X-ray point source discovered at the center of a distant dwarf galaxy Henize 2-10

X-ray point source discovered at the center of a distant dwarf galaxy Henize 2-10
HST image of Henize 2-10. The inset shows the new 160 ks Chandra observation with VLA radio contours from Reines et al. (2011) and has dimensions 600 × 400 (∼ 265 pc × 175 pc). Credit: Reines et al., 2016.
(Phys.org)—NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory has helped astronomers to uncover a previously unidentified X-ray point source at the massive black hole in the center of a distant compact starburst galaxy known as Henize 2-10. The findings are available in a paper published Oct. 5 on the arXiv pre-print server.

Located some 34 million light years away in the constellation of Pyxis, Henize 2-10 is the first dwarf galaxy found to have a supermassive black hole at its center. With a mass of less than 10 billion solar masses, it is a compact starburst galaxy hosting numerous young "super star clusters" and a candidate low-luminosity active galactic nucleus (AGN).

The presence of an AGN in Henize 2-10 offers an excellent opportunity to study massive and . This is due to the fact that active nuclei in dwarf galaxies undergoing a burst of star formation reveal essential astronomical processes. They could offer crucial insights on the interplay between a massive black hole and the stars of the galaxy in which it forms.

Last year, in February 2015, a team of astronomers led by Amy Reines of the University of Michigan conducted new Chandra observations of Henize 2-10 complementary to those performed in 2001. The new data obtained by the researchers allowed them to uncover the presence of a previously unidentified X-ray point source, spatially coincident with the known nuclear radio source in this dwarf galaxy.

"Chandra clearly resolved the nuclear emission in Henize 2-10 and revealed the varying hard X-ray source to be due to a nearby X-ray binary, where a black hole, or a neutron star, eats material from a nearby typical star," Mark Reynolds of the University of Michigan, co-author of the paper, told Phys.org.

The fact that the new source is so bright allows the researchers to assume that the X-ray binary contains a "hungry" stellar-mass black hole that is eating very rapidly. They added that only very few X-ray binaries in our galaxy consume as much material as this source.

However, the scientists still need to determine the cause of the variability observed from that source.

"For example, it might be due to changes in the structure of the material it is eating. Another idea is that the variability could be driven by the time it takes the nearby star to orbit the stellar-mass black hole," Reynolds said.

This black hole in Henize 2-10 is potentially of great importance for astronomers, as it is the best-known example of a supermassive black hole in a . It is believed that early in the universe, relatively low-mass grew in the initial galaxies that were small and gas-rich, such as Henize 2-10.

"Thus, this provides critical insight into the early stages of galaxy and black hole evolution. Our new observations have shed light on the X-rays emitted from the nucleus of Henize 2-10. The in this galaxy appears to be eating material in a similar manner to, for example, the supermassive black hole at the center of our Galaxy," Reynolds concluded.

The team plans to focus their future observations of Henize 2-10 on studying its supermassive black hole emission by observing when the X-ray binary is eating relatively slowly and is not bright. This could provide new information on the relationship between how this eats material and the "burps" it gives off, and to determine how this influences star formation in this galaxy.


Explore further

Black hole hunters tackle a cosmic conundrum

More information: Deep Chandra Observations of the Compact Starburst Galaxy Henize 2-10: X-rays from the Massive Black Hole, arXiv:1610.01598 [astro-ph.HE] arxiv.org/abs/1610.01598

Abstract
We present follow-up X-ray observations of the candidate massive black hole (BH) in the nucleus of the low-mass, compact starburst galaxy Henize 2-10. Using new high-resolution observations from the Chandra X-ray Observatory totaling 200 ks in duration, as well as archival Chandra observations from 2001, we demonstrate the presence of a previously unidentified X-ray point source that is spatially coincident with the known nuclear radio source in Henize 2-10 (i.e., the massive BH). We show that the hard X-ray emission previously identified in the 2001 observation is dominated by a source that is distinct from the nucleus, with the properties expected for a high-mass X-ray binary. The X-ray luminosity of the nuclear source suggests the massive BH is radiating significantly below its Eddington limit (~10^-6 L_Edd), and the soft spectrum resembles other weakly accreting massive BHs including Sagittarius A*. Analysis of the X-ray light curve of the nucleus reveals the tentative detection of a ~9-hour periodicity, although additional observations are required to confirm this result. Our study highlights the need for sensitive high-resolution X-ray observations to probe low-level accretion, which is the dominant mode of BH activity throughout the Universe.

