Talk:Intermediate-mass black hole

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Physics / Relativity  (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is supported by Relativity Taskforce.
WikiProject Astronomy / Astronomical objects  (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Intermediate-mass black hole is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.

The first line of this article totally contradicts the first line the article to which it also refers the reader, the article on stellar mass black holes — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Size Distribution Graph?[edit]

Intermediate-mass black holes appear to be much less common than stellar-size black holes and also rarer than galaxy-sized black holes. But how much rarer? It would be very useful to include a table, or preferably a graph, showing the number of black holes detected or predicted at each order of magnitude from the smallest detected hole size to the largest [ie across 9 orders of magnitude from 1.4 to 18 billion stellar masses] --Tediouspedant (talk) 13:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The answer to this is simply that it is not known. There isn't even enough information to make a meaningful guess. Especially across 9 orders of magnitude. The mass of black holes is not a very precise measurement to begin with. Supermassive black holes can have margins of error of the order of billions of solar masses depending on the method used to estimate its mass. So 9 orders of magnitude is impossible (I'm not sure why you chose 9 and how you propose to categorize them but if you are talking about a mass greater then 100 billion solar masses then there are none in that category to warrant the category). However when comparing the numbers of stellar mass black holes to supermassive black holes just look at the Milky Way Galaxy. There is only one known supermassive black hole candidate to all the stellar mass black holes. This ratio would likely exist no matter the size of the Galaxy. But to come up with what you would like to see done would involve a lot of guessing and assumptions making the numbers not very meaningful scientifically.

Reading into the future?[edit]

Reference 1 appears to have been published by ESA News on Jan 3, 2007 but retrieved on 2006-05-24. Unless this is the first evidence of somebody able to read into the future, there must be some typing mistake.--Franco3450 (talk) 19:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Confused over new report[edit]

I'm a bit confused after reading a new article here, seeing the same date of discovery in the article for GCIRS 13E and this new article's HLX-1 object. Are these the same celestial objects, or a coincidence in discovery dates, with HLX-1 still not mentioned in the article? — Northgrove 09:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it's a different object. HLX-1 is 20,000 solar masses, while GCIRS 13E is 1,300 solar masses. Also, HLX-1 is a part of ESO 243-49, while GCIRS 13E orbits Sagittarius A*. I'd have to agree with you on saying its pretty unusual for such similar rare objects to be discovered in such a short time frame. DarthBotto talkcont 20:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
The rarity of such objects is conjecture on your part based on very little evidence to support it. They may be rare or they may be much less rare then you think. It's also worth noting that the mass of such objects can often turn out to be wrong on the first guess. But assuming these are 100% accurate it still doesn't mean that these objects are as rare as you suppose they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for your opinion... Why does this matter, when I simply stated my perspective on a talk page three years ago? DARTHBOTTO talkcont 21:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)