If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

Main content


Quasars. Created by Sal Khan.

Want to join the conversation?

  • blobby green style avatar for user TDAppleDuck
    How bright would a quasar in our own galaxy be? Could it approach the apparent brightness of the sun or moon?
    (57 votes)
    Default Khan Academy avatar avatar for user
    • old spice man green style avatar for user Skywalker94
      Ben is correct. They can be FAR brighter than the sun and the moon, but keep in mind that these things are so far away that by the time the light got to us, it would be quite diminished and it wouldn't appear so bright. If you are talking about how much light it actually produces, then yes, they can produce a lot more light than the sun, but if you are talking about what we would see, scientists have certainly never observed something appearing brighter than the sun to people on earth.
      (60 votes)
  • purple pi purple style avatar for user Jonathan Nativ
    Sal told us that a quasar can outshine an entire galaxy. But he told us before that a supernova can also outshine an entire galaxy. My question is if both a quasar and a supernova happen in the same galaxy, which one would be brighter?
    (32 votes)
    Default Khan Academy avatar avatar for user
  • blobby green style avatar for user Cathy Geehan
    Why is the accretion disc two-dimensional instead of three-dimensional? Couldn't matter approach the black hole from any angle?
    (19 votes)
    Default Khan Academy avatar avatar for user
    • winston baby style avatar for user ♚| 𝕮𝖆𝖑𝖊𝖇 |♚
      In your case, you're puzzled why there isn't a spherical accretion structure. You could think of such a scenario as having an infinite number of accretion disks at every angle since the attracted matter comes from every angle. Inevitably, the particles forming these disks will collide as the disks rotate, and the resulting velocity of collided particles will eventually point in the same direction around the black hole. Factoring in the masses and velocities of all the particles, one direction of motion becomes “dominant” over time.
      (1 vote)
  • piceratops ultimate style avatar for user Dana Wright
    So what happens when there is no material left for the black hole? Will the black hole just suck in space and time?
    (9 votes)
    Default Khan Academy avatar avatar for user
  • duskpin sapling style avatar for user Anvesh Sharma
    What happens when two super massive black holes are really close together?
    (9 votes)
    Default Khan Academy avatar avatar for user
    • mr pants teal style avatar for user Cameron Swartzell
      They may not colide actually, totally depends on their angle of approach, speed, mass etc. It could be that the end up orbiting eachother (which can create an EXTREME quasar), or terrifyingly they might just fling eachother away like a sligshot orbit, thus creating two black holes RIPPING through the universe at speeds a considerable fraction of C. Neat.
      (3 votes)
  • duskpin ultimate style avatar for user shyamalasailesh
    what does quasi-stellar mean?
    (4 votes)
    Default Khan Academy avatar avatar for user
    • boggle blue style avatar for user Davin V Jones
      Quasi- means semi or resembling. So quasistellar would mean resembling a star. Quasars were considered star like because they were bright points of light, like stars, rather than diffuse light like nebulae or galaxies. However, due to their distance and luminosity, we knew they were much too big/bright to actually be stars. Hence the term.
      (7 votes)
  • piceratops ultimate style avatar for user Minh Tiep
    Where quasar get their energy?
    (4 votes)
    Default Khan Academy avatar avatar for user
  • piceratops sapling style avatar for user Robin Reusser
    The picture on the left of the screen. In the middle is a black hole right? And the "stars" around the black hole look like a galaxy. Is it a Galaxy? Because we have in almost every Galaxy a supermassive black hole and therefore we have in almost every galaxy a Quasar?!
    (2 votes)
    Default Khan Academy avatar avatar for user
  • duskpin ultimate style avatar for user badsolution
    If black holes break every scientific law then how can they exist and how do we know they exist?
    (2 votes)
    Default Khan Academy avatar avatar for user
    • male robot hal style avatar for user Charles LaCour
      Saying that "black holes break every scientific law" is a bit inaccurate. There is a portion of a black hole that we refer to as the singularity where both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are needed to described it.

      So almost all of the black hole is well defined in existing theories.
      (3 votes)
  • piceratops ultimate style avatar for user Siam Rahman
    Why does a quasar look like a disc? Shouldn't it be like a spherical shell covering the black hole?
    (3 votes)
    Default Khan Academy avatar avatar for user

