InkDark
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 10/29/07
Posts: 1837
Loc: Montreal, Canada
|
|
Hi all,
As anyone of you ever observed the jet from m87? If the answer is yes, what size scope were you looking through?
--------------------
Jimmy
If you could stop time, for how long would you stop it?
"...since that time, I have not complained about the weather one single time. I’m glad there is weather." – Alan Bean, Apollo 12
|
b1gred
Enginerd
Reged: 04/01/04
Posts: 15711
Loc: Castle Rock, CO 6677' MSL
|
|
I think it's only visible in X-ray, no scope any of us have is going to see it...
--------------------
"Dark Skies & Great Viewing"
RandyR / W0RDR
GPS 9.25 XLT/Sky Align /FeatherTouch
TV85 w/FeatherTouch
|
David Knisely
Postmaster
Reged: 04/19/04
Posts: 8279
Loc: Beatrice, Nebraska
|
|
Quote:
I think it's only visible in X-ray, no scope any of us have is going to see it...
No, the jet is visible in large amateur telescopes (it was discovered in some shorter exposure photographs of the central region of M87 by Curtis in 1918). I believe that Jay Reynolds Freeman has seen it in a C14 at very high power under very good seeing, and others have seen it in larger scopes. I have tried to pick up the jet only a few times in my 10 inch, but did not see it. Clear skies to you.
--------------------
David W. Knisely
Hyde Memorial Observatory
http://www.hydeobservatory.info
Prairie Astronomy Club
http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
|
b1gred
Enginerd
Reged: 04/01/04
Posts: 15711
Loc: Castle Rock, CO 6677' MSL
|
|
I sit corrected.
--------------------
"Dark Skies & Great Viewing"
RandyR / W0RDR
GPS 9.25 XLT/Sky Align /FeatherTouch
TV85 w/FeatherTouch
|
RonBurgundy
sage
Reged: 06/16/09
Posts: 271
Loc: Philadelphia
|
|
I have never seen the jet. I would assume a large telescope would be necessary to see such a dim item! And yes, Randy, it does in fact glow with x-ray light AND radio light pretty strongly!
--------------------
Kipp Ginsburg
8" LX200-ACF
Orion 120mm F/5.0 Piggybacked Refractor
Meade UWA Set [4.7mm-30mm]
DSI-II
|
tatarjj
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 04/20/04
Posts: 1134
Loc: Austin, TX
|
|
I've seen the jet in my 18" obsession and my 25" dob. Needless to say, it's a bit easier in the 25" than the 18". It's a slight brightening to one side of M87's core seen at high power. Closer and more studied inspection will reveal it elongated in the direction of the core, as expected. When I saw it for the first time in my 18", I was able to verify that I was actually seeing it by sketching the position of the glow I was seeing and then later matching it to a photograph. It wasn't THAT hard though- even before I checked my sketch against the photograph, I knew that what I had seen was clear enough that it was a foregone conclusion that the photograph and sketch would match.
I'd say that a minimum aperture of 13" or 14" to see it would be realistic, never tried for it in anything less than 18" though.
--------------------
John T.
Austin, TX
25" f/4.2 Dob
18" Obsession #701
4" Stellar Vue Achromat
8X56 Binos
Edited by tatarjj (10/26/09 10:52 PM)
|
Thomas44
super member
Reged: 10/26/09
Posts: 101
|
|
I didn't have the chance using my stuff.
--------------------
www.laserpointers.co.uk
|
skyward_eyes
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 12/12/06
Posts: 2102
Loc: Arizona
|
|
Thats why you go to star parties and ask the guy with the biggest scope to slew over and view it!
I need to give this a try at the All Arizona Messier Marathon in my 16" this coming March.
|
contrailmaker
sage
Reged: 01/02/09
Posts: 251
|
|
Seen it with a 22 inch Dob at a starparty.
cm
|
Bill Weir
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 1297
Loc: Metchosin (Victoria), Canada
|
|
On the night I saw it with a 25" I also suspected detecting it with my 12.5" but won't commit to it. With the 25" it was a definite observation. Here is a sketch I did to check later against images. I didn't corrupt my observation by studying images closely before hand.
http://rascvic.zenfolio.com/p566114947/h33537d30#h30222f4a
Bill
--------------------
6'' Orion SkyQuest
12.5'' f/5 Custom Truss Dob
William Optics 80mm ZenithStar ED II
f/5 25" newtonian on a giant GEM, any time I want
Observing sessions grand total for 2008, 121.
