NASA's TESS observes its first star-destroying black hole

Humza

Posts: 1,026   +171
Staff member
Out of this world: A star supposedly the size of the Sun was consumed by a black hole with nearly six million times more mass and spotted on January 21, 2019 by NASA's planet-hunting Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS). Over a week later, the event was bright enough to be detected by ASAS-SN's network of robotic telescopes. Follow-up observations were also made by NASA's Neil Gehrels Swift Observatory, XMM-Newton of the European Space Agency and other telescopes of the Las Cumbres Observatory network.

A tidal disruption event occurred 375 million light-years away in the Volans constellation that saw a black hole destroying a star which astronomers estimate was the size of our Sun.

The event was initially captured by NASA's TESS planet-hunting mission with follow-up discoveries by the ground based All-Sky Automated Survey for Supernovae (ASAS-SN). Thomas Holoein, a Carnegie Fellow at the Carnegie Observatories in Pasadena, California, led the study of this event, called ASASSN-19bt, and published his findings in the September 27, 2019, issue of The Astrophysical Journal.

"TESS data let us see exactly when this destructive event, named ASASSN-19bt, started to get brighter, which we’ve never been able to do before," said Holoein. He was able to conduct multiwavelength follow-up observations of the tidal disruption in the first few days as the event was quickly identified by ASAS-SN's network of telescopes on January 29.

Although TESS made the observation over a week earlier, NASA says the satellite only transmits data to Earth every two weeks, after which it needs to be processed at the agency's Ames Research Center in Silicon Valley. It wasn't until March 13 that the first TESS data on this tidal disruption became available.

"The early TESS data allow us to see light very close to the black hole, much closer than we’ve been able to see before," said Patrick Vallely, a co-author and National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellow at Ohio State University, which is also the headquarters of ASAS-SN. He further commented that the smooth rise in the brightness of ASASSN-19bt supported the fact that the event was indeed a tidal disruption and not another type of outburst.

UV data from the Swift Observatory was used in determining a sharp temperature drop of 50 percent, which went from around 71,500 °F to 35,000 °F (40,000 °C to 20,000 °C) in just over a few days. Holoein observed that it was the first time such an early temperature decrease was seen in a tidal disruption, something he said had been predicted in earlier theories.

"Tidal disruptions are incredibly rare, occurring once every 10,000 to 100,000 years in a galaxy the size of our own Milky Way." stated NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. "For TESS to observe ASASSN-19bt so early in its tenure, and in the continuous viewing zone where we could watch it for so long, is really quite extraordinary,” said Padi Boyd, TESS' project scientist at Goddard further adding that "future collaborations with observatories around the world and in orbit will help us learn even more about the different outbursts that light up the cosmos."

Permalink to story.

 
Think about that for a second. You could fit 1.3 million earths into our sun, that's how large it is.

And this black hole - with six million times more mass - swallowed up a similar sized star like it was a nothing.

Really hard to wrap your head around those kinds of dimensions.
 
For astronomers, this is some pretty cool stuff, IMO.

@Humza Was there any mention of a corresponding LIGO signal? That would be really cool since correlation of gravitational wave detection signals in other wavelengths has not always been there with LIGO signals.
 
Think about that for a second. You could fit 1.3 million earths into our sun, that's how large it is.

And this black hole - with six million times more mass - swallowed up a similar sized star like it was a nothing.

Really hard to wrap your head around those kinds of dimensions.
Indeed! As I see it, this really sheds light on Carl Sagan's famous "Pale Blue Dot" quote.
 
Think about that for a second. You could fit 1.3 million earths into our sun, that's how large it is.

And this black hole - with six million times more mass - swallowed up a similar sized star like it was a nothing.

Really hard to wrap your head around those kinds of dimensions.
This also happened before there were any land animals in existence, including dinosaurs.
 
Think about that for a second. You could fit 1.3 million earths into our sun, that's how large it is.

And this black hole - with six million times more mass - swallowed up a similar sized star like it was a nothing.

Really hard to wrap your head around those kinds of dimensions.
This also happened before there were any land animals in existence, including dinosaurs.

