This is an image of the birth of a blackhole. The star highlighted as SN1979c was recognized as having exploded 30 years ago.
article:
http://www.theage.com.au/world/scientists-rejoice-over-birth-of-black-hole-20101116-17vug.html
Thanks for the link.
Don’t mean to be anal, but the star actually imploded.
Quite right.
Actually, the article indicates SN1979C imploded and exploded.
[quote]It began 30 years ago when a star 50 million light years away imploded, creating a region where gravity is so great that nothing can escape, even light.
The initial 1979 observation of exploding star SN1979C was made by an amateur American astronomer but the profession’s top scientists have studied it intently with increasingly sophisticated orbiting X-ray telescopes.[/quote]
According to Wikipedia, SN1979C was a supernova. That would indicate it exploded.
Well, a supernova explodes initially, but can have a chance of collapse (depending on critical mass) into a blackhole (or neutron star?). Dunno if they meant implosion the same as collapse (maybe it is??). Also, the photo confused me for a moment - they are saying SN1979C is the blackhole’s location or the bright mass in the center of the galaxy.
What I don’t get is that the article says blackholes “wither away over time.” Where did they get that from? I’ve never read any theory about the end of blackholes. am curious. i mean, what happens to all that mass in that singularity etc. how does it just wither away? It would be interesting though (purely my imagination) if space-time curved so much from every blackhole that some of those singularities eventually collide and boom… another big bang in a different universe.
30 years ago? 50 million light years away? Then the black hole is actually 50,000,030 years old!
And yes, supernovas are complex processes involving implosions and explosions: collapse of the core on itself, and its outer material flung out into space.
Supposedly they leak ‘Hawking radiation’ and ‘evaporate’ over time.
Hawking initially argued that the radiation was simple noise, but changed his mind 5 years ago and now believes that the radiation actually presents information regarding the contents of the black hole.
Supposedly, CERN should be able to create and observe the destruction of micro-black holes.
Don’t believe Fox, it’s another hoax. Much better constructed this time, though: I am impressed as hell by all the fake Wikipedia links you have built for this thing.
I’ve lost all credibility. Did you know that inside a blackhole there is maximal entropy and it scales to a 2D surface area rather than a 3D volume? That I think is the basis for the holographic theory of the universe – a pretty simple concept really. It’s the second law of thermodynamics plus surface area measurements.
is that from the Large Hardon Collider?
If they’ve managed to get a black hole going, it’s going to suck up the earth and everyone in it. It’s just doing so at a much slower rate that I’d expected.
[quote=“greenmark”]is that from the Large Hardon Collider?
If they’ve managed to get a black hole going, it’s going to suck up the earth and everyone in it. It’s just doing so at a much slower rate that I’d expected.[/quote]
Even if it created a micro-black hole, the mass would be far too miniscule to generate sufficient gravity to suck up anything. It would have the gravitational force of an atom, if even that.