Subscribe to New Scientist magazine
ARTICLE

Black holes dine on hot gassy pancakes

  • 18:00 23 July 2008
  • NewScientist.com news service
  • Hazel Muir
Printable versionEmail to a friendRSS FeedSyndicate
 
Illustration of an observed quasar (top left); light from the accretion disc around a black hole is contaminated by dust clouds (top right), but the addition of a polarising filter conceals the clouds and reveals the accretion disc's true colours (bottom) (Illustration: M. Kishimoto/M. Schartmann)
Illustration of an observed quasar (top left); light from the accretion disc around a black hole is contaminated by dust clouds (top right), but the addition of a polarising filter conceals the clouds and reveals the accretion disc's true colours (bottom) (Illustration: M. Kishimoto/M. Schartmann)
 

By viewing energetic galaxies called quasars through a high-tech equivalent of polarised sunglasses, astronomers have clinched the case that they are fuelled by discs of hot matter swirling onto huge black holes. The trick could allow them to better understand why the environs of a black hole can shine with the light of a trillion Suns.

"After many years of controversy, we finally have very convincing evidence that the expected disc is truly there," says Makoto Kishimoto from the Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy in Bonn, Germany.

Quasars are the brilliant cores of galaxies that have supermassive black holes at their hearts. Somehow they manage to radiate as much light as a large galaxy of stars, but from a region only about the size of our solar system.

For decades, physicists have theorised that the radiation comes from a hot "accretion disc" around the black hole. The black hole's gravity pulls in surrounding gas and dust, which swirls into a disc and heats up to hundreds of thousands of degrees.

Dense dust

A key prediction of this theory is that infrared light from the outermost, coolest region of the disc should show a very distinctive spectrum. It had never been possible to test this prediction because infrared light from dust clouds outside the disc completely swamps the disc's faint glow.

"The emission from hot dust grains in the surroundings is so strong that it buries emission from the accretion disc, so we just couldn't see it," Kishimoto told New Scientist.

However, there was some evidence that light emerging from the accretion disc is slightly polarised, just as light scattering from an ocean surface becomes polarised. So Kishimoto's team reasoned that by looking at just the polarised part of a quasar's infrared light, they could measure the glow of the disc alone.

Telltale spectrum

The team used the United Kingdom Infra-Red Telescope in Hawaii and the European Very Large Telescope in Chile to look at the faint polarised component of infrared light from six different quasars at an average distance of 5 billion light years. Sure enough, all showed the telltale spectrum predicted for an accretion disc.

"It looks like the standard picture is correct, which really moves the field of quasars forward," says Kishimoto.

Now that astronomers have polarised specs that can home in on the outer portions of accretion discs, they hope to answer long-standing questions about their anatomy, including how large the discs are, and how matter falls onto them – whether smoothly or in sudden bursts.

Journal reference: Nature (vol 454, p 492)

 
Comment subject
Comment
No HTML except lower case italic tags or lower case bold tags, please:
<i> or <b>
Your name
Your email
 

We need your email in case we need to contact you about the comment. We will not use it for any other purpose.

 
 
There are 25 comments on 2 pages
1  | 
2
 | Next
 | Most Recent
 | See all

Woooooooow

By Phlegm

Thu Jul 24 03:05:52 BST 2008

[edited]

Can someone please explain to me how we can see 5 BILLION light years away

REPORT | REPLY

Woooooooow

By Idiot Hater

Thu Jul 24 05:34:18 BST 2008

You are an idiot

REPORT | REPLY

Woooooooow

By Woot!

Thu Jul 24 12:27:55 BST 2008

Agreed!!

REPORT | REPLY

Woooooooow

By Gianni

Thu Jul 24 09:15:00 BST 2008

In layman terms, we simply look at the light (in this case is more radiation) that was produced 5 billion years ago.

REPORT | REPLY

Woooooooow

By Matt

Thu Jul 24 12:43:49 BST 2008

Because light travels across the vacuum of space unless it is interrupted by something. Then the light (or photons) lands on our retina or on a CCD or on a piece of photographic film and an image is built up.

REPORT | REPLY

For The First Time?

By Anonymous

Thu Jul 24 10:46:01 BST 2008

"For the first time astronomers have seen discs of hot matter swirling onto huge black holes."

Here is one image (for example, out of many others) that more than adequately nailed the idea for lots of people back in 1992:

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/1992/27/image/b/

There are many other similar images of accretion disks - you know, those "hot gassy pancakes" or "disks of hot matter" that black holes feed on?

And those didn't need OBVIOUS ARTWORK to help validate the assertion either.

The people responsible for this press release should be thoroughly ASHAMED of themselves!