Video transcript

What I want to do in this video is talk a little bit about quasars. And that's a short form for quasi-stellar radio sources. And this name is just a byproduct of the first observations of quasars. Because all they looked like were these kind of point-like sources of electromagnetic radiation, mainly in the radio part of the spectrum. So that's why we called them quasi-stellar radio sources. Now, it turns out that they are neither stars, or even quasi-stellar. And actually, their main energy isn't even being released in the radio band of the electromagnetic spectrum. They're far more energetic than that. What they really are are the active nucleuses of galaxies. So let's think about that a little bit. So if we have a supermassive black hole at the center of a galaxy-- so let me draw that right over here. So that's our supermassive black hole. And maybe that's the surface of the event horizon of the supermassive black hole. The actual mass of the black hole is in the center of that event horizon. If there is material that's passing by this black hole, it's going to get attracted to it. And it's going to form an accretion disk around it. This material is going to start rotating around this black hole. And some of it, if it doesn't have enough velocity, is going to actually fall into the black hole. So you have all of this material going around the black hole. And some of it, if it doesn't have enough angular velocity and not enough to orbit around the black hole, it's actually going to fall in. Let me label this. This is the accretion disk. So as things are getting faster and faster as they fall closer and closer to this black hole, and bumping into each other more and more, that gravitational potential energy from things falling into it is being turned into actual energy, actual temperature. And so what you have is things start to get really, unbelievably hot near the surface. They get hotter and hotter as they fall closer and closer to that event horizon. And so near the event horizon itself, things are so intense that they're actually releasing high-frequency electromagnetic radiation, mainly in the X-ray part of the spectrum. Now, I want to been very clear. So there's two things here. One is when you learn about quasars, or when I first was exposed to quasars in like a Nova special, they make you think that the quasar, that the radiation is somehow being released by the black hole itself. And I would scratch my head because I was just told that nothing can escape the event horizon of a black hole, including electromagnetic radiation. So how could that be being emitted by the black hole? And the answer is, it's not being emitted by the black hole. It's being emitted by the matter in the accretion disk that hasn't quite gotten to the event horizon yet. Once it's inside of the event horizon, any electromagnetic radiation that it might emit will not be able to escape the black hole anymore, will not be able to escape the actual event horizon. So all of this is from the accretion disc around the supermassive black hole. And the other question that used to pop in my mind is why does it come out at these kind of perpendicular, orthogonal to the plane of the actual accretion disk? And at least my logic tells me, well, things aren't going to pop out-- they're not going to pop out along the direction of the accretion disk because then they're going to be absorbed by other things. In fact, that's what's going to cause other things to get heated up closer to the actual event horizon. So any energy that's going out in that direction is just going to be absorbed and make other things hotter. And only when you go roughly perpendicular to the plane of the accretion disk is that energy allowed to kind of go and transmit freely into space. Now, I want to be very clear. Quasars, these are the most luminous things that we know of in the universe. The brightest-- or actually, many quasars are on the order of a trillion suns in luminosity. So they can be brighter than an entire galaxy. And that's just coming from material around a fairly small region of space, much, much, much smaller than an actual galaxy. It's the very center. It's kind of just the galactic core. Now another interesting thing about quasars, and this kind of gives credence to this notion of a constantly changing universe, and even to some degree the Big Bang itself, is you have these supermassive black holes that may be formed shortly after the Big Bang. Now you can imagine, at an early stage in the universe's development there would have been a lot of mass that would have been near these black holes, that didn't have quite the velocities to be able to escape them or be able to orbit around them. And so these would actually start falling into the black hole. And then over time, all of the mass that had to fall into the black hole, into the supermassive black hole, will have fallen into the supermassive black hole. And if you imagine at some future period of time, you should still have the supermassive black hole. But all you should see is mostly things orbiting around it. Anything that had to fall into it, would have already fallen into it. So you're just going to see things orbiting around it. And this is actually what we see if we look around us. If we look at our Milky Way Galaxy, we don't observe a lot of things falling in. For example, the Milky Way Galaxy does not have an active nucleus, an active core. It is not currently a quasar, the center of the Milky Way Galaxy. The supermassive black hole there is not, I guess we could say, digesting, is not digesting or consuming material. But you could imagine at some point in the Milky Way's past, there might have been a lot of material that didn't have quite the velocity to be able to orbit. And so that was consumed. And as it was consumed, it would emit all of this X-ray radiation and could be observed as a quasar. And that's actually what we observe. The closest quasars-- and we've observed more than 200,000 quasars-- the closest quasars are on the order of 780 million light years away. So what does that mean? We don't observe quasars closer than 700 million light years. So what that tells us is, at least in our region of the universe, the most recent quasars were 780 million years in the past. When we look at closer parts of the universe-- let me draw, let's say this is the observable universe. This is us. So we only start to observe quasars at a certain distance away from us. And that distance is actually also a certain time in the past. Because it took the light 780 million years to get to us. And actually, most of the quasars are more than 3 billion light years away. Which tells us that they only existed more than 3 billion years in the past, at a younger stage of the actual universe, when there was actual material for these supermassive black holes to consume at the center of galaxies. You move closer in time to us, and most of that material has actually been consumed. And we just have material orbiting around these supermassive black holes, which we call galaxies. And so we don't observe quasars anymore. And just to give an idea. I mean these are, as everything we learn in cosmology, kind of these mind-bending concepts, unbelievable distances, unbelievable masses, unbelievable brightnesses, I guess you could think about it. But just to give a sense, the brightest quasars, the brightest known quasars, devour on the order of 1,000 solar masses per year. So that's on the order of 10 Earths, 10 Earths per second, if I did my math right. 10 Earths per second are being devoured by the brightest quasars. And it's that energy of that mass that's acreting around it that's generating all of that energy. And actually, I should say-- I shouldn't even talk about it in the present tense. This happened in the past. We're just observing it now. For all we know, the rest of the universe looks fairly similar to the way our universe does. And so there really aren't that many quasars around. Although the other side of the coin might be, even though most of the material has already been consumed, maybe even by our own supermassive black hole in the center of the Milky Way, at some point in the future, maybe it will be able to consume on some more stellar material, some more-- well, any type of material in the future. And that might happen about 4 or 5 billion years in the future when we actually collide with the Andromeda Galaxy. So anyway, hopefully that gave you some food for thought.