger maniac. So committed, he cherry picks the data to support his lifelong fantasy.

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

Sep 17, 2016
The Pioneer anomaly was explained already in a few ways: by infrared emission giving thrust, by retarded gravitational potential (Joseph Hafele)...

Sep 17, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Sep 17, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Sep 17, 2016
The Pioneer anomaly was explained already in a few ways: by infrared emission giving thrust, by retarded gravitational potential (Joseph Hafele)...

Explained partially by those seeking a patch to GR, over the limited case of the Pioneer spacecraft. However, the principal scientist for Juno confirmed to me personally that the anomaly is evident in many other Earth flybys, and is not explained. Anyway, the effect is very slight, and not easily detected. So hard to tease from the noise.

Sep 18, 2016

Explained partially by those seeking a patch to GR, over the limited case of the Pioneer spacecraft. However, the principal scientist for Juno confirmed to me personally that the anomaly is evident in many other Earth flybys, and is not explained. Anyway, the effect is very slight, and not easily detected. So hard to tease from the noise.

Hafele's theory implies an anomaly occuring during slingshot maneuvers for any spacecraft. So that can be explained. Whether the explanation is sufficient or not... is a matter of measurement errors.

Sep 18, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Sep 18, 2016
I don't understand, why thermal radiation should apply just for slingshot maneuvers. Pioneer spaceprobes aren't doing any slingshot, the flyby anomalies occur for spaceprobes at the stationary path around Earth. At any case, the standard theory is different and it http://www.univer...nomaly/.

Hafele's theory is different and it involves a retarded gravitational potential: http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.0383

Anyway I can't find a reference connecting him to the Pioneer anomaly. Maybe I was wrong on that connection.

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