11 comments

  • bell-cot 238 days ago
    Here's a short (12 page) and pretty easy article from The Astrophysical Journal (2003), about end of life for massive stars. And why some would "directly" collapse (no big & bright supernova) into black holes.

    https://open.clemson.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&co...

  • andrewstuart 238 days ago
    It’s a weird and scary thought.

    Imagine seeing that up fairly close - a massive star just shrivel into a black hole and wink out.

    • pavel_lishin 238 days ago
      I'd love to see a realistic render of this.
  • bell-cot 238 days ago
    It's been a while since I crawled Wikipedia's rabbit hole on this - but I recall there being regions of the stellar "mass vs. metallicity" graph in which direct collapse to a black hole is the expected outcome.

    Is there an astrophysicist in the house?

    • magicalhippo 238 days ago
      Seems this is the case for both supermassive black hole formation[1][2], and stellar direct-collapse black holes due to failed supernova[3].

      But yeah, just a layman so hopefully someone knowledgeable chimes in.

      [1]: https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/staa863

      [2]: https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/acda94

      [3]: https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.23856

    • metalman 238 days ago
      not an astro anything, but the easy question is how does the sun switch off it's light output so suddenly as to cause a perfect garavitational collapse presumably it has to be a large metal rich star and exist without too much local gas or a companion star one thing is clear at this point is that the variety of stelar and galactic variability is much larger than what was predicted even a few decades ago, though the idea of a star just neatly removing itself from this universe when it's done, is very strange indeed
      • madaxe_again 238 days ago
        It doesn’t necessarily switch anything off or collapse - it’s possible for a star of the right mass and density to simply end up with a core that is held up only by degeneracy pressure, and the core slowly shrinks as it cools until it lies within its schwarzschild radius, and the rest of the star is either quietly consumed by this relatively slow process, or just escapes as though nothing much happened. Which from the outside looks like the star just turning off.
        • MoonGhost 238 days ago
          It cannot just escape without a push as the gravity is still the same?
          • saltcured 238 days ago
            I assume they meant until all the mass collapses across the threshold, the remaining shell of the star outside is still radiating energy and a "solar" wind, which is particles escaping. So some is escaping away while some is slipping under.
  • amelius 238 days ago
    What is the timespan of such an event?
    • ben_w 238 days ago
      Depends how you define the boundry of the event itself, both in space and in time.

      Stellar cores are relatively small, and the infalling matter is essentially in freefall at high g, gets to a significant fraction of c in about 0.1 seconds.

      The visible disk of a red supergiant — of the kind that can supernova or surprise us by failing — is on the order of multiple AU radius, so speed of light limits there are in the tens of minutes.

  • mikhailfranco 236 days ago

      As many as 30 percent of such stars 
      may quietly collapse into black holes
      no supernova required.
    
    where 'such' refers to 25 solar mass stars.

    Is that a significant contribution to 'dark matter'?

  • therealfiona 238 days ago
    Here is an article about some JWST data of the star.

    https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.16121

  • udev4096 238 days ago
    (2017)
    • verbify 238 days ago
      [22 million years ago]
      • wizzwizz4 238 days ago
        That's subjective. Objectively, all we can say is that it happened before 2017.
        • gerad 238 days ago
          No it’s relative. ;)
          • pavel_lishin 238 days ago
            Well, it certainly didn't happen tomorrow.
            • exe34 238 days ago
              in some reference frames, yes.
              • wizzwizz4 238 days ago
                No, not if we've observed it. There are predicted historical events which can be shunted into the future by running away bravely, but if you've seen them happen, you can only change how long ago.
                • exe34 238 days ago
                  not for us, but in some other reference frame.
                  • wizzwizz4 238 days ago
                    If by "reference frame" you mean "observer who lives in the past", then yes: the past is sometimes the future of a more distant past.
                    • exe34 237 days ago
                      no, relativity allows for reference frames where the event hasn't happened yet, even though it has happened for you. there's no simultaneous "it has already happened" for all frames.
                      • wizzwizz4 236 days ago
                        There is if the event is in the past or future light cone. If A sends a signal to B, and B receives it, there is no reference frame where that signal went backwards in time. (Unless you count exotic ones, like "particle with imaginary rest mass is zooming along at thrice the speed of light", but you can't accelerate to such a reference frame so I don't.)
      • Scarblac 238 days ago
        That was in 2017, it's 22000008 years ago now.
        • subscribed 237 days ago
          Time doesn't pass uniformly :)
  • roman_soldier 238 days ago
    Could be an advanced civilisation sucking all the stars energy into the back of their spaceship.
    • m4rtink 238 days ago
      More likely just someone feeding all the mass of the star to a black hole for industrial purposes - eq. a Deep Well Industrial Zone: https://www.orionsarm.com/eg-article/464790d2497de

      Orions Arm even has a story about how such process might look like: https://www.orionsarm.com/eg-article/46709da5de6be

      You basically let material stream into a black hole, it forms an acreation disk which gets very hot and dense even before the material actually falls into the black hole. The temperatture and pressure is high enough to trigger nucleosynthetic fusion reactions that generate heavy elements from lighter stuff, like the abundant hydrogen and helium. And a lot of "process heat" that can be used as energy source for other purposes. :)

    • adonovan 238 days ago
      Perhaps a superadvanced civilization training an AI model on all remaining negative entropy in their solar system so they can more effectively create realistic propaganda for the upcoming election on their now rather chilly mars colony.
    • NKosmatos 238 days ago
      Or it could be the sun eating dragon :-)

      Joking aside, it could be a Kardashev Type II (or higher) civilization. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale

      They could have used a dense Dyson sphere to “suck” the energy of the star, but if that was the case we would be able to detect its infrared radiation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere

      Anyway, I prefer the giant star eating dragon alternative ;-)

    • chgs 238 days ago
      And then where does it go?
  • keepamovin 238 days ago
    Or something just moved in front of it. It did not rage against the dying of the light, the definition of out with a whimper.
    • WhitneyLand 238 days ago
      Like people spent years of their life scientifically studying the problem and didn’t think of this before making the claim?

      It was multi-wave analysis not just visible light, IR spread can differentiate this.

      It’s been missing since 2015. Probability of something being large enough to cover the star and stay on a path completely obscuring it for 10 years is shall we say, not likely.

      It didn’t rage against the dying of the light, it just switched off.

    • y42 238 days ago
      >As many as 30 percent of such stars, it seems, may quietly collapse into black holes — no supernova required.
    • gpvos 238 days ago
      TFA says the astronomers checked for that. It's still a possibility, but pretty unlikely.