Posted Jul 31, 2006 at 03:50AM by Alaric S. Listed in: Astrophysics Tags: black hole, Quasar, Rudolph Schild
Ó

quasarResearchers say a quasar nine billion light years from earth could offer an alternative to black hole theory. A quasar is a very bright, compact object whose radiation is believed to be generated by a black hole nibbling at its surrounding matter. But the new theory says black holes do not exist but are really bizarre and compact balls of plasma called magnetospheric eternally collapsing object (MECO).

Rudolph Schild of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Massachusetts and his team observed quasar Q0957+561 during a rare cosmological coincidence that allowed them to probe the structure of the quasar in great detail. Those details suggest the central object is not a black hole at all.

A black hole is an object with such a powerful gravitational field even light is not fast enough to escape it. Anything within the black hole's event horizon (a certain distance from its center) will be trapped. Black holes are also incapable of sustaining a magnetic field of their own. But the team's observations of the quasar indicate its "black hole" does have a magnetic field and they say it could be a MECO, not a black hole.

According to the MECO theory, objects in the universe cannot collapse to form black holes. When an object gets very dense and hot, subatomic particles start popping in and out of existence inside it in huge numbers, producing large amounts of radiation. Outward pressure from this radiation stops the collapse and the object remains a hot ball of plasma rather than forming a black hole.


[Via New Scientist] Permalink  |   Email this  |   Linking Blogs   |   Digg It!

Bookmark / Find this article on:


13 Comments


Sort by:
   by Andy (Unregistered) - 2006-07-31
 » Interesting indeed.

Very interesting take on the black hole debate..though I will veer on the side of caution as I always do. Simply put, we just do not know what quasars ands black holes are but it's great reading all the latest theories.

Great site, Andy.

   by Jerico G. (QJ. NET Staff) - 2006-07-31
 » Thanks Andy

Yep, it's great trying to peer to the unknown.

   by groggo - 2006-07-31
 » cool thx

I'll have to save the article to my psp, or it'll be hard convincing people that black holes likely don't really exist

   by jjdi8ie (Unregistered) - 2006-07-31
 » nooo!!

No black holes?!!

NNNOOOOO!

Getting sucked in and abducted by aliens from a quasar wont be the same as saying "black holes are where aliens come from!"

NNNOOOOO!!

   by teh nub (Unregistered) - 2006-08-01
 » this is gay

lol no black holes :D
this is almost as gay as the new e3 thing :/

   by Razing (Unregistered) - 2006-08-02
 » Interesting...

This is fine and all, but black holes have some very convincing quantum science backing their existence. Unless we get something more than a shot in the dark to explain a single quasar (as in, we notice this same thing in other quasars, and we get everything together to come up with a decent explanation as to what that mass is, without just throwing out an acronym and saying "That MUST be it"), I'll stick to the idea that black holes exist.

   by Razing (Unregistered) - 2006-08-02
 » To add:

We must keep in mind that quasars aren't necessarilly exclusively centered around either MECOs OR black holes. Some could be around black holes, some could be around MECOs, some could be around objects we haven't even thought of. Again, we have to see this in quite a few quasars before we can say that all quasars surround MECOs.

   by TeChno (Unregistered) - 2006-08-03
 » the all ways make up another thing.

first black holes made life then u say theres no black hole make up ur mind instead of makin up crap...

   by Advertising -
   by mr e (Unregistered) - 2006-08-03
 » huh???

Since when did a black hole created life???
On Earth??? The Universe??? How???
Specify ur arguments better plz.

   by comedy - 2006-08-03
 » hurm

well, a MECO might explain a magnetic field, but how does it explain gravitational lensing? not to mention the thousands of other effects we see...

i had a friend try to convince me that black holes don't exist, and i must say i laughed, he said one thing which was inconsistent was explained with some *****-eyed theory but then it fell apart when everything else was considered...

personally i CAN see how black holes could be, i have studied my fair share of astrophysics and i know a fair amount about their formation and behaviour (clearly not as much as that harvard chap) and i'll need convincing...

   by Kalapusa (Unregistered) - 2006-08-04
 » Ha ha number 8...

TeChno sounds like one of those anti-science religious dudes. That might be why he said "made" life. He (or she?) is talking in the creationist mindset and is most likely confusing black holes with the Big Bang.

Science may make mistakes, but it is Science itself that corrects them - never religion. Religious fundamentalists make stuff up (nowhere to be found in their religious texts) to counter the damning evidence against them by Science ("The DEVIL put all those dinosaur bones there to fool you!!")

   by 8 year old (Unregistered) - 2006-08-05
 » No black holes?

den me litle brother wont b born!! My mommy told me that babies came from holes! And since me family is black, me brother cant come out of the "black hole"!!! Wahhhhh! I want santa!!!! Mayb santa will bring me a litle brother!!!

   by Jumpin Jehosaphat - 2006-08-14
 » nowhere close enough to say anything for sure

I tend to agree with post number 7, but maby there is more to all of this than the existing definitions of back holes and MECOs.

And as for 11 I disagree with the way you seem to look at things. I have strong religious and scientific backgrounds and they don't nececarily contradict one another. I religiously believe that matter has existed eternally and that God organized it. I don't believe that the creation and the big bang can't agree with one another. The bible says God created the earth and man from the dust. The big bang theory explains that unorganized matter exploded into the universe as we know it. It would be nice if the bible explained every aspect of the universe, but it dosn't because it is based on faith. Just because we have managed to scratch the surface of the mysteries of the universe does not give scientists sufficient reason to say that religion is supersticion. Also just because science strips nature of its mystery and makes the universe look cold and mechanical at times dosnt give religion sufficient reason to say that science is wrong.
Just my personal opinion. I think the world would be a much better place if everyone could try to see the big picture rather than hold zealously to one piece of the truth.



Featured Content
QJ.NET Blog Network RSS Feeds
MyQJ Feed / PDA
MyQJ RSS / PDA
Blog of Blogs Feed / PDA
QJ.NET RSS / PDA
Gaming Consoles Feed / PDA
Nintendo DS RSS / PDA
PlayStation 3 RSS / PDA
PSP Updates RSS / PDA
Wii RSS / PDA
Xbox 360 RSS / PDA
PC Gaming Feed / PDA
Age of Conan RSS / PDA
Games for Windows RSS / PDA
MMORPG RSS / PDA
Tabula Rasa RSS / PDA
World of Warcraft RSS / PDA
Science Feed / PDA
Science RSS / PDA
Technology Feed / PDA
Apple RSS / PDA
Gadgets RSS / PDA
Mobile RSS / PDA
Photography RSS / PDA
Add QJ.NET
Add to My Yahoo!
Google Reader Subscribe with Bloglines
Add  to your Kinja digest Subscribe in NewsGator Online
Subscribe with Pluck RSS reader Add 'www.qj.net' to Newsburst from CNET News.com
Subscribe with SearchFox RSS del.icio.us www.qj.net
Add to Technorati Favorite! Add to My AOL
furl! it Stumble for Treehugger!

 Username: 
 Password:
Forgot password
New user registration



Poll
Are unidentified flying objects (UFOs) really alien spaceships?
Earth Science
General Science
Health Science
Space
Archives