Where could the blackhole created after the event creating sol and nearby systems be?

[Cesrate]

The matter of our solar system and nearby systems were from a blasting event like the collision of neutron stars or the supernova outburst billions years ago. Question is such a event should leave a black hole. Where it could be and can it be observed now?

[jwenting]

black holes don't last forever, so even if there was one chances are it's long since stopped existing.

And no, there need not have been a black hole. None is needed for stellar collision or supernova events to occur.

[magnemoe]

black holes don't last forever, so even if there was one chances are it's long since stopped existing.

And no, there need not have been a black hole. None is needed for stellar collision or supernova events to occur.

Stellar sized black holes stay around for an very long time so if the supernova created an black hole it would still be around.

However sun circle the galaxy once every 200 million year so it could be pretty much everywhere today 25 orbits or more later.

[kahlzun]

can it be observed now?

Black holes have yet to be observed directly, and quite possibly will not ever be able to by their very nature.

Unless it is consuming matter, or passing in front of something, we would have no way of knowing where a black hole is.

[andrewas]

Black hoes the size of those created in supernova do currently last forever, hawking radiation results in a lower temperature at higher masses, at one solar mass you're already talking in nanokelvin, and the smallest stellar blackhole should be over 3 solar masses. Since the cosmic background is currently 2.7K, black holes grow even when not absorbing matter, theres more energy coming in from space than they emit as hawking radiation. In the distant future, when the universe cools enough, these black holes will begin to evaporate.

So either there wasn't one, or its not currently absorbing matter and thus lacks a visible accretion disk, or its simply too far away for us to detect. The solar system did form over five billion years ago and black holes can be ejected from supernova with large velocities, so it could be on the other side of the galaxy or even have been ejected from it.

[K^2]

Black holes have yet to be observed directly, and quite possibly will not ever be able to by their very nature.

Define "directly". Does

of Sgr-A* count?

The matter of our solar system and nearby systems were from a blasting event like the collision of neutron stars or the supernova outburst billions years ago. Question is such a event should leave a black hole. Where it could be and can it be observed now?

I've been wondering about that myself. As people pointed out, given the time frame, the separation can be quite huge by now. What I'm kind of more interested in is trying to find Sun's sister stars that have, without a doubt, came from the same event.

[Moon Goddess]

Define "directly". Does

of Sgr-A* count?

In my opinion that's textbook indirect observation.

We are only seeing the effects it has on other bodies not the blackhole itself.

[K^2]

When you look at other planets of our solar system, you only see the effect they have on photons, not planets themselves. Are you going to insist that we have no direct observation of any planet but Earth?

[sal_vager]

If black holes did form at that time, it's likely they are quite far from us now as they would also be orbiting the center of this galaxy, even slight differences in orbit would by this time put them many, many light years away so they would pose no threat to us.

Not all supernova's generate black holes though, and the remnant stars could be very hard to find.

[austin4050]

The matter of our solar system and nearby systems were from a blasting event like the collision of neutron stars or the supernova outburst billions years ago. Question is such a event should leave a black hole. Where it could be and can it be observed now?

Not all supernovi create black holes, and the neutron star's I can't fathom what would happen if 2 collided. Also because black holes are theoretically imposable to see because nothing can escape then not even light all you see is an emptiness in space. and as jwenting stated "... they don't live forever..." it could have died a long time ago.

[Moon Goddess]

When you look at other planets of our solar system, you only see the effect they have on photons, not planets themselves. Are you going to insist that we have no direct observation of any planet but Earth?

Ok, I have a feeling this conversation could get silly quite fast, but no.

If we see a photon that bounced off of Mars that photon directly interacted with mars.

If we see a photon that was emitted by a star which had it's orbit affected by a black hole that photon never interacted with the black hole. I think it's a pretty good line for me, past that we get into metaphysics and existentialism.

[K^2]

What I mean is that you don't interact with Mars directly. There is a mediator. Light. You make conclusions about existence of the Red Planet based on how it interacted with electromagnetic radiation. You don't really perceive the photons directly either. You note that they were there based on imprint they left on film, current they caused in the sensor, or chemical reaction they stimulated in your eye. Either way, there is a chain of interactions based upon which you make a conclusion that the planet is there. (Oh, and don't get me started on the "same photon" after it passed through optics.) All I'm suggesting is adding one more link to the chain. Rather than observing light that interacted with Black Hole, we watch light emitted by objects that interact with the same. Note that interaction in both cases is the same. We observe gravitational interaction with super-dense object. Same thing we'd observe with light. By what standard is watching a planet more direct than observing a black hole based on a star turning loops around it?

