386
Black holes keep 'burping up' stars they destroyed years earlier, and astronomers don't know why
(www.livescience.com)
this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2023
386 points (98.0% liked)
Space
8671 readers
122 users here now
Share & discuss informative content on: Astrophysics, Cosmology, Space Exploration, Planetary Science and Astrobiology.
Rules
- Be respectful and inclusive.
- No harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
- Engage in constructive discussions.
- Share relevant content.
- Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
- Use appropriate language and tone.
- Report violations.
- Foster a continuous learning environment.
Picture of the Day
The Busy Center of the Lagoon Nebula
Related Communities
🔭 Science
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
🚀 Engineering
🌌 Art and Photography
Other Cool Links
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I am probably looking to deep into this but a recent kurtzgesagt claimed that once you get to the event horizon time and space switch into eachother. Your no getting sucked into the center. But your falling into the future.
Sm coming back out years later doesn’t sound like a contradiction to that,
According to the discoverer, this has nothing to do with the event horizon.
When something gets sucked into a blackhole it needs to pas the event horizon.
The first sentence of the body text in the article:
“Up to half of the black holes that devour stars "burp up" their stellar remains years later.”
I recognize that its not an entire sun being sucked in at once and that the black holes presence alone destroys the sun but the parts that are left. Radiation and what not should still be attracted to the black hole and assumingly orbit around its gravity before gething devoured.
It cant burp something out that was never inside. Or maybe it does but those implications are even more bizar. If it was just “burping out” the surrounding star stuff it wouldn’t be called a burp but “pushed it away again.
How else am i to interpret this?
Maybe don't read too much into the word choice of a non-technical article, and trust the actual astronomer discoverer talking about it?
The top comment stating who discovered it was there yet when i made my initial comment where i was upfront that i may be looking to deep with my limited knowledge.
While i recognize that the discussion here has evolved with more nuance and smarter opinions you cant blame me for sticking with the original conversation which is the posted article. After all i am just respond to the replies i get i am not going to re-read the entire thread every time.
I also recognize that the first person to reply did say “According to the discoverer, this has nothing to do with the event horizon.”
But there was no source and i just read it as the “horizon has nothing to do with the burp” that doesn’t mean the twisted physics inside it do not.