Comprehensive coverage

Further confirmation of Einstein's theory of general relativity: black holes of all sizes have similar eating habits

This is according to the measurement of visible light, radio and X-ray emissions from the spiral galaxy M81, at the center of which is a massive black hole that has a mass of about 70 million solar masses

The galaxy M81. Photo: NASA
The galaxy M81. Photo: NASA

All black holes, no matter what size, have similar and simple eating habits. A new study using data from the Chandra Space Telescope and ground-based telescopes, combined with detailed theoretical models, has shown that the supermassive black hole at the center of M81 swallows matter just as much as black holes with only 10 times the mass of the Sun. . The discovery supports Einstein's theory of general relativity according to which black holes of all sizes have identical properties.
The fact that they digest in a similar way the material that falls on them can be measured through the identical emission of X-rays, visible light and radio signals.

M81 is a planet 12 million light years from Earth. As mentioned, in its center is a black hole with 70 million solar masses that creates energy and radiation when it attracts material from the dust clouds in the center of the galaxy at high speed. In contrast, small black holes have completely different food sources. They pull gases from the atmospheres of their companion stars. Since the large and small black holes are in different environments and feed in different ways, the question was whether it is possible to distinguish the differences in the way they feed.

"When we look at the data it seems that our model works just as well for the massive black hole in M81 as it does for smaller ones," says Michael Novak of MIT. According to him, "Everything around the supermassive black hole is the same as what happens around stellar black holes, except that it is 10 million times larger."

One of the consequences of Einstein's theory of general relativity is that blacks are simple objects and only their masses and rotation speed determine their effect on space-time. The latest studies show that this abstraction proves itself despite the complex environmental effects.

More of the topic in Hayadan:

29 תגובות

  1. Melody T

    Read my response again. Note that I only used what is known about black holes there. I did not add any explanation of my own. I showed you why in my opinion the explanation of the existence of black holes is problematic.
    What is the real explanation for what you see, Mr. Obsession gives you in a bad way the other explanation. Whether it is true or not, it should not change the problem of black holes.
    Ignore the damn "shadow".
    Good night
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  2. Chen T:
    Just have the right context.
    In one of the parallel discussions Yehuda explained to us that the place in the center of the galaxy where we claim there is a black hole is actually the eye of a vortex.
    Do you understand?
    A vortex eye that constantly has huge amounts of material and huge amounts of lukewarm fall into it, but it still remains under pressure and the material does not accumulate in it.

  3. Chen T

    As a person who does not believe in the existence of black holes, I cannot answer you. Everything that was explained to you about black holes was done according to the behavior of their immediate environment.
    By their very definition as bodies that swallow all the information coming out of them (almost). You can't check them, only their surroundings. Hence the doubt I have about their existence.
    good week
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  4. Chen T:
    I am surprised that you ask Yehuda, but your tastes are surely with you.
    A black hole does not need "food" to exist. As I mentioned in previous comments, the activity of black holes has "dead" periods where they are inactive because they have consumed the available mass in their environment. During these periods, they simply wait - like a spider in its web - for another mass to be captured by their gravity and fall, in the end, into them.
    The more they "eat" - the more they grow.
    This is - roughly - what the theory of relativity says about black holes.
    Quantum theory adds another hypothesis (not yet tested experimentally) according to which a black hole also radiates and therefore it is expected to disappear after a (very long) period of starvation.
    This is Hawking radiation, which you can read about here:
    By the way, Jacob Bekenstein who predicted this radiation for the first time (which is why it is also named after him, as mentioned in the link) is an Israeli

  5. Yehuda and Michael Peace be upon you,
    Does a black hole without food cease to exist? Does the more he eats the more he expands and weakens? Does the more he eats the stronger he gets?

  6. Avner,
    The research says that the behavior is similar in the vicinity of black holes, the differences in masses change the "eating habits" of the black hole, that is, a certain match can be found in the eating habits if there are two black holes with similar masses.

  7. Avner:
    Maybe you should read the original article where things are clearly explained but, on second thought, maybe you should also read the article here carefully because, among other things, it says the following:
    "When we look at the data it seems that our model works just as well for the massive black hole in M81 as it does for smaller ones," says Michael Novak of MIT. According to him, "Everything around the supermassive black hole is the same as what happens around stellar black holes, except that it is 10 million times larger."

    Overall, the claim is that the model works equally well - not that what happens in one place is the same as what happens in another.
    After all, even with regard to a single black hole, we know that its behavior at a given moment depends on the amount of material available for "swallowing" in its environment, therefore every black hole has active periods and "dead" periods.

    The whole idea that we are trying to test is whether really - as the theory predicts - the behavior of black holes is determined only by the three parameters of mass, rotation and charge and that no other hidden feature affects their behavior (like for example - the number of giraffes that fell in).