Statements like "After many years of controversy, we finally have very convincing evidence that the expected disc is truly there" from Makoto Kishimoto from the Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy in Bonn, exposes the additional problem of investigators who lose their scientific heads as soon as they are asked to comment on their work in a popular forum.

Evidently, plenty of scientists like Kishimoto think that it's ok to play up the hype angle, because it's expected for popular consumption.

Nice. Very convincing indeed.

I'm not exclusively blaming New Scientist. They're bound to rely on what they're given with press releases. What else can they do, without digging up more information from the investigators themselves? I know it can be tough to contain a history within a limited space, but even without such background details, ACCURATE accounts are the basis of good JOURNALISM, regardless of what the source says. It's almost painful to see a popular distributor of science news simply regurgitate what they're given. That's not journalism. That's what the Wall Street Journal or Fox News does.

Mags like New Scientist, however, should ALSO know better: from what stories and press releases they've amassed over the years, they should realize by now that it DOESN'T hurt their readership interest in their copy if they treated the stories with a modicum of editorial correction serving the interests of accuracy. INACCURACY certainly has no place in a science news magazine OR in one that strives so fervently to increase its readership.

In this case, the characterization that new observations suggesting that astronomers have "for the first time...seen discs of hot matter swirling onto huge black holes" could have been easily and without due fuss been transformed into the far more accurate characterization that these new observations supply additional CONFIRMATION to what has previously been seen. What readers could you have possibly lost in doing so? Certainly nobody who buys your magazine in order to get any SCIENCE NEWS out of it.

In the end, though, what really bumbed me out enough to holler about this was that "image" - and the acompanying caption that supplies not a clue of it being artwork. Absolutely disgusting.

REPORT | REPLY

For The First Time?

By Anon

Thu Jul 24 12:40:01 BST 2008

Its not an artowkr its an image viewed through polarised light filters which removes the non-polarised light leaving only the polarized light behind.

REPORT | REPLY

For The First Time?

By Popoid

Thu Jul 24 17:40:58 BST 2008

Actually, it IS an illustration, i.e. Artwork

REPORT | REPLY

For The First Time?

By Matt

Thu Jul 24 12:48:20 BST 2008

After reading your rant (including capitalised words for emphasis - always the sign of a rant), I really can't understand what your problem is.

The statement that, after a lot of controversy, there is now convincing eveidence that the accretion disc is there is true - until now there have not been direct observations of the accretion discs in quasi stellar objects.

OK, so perhaps the illustration should have been marked clearly as such, but your use of words like "disgusting" and "ashamed" say more about the stability of your mind than they do about the article or the standards on New Scientist.

REPORT | REPLY

For The First Time?

By Popoid

Thu Jul 24 17:06:05 BST 2008

Do you even understand what a quasar is? Obviouly you are VERY =) confused about it.

Never before the accretion disk of a QUASAR =) had been IMAGED =) in any WAY =) so please stop RANTING =) about ISSSUES =) you can't UNDERSTAND =)

REPORT | REPLY

For The First Time?

By Acoyauh

Thu Jul 24 17:42:36 BST 2008

Hehehe kudos ;)

REPORT | REPLY

The Math

By Jtankers

Thu Jul 24 11:59:12 BST 2008

I would be very interested in the math behind the growth rates of black holes. I understand that the larger the black hole the slower the growth.

That seems to fit with the speculation that black holes might feed on dark energy, possibly reverse Hawking Radiation.

REPORT | REPLY

The Math

By Tony

Thu Jul 24 13:02:19 BST 2008

You mean mathS.....which is short for mathamaticS

REPORT | REPLY

The Math

By Matt

Thu Jul 24 13:32:47 BST 2008

Not so. In many countries, including the US, mathematics is shortened simply to 'math'. As in "do the math".

So, you're grammar pedantry has hoisted you by your own petard! Mwuahahaha!

REPORT | REPLY

The Math

By Acoyauh

Thu Jul 24 17:22:17 BST 2008

Your, possessive, not you're as in you are.

Sorry Matt, 'cause I actually agree with you... ...

2 more replies »

REPORT | REPLY

The Math

By Tony

Sat Jul 26 01:36:06 BST 2008

There is no such word as math for the same reason there is no such word as physic.

REPORT | REPLY

There are 25 comments on 2 pages
1  | 
2
 | Next
 | Most Recent
 | See all

All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.

If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.

Printable versionEmail to a friendRSS FeedSyndicate
Cover of latest issue of New Scientist magazine
  • For exclusive news and expert analysis every week subscribe to New Scientist Print Edition
  • For what's in New Scientist magazine this week see contents
  • Search all stories
  • Contact us about this story
  • Sign up for our free newsletter
 
PASSWORD LOGIN
username:
password:
 help
SUBSCRIPTIONS
Subscribe to New Scientist magazine