Skip to main content

Black Holes 101


Artist's impression of a black hole.
With new blockbuster movie Interstellar now in cinemas, there's a flurry of interest in black holes and wormholes. Theoretical physicist Kip Thorne was a scientific consultant for the production and insisted that the depiction should stay within legitimate boundaries. Apart from the odd bit of artistic license, of course!

Black holes are scary, right? They suck in everything in their path. They devour whole planets, stars even, ripping them apart like mere wisps of smoke. They condemn anything that confronts them to an unknowable oblivion. It’s the stuff of nightmare, or at least a bad disaster movie.

But I think black holes get a bad press. They are misunderstood, misrepresented. The truth is they are fascinating creatures, if confusing, and not a little bit weird. So, relax for a moment while I give you my quick and dirty guide to black holes. The Black Hole 101, if you like.

Let’s start with a simple definition of a black hole. A black hole is an object of sufficient gravitational force that nothing, not even light, can escape. 

Matter attracts matter due to ‘gravity’, right? The more matter doing the attracting, the stronger the gravitational ‘pull’. With enough matter, the pull of gravity is so great that you cannot get free of it, even if you travel at the speed of light. Since nothing can travel faster than light, nothing can escape the object’s gravitational pull. And if light can’t escape, then the object must be invisible. That’s the basic idea.

Unfortunately, the name ‘black hole’ is somewhat confusing; these aren’t ‘holes’ at all (and it turns out they’re not ‘black’ either!). They aren’t funnel-shaped things sucking stuff in; they are spherical objects, just like stars, and they have a definite surface which we call the ‘event horizon’. Above the event horizon matter and light can still escape the gravitational pull. Below the event horizon, it can’t and is lost forever!

We need to be careful in our definition of a black hole here. It actually isn’t the amount of matter in a black hole that's important; it’s how much space that matter is crammed into.

The strength of gravity depends on two things; the mass of an object and its distance from you. So, if we travel towards a star, for example, its gravity would increase until we reach its surface. If we could keep traveling into the star’s interior, we’d find gravity decreases again. This is because the gravity of the material above us counteracts that lying below. So, for a spherical object like a star, the maximum gravitational force is at the surface. Now imagine we compact the entire star’s mass into a black hole only a few miles wide. This time, as we travel towards it, we pass the point where the original surface of the star lay, but this time gravity continues to increase, not decrease. By the time we reach the black hole’s event horizon, the gravity is far greater than we ever felt from the original star, even though it has the same mass.

So, black holes have strong gravity because they are small for their mass and because we can get close to them! The Earth’s gravity isn’t dangerous to us (unless we fall off something!), but it would be very dangerous if we shrank the Earth down to the size of a marble then tried to stand on it. Same mass: different size. One a planet, the other a black hole.

The obvious conclusion of this is that if the Sun were suddenly to turn into a black hole, it would have no effect on us whatsoever (other than us dying of cold!). The Earth would continue to orbit the resulting black hole in exactly the same way as it does the Sun, since the masses of the two objects haven’t changed. We’d be in trouble though if we tried to get close to our new neighbor!

So, a black hole is lots of ‘stuff’ crammed into a small space. But, wait, I hear you say! How can gravity, which effects matter, prevent light, which consists of massless particles (photons) from escaping a black hole? Huh?

Well, it’s common to think of gravity as ‘pulling’ on matter, just as we have done in the discussion above (oops!). But Einstein showed us that gravity can be envisaged in an entirely different way. Mass, said Einstein, actually distorts ‘space-time’ (the four-dimensional fabric of the Universe) in such a way that the normal rules of geometry no longer apply. Strangely, in this new geometry, the shortest distance between two points is no longer a straight line, but a curve. All matter and energy (including photons) will obey this new geometry and ‘fall’ towards the mass, whether or not they have ‘mass’ themselves. It’s not because the particle is feeling a force, but because the particle is traveling along what is effectively a straight line on a curved surface. And it’s not just black holes that ‘attract’ photons in this way – all matter does.

Due to their extreme gravitational force, black holes are very strange beasts. They seriously mess around with space and time. They actually distort the fabric of space itself. If they are spinning (and most are, very rapidly), they drag space around with them, tying it in an ever tighter knot. Weird, or what?

So, what would happen if you fell headlong into a black hole? As you approach the black hole’s event horizon, the difference in gravitational attraction between your head and feet will be enough to tear you apart. Eww! Astronomers call this process ‘spaghettification’. Oddly though, the more massive the black hole the less this stretching force, so you might just about survive beyond the event horizon if you fell into a really massive black hole.

