Giant Jets Bigger Than The Milky Way Seen Shooting From Black Hole
A supermassive black hole in the early Universe has been spotted blasting out powerful jets of plasma that are at least twice as long as the Milky Way is wide.
Its host galaxy is a quasar called J1601+3102, and we're seeing it as it was less than 1.2 billion years after the Big Bang. Spanning 215,000 light-years from end to end, this is the largest structure of its kind seen in those early stages of the Universe's formation, and astronomers think it can answer some questions about how they grow.
"We were searching for quasars with strong radio jets in the early Universe, which helps us understand how and when the first jets are formed and how they impact the evolution of galaxies," explains astrophysicist Anniek Gloudemans of the National Science Foundation's NOIRLab.
Jets are a particularly interesting supermassive black hole behavior. When there is enough material close to a supermassive black hole in the center of a galaxy, it swirls around, forming a disk of material that feeds into the black hole, drawn in by its extreme gravity. That feeding often produces a quasar, blazing with light as the swirling material is heated by friction and gravity to temperatures of millions of degrees.
Not all the material falls onto the black hole beyond escape, though. Some of it gets diverted along the magnetic field lines outside the event horizon and accelerated to the black hole's poles, where it is launched into space with tremendous speed.
These eruptions of material form jets, and they blast out into space for huge distances. The longest we've found to date are 23 million light-years from end to end, much later in the lifetime of the Universe.
However, they only emit light in radio waves, which makes them a little tricky to see. To identify J1601+3102, Gloudemans and her colleagues had to combine observations from multiple telescopes, including the Low Frequency Array (LOFAR) Telescope in Europe, Gemini North in Hawaii, and the optical Hobby-Eberly Telescope in Texas.
These observations didn't just reveal the extent of J1601+3102's jets, they allowed the researchers to study the black hole. The amount of light emitted by the quasar activity can be analyzed to reveal the black hole's mass.
It's just 450 million times the mass of the Sun, a relatively modest size for a quasar black hole. And it's not scarfing down matter at a particularly high rate, either. These properties suggest that quasars could be more varied than we generally assume.
"Interestingly, the quasar powering this massive radio jet does not have an extreme black hole mass compared to other quasars," Gloudemans says. "This seems to indicate that you don't necessarily need an exceptionally massive black hole or accretion rate to generate such powerful jets in the early Universe."
The discovery was detailed in The Astrophysical Journal Letters.
Humanity Has Just Glimpsed Part of The Sun We've Never Seen Before
'City-Killer' Asteroid Even More Likely to Hit The Moon in 2032
The Center of Our Universe Does Not Exist. A Physicist Explains Why.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
12 hours ago
- USA Today
Check out this interactive map of the early universe, considered largest ever created
Check out this interactive map of the early universe, considered largest ever created An intricate astral tapestry, the map gives stargazers digital views of the ancient cosmos in unprecedented detail and breadth. A team of astronomers have put together the largest, most detailed map of the universe ever created – and you can explore it now. The interactive online map, created using data from NASA's James Webb Space Telescope, details some 800,000 galaxies across a vast cosmic distance – which in astronomy amounts to peering back in time. In fact, some of the galaxies are so far away, they appear as they existed not long after the Big Bang. Depicting a section of the universe known as the COSMOS-Web field, the new map is far more expansive than even the iconic Hubble Ultra Deep Field, a view of 10,000 galaxies NASA released in 2004. Spanning nearly all of cosmic time, the new map has the potential to challenge existing notions of the infant universe, the astronomers who created it claimed in a press release. The best part? The interactive map is available for the public to use. See interactive map of the universe A team of international scientists who are part of the Cosmic Evolution Survey program (COSMOS) created and released the map of the universe Thursday, June 5. Compiled from more than 10,000 images of COSMOS-Web – the largest observing program of James Webb Space Telescope's first year in orbit – the map covers about three times as much space as the moon takes up when viewed from Earth. That makes it the largest contiguous image available from Webb, according to the Rochester Institute of Technology, whose Jeyhan Kartaltepe is a lead researcher on the project. An intricate astral tapestry, the map gives stargazers digital views of the ancient cosmos in unprecedented detail and breadth. Scrolling and zooming in can take users some 13.5 billion years back in time when the universe was in its infancy and stars, galaxies and black holes were still forming. 