© 2016 Phys.org

Citation: X-ray point source discovered at the center of a distant dwarf galaxy Henize 2-10 (2016, October 19) retrieved 22 May 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2016-10-x-ray-source-center-distant-dwarf.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.
684 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Oct 19, 2016
This could provide new information on the relationship between how this supermassive black hole eats material and the "burps" it gives off, and to determine how this influences star formation in this galaxy.

Wow, did I just witness a committed merger maniac 'burp'??
The fact that the new source is so bright allows the researchers to assume...

Need I say more? The operative word above is the last quoted. Got to be sharp to catch these hidden gems in a universe full of merger maniacs.

Black (Grey) holes lead galactic growth, not follow, as Assumed by the merger maniac.
http://phys.org/n...wth.html

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

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

http://phys.org/n...tml#nRlv

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

http://phys.org/n...tml#nRlv

Oct 19, 2016
Again, I would prefer "massive gravitational anomaly..."

Oct 20, 2016
Again, I would prefer "massive gravitational anomaly..."
@Whyde
then how would you differentiate it from my ex-wife?

clear concise communication requires a lexicon to differentiate between vague statements like "massive gravitational anomaly" which can be subjective due to the interpretation of the individual and specific things like "black hole" which we know to be a "massive gravitational anomaly that is an area of space-time with a gravitational field so intense that its escape velocity is equal to or exceeds the speed of light."

LOL

Oct 20, 2016
It is not necessary that a BH exists in the strict sense of GRT.


Where in "GRT" is it stated "that a BH exists in the strict sense"?

I keep challenging you BH Enthusiasts with this question, and never once have you Replied with the actual text within General Relativity where Einstein addressed what you claim, yet you keep regurgitating the same unfounded tripe like a mantra with no evidence to back up your claim.

However, I do see a crack in your onetime hard core stand for the old 20th century Star Trek view of a stellar object that looks like the eye of a hurricane sucking everything into a center where zero gravity exists to attract anything.

You need to get used to the idea that Hawking really was serious in his much publicized News Conference in April 2016 when he declared BHs are a dead concept due to the non-existence of a real Event Horizon, just virtual "apparent" ones. Download the news conference, it's easy to link by any search engine.

Oct 20, 2016
I keep challenging you BH Enthusiasts with this question, and never once have you Replied with the actual text within General Relativity where Einstein addressed what you claim, yet you keep regurgitating the same unfounded tripe like a mantra with no evidence to back up your claim
@benjiTROLL
actually, you did get an education in the math, but you are intentionally ignoring it because DaSchneib used the same point to prove you were:
- incapable of solving DE's
- not literate in GRT
- completely lost WRT science in general and making idiotic claims like every other pseudoscience troll

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

Oct 20, 2016
When you engage in conversation with a smarter entity than you, the effects can be surprising. The wall mentioned you were dumber than one of it's bricks...
well that leaves out you, @bschitthead

hell, you can't comprehend the math on the link i posted

more to the point: you actually think the only way to learn anything about martian soil is to bring it back to earth! you said that yourself
The Martian soil will need to be brought back to earth for study, to determine what colonists will have to add to it in order to make it fertile
Read more at: http://phys.org/n...oil.html

you do realise that even if we brought it back we would use the exact same GC/MS on it that is on the rover, right?
ROTFLMFAO

h*ll, you also think magnets cure cancer! so... why aren't people instantly cured by getting the MRI that is used in diagnosis for so many of them?

just wonderin' about that one...
LOL

Oct 20, 2016
You need to get used to the idea that Hawking really was serious in his much publicized News Conference in April 2016 when he declared BHs are a dead concept due to the non-existence of a real Event Horizon, just virtual "apparent" ones. Download the news conference, it's easy to link by any search engine.


You keep repeating this but it's obvious you didn't comprehend the article. He states they do exist but it's the permanent loss of information and the firewall paradox he's trying to account for.

It's also comical that you and your ilk say scientists are all part of some cabal but then one of them says something you like to hear (even though misinterpreted) then you're all on board. "Well, he's a liar and part of the science community scam, but not on that point!" So which is it?