Surrounding the black hole's event horizon is the ‘ergosphere’ (sounds scary, doesn’t it?). Here, space is being dragged around by the spinning black hole at greater than the speed of light. Yes, faster than light! Matter can’t move faster than light, but it turns out space itself can! And you will be dragged around with it. And due to the warping of space-time around the black hole, you will experience time slowing down relative to the ‘outside world’. Someone watching you fall would see you slowing down until you became frozen in time at the event horizon.

It is a common belief that all this weirdness exists only in the imaginations of astronomers (and science fiction authors). But black holes are a reality.

We know of several processes that can form black holes. The most common way is when a massive star (more than about 3 times the mass of the Sun) reaches the end of its life, runs out of nuclear fuel and begins to collapse. This results in a humongous shockwave that blows the outer parts of the star apart (a ‘supernova’), leaving the star’s core to collapse further in on itself. As the core shrinks its gravity increases until it becomes a black hole.

This process is assumed to be responsible for the formation of stellar mass black holes. But in the very early Universe conditions were such that so-called ‘supermassive’ black holes were formed, i.e. ones with many millions of times the mass of the Sun.

By their very nature black holes are not directly observable. So, how can we be sure they exist? Well, we can detect a black hole’s presence due to its effect on its environment or on other nearby objects. Material in the vicinity of such a compact object is subjected to extremely strong gravitational forces. The resulting turbulence and friction heats the material to many millions of degrees, thus creating very strong X-ray emission (a form of light), which we certainly can detect with our telescopes.

We also know that matter flowing towards an object naturally forms into a flat, rotating disk called an ‘accretion disk’. With enough friction in the accretion disk, and sufficient magnetic fields, a compact object can form beams of extremely hot material which are ejected along the rotation axis of the object. Furthermore, the speed of these jets is found to be comparable to the escape velocity of the central object. Black holes (whose escape velocity exceeds the speed of light) are thus thought to create the fastest and most energetic jets of all. Although the Sun turning into a black hole would not alter the Earth’s orbit, this enormous energy generation would be quite problematic for us!

Taken together, the existence of accretion disks, extremely high velocity jets, and strong X-ray emission is convincing evidence for the existence of black holes. No other mechanism known to science is capable of producing the huge amounts of energy released by these objects. But, what astronomers are observing is not the black hole itself.

A simulation of stars and dusk circling the center of our Galaxy.
These tell-tale phenomena are seen in many different kinds of objects. For example, astronomers are convinced that the center of our own Milky Way Galaxy (which lies about 26,000 light years away in the constellation of Sagittarius) harbors a supermassive black hole. By observing stars in orbit around this region, astronomers estimate that it is about 4.3 million times the mass of the Sun and about as large as the orbit of Uranus.

In fact, although not certain, it seems very likely that most (if not all) spiral galaxies contain a supermassive black hole (sometimes more than one). For many galaxies black holes (or rather their effects on their environments) are clearly observed in the turbulent core regions and the dynamics of their stars often indicate the presence of extremely massive objects. There is also very strong evidence suggesting that black holes may be crucially important, perhaps even required, in the formation of galaxies in the early Universe. This would imply that indeed all types of galaxies (including spirals) contain a gravitational beast at their heart.
Formation of extragalactic jets from a black hole accretion disk.

These ‘active galactic nuclei’ present no danger to the galaxies as a whole since they are actually very small compared to the size of their hosts. This means that, although their gravity is very strong close by, their gravitational pull is comparatively weak far from the galactic core. So although such black holes dominate the inner regions of galaxies, and often power extreme energy production, they don’t have the ability to suck in entire galaxies.

The centers of active galaxies are not the only places that these gravitational monsters reside. They can often be found in association with other objects. For example, a class of objects called ‘X-ray binaries’ often contain a black hole in orbit around another normal star. Astronomers have also discovered isolated, stellar-mass black holes adrift among the stars in our Milky Way Galaxy. These have been found indirectly by measuring how their extreme gravity bends the light of a more distant star behind them.
Artist's impression of an X-ray binary.