[Sirrobert]

What I mean is that you don't interact with Mars directly. There is a mediator. Light. You make conclusions about existence of the Red Planet based on how it interacted with electromagnetic radiation. You don't really perceive the photons directly either. You note that they were there based on imprint they left on film, current they caused in the sensor, or chemical reaction they stimulated in your eye. Either way, there is a chain of interactions based upon which you make a conclusion that the planet is there. (Oh, and don't get me started on the "same photon" after it passed through optics.) All I'm suggesting is adding one more link to the chain. Rather than observing light that interacted with Black Hole, we watch light emitted by objects that interact with the same. Note that interaction in both cases is the same. We observe gravitational interaction with super-dense object. Same thing we'd observe with light. By what standard is watching a planet more direct than observing a black hole based on a star turning loops around it?

Very well than.

Define 'orbserving' Cause until you do, none of your arguments matter

For me, observing means the same thing as what Moon Goddess talks about. I can observe the objects rotating around the black hole. With knowledge of what a gravit and orbits are, and deductive reasoning, I can come to the conclusion that the opbject I see is orbiting around something, but I can not directly see that something.

There is no data coming directly from the black hole. If it was a muder case, they'd say you only have circumstantial evidence

PS: 'the effect they have on photons' is my definition of seeing something. Just as hearing something is vibrations in the air interecting with my eardrums

Edited July 10, 2013 by Sirrobert

[Kryten]

Surely if you cannot directly see that something, then the only thing it actually could be is a black hole? What you actually observe fits the predicted properties perfectly.

[K^2]

PS: 'the effect they have on photons' is my definition of seeing something. Just as hearing something is vibrations in the air interecting with my eardrums

Except you can't actually see this. It requires a telescope, a special sensor, and sophisticated stacking software. This is not something you could ever see with your eye. Ever. But then, I can say the same about every piece of photography from Mars rovers. Would you claim that to be a direct observation or an indirect one?

Effect gravity has on stars is the same one that gravity has on light. We don't have a good source of photons for our computers to reconstruct an image with, but we have a source of stars that reconstructs exactly the same image. In either case, you are observing how black hole alters motion of particles. The particles just happen to be a bit bigger.

[Sirrobert]

Except you can't actually see this. It requires a telescope, a special sensor, and sophisticated stacking software. This is not something you could ever see with your eye. Ever. But then, I can say the same about every piece of photography from Mars rovers. Would you claim that to be a direct observation or an indirect one?

Effect gravity has on stars is the same one that gravity has on light. We don't have a good source of photons for our computers to reconstruct an image with, but we have a source of stars that reconstructs exactly the same image. In either case, you are observing how black hole alters motion of particles. The particles just happen to be a bit bigger.

Telescopes, with or without a computer, magnify photons so you can see them.

Infrared, or any kind of radiation is still data coming directly from the source.

How about you focus on the 'define orbserving' part, instead of dancing around the point?

[Kryten]

So what's your opinion on planets discovered using light-curves of the stars they're orbiting?

[Sirrobert]

So what's your opinion on planets discovered using light-curves of the stars they're orbiting?

Indirect discovery. Kinda like when a bat flys past the moon. You don't see the bat, but you see it's shadow, so you know SOMETHING just flew past the moon.

After the discovery, we can point more sensetive things in the directly to try and capture direct proof

[Moon Goddess]

So what's your opinion on planets discovered using light-curves of the stars they're orbiting?

Well, same, We have no direct observation. We know they are their thru indirect observation, but not direct.

[K^2]

Telescopes, with or without a computer, magnify photons so you can see them.

Infrared, or any kind of radiation is still data coming directly from the source.

Not even close. A modern telescope does a whole bunch of measurements and then applies a statistical model, that might take into account such things as motion of the telescope, atmospheric effects, etc, and arrives at the most likely image of the source. The final light you see is generated by a computer and the actual source of electromagnetic radiation you receive is the screen. And don't even get me started on radio telescope arrays, since you've opened up the topic of "any kind of radiation".

All I'm suggesting is that for the purposes of this setup the distant stars are part of your equipment. Something to convert the otherwise invisible gravitational field of the black hole, which is directly emitted by the black hole, and which I can without much of a stretch claim to be a type of radiation, into an image you can see on the screen.

When you explain to me how using oscillating currents in radio telescope as intermediate for viewing a quasar are different from using remote stars as intermediate for viewing a black hole, we have a discussion.

Otherwise, you are stuck claiming that a direct observation needs a human eye peering into an old fashioned telescope.

How about you focus on the 'define orbserving' part, instead of dancing around the point?