So far in 2009, 92
|
panhard
Mongo
Reged: 01/20/08
Posts: 5200
Loc: Markham Ontario Canada
|
|
Very nice sketch. I wish that I had that much aperature.
--------------------
|
deSitter
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 12/09/04
Posts: 2926
|
|
This jet is one of the great mysteries - no one has a clue what could cause that.
-drl
|
tatarjj
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 04/20/04
Posts: 1134
Loc: Austin, TX
|
|
Quote:
This jet is one of the great mysteries - no one has a clue what could cause that.
-drl
Well, it's very well known that it's a supermassive black hole a couple billion times the sun's mass that causes it. I believe the leading theory for how the jets become so well collimated is that they are focused with a very powerful magnetic field.
--------------------
John T.
Austin, TX
25" f/4.2 Dob
18" Obsession #701
4" Stellar Vue Achromat
8X56 Binos
|
tatarjj
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 04/20/04
Posts: 1134
Loc: Austin, TX
|
|
Quote:
On the night I saw it with a 25" I also suspected detecting it with my 12.5" but won't commit to it. With the 25" it was a definite observation. Here is a sketch I did to check later against images. I didn't corrupt my observation by studying images closely before hand.
http://rascvic.zenfolio.com/p566114947/h33537d30#h30222f4a
Bill
Bill,
That sketch almost perfectly represents what I remember seeing through the eyepiece! Good job representing the subtleness of this detail, as well as the correct dimensions!
--------------------
John T.
Austin, TX
25" f/4.2 Dob
18" Obsession #701
4" Stellar Vue Achromat
8X56 Binos
|
deSitter
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 12/09/04
Posts: 2926
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
This jet is one of the great mysteries - no one has a clue what could cause that.
-drl
Well, it's very well known that it's a supermassive black hole a couple billion times the sun's mass that causes it. I believe the leading theory for how the jets become so well collimated is that they are focused with a very powerful magnetic field.
Well I won't get into it but that just doesn't work. Not the place for me to discuss it, based on past experience.
-drl
|
David Knisely
Postmaster
Reged: 04/19/04
Posts: 8279
Loc: Beatrice, Nebraska
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
This jet is one of the great mysteries - no one has a clue what could cause that.
-drl
Well, it's very well known that it's a supermassive black hole a couple billion times the sun's mass that causes it. I believe the leading theory for how the jets become so well collimated is that they are focused with a very powerful magnetic field.
Well I won't get into it but that just doesn't work. Not the place for me to discuss it, based on past experience.
-drl
It (emission of material from near the accretion disk of a central supermassive black hole) is the leading theory as to what causes the jet. Whether it is the actual reason or not might be somewhat debatable, but the model for the jet does work, at least in theory. We can debate it here or on the science forum, but it is the leading explanation. Clear skies to you.
--------------------
David W. Knisely
Hyde Memorial Observatory
http://www.hydeobservatory.info
Prairie Astronomy Club
http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
|
tatarjj
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 04/20/04
Posts: 1134
Loc: Austin, TX
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
This jet is one of the great mysteries - no one has a clue what could cause that.
-drl
Well, it's very well known that it's a supermassive black hole a couple billion times the sun's mass that causes it. I believe the leading theory for how the jets become so well collimated is that they are focused with a very powerful magnetic field.
Well I won't get into it but that just doesn't work. Not the place for me to discuss it, based on past experience.
-drl
It (emission of material from near the accretion disk of a central supermassive black hole) is the leading theory as to what causes the jet. Whether it is the actual reason or not might be somewhat debatable, but the model for the jet does work, at least in theory. We can debate it here or on the science forum, but it is the leading explanation. Clear skies to you.
