4 ms·

> This is just an observation of a black hole that falls inside the supposedly "forbidden" range. So you're saying it's of a mass that was thought to be imposs

> This is just an observation of a black hole that falls inside the supposedly "forbidden" range. So you're saying it's of a mass that was thought to be impossible?

endorphone 7y ago
If there were prior observed cases, then it certainly wouldn't be thought to be impossible. Instead it's just that theory can't yet explain how. In the same way that it is, or was, ludicrous when people say it's impossible that bumble bees can fly, when clearly they can. Instead our understanding of their flight mechanics was incomplete.
papreclip 7y ago
Maybe he didn't word his post perfectly but he's still pointing out an important distinction. If you could conjure a star of 0.001 solar masses, or one of 1000 solar masses, the first would be a gaseous planet incapable of sustaining a nuclear chain reaction and the second would produce enough energy to overcome the force of gravity at its periphery, blowing away its outer mass and shrinking. Those masses are impossible for stars A 1000M black hole would be stable, there's just no likely way to end up with one in the first place.
- eloff 7y ago
  Ah but even the extremely unlikely is likely to happen many times in a universe with such a mind bogglingly large number of glasses and stars. Such as primitive life evolving into conscious intelligence capable of measuring the minute disturbances from distant black hole mergers. I would have been on the nature finds a way side of the wager.
wtdata 7y ago
No, it is of a mass that according to our still standing understanding of astrophysics, is impossible to create by the collapse of "a single star". But you can very well have this mass by the colapse of two black holes, or by one black hole that ends up consuming one or more stars nearby in due time.
brianberns 7y ago
HN updated their title after I posted my comment. The title of the linked article is still misleading: "Possible Detection of a Black Hole So Big It ‘Should Not Exist’".
- homonculus1 7y ago
  That's so incredibly frustrating. I can't tell you how many times I've seen this exact exchange when all it would take to prevent it is the slightest indicator that the previous title got memory-holed. The other issue is when you're looking for an article you saw earlier and can't find it. It's only a minorly bewildering inconvenience but as a user it feels a slap in the face to usability since it just isn't necessary. I just saw in another thread that the links themselves are mutable, i.e. you could discuss one article and future readers of your comments saw a completely different version of the story.

> This is just an observation of a black hole that falls inside the supposedly "forbidden" range. So you're saying it's of a mass that was thought to be impossible?

endorphone 7y ago

If there were prior observed cases, then it certainly wouldn't be thought to be impossible. Instead it's just that theory can't yet explain how. In the same way that it is, or was, ludicrous when people say it's impossible that bumble bees can fly, when clearly they can. Instead our understanding of their flight mechanics was incomplete.

papreclip 7y ago

Maybe he didn't word his post perfectly but he's still pointing out an important distinction. If you could conjure a star of 0.001 solar masses, or one of 1000 solar masses, the first would be a gaseous planet incapable of sustaining a nuclear chain reaction and the second would produce enough energy to overcome the force of gravity at its periphery, blowing away its outer mass and shrinking. Those masses are impossible for stars A 1000M black hole would be stable, there's just no likely way to end up with one in the first place.

eloff 7y ago
Ah but even the extremely unlikely is likely to happen many times in a universe with such a mind bogglingly large number of glasses and stars. Such as primitive life evolving into conscious intelligence capable of measuring the minute disturbances from distant black hole mergers. I would have been on the nature finds a way side of the wager.

wtdata 7y ago

No, it is of a mass that according to our still standing understanding of astrophysics, is impossible to create by the collapse of "a single star". But you can very well have this mass by the colapse of two black holes, or by one black hole that ends up consuming one or more stars nearby in due time.

brianberns 7y ago

HN updated their title after I posted my comment. The title of the linked article is still misleading: "Possible Detection of a Black Hole So Big It ‘Should Not Exist’".

homonculus1 7y ago
That's so incredibly frustrating. I can't tell you how many times I've seen this exact exchange when all it would take to prevent it is the slightest indicator that the previous title got memory-holed. The other issue is when you're looking for an article you saw earlier and can't find it. It's only a minorly bewildering inconvenience but as a user it feels a slap in the face to usability since it just isn't necessary. I just saw in another thread that the links themselves are mutable, i.e. you could discuss one article and future readers of your comments saw a completely different version of the story.