Observation is any kind of measurement. Direct observation is such a measurement that requires no models beyond well-established. Understanding of electrodynamics and statistics are required for you to believe that an image you receive from Hubble telescope is an actual image of a distant galaxy. Fortunately, our understanding of General Relativity is at least as precise. So observing motion of distant stars is no different than making measurements on currents in a detector of a modern telescope and analyzing them. In contrast, an indirect measurement relies on a model that is itself questionable. In which case the observation is conditioned on reliability of the model. For example, observation of an exoplanet based on luminosity changes requires a model to describe star's own luminosity cycles. These are nowhere near as precise, and the results we get reflect this. Some planets we are pretty certain of, others not as much. These are definitely indirect observations.

That is the only sane and constructive way to define the difference.

Edited July 11, 2013 by K^2

[Fractal_UK]

What is the point of this debate exactly? I'm not sure I see what is unclear...

If I'm looking for an object and I can bounce photons off it, detect radiation from it, etc. then I'm directly observing that object. If I can infer the existence of an object by bouncing photons off or detecting radiation from something else and the behaviour of that object is consistent with another object that I cannot directly observe, I very definitely have made an indirect observation. The instrumentation that I'm using to make that measurement doesn't really have any bearing on the directness of the observation.

Now, the terminology may be pretty rubbish but that's often what you get when you combine physics with common parlance but hopefully we know this already.

Regardless, whether I have direct or indirect evidence of something is of little bearing on its validity. I could have an enormous number of high quality pieces of indirect evidence supporting the existence of one thing or a tiny number of hazy direct observations supporting the existence of another. Often it's easier to derive convincing evidence for the existence of something with direct evidence but there is no requirement for this.

[Sirrobert]

Not even close. A modern telescope does a whole bunch of measurements and then applies a statistical model, that might take into account such things as motion of the telescope, atmospheric effects, etc, and arrives at the most likely image of the source. The final light you see is generated by a computer and the actual source of electromagnetic radiation you receive is the screen. And don't even get me started on radio telescope arrays, since you've opened up the topic of "any kind of radiation".

DAMN you are good at selective reading

Allow me to lay out the key words you missed again:

is still data coming directly from the source.

There is no data coming out of a black hole. Per definition, all data entering a black hole is lost forever

And I'm glad you have your awesome definition. I'm just going to stick to what the rest of the world is using

[Winter Man]

On the whole 'direct imaging' thing, it's not possible (if you're a pedant at least, because we don't have the tech to see hawking radiation at 1x10^-silly Kelvin), but check this out. Pretty cool way of getting close.

http://www.space.com/21866-black-hole-event-horizon-telescope-technology.html

[stupid_chris]

Black holes are objects that are hard to explain and identify. It's still being debated by some people whether or not they really exist. We have never directly observed one. Yes, we have observed the effects it has on it's surroundings, but we have yet to directly observe one. Our best chance we will get in the near future to look at one will be with the James Webb Spatial telescope. With it's infrared vision it should be able to see rather clearly through the gas and dust clouds around the galactic core and directly capt radiation emitted by the black hole when it consumes matter. But for now, those are indirect observations. We have been proven to be wrong quite often in the past, and although it's highly unlikely that we are wrong about black holes, we could be, and it could be, just like black matter, another phenomena we don't quite understand. So no, we have not yet observed a black hole or even fully proven their existence. We have strong evidence, but they have yet to be seen.

Now to answer OP, before this thread goes more off rail than it already has, assuming that the materials from which we are made from created a black hole is taking a rather wild guess. Yes, all the matter we see around us heavier than iron was created in a supernova, but only a small percent of those end up in the formation of a black hole according to the current models. And this could have taken place million of years before the creation of the solar system, there's really no way to know. If it did create one, it's very unlikely that it's still hanging around. It could be thousands of light years away, there's really no way to know. Trying to observe it's presence, as stated above, would be extremely hard, and identifying it as the black hole that was generated from the supernova that created the matter we are made from would be absolutely impossible. Really, there's just no way of knowing.

Seriously I've read more about black holes than any other stellar object, I'm even seriously considering focusing my research on them once I get my Doctorate in Astronomy. Those things are wacky.

Edited July 11, 2013 by stupid_chris

[PakledHostage]

There is no data coming out of a black hole. Per definition, all data entering a black hole is lost forever

No data? What about the mass? Compare the black hole that K^2 referenced to Cygnus X-1. How do we know that Sagittarius-A* is about 300 000 times as massive as Cygnus X-1? Both are very good black hole candidates. We have a good idea of how much mass is within each of their respective event horizons. That is data about what is inside, isn't it? How did it get out?