Oct 20, 2016
@full of bschitt
...murder foreigners is more up your alley
well that explains why you're terrified of me... thanks!
Yes, another very nice lady with two kids and a loving husband ...
1- this is called a FALSE CLAIM ( see: http://www.auburn...ion.html )

2- if the MRI didn't cure her then i can be assured your magneto-machine didn't do squat either (and you can't produce the records or evidence proving the MRI isn't responsible for her magic cure, let alone validate the diagnosis! LMFAO)

3- just because you say it doesn't mean it's true, and considering your history of blatant false claims, it is the likeliest probability that you're full of delusional religious like belief rather than factual evidence based argument

4- It's amusing you think your opinion about anything is relevant
you'd rather volunteer to go end someones
LOL
you don't know what job i did

ROTFLMFAO

Oct 20, 2016
LOL
you don't know what job i did
........you're a retired fireman, we know that because you've been on other science websites stating so. Why else would you believe in things you can't prove exist, you have nothing better to do with your time than sitting around fantasizing about how you wished things were rather than dealing with how they actually are.

Oct 20, 2016
You do not have a case against the _possibility_ of BHs.


That INFINITE DENSITY in the center of a BH can be caused by GRAVITY at the center of a BH is a 100% violation of the Inverse Square Law............but what would you know about that because you have zero comprehension of the Einstein Field Equations.

The testable evidence of applying the Inverse Square Law to any stellar mass reveals gravity is at it's maximum attractive force at the surface but is zero at the center. With zero gravity at the center of a stellar mass it is a total impossibility for an implosion to the center without an attractive force to create that implosion.


Oct 20, 2016
Below is copied from Wkipedia: the classic definition of a BH

"At the center of a black hole lies a gravitational singularity, a region where the spacetime curvature becomes infinite. It can also be shown that the singular region contains all the mass of the black hole solution.[63] The singular region can be thought of as having infinite density. Observers falling into a Schwarzschild black hole cannot avoid being carried into the singularity, once they cross the event horizon. When they reach the singularity, they are crushed to infinity."

Anybody care to explain how this complies with the Inverse Square Law? Maybe somebody knows of a Schwarzschild ODE that will do the trick? Unless there is testable evidence for a reverse application of the Inverse Square Law such as the above definition requires, then BHs cannot exist. I know, Phys1 claims Schwarzschild concocted an ODE for reverse application of the ISL.


Oct 21, 2016
Benni, please..

Firstly, "BH" and "singularity" are two distinct terms - eg. they are not synonyms, so it would help alot if you did not treat them as such.

And secondly, your "quote" from Wiki actually (and factually) is not a quote. At most, it could be considered to be a "wastly edited excerpt" from the "Singularity" paragraph of the corresponding Wiki article. An exercise in cherry picking, mixed with just the right amount of term confusion, ultimatively leading to straw-man arguments. Classic :-)

And besides - quotes from Wiki are hardly the pinnacle of all truth and knowledge, but that's a wholly different topic.

I would also like to point out that a "singularity" is NOT (and never was) a direct consequence of GRT. It is rather a consequence of applying GRT within the limited bounds of the (admittedly incomplete) standard model, where such solutions arise. Nothing more, nothing less. We simply don't know enough yet to draw any meaningful conclusions. Period.

Oct 21, 2016
I would also like to point out that a "singularity" is NOT a direct consequence of GRT


That's for sure, it is the diametric opposite of application of the Inverse Square Law, you simply don't want to concede that the Einstein Field Equations which PROVE it's application from the surface as opposed to the center of a stellar mass.

It is rather a consequence of applying GRT
OK, you want to hang onto to this unfounded application of Einstein Field Equations & application of the Inverse Square Law, then put up the evidence for this so-called "consequence".

within the limited bounds of the standard model
What "bounds"?

where such solutions arise
What "solutions"?

We simply don't know enough yet to draw any meaningful conclusions
You mean you "don't know enough", but I "know enough" to know better than to create a reverse application of the Inv Sq Law for the intent to create gravitationally induced infinite density at a stellar center.


Oct 21, 2016
your "quote" from Wiki actually (and factually) is not a quote. At most, it could be considered to be a "wastly edited excerpt" from the "Singularity" paragraph of the corresponding Wiki article.
.......your problem with it is that I COPIED the actual text & did not include the text of the speculative noise.

Look, if you want to engage in a discussion about the concept of Infinite Density created by Gravity at the center f a stellar mass, then be prepared to explain how to apply the Inverse Square Law to such a concept, but don't go on a binge of trying to tell this Nuclear/Electrical Engineer that I simply do not understand the tested & observed Laws of Physics which are the diameteric opposite of BH Theory.

