TDE_Simulation_Image

An artistic representation of a tidal disruption event, or a black hole shredding a star. Source: DESY, Science Communication Lab

In A Nutshell

  • A black hole 200 million light-years away destroyed a star in 2018, stayed quiet for nearly 3 years, then started emitting radio waves in 2021 that keep intensifying
  • The system has brightened 24-fold over three years and now rivals the most extreme black hole events ever recorded, with no signs of slowing down
  • Scientists have two competing theories: either the black hole launched a delayed super-energetic outburst 1.7 years after destroying the star, or it fired a powerful jet that we’re viewing almost edge-on
  • About 40% of these stellar destruction events now show similar delayed radio emission, suggesting astronomers may be missing a major piece of how black holes behave

When a star gets too close to a supermassive black hole, the ending is usually swift and predictable. The black hole shreds the star, there’s a brilliant flash of light, and within a few months, the show is over. Fade to black.

Well, one black hole (AT2018hyz) didn’t get the memo.

In October 2018, astronomers watched a black hole roughly 200 million light-years away tear apart an unfortunate star. The initial fireworks were visible to optical telescopes, and then, as expected, things quieted down. For nearly three years, radio telescopes found nothing. Then in late 2021, something strange started happening. The system began emitting radio waves. And instead of fading away like it was supposed to, it kept getting brighter. And brighter. And brighter still.

Now, almost six years after that star’s destruction, AT2018hyz is still intensifying. At last measurement in September 2024, it had reached a radio luminosity of roughly 10⁴⁰ ergs per second, rivaling the brightest black hole-powered tidal disruption events ever observed (though still about three times dimmer than the record-holder Sw J1644+57). Scientists have two wildly different explanations for what they’re seeing, and they can’t yet prove which one is right.

A Cosmic Explosion That Won’t Stop

Yvette Cendes, an astrophysicist at the University of Oregon, has been tracking AT2018hyz since 2021 using some of the world’s most powerful radio telescopes. Her team has watched the radio emissions grow roughly 24-fold over three years of observations. By comparison, most cosmic explosions brighten quickly and then fade over weeks or months. This one just keeps climbing.

The behavior, published in The Astrophysical Journal, resembles a firework that refuses to fizzle out, instead growing steadily bigger and brighter long after it should have faded. The energy output now rivals some of the most extreme black hole behaviors astronomers have documented.

What makes AT2018hyz particularly puzzling is the waiting game. For nearly three years after destroying the star, the black hole was essentially silent at radio wavelengths. Then, around late 2021, something switched on. The radio emissions appeared suddenly and have been climbing ever since, with no signs of slowing down even in the most recent observations.

radio telescope, black hole
Yvette Cendes at the Very Large Array, a large radio telescope facility in New Mexico. (Photo provided by Cendes)

Two Theories, Both Extreme

Scientists are wrestling with two very different explanations, and the truth is, both require pretty extreme conditions.

The first possibility: About 620 days after destroying the star (roughly 1.7 years) the black hole launched a massive spherical blast of material. This wasn’t just any outburst. The material would be traveling at about 30% the speed of light (roughly 90,000 kilometers per second) and carrying 2 to 40 times more energy than similar outflows from other black holes. As this expanding shell crashes through gas and dust around the black hole, it creates shock waves that produce the radio waves we’re detecting.

Why would a black hole wait nearly two years to launch such a powerful outflow? That’s the million-dollar question. Maybe something changed in how material was falling into the black hole. Maybe the outflow ran into a particularly dense cloud of gas. Scientists don’t have a definitive answer yet.

The second possibility is even more dramatic: What if AT2018hyz launched a powerful jet right when it destroyed the star (similar to the famous Sw J1644+57) but we’re viewing it almost completely edge-on?

Think of a lighthouse. If you’re standing directly in the beam, it’s blindingly bright. But if you’re standing off to the side, you barely see anything at first. As the beam spreads out over time, more light reaches you, and it appears to get brighter even though the lighthouse itself hasn’t changed.

In this scenario, the jet would be highly relativistic, with a Lorentz factor of about 8, meaning it’s moving at nearly the speed of light. It would carry roughly 100 times more energy than the spherical outflow. We just couldn’t see most of it at first because we’re viewing it from such an unfavorable angle, somewhere between 80 and 90 degrees off the main beam. As the jet decelerates and spreads sideways over time, more of its emission becomes visible to us.

Both explanations fit the data scientists have collected so far, adding to the mystery.

radio telescope
Cendes poses like Ellie Arroway from the 1997 movie Contact, based on the Carl Sagan book of the same name.
Photo courtesy of Cendes

What Happens Next

The only way to know for sure is to keep watching until the brightness finally peaks and starts to decline. Based on the competing models, that moment of truth could come fairly soon, or it might not happen for several more years.