No, that doesn't work, and I won't discuss why. So no one (no one being defined as only myself) has any idea why black holes have jets. 
David, sometimes, it's just better not to argue. 
--------------------
John T.
Austin, TX
25" f/4.2 Dob
18" Obsession #701
4" Stellar Vue Achromat
8X56 Binos
|
Mike Harvey
professor emeritus
Reged: 03/01/04
Posts: 695
Loc: Orlando, FL.
|
|
It's visible, most nights, in my 28".
Like many of the more obscure DSO's, once you see it a few times, it's easier to pick it out.
I would recommend at least 200X to improve your chances of seeing it in smaller apertures.
And, at that scale, M-87 itself is so large and amorphously bright that the jet can be lost "in the glare" (so to speak). A masking device to shut down the intensity of the nucleus is helpful.
With a Mallincam in the focuser it becomes VERY easy because the contrast and brightness can be adjusted. On the monitor screen, it looks just like the best Earth-based amateur images I've seen.
Mike
|
Achernar
Postmaster
Reged: 02/25/06
Posts: 5025
Loc: Mobile, Alabama, USA
|
|
I've never seen it with my 10-inch, but the inner core of the galaxy looks like a very bright star in the center of this immense galaxy. I have heard of people seeing it with a telescope 20-inches and larger.
Taras
--------------------
15-inch F/4.5 Dob under construction
10-inch F/4.5 Discovery Dob
6-inch F/8 Homebuilt Dob
4 1/4-inch F/4 Homebuilt reflector
A whole bunch of eyepieces, filters and other accessories....
Two curious cats
|
kcolter
member
Reged: 06/04/03
Posts: 87
Loc: Missouri, USA
|
|
I have looked dozens of nights for the M87 jet with 40 inch f5 Dob. I have seen, for lack of a better word, "something" at the right spot about five times. I still have some nagging doubts about whether what I am seeing is the distal portion of the jet, where it starts to "flare out" a bit, or a very dim galaxy right at the limits of detection that lies close by. I do not see the jet immediately adjacent to the nucleus. I have not tried an occulting bar in the eyepiece to see whether obscuring the brightest part of the nucleus helps. I will do that when M87 is placed optimally in the coming months. I have typically used magnification in the 400 to 600X range when seeing the object I mention above. I like the higher powered Ethos eyepieces for this task. I feel that the M87 jet is a very difficult object to see visually, at least it is with my eyes, my scope, and my skies.
|
wfj
sage
Reged: 01/10/08
Posts: 259
Loc: California, Santa Cruz County
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
This jet is one of the great mysteries - no one has a clue what could cause that.
-drl
Well, it's very well known that it's a supermassive black hole a couple billion times the sun's mass that causes it. I believe the leading theory for how the jets become so well collimated is that they are focused with a very powerful magnetic field.
Well I won't get into it but that just doesn't work. Not the place for me to discuss it, based on past experience.
-drl
It (emission of material from near the accretion disk of a central supermassive black hole) is the leading theory as to what causes the jet. Whether it is the actual reason or not might be somewhat debatable, but the model for the jet does work, at least in theory. We can debate it here or on the science forum, but it is the leading explanation. Clear skies to you.
No, that doesn't work, and I won't discuss why. So no one (no one being defined as only myself) has any idea why black holes have jets.
No one knows enough to deny this either. The mathematics of galaxy dynamics is far from being solved or even confirmed in observation, let alone the dynamics of supermassive black hole stability. However, simply from the characteristics of the gravitational potential energy, it is of the order that can create such jets, and that makes the explanation sufficient for our current level of understanding. Debating fluidics within a black hole being able to coherently support jets is going to be science fiction for quite a while, so lets not go there.
We are clearly seeing close to quasar level energy, much, much closer. And seeing that with the human eye is very exciting.
|
David Knisely
Postmaster
Reged: 04/19/04
Posts: 8279
Loc: Beatrice, Nebraska
|
|
wfi wrote:
Quote:
Debating fluidics within a black hole being able to coherently support jets is going to be science fiction for quite a while, so lets not go there.