Your turn:


Oct 21, 2016
LOL
tell that to
2full of bschitt
just because she believes [x] saved her life doesn't mean it did

penicillin comes from a mold you can find on bread, but it aint the bread that is antibiotic
MRI has NEVER cured someone of cancer
actually, that is exactly the point, moron
LOL

you claim magnetism cures in your little box, so why isn't the magnetic fields in an MRI even more effective?

if your magnetic box cures, then an MRI should be far superior

yeah, yeah... i know. science, logic and literacy aint your strong points
you claim I'm the delusional one
i don't need to: you prove that all by yourself with your own words and actions
thanks for reinforcing it, though!
Time will tell
already done, magnet-lover

the requirements to get FDA approval as a medical device are insanely low - i linked them to you already

your machine failed miserably

that is direct evidence of it's ineffectiveness in a controlled study where evidence is required
the end

Oct 21, 2016
trying to tell this Nuclear/Electrical Engineer
@benjiTROLL
a nuclear engineer can at least do basic math:

you can't
I don't even know what it is you & WG are even talking about, something about ODE whatever that is?
http://phys.org/n...ood.html

the wobble cycle of Earth's rotational axis seems to correlate closely with the time required for our solar system to complete a full orbital passage around the galactic core of the Milky Way.
http://phys.org/n...als.html

http://phys.org/n...s_1.html

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

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

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

so your claims of education are subject to RULE 37
and considering the evidence literally screams you lied about being an engineer...


Oct 21, 2016
What "bounds"?

The bounds of our current best take on understanding of how the universe works - eg. the Standard Model.

What "solutions"?

The solutions that lead to singularities.

Anything else that needs to be paraphrased for you, Mr. Benni?

...

The Standard Model simply does not provide anything that would prevent a further collapse into a singularity once the Schwarzschild boundary is reached. This is the sole reason why "singularities" even got introduced. It does not necessarily mean that BH = singularity, just that based on our current best understanding, it is an outcome that needs to be considered.

What is so hard to understand about this?

You mean you "don't know enough", but I "know enough"

OK. If you have a better idea on how things work, then lets hear it. Or even better - write & submit a paper, and go get your well deserved Nobel. Because your "division by zero" rants alone hardly cut the mustard..

Oct 21, 2016
OK. If you have a better idea on how things work, then lets hear it
......it's called applying the Inverse Square Law to Gravity. It has become apparent you've never heard of the Inv Sq Law, so let me repeat again for you what earned Einstein his well deserved Nobel for General Relativity:

When calculating the attractive force of gravity of a stellar mass, the maximum point of gravitational attraction of that mass to another occurs at the surface of the mass, thus by by application of the ISL gravity diminishes to zero at the center, thus with zero gravity at the center there is no attracting force to create infinite density & therefore a singularity can never be created.

OK, is this above paragraph too hard for you? As many times as I've already stated it in above posts you have been totally recalcitrant in commenting on it.........so let's just see how you keep fantasytime going.

Oct 21, 2016
@full of bschitt
You made 5 statements of fact about something you know nothing about other than one thing I have said it does, and that it's functional mechanism is a magnetic field
1- i used you links to your "cancer killer" magnet to get information

2- other than anecdote that you, personally, nor the site, can verify, there is no evidence

3- if you were so enamored of anecdotal evidence and it's power and you truly believed in it's power to heal like your machine site bullsh*t, you would have your next surgery done by an eastern shaman, a voodoo practitioner or skip it entirely and get a "faith healing" which uses the exact same criteria ...

because the catholic church also has the exact same level of evidence, except far, far, far more numerous "anecdotes" to "prove" it's [insert holy relic here] is effective against any and all sickness, disease or other worse affliction you can come up with (including death)

2Bcont'd

Oct 21, 2016
@bschitthead cont'd
I'll let your posts speak to your understanding.
thank you
they show a far better grasp of reality, logic and the scientific method than you do

more to the point, you have yet to be able to produce any evidence or verifiable *anything* that can prove your magnet-machine does anything other than attract certain metals

to date, your argument rests totally upon the anecdote on the web-site that you can't even prove is not written by some pathetic lonely IT person in a basement while surfing porn

so your evidence is equivalent to the catholic holy relics and voodoo

i would say it has the same level of credibility but there is at least a far longer history and "anecdotal evidence" on the side of the church and voodoo, so it leaves you short of anything other than opinion, can considering your opinion about Mars and it's dirt and our ability to know anything about it... well, we can see it's crap

so ya got nothing but BS

Oct 22, 2016
Hi Benni and Phys1 (and anyone else interested). :)

The following arxiv paper may help clarify some misunderstandings re Black Holes/Dark Stars etc 'singularity conditions' arising from the relevant maths used:

https://arxiv.org...1176.pdf

Good luck all. :)

Oct 22, 2016
You are forgetting the pressure of all the mass that is not at the center.
.........OK zany genius......put up the math that for compressive forces above the center that will result in Infinite Density at the center. Maybe you have some more Schwarzschild Black Hole Math for that calculaton?

