One more flare happened since then, in 2022, but because of instrumental limitations, it was caught only at a prestage (M. J. Valtonen et al. 2023; M. J. Valtonen 2024). At the same time, more flares were discovered in historical photographic plate studies so that only eight of the expected 26 flares remain unconfirmed (R. Hudec et al. 2013). All the unconfirmed ones are due to lack of known photographs at the expected epochs.
What I don’t get is how you can say we are publishing the first picture and then post a picture that was published three years ago.
It looks like HN has now changed the title from the “all editors should be fired” exhibit list to something more reasonable, but the linked article is still titled, “Scientists capture first image of two black holes in orbit.”
As to the image, "The image shows two bright points, each representing a jet of high-energy particles emitted by one of the black holes. The black holes themselves remain invisible, but the image provides clear visual evidence of their position, motion, and dual existence. "
My best guess is that it took a few years to interpret the data. Frankly, I don't get the math. The numbers are so big! But I feel pretty small when considering this... and, of course, soon we'll hear of even more of these systems.
Do you think that gravitational lens effects will be studied when "the stars are aligned" for other studies?
It’s died down lately but there has been a lot of spleen venting here about how shit article titles are compared to their contents. Often implying the exact opposite of the contents. The usual explanation is that editors pick the titles. And then there is a lot of uncharitable speculation about what exactly editors are good for given they are so overwhelmingly awful at titles. Which I am all too happy to participate in.
What’s interesting is the policy here used to be no editorializing on titles. But the title of this thread has been changed to something more like the paper and less like the article describing it. Seemingly in violation of that old policy. I hope that means I’ve missed a shift in policy happening.
When two galaxies merge, their supermassive black holes fairly rapidly sink to the center of mass of the newly combined galaxy via dynamical friction and enter into a slow orbit around each other. Over time, the SMBHs kick out interloping stars, which removes energy from the orbit and causes the two SMBHs to come closer together. If the SMBHs were able to get within ~0.1 parsecs of each other, gravitational wave radiation could take over and cause the orbit to shrink fairly rapidly and lead to the merger of the two SMBHs.
However, the theoretical models we have generally predict that at about 1 parsec, the SMBHs have kicked out all the stars in their neighborhood, so the process stalls out. In practice we don't observe many SMBH binary systems (OJ287 being the main exception), so there must be some mechanism that causes these systems to shrink from 1 pc to 0.1 pc. But we don't know what it is. The hope is that detailed studies of the orbit of OJ287 can provide some clues as to what that missing mechanism is.
Other commenters have proposed 0.22 light years, but if that's it, it's off from the diagram by a factor of 10...
Thank you.
pavel_lishin•3mo ago
Damn, that's about the time it takes Jupiter to orbit the sun. That feels wildly close together for objects that mass 18 billion & 150 million times that of our own sun.
These black holes (according to a calculator I found online) have radii of 53 billion km and 400 million km, so I'm guessing they must be orbiting significantly further away, and significantly faster than Jupiter (which is ~800 million km away from the sun) - which makes sense, given the monstrous 18b figure. I wonder how far apart they are, but I don't really know how to easily calculate that right now.
hinkley•3mo ago
I’m having more trouble visualizing how accretion disks would work for a binary black hole. Because the light is coming from the disks, not the black holes. So those are what are actually pulsing/girating.
pavel_lishin•3mo ago
I thought that in this case, the light that they detected was coming from the jets coming from the poles, not the disk itself directly.
hinkley•3mo ago
ardel95•3mo ago
hinkley•3mo ago
ardel95•3mo ago
kmm•3mo ago
Plugging 12 years and 18e9 solar masses gives about 2e12 kilometers, or roughly a fifth of a lightyear. This also means the smaller black hole is zipping around the bigger one at around 6% of the speed of light, which is low enough that the Newtonian approximation is probably reasonable accurate (at least to give a rough idea of how large the distances must be).
hnuser123456•3mo ago
[1] https://archive.is/Ccy5M
IAmBroom•3mo ago
ccozan•3mo ago
butlike•3mo ago
Bro should get in shape before they start to clap cheeks
Qem•3mo ago
[1] https://www.centauri-dreams.org/2023/06/08/freeman-dysons-gr...
kbelder•3mo ago
There's a SF story waiting to be written about a planet just over that radius, traveling at something like 0.99c. Years would takes seconds, and seem even faster since they'd be significantly time-dilated. Of course, they'd quickly spiral in.