Is This the First Birth of a Black Hole Ever Detected?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the recent detection of a cosmic event that may signify the birth of a black hole, specifically following a gamma-ray burst. Participants explore the implications of this observation, the potential mechanisms involved, and the validity of the interpretations being proposed.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants highlight the detection of a visible-light flash accompanying a gamma-ray burst as a potential indicator of a neutron star merger leading to a black hole.
  • Others express skepticism about the neutron star merger explanation, noting that it is speculative and lacks formal peer-reviewed support.
  • One participant references various papers on neutron star masses, questioning their relevance to the current event and the interpretation of the observations.
  • Another participant emphasizes the need for caution in accepting preliminary claims without peer review, suggesting that multiple processes could lead to gamma-ray bursts.
  • Discussion includes the classification of gamma-ray bursts into short and long durations, with implications for understanding their origins and the physical processes involved.
  • Some participants speculate on the potential for gravitational wave detection from the event, while others clarify that it was too distant for current detectors to have captured any signals.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with some supporting the neutron star merger hypothesis and others challenging its validity. There is no consensus on the interpretation of the event or the mechanisms behind gamma-ray bursts.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the speculative nature of the claims regarding the neutron star merger and the lack of peer-reviewed literature directly supporting the specific observations related to this event.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in astrophysics, particularly in the study of gamma-ray bursts and black hole formation, may find the discussion relevant.

Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
8,252
Reaction score
2,664
"Creation of Black Hole Detected"

Astronomers photographed a cosmic event this morning which they believe is the birth of a black hole, SPACE.com has learned.

A faint visible-light flash moments after a high-energy gamma-ray burst likely heralds the merger of two dense neutron stars to create a relatively low-mass black hole, said Neil Gehrels of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. It is the first time an optical counterpart to a very short-duration gamma-ray burst has ever been detected. [continued]
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/050509_blackhole_birth.html
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
It should be noted that the double neutron star explanation for this event is extremely speculative at this point.
 
Why? I think that is a compelling observation. Seriously, what are the objections? That interpretation seems like a good fit to me.
 
Chronos said:
Why? I think that is a compelling observation. Seriously, what are the objections? That interpretation seems like a good fit to me.

Based on what? All I see is a quote from an astronomer saying, "This really does look like a merger scenario." As far as I know, there's no paper on the subject.
 
Your arguments are compelling. And I don't mind a good argument. And it's not like I think I am some kind of expert on anything [definitely not]. Still I am influenced by other reads:

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0410151
2S 0921-630 1.90+-0.25 Msun (1 sigma errors)

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409752
2S0921-630 2.0-4.3 Msolar (1-sigma)

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9803260
Neutron Star Mass Measurements. I. Radio Pulsars
Authors: S. E. Thorsett (Princeton University), Deepto Chakrabarty (MIT)

Perhaps I am quoting irrelevant papers. Wouldn't be the first time.
 
Chronos said:
Perhaps I am quoting irrelevant papers.

Can you explain why you think they're relevant? I'm not really seeing the point. I don't doubt the existence of neutron star binaries and certainly not of neutron stars themselves. I also don't doubt that we see things that are either black holes or something not explained by GR. All I'm skeptical of is the neutron star merger explanation for this particular event. It only happened two days ago, so there's no way to confirm their analysis.
 
Regardless of the exact nature of the event, looks like that Swift scope is living up to its billing. Cool stuff.
 
Is there any past paper predicting what a neutron-binary merger would look like? Has anyone published an analysis which predicted that such a merger could/would look like a GRB + visible flash?

It sounds like the scientist quoted has indeed read (or written?) such a paper:
'"A fraction of a second before contact, the lower mass neutron star is disrupted and forms a neutrino driven accretion disk around the higher mass neutron star," Sigurdsson told SPACE.com. "It implodes under the weight and forms a maximally spinning low-mass black hole."​
To me, this doesn't sound like off-the-cuff speculation.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
PeteSF said:
Is there any past paper predicting what a neutron-binary merger would look like? Has anyone published an analysis which predicted that such a merger could/would look like a GRB + visible flash?

There is much literature on the merger of neutron stars resulting in a GRB; in fact, I worked in the same department as Peter Meszaros, the father of the relativistic fireball model. However, there is also a lot of literature on other processes producing GRBs, as well as observational evidence supporting their association with other events (like supernovae). What I'm saying is that these quotes haven't been presented formally or put through peer review, so we shouldn't be just taking them as fact. They might be right, but you simply can't tell from that article.
 
  • #11
Fair point, thanks.
While we're on the topic, may I pick your brain a little?

The article mentions that it was a "short duration" GRB. What other distinguishing characteristics do GRBs have? Do they tend to cluster into well-defined categories, or is there a fairly flat spread on most characteristics?
 
  • #12
PeteSF said:
The article mentions that it was a "short duration" GRB. What other distinguishing characteristics do GRBs have? Do they tend to cluster into well-defined categories, or is there a fairly flat spread on most characteristics?

It turns out that GRBs have a bimodal distribution in duration, meaning basically that there are two types: long bursts and short bursts. The fact that they come in two types implies that there may be multiple physical processes that can produce them, so if this actually were a merger event, that wouldn't necessarily be inconsistent with the recent correlation between GRBs and supernovae. Up to this point, we've been unable to study the short-duration bursts (< 2 seconds) very well because they would be over long before we could point our other telescopes at them.
 
  • #13
Just to amplify one phrase in ST's post: "there may be multiple physical processes that can produce them"

While the accumulating observational data is beginning to provide good tests of models for (some of) the long duration bursts, until this Swift GRB, there was essentially nothing to contrain models of short durations bursts (other than their isotropy and the gamma light curve and spectrum).

And one shouldn't be too sanguine about the view that long bursts originate via essentially one mechanism either - why so many remain 'dark' (no detected optical afterglow) and how to account for the variation among GRBs with well observed X-ray, optical, IR, ... afterglows may be telling us more than one mechanism can produce long bursts!
 
  • #14
The existence of two or more processes that lead to gamma-ray bursts would be quite amusing, I think, considering that the community had such a hard time believing that any extragalactic process could produce the observed bursts.
 
  • #15
Interesting. Do we know if Ligo should be able to detect the gravity waves from this event yet? If the necessary number of detectors were up, this seems like a good candidate for gravitaitonal wave detection.
 
  • #16
SpaceTiger said:
The existence of two or more processes that lead to gamma-ray bursts would be quite amusing, I think, considering that the community had such a hard time believing that any extragalactic process could produce the observed bursts.
Stranger things have happened!

How many 'Cepheid period-luminosity' relationships are there? How many types of 'supernova standard candles' are there? How 'clumpy' was 'interstellar reddening' before IRAS?
 
  • #17
Nereid said:
Stranger things have happened!

Yeah, I'm not saying it would surprise me, I'm saying it would be funny.
 
  • #18
pervect said:
Interesting. Do we know if Ligo should be able to detect the gravity waves from this event yet? If the necessary number of detectors were up, this seems like a good candidate for gravitaitonal wave detection.

It was much too far away to be detectable. Of course people checked anyways, but there wasn't anything in the data.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 121 ·
5
Replies
121
Views
17K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
3K