I was thinking the same thing as I read this. We can see it now but this happened 375 million years ago.
 
Think about that for a second. You could fit 1.3 million earths into our sun, that's how large it is.

And this black hole - with six million times more mass - swallowed up a similar sized star like it was a nothing.

Really hard to wrap your head around those kinds of dimensions.
This also happened before there were any land animals in existence, including dinosaurs.

I was thinking the same thing as I read this. We can see it now but this happened 375 million years ago.

How can you prove it was that long ago? Distance is misleading, and space/time stretches.
 
How can you prove it was that long ago? Distance is misleading, and space/time stretches.
The estimated distance to the event is 115 megaparsecs; a value determined by multiple observations using UV and X-ray telescopes, along with visible light (I.e. spectrascopic) data, and the fact that it was observed in the following galaxy:

http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/simbad/sim-basic?Ident=2MASX+J07001137–6602251&submit=SIMBAD+search

That galaxy's redshift is 0.02621 with an uncertainty of 0.00015 - this gives distances between 114 Mpc for the angular distance and 117 Mpc for the luminosity distance, using the most precise value of the Hubble constant and omega-m, from the likes of the Planck and Hubble telescope data. There are over 10,000 positively identified galaxies within a radius of 120 Mpc about the Milky Way, and the distances to these can be verified using alternate methods to redshift, such as angular resolution for nearby ones, Cepheid variable stars and supernovae.

So while 115 Mpc is an estimate, the uncertainty in the value is in the order of no more 5 Mpc. In terms of light years, this equates to 358 to 391 Mly. Even if one wanted to be extremely conservative and use excessively high values for the uncertainty in the distance (e.g. 50 Mpc), then the distance, and thus time span, is still in the order of hundreds of millions of light years.
 
The estimated distance to the event is 115 megaparsecs; a value determined by multiple observations using UV and X-ray telescopes, along with visible light (I.e. spectrascopic) data, and the fact that it was observed in the following galaxy:

http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/simbad/sim-basic?Ident=2MASX+J07001137–6602251&submit=SIMBAD+search

That galaxy's redshift is 0.02621 with an uncertainty of 0.00015 - this gives distances between 114 Mpc for the angular distance and 117 Mpc for the luminosity distance, using the most precise value of the Hubble constant and omega-m, from the likes of the Planck and Hubble telescope data. There are over 10,000 positively identified galaxies within a radius of 120 Mpc about the Milky Way, and the distances to these can be verified using alternate methods to redshift, such as angular resolution for nearby ones, Cepheid variable stars and supernovae.

So while 115 Mpc is an estimate, the uncertainty in the value is in the order of no more 5 Mpc. In terms of light years, this equates to 358 to 391 Mly. Even if one wanted to be extremely conservative and use excessively high values for the uncertainty in the distance (e.g. 50 Mpc), then the distance, and thus time span, is still in the order of hundreds of millions of light years.

No offense, but you can throw a bunch of numbers out there as most people are impressed by numbers and (hard) math and will believe anything. Your assumption is debunked (again). As I said, space/time stretches. Here is a brand new article, which goes to show scientists have no clue. https://www.apnews.com/4f9cd2357365418e81104a33994c0d32

While we can jokingly try to measure (guess) a relative distance (which I may consider as acceptable), there is no way to prove "it was that long ago". :)
 
There is indeed a reasonably high degree of uncertainty in the Hubble constant, which is used to determine distances from redshift values. Spacetime does indeed stretch, as it is this that causes the redshift in the first place, so calculations based on it already account for the stretching.

Your remark that 'scientists have no clue' seems at odds to the note made in the article you posted that the uncertainty in the value is due to the observational methods used and the number of samples available for examination - the team that indicating that their findings gave a high value for the Hubble constant also had a high degree of uncertainty, I.e. the method used is sound, it's that there was insufficient data to reduce the range in the calculated Hubble value. Other methods, such as using the cosmic background radiation, give lower Hubble values, but have smaller degrees of uncertainty. So the scientists are well aware of the variability of their findings.