'If you had a printout of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field on a standard piece of paper, our image would be slightly larger than a 13-foot by 13-foot-wide mural, at the same depth," Caitlin Casey, a physicist at the University of California, Santa Barbara and co-lead for the COSMOS project, said in a statement. "It's really strikingly large.' Explore the interactive map here. NASA's Webb telescope gathers data for online map Using its powerful resolution and infrared capabilities, the James Webb Space Telescope observed a region of space known as the COSMOS-web field, which scientists have been surveying for years. The raw data from the COSMOS field observations was made publicly available once it was collected by Webb, but that didn't mean it was easily accessible. That's why the COSMOS project spent two years creating the map from Webb's raw data to make it more digestible for amateur astronomers, researchers and even the general public. "In releasing the data to the public, the hope is that other astronomers from all over the world will use it to, among other things, further refine our understanding of how the early universe was populated and how everything evolved to the present day," according to a statement from UC Santa Barbara. What is the James Webb Space Telescope? The James Webb Space Telescope, which launched in 2021, far surpasses the abilities of the Hubble Space Telescope, launched 35 years ago in 1990. Orbiting the sun rather than Earth, the Webb is outfitted with a gold-coated mirror and powerful infrared instruments to observe the cosmos like no instrument before. Since reaching the cosmos, Webb has not only facilitated countless scientific breakthroughs in astrophysics, but it also has produced gorgeous images of planets and other celestial objects, including star-forming regions. In March, NASA also deployed into orbit its SPHEREx telescope to collect data on more than 450 million galaxies. Scientists say the SPHEREx observatory will be able to get a wider view of the galaxy – identifying objects of scientific interest that telescopes like Hubble and Webb can then study up close. SPHEREx became operational in May, constantly snapping images of the cosmos. Eric Lagatta is the Space Connect reporter for the USA TODAY Network. Reach him at elagatta@
Yahoo
13 hours ago
- Yahoo
Federal R&D funding boosts productivity for the whole economy − making big cuts to such government spending unwise
Large cuts to government-funded research and development can endanger American innovation – and the vital productivity gains it supports. The Trump administration has already canceled at least US$1.8 billion in research grants previously awarded by the National Institutes of Health, which supports biomedical and health research. Its preliminary budget request for the 2026 fiscal year proposed slashing federal funding for scientific and health research, cutting the NIH budget by another $18 billion – nearly a 40% reduction. The National Science Foundation, which funds much of the basic scientific research conducted at universities, would see its budget slashed by $5 billion – cutting it by more than half. Research and development spending might strike you as an unnecessary expense for the government. Perhaps you see it as something universities or private companies should instead be paying for themselves. But as research I've conducted shows, if the government were to abandon its long-standing practice of investing in R&D, it would significantly slow the pace of U.S. innovation and economic growth. I'm an economist at Texas A&M University. For the past five years, I've been studying the long-term economic benefits of government-funded R&D with Karel Mertens, an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. We have found that government R&D spending on everything from the Apollo space program to the Human Genome Project has fueled innovation. We also found that federal R&D spending has played a significant role in boosting U.S. productivity and spurring economic growth over the past 75 years. Productivity rises when economic growth is caused by technological progress and know-how, rather than workers putting in more hours or employers using more equipment and machinery. Economists believe that higher productivity fuels economic growth and raises living standards over the long run. U.S. productivity growth fell by half, from an average of roughly 2% a year in the 1950s and 1960s to about 1%, starting in the early 1970s. This deceleration eerily coincides with a big decline in government R&D spending, which peaked at over 1.8% of gross domestic product in the mid-1960s. Government R&D spending has declined since then and has fallen by half – to below 0.9% of GDP – today. Government R&D spending encompasses all innovative work the government directly pays for, regardless of who does it. Private companies and universities conduct a lot of this work, as do national labs and federal agencies, like the NIH. Correlation is not causation. But in a Dallas Fed working paper released in November 2024, my co-author and I identified a strong causal link between government R&D spending and U.S. productivity growth. We estimated that government R&D spending consistently accounted for more than 20% of all U.S. productivity growth since World War II. And a decline in that spending after the 1960s can account for nearly one-fourth of the deceleration in productivity since then. These significant productivity gains came from R&D investments by federal agencies that are not focused on national defense. Examples include the NIH's support for biomedical research, the Department of Energy's funding for physics and energy research, and NASA's spending on aeronautics and space exploration technologies. Not all productivity growth is driven by government R&D. Economists think public investment in physical infrastructure, such as construction of the interstate highway system starting in the Eisenhower administration, also spurred productivity growth. And U.S. productivity growth briefly accelerated during the information technology