Let me give you a hint here so you don't spend an inordinate amount of time perusing for more Black Hole Math........nah, forget it.......it'll be more fun watching you stumble all around the obvious answer & never coming up with it. Ode to Schwarzschild!


Oct 22, 2016

https://arxiv.org...1176.pdf

Ok RC, I read it. My apologies to the memory of Schwarzschild, I didn't realize he'd collaborated with Einstein & both together came to the conclusion that BHs can't exist.

I only knew about Einstein's 1939 paper in which he totally debunked BHs. I don't recall just off hand if Einstein's 1939 paper made any reference to his collaborative work with Schwarzschild or not, guess I'll have to go look for it again & refresh my memory. You have a good link for the '39 paper?

Oct 23, 2016

https://arxiv.org...1176.pdf

Ok RC, I read it. My apologies to the memory of Schwarzschild, I didn't realize he'd collaborated with Einstein & both together came to the conclusion that BHs can't exist.

I only knew about Einstein's 1939 paper in which he totally debunked BHs. I don't recall just off hand if Einstein's 1939 paper made any reference to his collaborative work with Schwarzschild or not, guess I'll have to go look for it again & refresh my memory. You have a good link for the '39 paper?

Wow... talking bout being still in the 20th century....

Oct 23, 2016
Summary of 1939 paper:

In 1939 Einstein published a paper with the above title in which he investigated the gravitational field of a spherically symmetric system consisting of a large number of gravitating particles of equal masses moving in concentric circular orbits, randomly oriented in space, under the influence of the field produced by all the particles together. His object was to show that Schwarzschild-like singularities do not exist in cases which have physical reality. In a paper published in 1964 Misra claimed that the field equations set up by Einstein were " mixed up and erroneous " but that Einstein's final results were valid. It is shown in the present paper that, although Einstein's paper is extremely confusing and contains some mistakes, Misra's criticisms are completely unfounded. A general and clear derivation of Einstein's results is given in this paper.http://link.sprin...02710345


Oct 23, 2016
The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the
"Schwarzschild singularities" do not exist in physical reality. Although the
theory given here treats only clusters whose particles move along circular paths
it does not seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that mote general cases will
have analogous results. The "Schwarzschild singularity" does not appear for
the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to
the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of
light.
http://www.cscamm...hild.pdf

The above the link includes the full 1939 paper as well as the synopsis at the conclusion which I quoted above.


Oct 23, 2016
A more accurate interpretation is found on wikipedia
....no interpretation was needed, Einstein was simply concluding BHs cannot form through a process of gravitational collapse. Anonymous authors posting on WkiPedia are irrelevant, they didn't write Einstein's paper, Einstein wrote it.

By "Schwarzschild-like singularities" do you mean BHs ?
I don't "mean" anything, read Einstein's words for yourself

Einstein does not claim that BHs do not exist,
Where did you read that in the paper?

but that they cannot form by gravitational collapse.
If they cannot "form by gravitational collapse" to an Infinite Density at the center of the given mass, then how else can they form? Oh, I almost forgot, "compressive" forces from above the center?

So, have you worked out that simple homework problem in math I gave you to do, you remember, calculating "compressive" forces to achieve Infinite Density?

Oct 23, 2016
@ Reg_Mundy:

Hey there Reg, see what I mean about how much fun Phys1 can be? He gets himself all twisted up in knots trying to rewrite the works of somebody else to come up with valid arguments for the existence of BHs, which in this instance it is Einstein's own words he's trying to be cute with. But it's fun, stay on the horse for more thrilling pony rides to come.

Oct 23, 2016
Oh, the pontifications of fairy tales (GR), unicorns (BH's) and all the fanciful inventions of the anti-science maths postulyzers.
http://principia-...gs.html/
'On the Alleged 'Incompleteness' of General Relativity'
http://vixra.org/abs/1406.0038

Oct 23, 2016
And lest we not forget the obfuscation by Hilbert et al. of Schwarzschild paper;
http://vixra.org/abs/1103.0051

Oct 23, 2016
If they cannot "form by gravitational collapse" to an Infinite Density at the center of the given mass, then how else can they form?


They may exist primordially, look that word up don't skip it again. That's another part of the story that you keep missing.
.......the casual reader has just gotta love this piece of guesswork, "may exist primordially".........yeah, you're right, it is a "story" just like all the rest of your Funny Farm Science including the next part of the story, that finite compressive forces from above the center of a stellar mass can lead to Infinite Density at the center.


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