However, the galaxy in question for this news article isn't anywhere near as far away as the objects being examined in the article you linked to. At 115 Mpc, there are methods other than redshift that can be used to determine galactic distances, and these can be used to then verify or alter the distances calculated using the Hubble constant. And so while no astrophysicist is ever going to say that ASASSN-19bt is precisely 115 Mpc and thus occurred exactly 375 million years ago, the distance estimates are reliable enough to be able to say that this in the order 0.1 Gpc, which makes an event in the distant (no pun intended) past.
 
The estimated distance to the event is 115 megaparsecs; a value determined by multiple observations using UV and X-ray telescopes, along with visible light (I.e. spectrascopic) data, and the fact that it was observed in the following galaxy:

http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/simbad/sim-basic?Ident=2MASX+J07001137–6602251&submit=SIMBAD+search

That galaxy's redshift is 0.02621 with an uncertainty of 0.00015 - this gives distances between 114 Mpc for the angular distance and 117 Mpc for the luminosity distance, using the most precise value of the Hubble constant and omega-m, from the likes of the Planck and Hubble telescope data. There are over 10,000 positively identified galaxies within a radius of 120 Mpc about the Milky Way, and the distances to these can be verified using alternate methods to redshift, such as angular resolution for nearby ones, Cepheid variable stars and supernovae.

So while 115 Mpc is an estimate, the uncertainty in the value is in the order of no more 5 Mpc. In terms of light years, this equates to 358 to 391 Mly. Even if one wanted to be extremely conservative and use excessively high values for the uncertainty in the distance (e.g. 50 Mpc), then the distance, and thus time span, is still in the order of hundreds of millions of light years.

No offense, but you can throw a bunch of numbers out there as most people are impressed by numbers and (hard) math and will believe anything. Your assumption is debunked (again). As I said, space/time stretches. Here is a brand new article, which goes to show scientists have no clue. https://www.apnews.com/4f9cd2357365418e81104a33994c0d32

Nothing was debunked. This was a very preliminary result and nothing has changed. From your link:

"Jee and outside experts had big caveats for her number. She used only two gravitational lenses, which were all that were available, and so her margin of error is so large that it’s possible the universe could be older than calculated, not dramatically younger.
Harvard astronomer Avi Loeb, who wasn’t part of the study, said it an interesting and unique way to calculate the universe’s expansion rate, but the large error margins limits its effectiveness until more information can be gathered.
“It is difficult to be certain of your conclusions if you use a ruler that you don’t fully understand,” Loeb said in an email."

2 observations is a poor basis to make such a claim and resulted in a laughably huge margin of error.

While we can jokingly try to measure (guess) a relative distance (which I may consider as acceptable), there is no way to prove "it was that long ago". :)

Based on current theory, the distances in the black hole article should be accurate and using the speed of light over those distances will give a pretty accurate time estimate of how long ago the event occurred.
 
No offense, but you can throw a bunch of numbers out there as most people are impressed by numbers and (hard) math and will believe anything. Your assumption is debunked (again). As I said, space/time stretches. Here is a brand new article, which goes to show scientists have no clue. https://www.apnews.com/4f9cd2357365418e81104a33994c0d32

While we can jokingly try to measure (guess) a relative distance (which I may consider as acceptable), there is no way to prove "it was that long ago". :)
He offered a good explanation as to how distances in space are estimated. Note the word "estimated" in that sentence. That is all any distances in space are is estimates.

The key words in the cited article title are "Might be" and, as such, the article offers no "debunking."

Change and improvements are what science is all about. All of science, I.e., every scientific field, does not guarantee absolutes. That's it. Get used to it. I suggest reading Richard Feynman's works on integrity in science. Miles Mathis, especially, might benefit from reading them; however, I tend to doubt that Mathis would understand the meaning of the word "integrity."
 
He offered a good explanation as to how distances in space are estimated. Note the word "estimated" in that sentence. That is all any distances in space are is estimates.

The key words in the cited article title are "Might be" and, as such, the article offers no "debunking."

