Hubble spots a roaming black hole light-years from where it belongs
A black hole skulking in the shadows 600 million light-years away in space gave itself away with a dazzling flash, the light of a star it had just gnashed and eaten.
Using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope and other observatories, astronomers found the cosmic object in an unexpected place. Rather than sitting dead center in its galaxy like most supermassive black holes, this one was thousands of light-years away from the core — 2,600, in fact.
What's more, there is another enormous black hole that is the actual nucleus. While the catawampus black hole has the mass of 1 million suns, the one that defines the galactic center is 100 million times the mass of the sun.
The burst of radiation detected, known as a tidal disruption event or TDE, began when a star wandered too close to the black hole. If not for that stellar snack, the black hole would have escaped astronomers' notice.
"It opens up the entire possibility of uncovering this elusive population of wandering black holes with future sky surveys," said study author Yuhan Yao of UC Berkeley in a statement. "I think this discovery will motivate scientists to look for more examples of this type of event."
SEE ALSO: Soviets were headed to Venus in 1972. The spacecraft is about to return.
The Hubble Space Telescope, a partnership of NASA and the European Space Agency, confirms the presence of a wandering supermassive black hole, 600 million light-years from Earth. Credit: NASA
Out of about 100 TDE events discovered through surveys so far, this one, dubbed AT2024tvd, is the first scientists have seen emerging from a supermassive black hole that is not a galactic nucleus. The research team's findings, announced by NASA, will be published in an upcoming issue of The Astrophysical Journal Letters.
Black holes are some of the most inscrutable phenomena in outer space. About 50 years ago, they were little more than a theory — a kooky mathematical answer to a physics problem. Even astronomers at the top of their field weren't entirely convinced they existed. Today, not only are black holes accepted science, they're getting their pictures taken by a collection of enormous, synced-up radio dishes on Earth.
Unlike a planet or star, black holes don't have surfaces. Instead, they have a boundary called an "event horizon," or a point of no return. If anything swoops too close, like the doomed aforementioned star, it will fall in, never to escape the hole's gravitational clutch.
The most common kind, called a stellar black hole, is thought to be the result of an enormous star dying in a supernova explosion. The star's material then collapses onto itself, condensing into a relatively tiny area.
How supermassive black holes form is even more elusive. Astrophysicists believe these invisible giants lurk in the heart of virtually all galaxies. Recent Hubble observations have bolstered the theory that they begin in the dusty cores of starburst galaxies, where new stars are rapidly assembled, but scientists are still teasing that out.
A supermassive black hole is off-center in a galaxy 600 million light-years from Earth. Credit: NASA / ESA / STScI / Ralf Crawford illustration
As the star was stretched and torn asunder in the TDE, some of its gas formed a glowing ring around the black hole. The resulting flare flashed brightly in ultraviolet and visible light.
Telescopes on the ground, such as the Zwicky Transient Facility in California, first detected it. But it was Hubble that confirmed the flare's off-center location. NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory in space and the Very Large Array in New Mexico provided supporting data.
The two supermassive black holes both reside in the same galaxy, yet they are not a binary pair, meaning they're not bound to each other through gravity. Scientists don't know how the wandering black hole got there.
A star's remnants form a disk around a hidden supermassive black hole. Credit: NASA / ESA / STScI / Ralf Crawford illustration
One possibility is that the smaller black hole came from a smaller galaxy that at some point merged with the larger one, bringing its central black hole along for the ride. Eventually, the smaller black hole may spiral into the larger one. For now, it's doing its own thing.
Another possibility is that it was ganged up on by a couple of bully black holes. In so-called three-body interactions, the lowest-mass object can be evicted from the center of a galaxy, with the two others remaining in the galaxy's core.
