Black Hole Spills Kaleidoscope of Color

[Dragon Star]

Shoes may not come in every color, but space objects do. All objects in space, everything from dust to distant galaxies, give off a rainbow of light -- including light our eyes can't see. That's where NASA's Great Observatories come in. Together, they help astronomers see all the shades of the cosmos.

A new false-colored image from NASA's Hubble, Chandra, and Spitzer space telescopes demonstrates this principle beautifully. The multi-hued portrait shows a giant jet of particles that has been shot out from the vicinity of a type of supermassive black hole called a quasar. The jet is enormous, stretching across more than 100,000 light-years of space -- a size comparable to our own Milky Way galaxy!

http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/Media...ings/20060724/

Wow, now that is one large jet...very impressive.

[Nokton]

Originally Posted by Dragon Star

http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/Media...ings/20060724/

Wow, now that is one large jet...very impressive.

Indeed Dragon, but correct me if I am wrong. Does not the
formation of a SMBH first create the quasar? The massive gas cloud
surrounding the new black hole is drawn into it. The intense gravity of
the black hole heats up the gas to intense temperature, so a quasar
is born. Then after the BH has gobbled up the surrounding gas, it goes quiet, the quasar is no more. But in gobbling the gas field around it, the
BH produces a bow wave, so to speak, which triggers tubulence in the
gas field far beyond its gravitational influence, producing star formation,
that then becomes a galaxy...
Dragon, am not entirely happy with current thinking on a black hole as
containing a singularity, whatever that may represent.......
Am driven to the conclusion that once matter is compressed beyond a
certain limit, it reverts to its original state, the state is was when the
Big Bang occured, a soup of fundamental particals.
Please tell me your thoughts and opinions.
Nokton.

I don't see the way of your thoughts between quazar description (which is correct, quazar suck huge amounts of matter, radiating huge amount of energy. Some of the matter is ejected back as from sling (like that jet you can see, which will turn around and start revolving around that SMBH) and doesn't enter event horizon, you get turbulent gases - voila, galaxy) and conclusion, that black holes revert to a normal matter after some time.

[Dragon Star]

Originally Posted by Nokton

Indeed Dragon, but correct me if I am wrong. Does not the
formation of a SMBH first create the quasar? The massive gas cloud
surrounding the new black hole is drawn into it. The intense gravity of
the black hole heats up the gas to intense temperature, so a quasar
is born. Then after the BH has gobbled up the surrounding gas, it goes quiet, the quasar is no more. But in gobbling the gas field around it, the
BH produces a bow wave, so to speak, which triggers tubulence in the
gas field far beyond its gravitational influence, producing star formation,
that then becomes a galaxy...
Dragon, am not entirely happy with current thinking on a black hole as
containing a singularity, whatever that may represent.......
Am driven to the conclusion that once matter is compressed beyond a
certain limit, it reverts to its original state, the state is was when the
Big Bang occured, a soup of fundamental particals.
Please tell me your thoughts and opinions.
Nokton.

Current thinking goes as this:

Quasar's are driven by SMBH's, and too keep their typical luminosity, they must consume at least 10 solar masses of material every year, and can consume as much as 1000 solar masses per year. A quasar would not continue to feed at that rate of 10 billion years, which explains why there are no nearby quasars. In this idea, after a quasar finishes eating up gas and dust, it becomes an ordinary galaxy.

Now, one characteristic of quasars is that they show evidence of elements heavier than helium. This means that galaxies underwent a HUGE phase of star formation creating population III stars between the time of the Big Bang and the first observable quasars. If no evidence for these stars is found and no alternatives are found for creating the heavier elements, this may seriously hurt the current views of the universe.

Have fun: http://www.universetoday.com/2006/07...ew-of-quasars/

[Nokton]

Originally Posted by Dragon Star

Current thinking goes as this:

Quasar's are driven by SMBH's, and too keep their typical luminosity, they must consume at least 10 solar masses of material every year, and can consume as much as 1000 solar masses per year. A quasar would not continue to feed at that rate of 10 billion years, which explains why there are no nearby quasars. In this idea, after a quasar finishes eating up gas and dust, it becomes an ordinary galaxy.

Now, one characteristic of quasars is that they show evidence of elements heavier than helium. This means that galaxies underwent a HUGE phase of star formation creating population III stars between the time of the Big Bang and the first observable quasars. If no evidence for these stars is found and no alternatives are found for creating the heavier elements, this may seriously hurt the current views of the universe.