Change and improvements are what science is all about. All of science, I.e., every scientific field, does not guarantee absolutes. That's it. Get used to it. I suggest reading Richard Feynman's works on integrity in science. Miles Mathis, especially, might benefit from reading them; however, I tend to doubt that Mathis would understand the meaning of the word "integrity."

I agree, as most science articles not using observable evidence use a lot of "fuzzy" words like "might be" and "we think". They expect all of us to take it as fact when books have to be rewritten at least once a year. I wish they could be more trusting, but such is fallible man.

You said "every" scientific field, but I would have to disagree. Physics, as one example, is science and they can create repeatable and observable facts using math. It doesn't change - there is no guesswork. They don't need to use fuzzy words. This I can trust. Richard Feynman's writings seem to be worth looking into. Thanks.
 
You said "every" scientific field, but I would have to disagree. Physics, as one example, is science and they can create repeatable and observable facts using math. It doesn't change - there is no guesswork. They don't need to use fuzzy words. This I can trust. Richard Feynman's writings seem to be worth looking into. Thanks.
Physics can be limited by estimates of values just as much as astrophysics is. For example, the universal gravitation constant is only to something like 4 or 5 significant figures; a stark contrast to something like the permeability of a vacuum. And values created entirely via calculations of models, even extremely well tested ones, sometimes don't match perfectly - a good example of this is the magnetic moment of baryons, such as protons and neutrons, where predicted values are always larger than measured ones.
 
I agree, as most science articles not using observable evidence use a lot of "fuzzy" words like "might be" and "we think". They expect all of us to take it as fact when books have to be rewritten at least once a year. I wish they could be more trusting, but such is fallible man.
Using what appear to be fuzzy words to the lay person is part of science, and no, they do not expect anyone to take it as fact. That, IMO, is a projection on what scientists say.

Lay people who follow science may feel intimidated by the math and knowledge of the scientists, however, that does not mean that scientists expect everyone to take anything as fact. What it is, perhaps, is the best current science has to offer.

I've dived into some pretty serious math (Geometric Algebra) and that math, itself, I find very intimidating, but I pursue it because of the promise that it holds. I could, because of being intimidated, say its all poppycock, however, I choose to try and understand it to the best of my ability.

Often, when ground-breaking research is conducted, other scientists will review the results in an effort to validate those results - and this includes the methodology of the research and all the math. Sometimes, the results are proved to be incorrect by other scientists.

However, every bit of research is there for anyone to improve on if they can, or prove it wrong. Building on the knowledge of past researchers is the very essence of science.

You said "every" scientific field, but I would have to disagree. Physics, as one example, is science and they can create repeatable and observable facts using math. It doesn't change - there is no guesswork. They don't need to use fuzzy words. This I can trust. Richard Feynman's writings seem to be worth looking into. Thanks.
Physics, as one example, is a science that had its start in ancient times. People used to believe the Earth was the center of the universe. In fact, if you questioned that in times past, you may have been censured or even put to death.

Then slowly, scientists won the argument and the knowledge of humanity progressed. People like Newton and Kepler came along. Newton described what is now known as classical mechanics and Kepler made great contributions to planetary mechanics. Still, in some cases, planetary mechanics proved to be incorrect. Einstein's math was needed to accurately model the orbit of Mercury, for instance.

While classical mechanics is quite well defined, orbital mechanics, in part because of the math, is still imprecise. There is no known exact solution in orbital mechanics for what is known as the three-body problem - that is, three planets in orbit around each other or something similar. Exact solutions in orbital mechanics do not exist for problems with more than two bodies - otherwise known as the n-body problem.

The only way that an n-body problem can be solved (solved is really a bad choice of words because the solution is not exact) is by an iterative process using computers. By its very nature, it is imprecise. Each iteration has some imprecision built into it and that imprecision cannot be avoided. With better computers the results of the computations improve. Even with the precision of today's calculations, there is still room for improvement. It is just the way science is.

I didn't understand any of that. I'm only here to try and observe how groups of primates behave in an atmosphere of conflict.
If I could, I would send you a bucket of popcorn! :laughing: Enjoy the show!