boom of the late 1990s and early 2000s, which we do not attribute to government R&D investment. We have found that government R&D investment is more effective than private R&D spending at driving productivity, likely because the private sector tends to spend much more on the development side of R&D, while the public sector tends to emphasize research. Economists believe the private sector will naturally underinvest in more fundamental research because it is harder to patent and profit from this work. We think our higher estimated returns on nondefense R&D reflect greater productivity benefits from fundamental research, which generates more widely shared knowledge, than from private sector spending on development. Like the private sector, the Department of Defense spends much more on development – of weapons and military technology – than on fundamental research. We found only inconclusive evidence on the returns on military R&D. R&D work funded by the Defense Department also tends to initially be classified and kept secret from geopolitical rivals, such as the Manhattan Project that developed the atomic bomb. As a result, gains for the whole economy from that source of innovation could take longer to materialize than the 15-year time frame we have studied. The high returns on nondefense R&D that we estimated suggest that Congress has historically underinvested in these areas. For instance, the productivity gains from nondefense R&D are at least 10 times higher than those from government investments in highways, bridges and other kinds of physical infrastructure. The government has also invested far more in physical infrastructure than R&D over the past 75 years. Increasing R&D investment would take advantage of these higher returns and gradually reduce them because of diminishing marginal returns to additional investment. So why is the government not spending substantially more on R&D? One argument sometimes heard against federal R&D spending is that it displaces, or 'crowds out,' R&D spending the private sector would otherwise undertake. For instance, the administration's budget request proposed reducing or eliminating NASA space technology programs it deemed 'better suited to private sector research and development.' But my colleague and I have found that government spending on R&D complements private investment. An additional dollar of government nondefense R&D spending causes the private sector to increase its R&D spending by an additional 20 cents. So we expect budget cuts to the NIH, NSF and NASA to actually reduce R&D spending by companies, which is also bad for economic growth. Federal R&D spending is also often on the chopping block whenever Congress focuses on deficit reduction. In part, that likely reflects the gradual nature of the economic benefits from government-funded R&D, which are at odds with the country's four-year electoral cycles. Similarly, the benefits from NIH spending on biomedical research are usually less visible than government spending on Medicare or Medicaid, which are health insurance programs for those 65 years and older and those with low incomes or disabilities. But Medicare or Medicaid help Americans buy prescription drugs and medical devices that were invented with the help of NIH-funded research. Even if the benefits of government R&D are slow to materialize or are harder to see than those from other government programs, our research suggests that the U.S. economy will be less innovative and productive – and Americans will be worse off for it – if Congress agrees to deep cuts to science and research funding. The views expressed in the Dallas Fed working paper are the views of the authors only and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas or the Federal Reserve System. Andrew Fieldhouse does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Yahoo
18 hours ago
- Yahoo
Science cuts endanger research that improves the economy, national security and your life
Since its creation, the National Science Foundation has partnered with agencies across the government, including those dealing with national security and space exploration. During this 1969 mission to the moon's surface, astronaut Buzz Aldrin deploys instruments to measure the distance to the Earth, as well as to analyze the chemical composition of solar wind and measure the moon's seismic activity. (NASA photo) Look closely at your mobile phone or tablet. Touch-screen technology, speech recognition, digital sound recording and the internet were all developed using funding from the U.S. National Science Foundation. No matter where you live, NSF-supported research has also made your life safer. Engineering studies have reduced earthquake damage and fatalities through better building design. Improved hurricane and tornado forecasts reflect NSF investment in environmental monitoring and computer modeling of weather. NSF-supported resilience studies reduce risks and losses from wildfires. Using NSF funding, scientists have done research that amazes, entertains and enthralls. They have drilled through mile-thick ice sheets to understand the past, visited the wreck of the Titanic and captured images of deep space. NSF investments have made America and American science great. At least 268 Nobel laureates received NSF grants during their careers. The foundation has partnered with agencies across the government since it was created, including those dealing with national security and space exploration. The Federal Reserve estimates that government-supported research from the NSF and other agencies has had a return on investment of 150% to 300% since 1950, meaning for every dollar U.S. taxpayers invested, they