If AT2018hyz is a delayed spherical outflow, the radio emissions should peak relatively soon across most frequencies. But if it’s an off-axis jet, the brightness might not peak until around 2027 at some frequencies, and potentially not until 2030 or beyond at others.

Cendes and her colleagues are planning continued observations through 2025 and beyond. They’re also hoping to use a technique called very long baseline interferometry, which could potentially image the structure of the outflow directly and reveal whether it’s truly spherical or shows signs of being jet-like.

About 40% of these stellar destruction events now appear to produce delayed radio emission: turning on hundreds or thousands of days after the initial flash. Scientists are still trying to understand what triggers these late-blooming outbursts. AT2018hyz represents the most extreme example found so far, both in terms of how bright it’s become and how long it’s continued to intensify.

In summation, nearly six years after a star made the fatal mistake of wandering too close to a supermassive black hole, the aftermath is still unfolding. And astronomers will be watching closely as this cosmic mystery continues to brighten the radio sky.


Paper Notes

Study Limitations

This analysis relies on radio and millimeter observations to infer physical properties of the outflow through equipartition modeling, which assumes energy is roughly equally divided between particles and magnetic fields. Deviations from equipartition could alter derived parameters like kinetic energy, magnetic field strength, and ambient density. The time of outflow launch in the spherical model (approximately 620 days after disruption) is inferred from extrapolating radius measurements backward and carries uncertainty of roughly 24 days. Very long baseline interferometry observations, which could directly resolve the source structure and help distinguish between spherical and jetted geometries, have not yet been performed. For the off-axis jet scenario, determining the exact viewing angle proves difficult because multiple combinations of angle and Lorentz factor can produce similar observed properties.

Funding and Disclosures

This research received support from NSF grant PHY-2309135 to the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics. The Berger Time-Domain Group at Harvard is supported by NSF and NASA grants. N. Velez was supported by an SOS award from the National Radio Astronomy Observatory. Observations used the Atacama Large Millimeter Array, the National Radio Astronomy Observatory, the Chandra X-ray Observatory, the MeerKAT telescope, the Australia Telescope Compact Array, and the Submillimeter Array. The paper acknowledges that Maunakea, where the SMA is located, is a culturally important site for indigenous Hawaiian people.

Publication Details

Authors: Yvette Cendes (University of Oregon), Edo Berger (Center for Astrophysics | Harvard & Smithsonian), Paz Beniamini (The Open University of Israel; George Washington University), Ramandeep Gill (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México; The Open University of Israel), Tatsuya Matsumoto (Kyoto University; University of Tokyo), Kate D. Alexander (University of Arizona), Michael F. Bietenholz (York University), Aprajita Hajela (University of Copenhagen), Collin T. Christy (University of Arizona), Ryan Chornock (University of California, Berkeley), Sebastian Gomez (Harvard & Smithsonian), Mark A. Gurwell (Harvard & Smithsonian), Garrett K. Keating (Harvard & Smithsonian), Tanmoy Laskar (University of Utah; Radboud University), Raffaella Margutti (University of California, Berkeley), Ramprasad Rao (Harvard & Smithsonian), Natalie Velez (University of Oregon), Mark H. Wieringa (CSIRO Space and Astronomy) | Journal: The Astrophysical Journal | Paper Title: Continued Rapid Radio Brightening of the Tidal Disruption Event AT2018hyz | DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae286d | Publication Date: February 5, 2026 (Volume 998, Issue 111, 16 pages) | Received: July 10, 2025; Revised: October 30, 2025; Accepted: November 9, 2025

About StudyFinds Analysis

Called "brilliant," "fantastic," and "spot on" by scientists and researchers, our acclaimed StudyFinds Analysis articles are created using an exclusive AI-based model with complete human oversight by the StudyFinds Editorial Team. For these articles, we use an unparalleled LLM process across multiple systems to analyze entire journal papers, extract data, and create accurate, accessible content. Our writing and editing team proofreads and polishes each and every article before publishing. With recent studies showing that artificial intelligence can interpret scientific research as well as (or even better) than field experts and specialists, StudyFinds was among the earliest to adopt and test this technology before approving its widespread use on our site. We stand by our practice and continuously update our processes to ensure the very highest level of accuracy. Read our AI Policy (link below) for more information.

Our Editorial Process

StudyFinds publishes digestible, agenda-free, transparent research summaries that are intended to inform the reader as well as stir civil, educated debate. We do not agree nor disagree with any of the studies we post, rather, we encourage our readers to debate the veracity of the findings themselves. All articles published on StudyFinds are vetted by our editors prior to publication and include links back to the source or corresponding journal article, if possible.

Our Editorial Team

Steve Fink

Editor-in-Chief

John Anderer

Associate Editor

Leave a Reply