EDIT: added bold-faced word known - because there is no known exact solution to the n-body problem. That does not necessarily mean that an exact solution does not exist.
 
Last edited:
How can you prove it was that long ago? Distance is misleading, and space/time stretches.

Ok does APPROIMATELY 375 million years ago work for you?
1 lightyear = the distance light travels in 1 year.
If the star was APPROIMATELY 375 lightyears away then it happened APPROIMATELY
375 million years ago.
 
I didn't understand any of that. I'm only here to try and observe how groups of primates behave in an atmosphere of conflict.

I think I have an equation for that Cap.

Take the best science has to offer at the time. Divide that by people with a well-defined ignorance of the subject matter. Then add up their even more pronounced determination to comment without an inkling of desire to learn the subject matter.

Solve for sounding ridiculous.
 
Ok does APPROIMATELY 375 million years ago work for you?
No because that distance can not be measured. For all we know it could be 375 thousand or 375 billion. And spare me the math. It is all pointless until we accurately map the stars, log their distance and characteristic traits. Only then will we be able to accurately "approximate" a stars distance.

We can't even track people on this planet without some form of triangulation. And I'm expected to think we can do so with the stars, from a greater distance and less signal.
 
No because that distance can not be measured. For all we know it could be 375 thousand or 375 billion. And spare me the math. It is all pointless until we accurately map the stars, log their distance and characteristic traits. Only then will we be able to accurately "approximate" a stars distance.

We can't even track people on this planet without some form of triangulation. And I'm expected to think we can do so with the stars, from a greater distance and less signal.
For objects up to 10 kpc away, the triangulation and mapping of stars is exactly how it's done:

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit1/distances.html

The use of stellar parallaxes sets out a template of distances with extremely low levels of uncertainty for an enormous quantity of stars (the European Space Agency Gaia mission is ultimately targeting around a billion objects). This gets analysed alongside the objects' spectroscopic data (which details the star's chemical composition) and observed luminosity. The three sets of data provides a catalogue of reference data - I.e. if one observes a particular star, record its spectra and luminosity, the data can be used to estimate its distance. The level of uncertainty in such measurements isn't in the order of a factor of a million but less than 5%. The data collected is verified and/or updated through additional checks, such as planetary transits of observed stars.

Distances to nearby galaxies can also be examined using this catalogue, because individual stars can be resolved using the likes of the HST in large spiral galaxies, such as M31. This information in turn is then used to verify distances to further galaxies, along with additional reference systems found in our galaxy, such as Cepheid variable stars and supernovae - these systems use the fact that the observed events (e.g. the period of variability in a Cepheid) directly relate to the observed luminosity and if one knows how bright something should be, measured against how bright it appears to be, then its distance can be estimated (but with a large value of uncertainty compared to that achieved through parallax measurements).

One might ask how can astrophysicists be certain that the galaxy observed in this news article isn't just a very small one (which would explain its observed luminosity) that's just moving away very fast (which would explain its observed spectral redshift). The answer lies in other data - for example, the width of the spectral lines observed in the light from a galaxy directly correlates to the size of a galaxy, so this will indicate if an observed galaxy is either small or far away. Many galactic cores, including this one, emit signals in other parts of the electromagnetic spectrum (radio, UV, X-ray, gamma) and signals at the high energy end of the scale, I.e. X-ray and gamma, lots of mass/gravity to generate and so indicate the scale of the mass of the galaxy (which in turn points to the size and luminosity).

All of this data goes together to form a picture of the scale of the distance and while individual values may suggest something closer or further away, the data set as a whole correlates to a scale of a few hundred million light years, rather than in the order of thousands or billions.
 
I think I have an equation for that Cap.

Take the best science has to offer at the time. Divide that by people with a well-defined ignorance of the subject matter. Then add up their even more pronounced determination to comment without an inkling of desire to learn the subject matter.

Solve for sounding ridiculous.
And the answer = :laughing::laughing::laughing:!
I'll be laughing at this for a while!
 
Back