Black holes don’t live forever. They die, but in a very slow and mundane fashion. They die because they aren’t entirely ‘black’ – they actually glow very faintly. This glow is known as Hawking radiation after the famous physicist who first postulated its existence. According to quantum physics, ‘empty’ space is actually teeming with virtual particles that flash in and out of existence, often as particle/anti-particle pairs. Normally these particle pairs quickly annihilate each other. But near a black hole’s event horizon it is possible for one particle to disappear inside the black hole and be lost forever, while the other one escapes as Hawking radiation. This process gradually reduces the mass and the energy of the black hole. So black holes that aren’t actively sucking in new material will slowly shrink and ultimately vanish. However, for most black holes this slow death would take many billions of times the age of the Universe!

There is a long history to the idea that black holes may connect with other parts of the universe or other universes entirely, but they remain largely speculation. Some physicists have attempted to combine quantum mechanics with Einstein’s theory of relativity and concluded that black holes may not contain a ‘singularity’, the point within a black hole where the density of matter becomes infinite. This opens up the possibility that they are shortcuts to other universes. Actual tunnels through space-time, called ‘wormholes’, may be a better bet for traversing between universes. Although they are predicted by Einstein’s theories, none have been discovered. In fact, there are doubts that they could occur naturally at all, that they would remain stable for more than a fraction of a second or that they would be anything bigger than vanishingly small. So, although interesting theoretical exercises, we do not yet know if such things are possible. That doesn't stop us from making a blockbuster movie about them though!

That's a quick summary of the fascinating subject of black holes. Far from a scientific myth, these enigmatic gravity machines are alive and well in the Universe. In fact, they are relatively common. But don't worry, we're in no immediate danger of being swallowed up by one...

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Victorian Christmas Ghost Stories

An engraving by R. Graves entitled 'The Ghost Story', circa 1870. In his first full-length novel, The Pickwick Papers (1836-1837), Charles Dickens gave us a peculiarly Victorian view of the Christmas tradition. The host of a Yuletide gathering, Mr. Wardle of Dingley Dell, informs his guests that “Everybody sits down with us on Christmas Eve, as you see them now — servants and all; and here we wait, until the clock strikes twelve, to usher Christmas in, and beguile the time with forfeits and old stories”. So begins a long association of the traditional ghost story with Christmas-time; a tradition that has largely died out, but one that should be revived. Of course, the tradition of telling spooky stories at Christmas is much older than Dickens. It was already well-established in the early nineteenth century. In Old Christmas (from The Sketch Book of Geoffrey Crayon, Gent ., 1819), Washington Irving describes a busy Yuletide fireside with the parson “dealing forth strange a

American's Guide To Pronouncing British Place Names

You all know there's some minor (though understandable) differences between British and American spelling. For example, we have 'colour' for 'color', 'favour' for 'favor' and 'harbour' for 'habor'. We have 'centre' for 'center', 'fibre' for 'fiber' and 'litre' for 'liter'. And so on. These don't usually cause us any problems, especially since they are normally pronounced the same (although with differences in accent, which is an entirely different subject!). But, British spelling idiosyncrasies go far beyond these simple examples, and never more so than in our emotive and quaint place names. British place name spelling is about as intuitive as the 'many worlds' interpretation of quantum mechanics - for the non-scientists among you, that means 'not at all'. Actually, it's not the spelling that's odd (they usually retain a perfectly logical spelling based

The Fastest Things In The Universe

Gravitational waves can't actually be seen as in this simulation. When gazing at the night sky from here on Earth, it’s easy to picture the Universe as calm and unhurried. But in reality, out there in space, things move fast – really fast. Putting aside particle accelerators and the like, the fastest-moving man-made object was the Helios 2 spacecraft launched in the 1970s. It reached a top speed of 68.75 km/s (153,800 mph) on its mission to the Sun. But this was just a leisurely stroll compared to the fastest things in the Cosmos. So, where do we find the real speed freaks of the Universe? Here’s a run-down of the top five. 1. Expansion of the Universe Speed: Greater than the speed of light! The Universe is expanding. But the Universe isn’t filling up ‘empty space’ as it expands because it is ‘space’ itself which is expanding. Although the laws of physics say that two objects can’t move faster than light speed with respect to each other, there is no such restricti

Who Was Ghost Story Writer "Mary E. Penn"?

