B What keeps most galactic stars from falling into the centeral black hole?

  • B
  • Thread starter Thread starter KurtLudwig
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Angular momentum
AI Thread Summary
Stars in the Milky Way galaxy are kept from falling into the central black hole due to conservation of angular momentum and the diminishing effects of Newtonian gravity with distance. The relative motions and angular momenta of stars in clusters also help maintain their separation. Modified Newtonian Dynamics plays a role in star dynamics, but the gravitational influence of black holes is often overstated; their mass does not exert greater gravitational effects than if it were spread out. Sagittarius A*, the Milky Way's central black hole, is often misnamed, highlighting the importance of accurate terminology in astrophysics. Ongoing discussions about the Andromeda galaxy suggest it may have a complex central structure, possibly involving multiple black holes, with evolving consensus on its nature.
KurtLudwig
Gold Member
Messages
146
Reaction score
31
TL;DR Summary
I believe that it is mainly conservation of angular momentum that keeps galactic stars apart and from rapidly falling into a central black hole.
We know from Kepler's Second Law, that a line from a planet to the Sun sweeps an equal area in equal time. The planet's velocity increases when it orbits closer to the Sun. The area swept is a triangle 1/2 r v sin (theta) = constant, asserted by Kepler, based on observations by Tycho Brahe. (From a college physics text book by Ohanian.)

Similarly, stars in the Milky Way galaxy orbit the Andromeda black hole. Conservation of angular momentum keeps most stars from falling in. Also, Newtonian gravity rapidly decreases with distance form the central black hole.

What keeps the stars in a star cluster apart? I believe that the relative motions of the stars and their relative angular momenta keep the stars apart.

How is Modified Newtonian Dynamics involved in keeping stars together and from wandering off into space?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
I agree. But it is important to realize that the significance of a black hole is not so much tremendous gravitational effects as it is having all that mass compressed into a tiny space. A black hole has no greater gravitational effect then the same amount of mass spread out would have. There can be small black holes that do not have significant gravitational effects unless you get very close. In fact, many black holes at the center of galaxies are a small percentage of the total mass of their galaxy.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes DennisN and Vanadium 50
KurtLudwig said:
Similarly, stars in the Milky Way galaxy orbit the Andromeda black hole.
Uh, Sagittarius A is going to be sorry to hear about this change.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Likes ohwilleke, Nugatory, strangerep and 6 others
phinds said:
Uh, Sagittarius A is going to be sorry to hear about this change.
Technically Sagittarius A* if we are talking the Milky Way black hole.
(Sagittarius A is a larger grouping)
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Likes Nugatory and phinds
Orodruin said:
Technically Sagittarius A* if we are talking the Milky Way black hole.
(Sagittarius A is a larger grouping)
Huh. I didn't realize that. I've always heard it called Sag-A-Star but thought I'd use the formal name (incorrectly it seems). Thanks for the correction.
 
It's called Sagittarius A Star because it's not a star. Go figure.
 
  • Haha
Likes ohwilleke and phinds
Since we're in all-out quibble mode - stars in galaxies don't follow Kepler's Law. That applies to the situation where the central mass is all there is, and an elliptical orbit among stars that make up a distributed mass is not that.

We've quibbled about the Andromeda black hole. There might (or might not) be two. M31 has an odd double-nucleus structure, which may indicate two central black holes today, two central black holes in the past, or something else. I think "something else" is today's leading candidate explanation, but consensus has shifted in the past and might continue to do so. It's behavior changes on human timescales, so we may get some new evidence that clarifies things some time.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Likes PeroK and phinds
Back
Top