Even quiet black holes create winds, new Milky Way observations reveal 23%

By Mara Johnson-Groh0%

6/4/2026, 7:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including False Dilemma, Hasty Generalization, and Begging the Question, with Overconfidence Bias as the most egregious example at 19.4% saturation with 108 hits. Analysis detected 882 faulty-reasoning hits from 558 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 36% and a BS Rank of 23% (17,007 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 77.70% of the article peer group.

After 50 years of searching, astronomers have finally found evidence of a mild wind blowing from the supermassive black hole at thethe center of the Milky Way. 
New observations reveal a cone-shaped path leading away from Sagittarius A* that could only be carved by a hot wind, researchers report June 4 in Astrophysical Journal Letters. 
“We’ve never seen gentle breezes from black holes, but likely that’s what they do most of their lives,” says astrophysicist Lena Murchikova of Northwestern University in Evanston, Ill. 
“Now, for the first time, we see this gentle breeze from the black hole.” 
Astronomers have been searching for this theorized wind since the discovery of Sagittarius A* in the 1970s, when astronomers were just starting to think the unidentified object could be a supermassive black hole. 
But since our view of the galactic center is shrouded by gas, stars and dust, it is difficult to see what’s going on there. 
In the past 15 years, some X-ray and gamma-ray evidence for wind was found far from the black hole, even extending outside the galaxy, suggesting episodes of strong gales in the past. 
But nothing close to the black hole had been confirmed, so astronomers weren’t sure if the black hole was still breezy. 
In the new study, Murchikova and astronomer Mark Gorski, also at Northwestern, amassed more than 100 hours of observations of Sagittarius A* taken over five years with the Atacama Large Millimeter/Submillimeter Array radio telescopes in Chile. 
The observations revealed the distribution of cold carbon monoxide, a key indicator of gas, up close to Sagittarius A*. 
Leveraging a new way to process the data, the team was able to see gas, dust and other materials 100 times fainter than what could be seen before, and create an image of the black hole’s neighborhood 80 times sharper. 
The results showed a stark cone-shaped gap by the black hole that, unlike the surrounding area, is devoid of cold carbon monoxide. 
The geometry of the void and previous observations of X-rays showing hot gas in the same region suggest the culprit must be hot wind flowing out from the black hole, the astronomers say. 
“Supermassive black holes throughout the universe live most of their time in a quiet state,” Gorski says. 
“So [these findings] tell us that even though most black holes are pretty quiet, they’re still having an impact.” 
Winds from black holes can slow star formation and limit the food available to the growing black hole, or they can help trigger star formation by compressing clouds of dust. 
Understanding wind from a quiet black hole like Sagittarius A* can illuminate how black holes sculpt their galaxies. 
“The potential discovery of a wind coming from Sagittarius A* is indeed a big deal,” says astrophysicist Rebecca Diesing of Columbia University, who was not involved in the new research. 
“It would demonstrate that our supermassive black hole is not unique, that it produces a wind just like those in other galaxies.” 
But Diesing would like to see more evidence than just an absence of gas. 
Future observations could help confirm the wind by probing the velocity of gas being swept out of the cavity. 
It may even be possible to see the edges of the void wobble over time as the wind keeps on blowing. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.9%Mara Johnson-Groh: 1.5%Science News: 2.6%Confirmation Bias5.9%This article: 5.0%Mara Johnson-Groh: 3.9%Science News: 1.1%Anchoring Bias5.0%This article: 5.0%Mara Johnson-Groh: 1.3%Science News: 2.6%Availability Heuristic5.0%This article: 13.3%Mara Johnson-Groh: 3.3%Science News: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic13.3%This article: 3.0%Mara Johnson-Groh: 0.8%Science News: 0.4%Hindsight Bias3.0%This article: 19.4%Mara Johnson-Groh: 12.1%Science News: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias19.4%This article: 7.3%Mara Johnson-Groh: 1.8%Science News: 4.1%Framing Effect7.3%This article: 0.0%Mara Johnson-Groh: 0.0%Science News: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Mara Johnson-Groh: 0.0%Science News: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 10.8%Mara Johnson-Groh: 2.7%Science News: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect10.8%This article: 12.0%Mara Johnson-Groh: 3.0%Science News: 4.0%Optimism Bias12.0%This article: 0.0%Mara Johnson-Groh: 0.0%Science News: 1.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 5.4%Mara Johnson-Groh: 1.3%Science News: 4.1%Negativity Bias5.4%This article: 0.0%Mara Johnson-Groh: 0.0%Science News: 0.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 2.5%Mara Johnson-Groh: 0.6%Science News: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error2.5%This article: 0.0%Mara Johnson-Groh: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mara Johnson-Groh: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mara Johnson-Groh: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 3.4%Mara Johnson-Groh: 0.9%Science News: 1.3%Halo Effect3.4%This article: 0.0%Mara Johnson-Groh: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mara Johnson-Groh: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.5%Mara Johnson-Groh: 0.6%Science News: 1.0%Recency Bias2.5%This article: 0.0%Mara Johnson-Groh: 0.0%Science News: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mara Johnson-Groh: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mara Johnson-Groh: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Mara Johnson-Groh: 0.0%Science News: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Mara Johnson-Groh: 0.0%Science News: 4.4%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 16.3%Mara Johnson-Groh: 6.8%Science News: 1.2%False Dilemma16.3%This article: 3.8%Mara Johnson-Groh: 0.9%Science News: 1.1%Slippery Slope3.8%This article: 0.0%Mara Johnson-Groh: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 14.5%Mara Johnson-Groh: 10.1%Science News: 3.9%Hasty Generalization14.5%This article: 0.0%Mara Johnson-Groh: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Mara Johnson-Groh: 0.0%Science News: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 5.4%Mara Johnson-Groh: 1.3%Science News: 2.5%Appeal to Emotion5.4%This article: 14.3%Mara Johnson-Groh: 3.6%Science News: 0.5%Begging the Question14.3%This article: 5.7%Mara Johnson-Groh: 1.4%Science News: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.7%This article: 0.0%Mara Johnson-Groh: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 2.5%Mara Johnson-Groh: 0.6%Science News: 0.5%Burden of Proof2.5%This article: 0.0%Mara Johnson-Groh: 0.0%Science News: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Mara Johnson-Groh: 0.0%Science News: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Mara Johnson-Groh: 0.0%Science News: 1.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Mara Johnson-Groh: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Mara Johnson-Groh: 0.0%Science News: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Mara Johnson-Groh: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Mara Johnson-Groh: 0.0%Science News: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Mara Johnson-Groh: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Mara Johnson-Groh: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Mara Johnson-Groh: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Mara Johnson-Groh: 0.0%Science News: 0.7%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Mara Johnson-Groh: 0.0%Science News: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Mara Johnson-Groh: 0.0%Science News: 2.6%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Mara Johnson-Groh: 0.0%Science News: 0.9%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Mara Johnson-Groh: 0.0%Science News: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mara Johnson-Groh: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mara Johnson-Groh: 0.0%Science News: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

558 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers23%attributed speech428writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageLena Murchikova • 28 words • 0.0% coverageLena Murchikova • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageMark Gorski • 17 words • 0.0% coverageMark Gorski • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageRebecca Diesing • 30 words • 0.0% coverageRebecca Diesing • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Lena Murchikova

100%flagged-word coverage
42 attributed words32% of attributed speech71% writer coverage

No manipulation-pattern hits were found in this speaker's attributed words or the writer's voice.

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.