  8. For all the "knowers" (who is more, who is even more),
    How is it possible for a supermassive black hole to swallow at the same rate as a "small" black hole???
    After all, its gravitational force is much greater, or in the terms of the theory of relativity, the distortion it creates in space-time is greater. The radius of its event horizon is also larger and, accordingly, the radius of its adsorption disk also increases.
    In short, it doesn't make sense. On the other hand, in my opinion, a "temporary" situation is possible, in which during certain periods of time, the density of the material close to the supermassive hole is low, and this may be the cause of the decrease in the amount of material it swallows.

  9. To the cool commenter:
    Did you notice that Yehuda refers you to the material I sent him a million years ago and you sent him recently?
    He claims that there are many scientists who see potential in it and are trying to improve it, but I'm sure he can't point to even one.
    Wikipedia also says that the theory is not trusted by scientists.
    By the way, I wonder what the "achievements" he is talking about are.
    I am not aware of any achievement of the theory except the achievement (which I do not dismiss) that it gave scientists an opportunity to test and refute it.

  10. there is a "small" error
    The distance of the galaxy is 12 million light years,
    And not 12 light years, as written here.

    What about the satellite results from more than 3 years ago,
    Sent by NASA
    test the truths of Einstein's theories ???

  11. to the cool responder

    Pushing gravity is a beautiful theory with lots of achievements. It is true that it also has some points of failure such as friction. That is why there are many scientists who see potential in it and try to improve it.
    To cancel it outright would be a hasty act.

    Read material about her on the Internet, Wikipedia or Google and you will see the situation for sure.

    Good Day
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  12. To the cool commenter:
    There is one main debate and it is the debate about the Gravity raider.
    There is a secondary debate in which - in order to create a position for himself that will allow him to promote his delusion in the masses - Yehuda tries to dwarf and defame every scientist and every scientific achievement in the field of cosmology.
    In each of the debates (the second of which is one big slander by its very definition) Yehuda tries to slander anyone who contradicts his ideas and the beauty is that his favorite slander is that the person always slanders.

  13. to the cool responder
    You're right, I'm getting dragged into a stupid argument here. I won't respond to him anymore.
    I hope the science commenters knew how to filter Michael's defamatory comments.
    Good night
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  14. And I think it's unnecessary.
    I don't understand what the argument between you two is about? Can't it be summed up in points and that's it?
    Come on, aren't you already in your 30s or something?
    Try not to repeat yourself too many times.
    Cool will never hurt..

    This should be a debate between two ideologies, not between two people.

  15. Yehuda:
    Maybe you decide?
    If I only attack you then how come I attack others too?
    Reason and decency have never been a candle to your feet.

  16. for spring
    Don't pay attention to Michael's statements, his whole goal now is to fight the number one "enemy of science" - Sabdarmish. Literally Don Quixote with a persecution complex.
    Look at his last response, there is no truth in it!
    Even when I say that I don't understand something, this wretch is already building threads of conspiracies out of it.

    Aviv, you are not the only one who notices his bad behavior, his whole mind. Only attack those who disagree with his opinion.
    Really disgusting and disgusting.
    Ignore us.

    Other than that, have a good evening
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  17. As an open forum, you can also say things that are not visible to others, such as the Bible is real and evolution is an invention and that scientists are wrong, but there are two proverbs that close the issue
    "Silence is a caveat to wisdom" and "It is better to be considered a fool than to speak and prove it"

  18. Spring:
    Judas has a tradition of belittling scientists and the best argument he ever made against their discoveries was the "I don't understand" argument.
    He doesn't say that to ask a question.
    There is a statement in this along the lines of "If I - the wonderful Yehuda - do not understand - that means they are talking nonsense".
    So please tell me:
    Why do you accept the fact that he is coming down on the scientific community and you are complaining about the one who is coming down on him?

  19. To the student

    Not preparing to talk about the idea of ​​the simple universe in this framework

    good evening
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  20. to Judah,
    No one has proven but confirmed the theory as the title says.
    And as they said in several cases, it is impossible to prove a theory but to confirm or refute it.
    And regarding the theory of the simple universe... how do the readings of the bones of the energy work out there?

  21. Michael, why this attitude?
    Who does it benefit when you add a personal review?
    Address the matter and contribute your information or view to us.
    Believe me it will be much more interesting.

  22. Yehuda:
    As usual, you just don't understand.
    But that's basically what you said.
    I wish the other times you don't understand you would respond so honestly.

  23. Yehuda,

    I agree with you that none of these findings can be proven, but this is a rather important finding that shows that there is a certain correspondence between the mass of the black hole and its "eating habits", it is true that we do not know what exactly causes it and what motivates it and does it happen in every situation - but This is another piece of the puzzle.

  24. I don't understand
    Is it possible to prove something from the fact that a large invisible thing behaves like a small invisible thing? It seems to me that this something is also invisible.

    Have a good and successful day
    Sabdarmish Yehuda

  25. Does anyone know about the results of the drag effect experiment from the rotation of the earth that started a few years ago? (They launched satellites into space..)

Leave a Reply

Email will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.