Researchers discover a potential supermassive black hole wandering through space

[Alfonso Maruccia]

Why it matters: Supermassive black holes (SMBH) are some of the most extreme phenomena populating the universe. They usually reside at the center of their host galaxies, but sometimes they can be ejected from their place to start a solitary pilgrimage through the void of deep space.

By observing an unexpected trail in the gas cloud surrounding a dwarf galaxy, an international team of researchers has now found what they consider a potential candidate for a "runaway supermassive black hole" phenomenon. The light emitted by the gargantuan astronomical object traveled more than 7.5 billion years before reaching planet Earth, and it was seemingly traveling at 1,600 kilometers per second.

The "serendipitous" discovery is described in a study accepted for publication on The Astrophysical Journal Letters, where researchers from the USA, Canada, and Australia are offering their explanation about how the interaction of a "runaway supermassive black hole" with the circumgalactic medium (CGM) can leave a wake of shocked gas and young stars formation behind.

CGM is a hot plasma formation (where "hot" means 100,000 to 10,000,000 kelvins) believed to exist in the space between galaxies, hosting 40-50% of all the baryonic "normal matter" contained in the current universe. Meanwhile, supermassive black holes are generally feeding themselves with dust and energy at the center of almost every large galaxy like our own Milky Way.

In their paper, the researchers are offering some explanations about how a SMBH can leave its galactic center to start wandering through the universe. When a pair of galaxies merge, the paper explains, the two SMBH at their centers form a binary system with the two extreme objects orbiting the gravity center of the new formation for potentially billions of years.

If a third SMBH enters the system, the new complex interaction can lead to a slingshot effect through which one of the black hole cores gets ejected and sent toward outer space. Even without a third SMBH, the galaxy merger could be violent and extreme enough to eventually kick one of the two SMBH nuclei out.

The trail of gas and new stars observed with the Hubble Space Telescope could have other explanations, the researchers concede. However, based on the small number of papers previously written on the topic, they think a rogue SMBH could be the best theory for the observed phenomenon. This kind of research would also benefit from "further theoretical work," the researchers say.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/97662-researchers-discover-potential-supermassive-black-hole-wandering-through.html

 

[Manuel Diego]

Just a couple of clarifications from a physicist:
- The unit of temperature is "kelvin", not "Kelvin" (the latter was the person, Lord Kelvin, the former is the unit named in his honor).
- When using it, we don't say "kelvin degrees", just "kelvins". So, in the article, instead of "where "hot" means 100,000 to 10,000,000 Kelvin degrees" it should read "where "hot" means 100,000 to 10,000,000 kelvins".
- In science, we use small letters for units whose name is invented (g for grams, m for meters), and capital letters for units named in honor of a person (N for newtons, K for kelvins). So, in the article, "10,000,000 K" (again, we don't say degree for the kelvin scale; we do for farenheit and celsius, though).

 

[Threadcount]

Supermassive black hole, yes I know that song, I think it was by Muse, great song.

 

[brucek]

And if one of these "wanders" too near our planet its all over?

 

[BadThad]

Just a couple of clarifications from a physicist:
- The unit of temperature is "kelvin", not "Kelvin" (the latter was the person, Lord Kelvin, the former is the unit named in his honor).
- When using it, we don't say "kelvin degrees", just "kelvins". So, in the article, instead of "where "hot" means 100,000 to 10,000,000 Kelvin degrees" it should read "where "hot" means 100,000 to 10,000,000 kelvins".
- In science, we use small letters for units whose name is invented (g for grams, m for meters), and capital letters for units named in honor of a person (N for newtons, K for kelvins). So, in the article, "10,000,000 K" (again, we don't say degree for the kelvin scale; we do for farenheit and celsius, though).

My pet peeve is with milliliters. The abbreviation is "mL", not "ml".

 

[Manuel Diego]

There are many exceptions to these rules, yes. Liters is one, but it's mainly a typographic issue: a small L looks like a capital I (l, I: not the same, and yet!), so we use a capital L eventhough it's not named after anyone.

 

[toooooot]

I am curious about lighter part of the trail. Maybe it was where it ate a planet or a group of them.

 

[Uncle Al]

"wandering through space"

Now that detail is more than a little terrifying .....

 

[neeyik]

I am curious about lighter part of the trail. Maybe it was where it ate a planet or a group of them.

The entire trail is 62 kpc in length, roughly 200,000 light years. That's galaxy size, so planets wouldn't even make any impact at all in the brightness of the trail.

 

[nightlight236452]

Yes its very bright

 

[Hodor]

Just a couple of clarifications from a physicist:
- The unit of temperature is "kelvin", not "Kelvin" (the latter was the person, Lord Kelvin, the former is the unit named in his honor).
- When using it, we don't say "kelvin degrees", just "kelvins". So, in the article, instead of "where "hot" means 100,000 to 10,000,000 Kelvin degrees" it should read "where "hot" means 100,000 to 10,000,000 kelvins".
- In science, we use small letters for units whose name is invented (g for grams, m for meters), and capital letters for units named in honor of a person (N for newtons, K for kelvins). So, in the article, "10,000,000 K" (again, we don't say degree for the kelvin scale; we do for farenheit and celsius, though).

Actually, that unit, Kelvin, screwed up a good part of the SI system. First of all, Kelvin is just Celsius, with the zero shifted to absolute zero. So, two units for essentially the same thing.

Secondly, the SI standard uses capital letters for one more thing: Those are prefixes to units which denote quantities higher than one. For example, M = Mega, G = Giga, T = Tera, P = peta, etc.
While lower case letters denote quantities lower than 1, for example m = milli, μ = micro, n = nano, etc.

The only poor exception to this rule is "k" for "kilo", probably the most used prefix of them all. It denotes 1000 units, which is a lot more than 1, so it should be "K". But because of Kelvin it had to be demoted to a lower case letter. Destroying the consistency of the entire system.

While I appreciate Lord Kelvin's contribution to science, maybe they should have found a different way to honor him. Rather than to ruin the global measurement system consistency. I bet he wouldn't approve this heresis.

 

[Manuel Diego]

Actually, that unit, Kelvin, screwed up a good part of the SI system. First of all, Kelvin is just Celsius, with the zero shifted to absolute zero. So, two units for essentially the same thing.

Secondly, the SI standard uses capital letters for one more thing: Those are prefixes to units which denote quantities higher than one. For example, M = Mega, G = Giga, T = Tera, P = peta, etc.
While lower case letters denote quantities lower than 1, for example m = milli, μ = micro, n = nano, etc.

The only poor exception to this rule is "k" for "kilo", probably the most used prefix of them all. It denotes 1000 units, which is a lot more than 1, so it should be "K". But because of Kelvin it had to be demoted to a lower case letter. Destroying the consistency of the entire system.

While I appreciate Lord Kelvin's contribution to science, maybe they should have found a different way to honor him. Rather than to ruin the global measurement system consistency. I bet he wouldn't approve this heresis.

Kilo is a capital K, and there's no way you could mistake it for kelvins, because kilo (and all other multipliers and dividers) always accompany a unit: gigawatts GW, meganewtons MN, millimeters mm. Kilokelvins KK. No confusion there.
Also, T as a multiplier is for tera (10^12), T as a unit it for teslas. So 1 TT, one teratesla. Another screw up? Your example is hardly the "only poor exception".
The thing you have to understand is that science is a product of humanity, and as such is not 100% consistent, that's certain. See the discussion above about liters, or just approach chemistry, what a shitshow that is! xD

 

[mailpup]

Back on topic please. Thank you.