The identity of Mary E. Penn, a late-Victorian author of ghosts stories and crime and mystery tales, is a complete enigma. Scholars of the macabre have been unable to discern any details of her person, origin or character (assuming she was indeed female). We only know that from the 1870s to the 1890s this author published a number of stories in periodicals, most commonly in The Argosy (Ellen Wood’s monthly publication). Some of her early contributions were anonymous (later attributed to Penn in The Wellesley Index to Victorian Periodicals ) and her name only appears from 1878 onwards. Her first story, At Ravenholme Junction , was published anonymously in The Argosy in December 1876, but was later ascribed to Penn on stylistic grounds by eminent supernatural fiction scholar Richard Dalby. Her other ghostly tales were Snatched from the Brink ( The Argosy , June 1878), How Georgette Kept Tryst ( The Argosy , October 1879), Desmond’s Model ( The Argosy , December 1879), Old Vanderhav

The Anglo-Saxon/Latin Rule, Again!

It's one of those rules we're often told as writers. Don't write in Latin, write in Anglo-Saxon! This so-called 'rule' has been around quite a while. In Politics & The English Language (1946) George Orwell wrote "bad writers... are nearly always haunted by the notion that Latin or Greek words are grander than Saxon ones". But, what does this mean? Do we have to check the etymology of every word we scribble down in our manuscript books, weeding out the obnoxious foreigners and replacing them with good, solid, stalwart Germanic conciseness? Or does it mean we should write in an archaic style and pepper our prose with lovely words such as erstwhile , forsooth and threap ? Are we banned from using words such as obfuscate , perambulate, egregious and impecunious ? Well, let's think about this for a moment, with a couple of examples. Here's the opening line of Edward Bulwer-Lytton's book Paul Clifford ; It wa s a dark and stormy nig

Flat Earth Fallacy

I'm an accepting kind of person. I generally allow people to think what they want, believe what they want and (pretty much) say what they want, within reason. But occasionally an opinion is so far-fetched, insulting or incorrect that it debases human intelligence (all human intelligence, not just mine). And then I feel I must speak up. One such 'opinion' is the belief in a 'flat' Earth. Although this topic has a substantial history (see for example Christine Garwood's Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea ), it has so far not been publicly contested in any great depth. Even Phil Plait, author of the ever-popular  Bad Astronomy Blog , declined to give such a preposterous proposition any real air-time. And I don't blame him. It really is the most absurd idea. But it should be denounced, for any number of reasons. The basic premise of the 'flat-Earth' protagonists is that ancient cultures were right, the Earth is flat , a circular disk bo

Does Today's Music All Sound The Same?

What's wrong Simon? Is this music too interesting? Recently, whilst out shopping, my young son asked "why is all the music in these shops exactly the same?" He had a point. Every neon-illuminated consumer-hovel of fashion we visited was pumping out the same insidious four-to-the-floor musical effluent. There was no variation in rhythm, tempo, timbre or anything else. Absolute tedium. You've heard it said over and over again: "all today's music sounds the same!" It's something that your parents probably say about the music you listen to. Or you say about the music other people listen to. It was probably also something your grandparents said about the music your parents were into. But who is right? Are any of them right? Does today's music really all sound the same? Or is it just generational crankiness? If you're on the ball, you'll already know that the music industry doesn't have your best interests at heart when deciding w

The Date Of Christmas

I've said this many times before, but astronomy effects our daily lives in ways of which we're often unaware. For example, you may be surprised to find that the date of Christmas is almost certainly down to our ancient forebears' astronomical endeavours. Imagine you’re a prehistoric farmer. You would have little understanding of what we today call science. But you would almost certainly know a lot about the motion of the Sun, Moon, stars and planets around the sky. In fact, these motions would be very important to you. Why? Because they mark the passage of the seasons and the seasons dictate what sustenance is available to humankind. Your survival depends on them. If you want your crops to grow, your livestock to survive, your hunt to be a success, you need a good knowledge of where you are in the yearly cycle of life. And it is the skies which give you that knowledge. So, here's the science bit (as people annoyingly say!). In the morning, the Sun rises in the

Are You Really A Bestselling Author?

I've seen a lot of discussion online recently concerning the 'bestseller' or 'bestselling' tag that many authors add to their online persona. There seems to be a general feeling that such tags are often not what they seem, or worse, seem to have no basis in fact. Let me state at the outset that this post is not a criticism of authors who genuinely are 'bestsellers'. To gain such an accolade takes a lot of hard work, dedication and devotion, and would not have been possible if their work were not of a high standard. No, this post is aimed at the author who appears to be making claims that are not substantiated, in the hope of artificially increasing their discoverability, and presumably bolster their sales.  Many authors are desperate to achieve success (usually measured by sales volume), and will often employ underhand tactics to achieve that. This is odd, because there is no evidence that merely making such claims actually improves an author's sa