"Theorists have predicted that a population of massive black holes located away from the centers of galaxies must exist," said Ryan Chornock, a member of the ZTF team, in a statement, "but now we can use TDEs to find them.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
Harvard Fires Honesty Researcher For Research Fraud - Why That's OK
Harvard Business School dismissed prominent researcher and tenured professor Francesca Gino. Harvard Business School has dismissed Francesca Gino, a tenured professor whose research on honesty and ethical behavior ironically became the foundation for one of academia's most damaging fraud scandals. The firing is the first time Harvard has terminated a tenured faculty member in approximately 80 years. For her part, Gino maintains she is innocent. As I'll explain, this is actually good news for marketers and others who use behavioral science to drive better business outcomes. Gino built her career studying why people lie, cheat, and behave unethically. Her most influential work, published in 2012, found that people were more honest when signing truthfulness declarations at the top of forms rather than at the bottom. This research became a go-to example in behavioral economics circles. The study seemed to offer a simple, cost-free way to reduce fraud in everything from insurance claims to tax filings. Companies and government agencies actually implemented "sign at the top" policies based on Gino's findings. Part of the appeal of this intervention was that it seemed intuitive, not unlike Nobel winner Richard Thaler's work showing that changing retirement plans from opt-in to opt-out resulted in higher enrollment numbers. There was one big difference, though. Thaler's interventions worked, resulting in millions more people saving for retirement. But, when organizations tested 'sign at the top' forms, they were surprised that it made no significant difference in honest form completions. Sometimes, even sound research doesn't scale well in real-world settings. But, Harvard's investigation concluded that Gino fabricated some of the data supporting her honesty research. (All parties agree that the various studies include fabricated data, but disagree on its origin.) The study that promised to reduce dishonesty was itself dishonest. For CMOs and executives who regularly apply behavioral science insights to enhance their strategies, Gino's downfall offers three crucial lessons: Gino wasn't a fringe academic—she was a full professor at Harvard Business School, published prolifically, and spoke at major conferences. Her work appeared in prestigious journals and was covered by the New York Times and Wall Street Journal. At one point, she was one of Harvard's highest paid employees, earning $1 million per year. If someone with these credentials could publish fabricated data for years, no researcher should be above scrutiny. Cornell's Brian Wansink, known for his food psychology research, produced work with results that were often surprising, simple, and highly actionable. He, too, faced serious misconduct allegations that led to his resignation. The "sign at the top" intervention moved from an academic theory to a tool that organizations implemented widely. How many companies are still using policies derived from fabricated data? The business impact of academic fraud or poorly designed experiments can extend beyond university walls. At least in this case, a signature at the top has no effect on honesty, good or bad. Behavioral science has struggled with a "replication crisis" where many published findings can't be reproduced by other researchers. Most of these are due to legitimate methodological differences, small sample sizes, unrepresentative subjects, etc. Occasionally, though, they stem from statistical manipulation and even fraud. Major scientific research results that are erroneous or fraudulent often get exposed as other researchers try to build on them. Most research doesn't automatically get replicated, though. The rewards for replication experiments are limited. At best, one confirms the original research. At worst, one ends up in a messy dispute with a fellow scientist. But, some researchers do devote time to research integrity. The Data Colada blog, run by three behavioral scientists, has exposed multiple instances of apparent data manipulation across the field. There's also a site, Retraction Watch, that keeps tabs on retracted papers. Ultimately, most bad research with major findings will be rooted out. Either fellow academics will discover the problem, or data-driven businesses will show real world results don't match the findings. Gino's firing shows that publishing questionable findings can have consequences, even for a star professor and researcher. It's a reminder to other researchers to be sure their data is sound. Published research papers almost always have more than one author. I expect we'll see more of these co-authors double-checking the data and methods to be sure they don't get embroiled in a replication/retraction mess later. Smart marketing leaders should exert healthy skepticism about behavioral science claims: Demand multiple sources. Don't base major strategy decisions on a single study, no matter how compelling or well-publicized. Look for independent replications by different research teams. Focus on established science. Robert Cialdini's principles of influence, for example, have endured for decades because they've been tested countless times in real business environments. Newer, flashier findings should be viewed with more caution. Watch for claims that seem too good to be true. A simple change in form design that dramatically reduces dishonesty sounds almost magical. In retrospect, the "sign at the top" finding's elegance should have raised more skepticism. Test everything. The most important behavioral science principle for marketers isn't any specific psychological finding, it's the commitment to testing. What works in a psychology lab or even for another brand may not work for your customers, your product, or your market. The bad data in the original honesty study wasn't spotted for years. Then, Harvard's investigation took years after that, with Gino remaining on the faculty during much of that time. Academic institutions move slowly, business decisions happen quickly. This creates a problematic gap where bad research can influence corporate tactics long before misconduct is discovered and corrected. The Gino scandal shouldn't make business leaders overly wary of behavioral science. Legitimate research in this field has produced valuable insights about consumer psychology, decision-making, and persuasion. Visit any successful travel website, for example, and you'll see behavior-based tactics everywhere. For marketers, the lesson is clear: approach novel behavioral science findings with the same critical thinking you'd apply to any other business intelligence. Evaluate the claims, verify the sources, and test everything. Remember that in both research and business, if something seems too good to be true, it probably is.