Well, I wouldn't exactly call it science fiction. We do know that there is a very massive (between 3 and 6.4 billion solar masses) and relatively small (roughly twice our solar system's diameter) object at the center of M87, surrounded by a hot accretion disk. We have observed conditions near the center which support strong magnetic fields capable of helping collimate jets from the region near the central point of M87. A reasonably good model of the central region of M87 has been formulated that involves a supermassive black hole that can produce jets from the innermost part of the accretion region (not from the event horizon itself), so although not exactly proven, it is supported by observational evidence and is within the realm of science, not "science fiction". Clear skies to you.
--------------------
David W. Knisely
Hyde Memorial Observatory
http://www.hydeobservatory.info
Prairie Astronomy Club
http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
|
wfj
sage
Reged: 01/10/08
Posts: 259
Loc: California, Santa Cruz County
|
|
The "science fiction" ref involves the physics within the event horizon that is at question - what kind of substance/organization lies within. Some ideas include a quark/gluon plasma largely unorganized, others are variations on Bose/Einstien or Fermi/Dirac "oceans" with peculiar rigidity and potentially no convection(!). This kind of fluidics is what I was referring to.
I agree there is no need for "science fiction" for jets as outside the event horizon - more than enough proof. Fluidics in that case are a form of MHD - not an issue. But some quibble about the mechanism given statistical physics, which is what I saw in the last post I was responding to - if you see dynamics of a black hole as like a sun statistically you can't get jets due to randomization, so the MHD can't "organize" to the high order needed.
|
tatarjj
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 04/20/04
Posts: 1134
Loc: Austin, TX
|
|
Quote:
The "science fiction" ref involves the physics within the event horizon that is at question - what kind of substance/organization lies within. Some ideas include a quark/gluon plasma largely unorganized, others are variations on Bose/Einstien or Fermi/Dirac "oceans" with peculiar rigidity and potentially no convection(!). This kind of fluidics is what I was referring to.
I agree there is no need for "science fiction" for jets as outside the event horizon - more than enough proof. Fluidics in that case are a form of MHD - not an issue. But some quibble about the mechanism given statistical physics, which is what I saw in the last post I was responding to - if you see dynamics of a black hole as like a sun statistically you can't get jets due to randomization, so the MHD can't "organize" to the high order needed.
Well, since anything inside the event horizon is effectively cut off from our universe, is it even valid to talk about what's inside the event horizon? From our point of view, time has frozen at the event horizon. I guess you could talk about what would happen if you fell into a black hole...
--------------------
John T.
Austin, TX
25" f/4.2 Dob
18" Obsession #701
4" Stellar Vue Achromat
8X56 Binos
|
Hrundi
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 02/06/08
Posts: 1237
Loc: Estonia
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
The "science fiction" ref involves the physics within the event horizon that is at question - what kind of substance/organization lies within. Some ideas include a quark/gluon plasma largely unorganized, others are variations on Bose/Einstien or Fermi/Dirac "oceans" with peculiar rigidity and potentially no convection(!). This kind of fluidics is what I was referring to.
I agree there is no need for "science fiction" for jets as outside the event horizon - more than enough proof. Fluidics in that case are a form of MHD - not an issue. But some quibble about the mechanism given statistical physics, which is what I saw in the last post I was responding to - if you see dynamics of a black hole as like a sun statistically you can't get jets due to randomization, so the MHD can't "organize" to the high order needed.
Well, since anything inside the event horizon is effectively cut off from our universe, is it even valid to talk about what's inside the event horizon? From our point of view, time has frozen at the event horizon. I guess you could talk about what would happen if you fell into a black hole...
Pasta would.
--------------------
|
tatarjj
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 04/20/04
Posts: 1134
Loc: Austin, TX
|
|
Quote:
Pasta would.
I don't think even vermichelli is quite thin enough to describe what happens to you falling into a black hole 
--------------------
John T.
Austin, TX
25" f/4.2 Dob
18" Obsession #701
4" Stellar Vue Achromat
8X56 Binos
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
[Re: 