Hi Dragon, thankyou your reply. please explain to me, I ask because
I seek to understand. Does not the BH create the Quasar, the light and
energy produced by gas being accelerated by the massive gravity pull
producing the radiation? And in so doing, does not the 'wind' drive the
rest of the gas cloud away. Dragon, there has been proved a co-relation
between the mass of a SMBH and the speed of the stars orbiting it.
In every galaxy if falls to 0.5%
Dragon, no nearby quasars....We look through our telescopes at the very
distant past, perhaps this is about interpretation. Andromeda has a core
that glows, not with the same brightness as a quasar, but, perhaps the
dying shell of one we see.
Dragon, the stars containing heavier elements are found towards the
outer rim of the galaxy.
Nokton.

[Dragon Star]

Originally Posted by Nokton

Hi Dragon, thankyou your reply. please explain to me, I ask because
I seek to understand. Does not the BH create the Quasar, the light and
energy produced by gas being accelerated by the massive gravity pull
producing the radiation?

Radiation in this case is caused by friction if matter around the accretion disk, as matter approaches the edge of the accretion disk it collides with it at incredible forces, and that is what produces your radiation.

Originally Posted by Nokton

Dragon, there has been proved a co-relation
between the mass of a SMBH and the speed of the stars orbiting it.
In every galaxy if falls to 0.5%

The way I understand it.

Originally Posted by Nokton

Dragon, no nearby quasars....We look through our telescopes at the very distant past, perhaps this is about interpretation. Andromeda has a core that glows, not with the same brightness as a quasar, but, perhaps the
dying shell of one we see.

It is possible if that particular quasar devoured only limited amounts of matter in it's life time for it to survive such a long time, and for the primordial universe it seems as though most all quasars devoured a lot of matter. So probably all that's left in Andromeda is the SMBH. My guesstimate is that smaller galaxies had very quiet quasars, thus spreading less galaxy material, that is where you would likely find some remnant of a quasar today, and if that is true Andromeda is just way too large to have any sort of a remnant. But that is my idea, so don't take it as a scientific fact.

Originally Posted by Nokton

Dragon, the stars containing heavier elements are found towards theouter rim of the galaxy.

Nokton.

It is possible, but if it were that easy wouldn't we be able to tell this in Andromeda?

Interesting discussion Nokton.

The stars with heavier elements are found in old galaxies, because they're either red giants themselves or are created from the matterial from red giants. As it takes quite a long time to form a red giant, you can safely estimate those galaxies to be at least 8 billion years old.

That's all I know about stars with heavier elements. I don't have any clue why they should be in the outer rim. It seems to be that if disturbed matter is not swallowed, then those stars can be anywhere in that disturbed matter, be it edges or center.

[Dragon Star]

DOH! Sorry about my last part of my post, PIII stars can't exist today, and can only be observed in distant galaxies. My mistake. I explained why below:

The reason population III stars are required is they are thought to have triggered a period of re-ionization, and from direct observations from quasars themselves in their emission spectrum.

But their are problems with PIII stars...

These stars are supposed to be HUGE, being as large as several hundred solar masses. Today no stars can be larger then 110 solar masses. Without enough carbon, oxygen and nitrogen in the core, the CNO cycle could not begin and the star would not produce nuclear fusion properly. Because direct fusion through proton-proton chains does not occur quickly enough to produce the enormous amounts of energy such a star would need to support its immense size and mass. The end result would be the star collapsing into a black hole before the star could even shine properly.

So theoretically they can't exist, but they are needed to explain the emission spectra from quasars. Which is...a big problem.

It's an interesting mystery indeed. But the answers to these problems should be answered by the James Webb Space Telescope when it goes operational, and then the theoretical stars can be observed directly.

[Nokton]

Originally Posted by Dragon Star

DOH! Sorry about my last part of my post, PIII stars can't exist today, and can only be observed in distant galaxies. My mistake. I explained why below:

The reason population III stars are required is they are thought to have triggered a period of re-ionization, and from direct observations from quasars themselves in their emission spectrum.

But their are problems with PIII stars...

These stars are supposed to be HUGE, being as large as several hundred solar masses. Today no stars can be larger then 110 solar masses. Without enough carbon, oxygen and nitrogen in the core, the CNO cycle could not begin and the star would not produce nuclear fusion properly. Because direct fusion through proton-proton chains does not occur quickly enough to produce the enormous amounts of energy such a star would need to support its immense size and mass. The end result would be the star collapsing into a black hole before the star could even shine properly.

So theoretically they can't exist, but they are needed to explain the emission spectra from quasars. Which is...a big problem.

It's an interesting mystery indeed. But the answers to these problems should be answered by the James Webb Space Telescope when it goes operational, and then the theoretical stars can be observed directly.

Dragon, the mystery you speak of will not be solved by a telescope,
but by your thoughts and ideas that can encompass more than that.
You have the ability to work out more in your head than any telescope
can tell you, follow that path.
Nokton.