WebMD
an hour ago
- WebMD
Why We're So Obsessed With Coffee's Health Claims
Or is it? For decades, studies have linked drinking coffee to a longer life and reduced risk of an array of health problems. This week, a big study grabbed headlines linking coffee to healthy aging – women who drank caffeinated coffee were less likely to develop physical problems, cognitive impairment, and chronic diseases as they aged. In January, another study found that morning coffee drinkers lived longer than people who drank coffee later in the day. Another recent analysis suggested those longevity benefits may be limited to those whose coffee doesn't contain a lot of added sugar or saturated fat. Sorry, mocha and Frappuccino fans. Maybe wait for the next study. 'Coffee is like the science version of a celebrity – it makes headlines no matter what,' said Susan Albers, PsyD, a clinical psychologist at the Cleveland Clinic. 'I think that's because it crosses age, culture, and socioeconomic status. It's a substance that everyone enjoys and drinks. And it's one of the most widely consumed psychoactive substances on the planet. We forget that it is actually a drug that is paired with an enjoyable drink.' Three out of four adults in the U.S. report they are coffee drinkers. Half of Americans drink it daily. That's a huge number available to researchers, who can then examine countless variables and look for associations. If we're all doing something and it turns out to be bad for us – or good – public health officials want to let us know. Coffee is loaded with micronutrients, such as polyphenols that have antioxidant and anti-inflammatory benefits, and most coffee also contains the drug caffeine. 'It's such a window into the brain and how what we put in our bodies impacts us on every different level, in positive and negative ways,' Albers said of our own and researchers' seemingly insatiable thirst for more info on coffee. So will there ever be a verdict? We've been let down before. First it was red wine, touted as healthy until recently, when all alcohol has been frowned upon. And like coffee, chocolate seems to forever be switching sides between healthy and unhealthy. What Is It About Coffee Stories That We Just Can't Resist? 'We want to have healthy habits. We want to keep this enjoyable ritual in our lives but make sure that we're not sabotaging our health,' Albers said. 'And so, the more information that we obtain about it, the better. What I think happens is that there might be a little bit of a click bias.' Coffee lovers click to hear scientific confirmation that their habit is healthy, and people who don't like coffee click in hopes of confirming their choice to avoid the drink. Be skeptical of health claims about coffee, especially on social media, advised Jamie Mok, a registered dietitian nutritionist based in Los Angeles, California, and spokesperson for the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. Unqualified health influencers are everywhere these days, so look for someone with credentials who cites evidence from scientific journals. Extreme or ultra-simple claims made in absolute terms are a sign to keep scrolling. Is There a Consensus About the Health Benefits of Coffee? Yes. But the benefits may not apply to everyone. 'Large observational studies are generally showing a consistent positive association between moderate coffee consumption – so like two to three, maybe four cups a day – and the reduced risk of several diseases, including cardiovascular disease, liver disease, or cancer,' Mok said. Some people may not get all those benefits, she said – like those who already eat a diet rich in polyphenols (you're a blueberry lover, for example), or who aren't drinking black coffee, since that's what is usually studied. And even if you do just have a couple of cups of straight black and only in the morning, it may not be healthy if you have a condition like irritable bowel syndrome or anxiety. Do Your Own Coffee Study 'Coffee really is a gold mine for neuroscientists and psychologists who want to study the brain,' Albers said. 'It gives them this wealth of information about how what we put in our body impacts us. And as a psychologist, that's incredibly exciting and interesting to see how something like caffeine impacts our sleep and our mood.' Both Albers and Mok said that when they are working with clients who have anxiety or sleep problems, caffeine is one of the first places they examine. Most people don't realize the deep impact it can have on other parts of their health, they said. Albers suggested a 'mindfulness drinking' exercise to examine your relationship with coffee that she often shares with clients: Sit down to drink your coffee (riding in the car or on the subway doesn't count). Breathe deeply to smell the aroma, maybe wrap your hands around the cup to feel its warmth, and use the moment to slow down and be present. This can be quick, but run through your senses of taste, touch, smell, sight, even hearing. Before you start drinking, rate your energy level and mood each from 1 to 10. For the next hour, keep track of how you feel, and at the end of the hour do the 1-to-10 rating again for your energy level and mood. 'For many people, after they drink their cup of coffee, their mood boosts significantly,' said Albers, who has authored best-selling self-help books including Eating Mindfully. Repeat the experiment on other days, perhaps taking your coffee black or adding a flavor and see if the results change. You may find that coffee affects your energy or sleep, or it enhances your relationships by adding ritual to a shared coffee date. Maybe coffee helps boost your mood and the steaming cup and familiar taste simply bring you pleasure. 'There isn't anything to feel bad about with that,' Albers said.
CBS News
2 hours ago
- CBS News
New Penn Med center in Philadelphia aims to help people with Williams syndrome, develop better treatments
A new specialty center opened Tuesday at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. It's one of the first in the country to help children and adults with Williams syndrome, a rare condition that makes them extra friendly. "This center is going to be life-changing for families," said Jocelyn Krebs, director of the Armellino Center of Excellence for Williams Syndrome. For Krebs, this work is personal. She researched the disorder for decades and then had a child born with the condition, which she calls "an insane coincidence." "Suddenly I went from a scientist who understood Williams syndrome very deeply in one way to a mom trying to figure out, what do you do with a kid that has these various challenges?" Krebs said. The center includes a sensory room with different lights and playful distractions to ease anxiety, which is common for people with Williams syndrome. Krebs' son Rhys has intellectual disabilities, a primary symptom of Williams syndrome. In collaboration with Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, the center will provide comprehensive care and research for adults and children with Williams syndrome, which often comes with severe heart problems and social challenges. "A behavior that is very characteristic of Williams syndrome, sometimes called the cocktail party syndrome because of it … is this incredible friendliness, hypersociability," Krebs said. "And what it really is is just a completely uninhibited social approach." With the right kinds of early intervention, people with Williams are able to thrive. This center will help assure that can happen and look for better treatments and new hope for brighter futures. An estimated 20,000 to 30,000 people in the United States have Williams syndrome, which is diagnosed with genetic testing. Learn more about the center on Penn Medicine's website.