got back between $1.50 and $3. However, that funding is now at risk. Since January, layoffs, leadership resignations and a massive proposed reorganization have threatened the integrity and mission of the National Science Foundation. Hundreds of research grants have been terminated. The administration's proposed federal budget for fiscal year 2026 would cut NSF's funding by 55%, an unprecedented reduction that would end federal support for science research across a wide range of discipines. At my own geology lab, I have seen NSF grants catalyze research and the work of dozens of students who have collected data that's now used to reduce risks from earthquakes, floods, landslides, erosion, sea-level rise and melting glaciers. I have also served on advisory committees and review panels for the NSF over the past 30 years and have seen the value the foundation produces for the American people. In the 1940s, with the advent of nuclear weapons, the space race and the intensification of the Cold War, American science and engineering expertise became increasingly critical for national defense. At the time, most basic and applied research was done by the military. Vannevar Bush, an electrical engineer who oversaw military research efforts during World War II, including development of the atomic bomb, had a different idea. He articulated an expansive scientific vision for the United States in Science: The Endless Frontier. The report was a blueprint for an American research juggernaut grounded in the expertise of university faculty, staff and graduate students. On May 10, 1950, after five years of debate and compromise, President Harry Truman signed legislation creating the National Science Foundation and putting Bush's vision to work. Since then, the foundation has become the leading funder of basic research in the United States. NSF's mandate, then as now, was to support basic research and spread funding for science across all 50 states. Expanding America's scientific workforce was and remains integral to American prosperity. By 1952, the foundation was awarding merit fellowships to graduate and postdoctoral scientists from every state. There were compromises. Control of NSF rested with presidential appointees, disappointing Bush. He wanted scientists in charge to avoid political interference with the foundation's research agenda. Today, American tax dollars supporting science go to every state in the union. The states with the most NSF grants awarded between 2011 and 2024 include several that voted Republican in the 2024 election – Texas, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina and Pennsylvania – and several that voted Democratic, including Massachusetts, New York, Virginia and Colorado. More than 1,800 public and private institutions, scattered across all 50 states, receive NSF funding. The grants pay the salaries of staff, faculty and students, boosting local employment and supporting college towns and cities. For states with major research universities, those grants add up to hundreds of millions of dollars each year. Even states with few universities each see tens of millions of dollars for research.' As NSF grant recipients purchase lab supplies and services, those dollars support regional and national economies. When NSF budgets are cut and grants are terminated or never awarded, the harm trickles down and communities suffer. Initial NSF funding cuts are already rippling across the country, affecting both national and local economies in red, blue and purple states alike. An analysis of a February 2025 proposal that would cut about US$5.5 billion from National Institutes of Health grants estimated the ripple effect through college towns and supply chains would cost $6.1 billion in GDP, or total national productivity, and over 46,000 jobs. America's scientific research and training enterprise has enjoyed bipartisan support for decades. Yet, as NSF celebrates its 75th birthday, the future of American science is in doubt. Funding is increasingly uncertain, and politics is driving decisions, as Bush feared 80 years ago. A list of grants terminated by the Trump administration, collected both from government websites and scientists themselves, shows that by early May 2025, NSF had stopped funding more than 1,400 existing grants, totaling over a billion dollars of support for research, research training and education. Most terminated grants focused on education – the core of science, technology and engineering workforce development critical for supplying highly skilled workers to American companies. For example, NSF provided 1,000 fewer graduate student fellowships in 2025 than in the decade before − a 50% drop in support for America's best science students. American scientists are responding to NSF's downsizing in diverse ways. Some are pushing back by challenging grant terminations. Others are preparing to leave science or academia. Some are likely to move abroad, taking offers from other nations to recruit American experts. Science organizations and six prior heads of the NSF are calling on Congress to step up and maintain funding for science research and workforce development. If these losses continue, the next generation of American scientists will be fewer in number and less well prepared to address the needs of a population facing the threat of more extreme weather, future pandemics and the limits to growth imposed by finite natural resources and other planetary limits. Investing in science and engineering is an investment in America. Diminishing NSF and the science it supports will hurt the American economy and the lives of all Americans. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
