A ring singularity or ringularity is the gravitational singularity of a Kerr black hole.
We need a picture!
WaterfallAttachments
I was keeping it simple by referring to non-spinning black holes, but spinning black holes are much more exciting! 
A spinning supermassive black hole was discovered in 2014, after it tore apart a star that strayed too close, causing a flash of bright light that was spotted by a system of optical telescopes.
That black hole’s event horizon is about 300 times bigger than the Earth.
It was clocked to be spinning at 50% of the speed of light. The few supermassive black holes whose rotation rates have been clocked to date have been found to whip around between 33% of the speed of light and the theoretical upper limit of 84%.
This Huge Black Hole Is Spinning at Half the Speed of Light! | Space
A spinning supermassive black hole was discovered in 2014, after it tore apart a star that strayed too close, causing a flash of bright light that was spotted by a system of optical telescopes.
That black hole’s event horizon is about 300 times bigger than the Earth.
It was clocked to be spinning at 50% of the speed of light. The few supermassive black holes whose rotation rates have been clocked to date have been found to whip around between 33% of the speed of light and the theoretical upper limit of 84%.
This Huge Black Hole Is Spinning at Half the Speed of Light! | Space
I see what you were referring to now, indra1.Stuff involving black hole are over my head most of the time. How can something which occupies no space rotate in space?
Ton 618. Event horizon 40 times the orbit of Neptune. Boggles the mind!!
TON 618 - Wikipedia
TON 618 - Wikipedia
That's a stupendously large black hole!
In fact, these have been given the acronym SLABs.
'Stupendously large' black holes could grow to truly monstrous sizes | Space
In fact, these have been given the acronym SLABs.
'Stupendously large' black holes could grow to truly monstrous sizes | Space
As a serious physicist and mathematician I have always felt that if you have seen one Black Hole, you have seen them all:
But TON 618 exceeds my expectations:
TON 618 - Wikipedia
66 Billion Sols is a big mass.
It's a worry. Happily far away.
But TON 618 exceeds my expectations:
TON 618 - Wikipedia
66 Billion Sols is a big mass.
It's a worry. Happily far away.
Considering distances, the currently observed top and bottom was there circa 35000 years ago. Since we are 27000 ly from SgrA*, radiation from the that event should have reached earth ~8000 years ago. Anything of note archeologically around that time?
I think I described different laws of physics. I posited a weak interaction with another bubble, due to similar but not identical qualities, hence the interaction.
There are some topics that are best avoided IMO.
Clearly we have no idea about the geometry of the Universe. Many different ideas.
I was trying to get a feel for how big this Quasar is:
TON 618 - Wikipedia
Turns out it is about a thousandth the size of our own Galaxy:
Milky Way - Wikipedia.
Clearly a whopper. But not that big.
Clearly we have no idea about the geometry of the Universe. Many different ideas.
I was trying to get a feel for how big this Quasar is:
TON 618 - Wikipedia
Turns out it is about a thousandth the size of our own Galaxy:
Milky Way - Wikipedia.
Clearly a whopper. But not that big.
More interesting quasar business!
Quasar axes align with large-scale cosmic structures – Astronomy Now
Quasar axes align with large-scale cosmic structures – Astronomy Now
But not with great intensity if the jets of radiation were emitted at right angles to the plane of the galaxy.
~8000 years ago would take us to ~5480 BC when the carbon 14 content created in tree rings indicated an increased level of solar activity.
Was the increased activity really attributable to the Sun? Who knows!
Last edited:
See link below (Ethan’s ‘Starts with a Bang’ blog is a fantastic resource BTW).
I read (elsewhere) that quasar jets also spin, unlike regular SM BH and this results in more of the in-falling matter being ejected and one of the reasons they appear to be so energetic. Some of these things are 12 BLY+ away. It seems it’s not possible for objects of this mass to form anymore - they could only have formed in the early history of the universe when there was enough matter ‘close at hand’ to create these monsters.
This Is Why Black Holes Must Spin At Almost The Speed Of Light
I read (elsewhere) that quasar jets also spin, unlike regular SM BH and this results in more of the in-falling matter being ejected and one of the reasons they appear to be so energetic. Some of these things are 12 BLY+ away. It seems it’s not possible for objects of this mass to form anymore - they could only have formed in the early history of the universe when there was enough matter ‘close at hand’ to create these monsters.
This Is Why Black Holes Must Spin At Almost The Speed Of Light
Interesting!
The core of a quasar contains a disk of hot gas spiraling into a supermassive black hole. Some of that gas is forcefully ejected outward in two opposing jets at nearly the speed of light. The jets are emitted along the axis of rotation of the disc.
Theoretical physicists struggle to understand the physics of the accretion disc and the jets, while astronomers try to peer into the hearts of quasars.
Ordinary telescopes don't help, but microlensing Gravitational microlensing - Wikipedia techniques have allowed astronomers to pinpoint the location of where the jets form in a quasar known as Q0957+561.
The jets originate 8000 astronomical units (one unit equals distance from Sun to Earth) directly above the poles of the rotating supermassive object.
This location leads theorists to think that spinning, winding and snapping magnetic fields lines are interacting with the material in the accretion disc to generate the energy to power the jets. A New View of Quasars - Universe Today
I've attached a nice artist's impression of spinning jets!
Attachments
Confusing sudden temperature dip followed by a highish peak. From Why The Current Interglacial Might Be Coming To An End | Principia Scientific Intl..
Attachments
There are some topics that are best avoided IMO.
Clearly we have no idea about the geometry of the Universe. Many different ideas.
I was trying to get a feel for how big this Quasar is:
TON 618 - Wikipedia
Turns out it is about a thousandth the size of our own Galaxy:
Milky Way - Wikipedia.
Clearly a whopper. But not that big.
It’s the energy output that’s big Steve! I suppose if they are SM, they would’ve gobbled up most of the matter around them, so dimensionally small but mass wise huge.
WTF?
If the universe is in fact the all of all there is, it cannot be expanding, I think. All that we can percieved, cannot exist outside of the boundless universe.
So space isn't really expanding. It remains the same size, and everything else we can perceive is instead shrinking, but seems to be expanding, galaxies and such flying apart?
So this shrinking of the perceptible might be observed as accelerating, returning to nothingness?
If the universe is in fact the all of all there is, it cannot be expanding, I think. All that we can percieved, cannot exist outside of the boundless universe.
So space isn't really expanding. It remains the same size, and everything else we can perceive is instead shrinking, but seems to be expanding, galaxies and such flying apart?
So this shrinking of the perceptible might be observed as accelerating, returning to nothingness?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.