• Visit 'Mars' in Space.com's new 'Space Traveler' mini-documentary premiering this Friday at noon EDT - Watch the trailer here! 🚀

Hubble telescope finds elusive 'missing ' of black holes, may solve 14-year-old space mystery

Jan 28, 2020
Just a quick observation. In the section of the article discussing an initial competing theory, of this X-ray burst possibly emanating from a neutron star, it's observed that the calculated mass of the X-ray emitter is at least 50,000 solar masses, which is much more massive than a neutron star. It then parenthetically mentions that neutron stars are about the size of a city.

While the parenthetical note is completely correct about the physical size of an average neutron star, it does not aid the argument at all, which is discussing mass differences between IMBH and neutron stars. Mass and physical size are two independent measurements, and knowing one doesn't suggest anything about the other. I think giving the average range of neutron star masses (1.4 - 3 solar masses) would have been much more effective to illustrate that they are nowhere near the calculated 50,000 solar masses of the X-ray burst's progenitor.


Latest posts