OFF-TOPIC First image of a black hole

[lowtek]

We've managed to directly image the event horizon around a black hole, using a planetary network (with one part here in Arizona) of radio dishes.

While you may have heard the term in pop culture, let's make sure our definitions are straight. The event horizon is the boundary between two regions of space-time, typically associated with a black hole. "Inside" the event horizon, space-time is so warped, due to the massive gravitational field of the black hole, that the escape velocity is greater than that of light. Outside, the escape velocity is quite high, but less than that of light, so matter and energy can eventually escape.

As dust and debris fall into the black hole, it accelerates. Charged particles radiate light as they accelerate, and this results in the presence of a bright disk around the event horizon.

This is precisely what we have imaged for the first time in history. A bright disk of infalling matter around the supermassive black hole at the center of M87.

https://phys.org/news/2019-04-astronomers-unveil-photo-black-hole.html

 

Don't like ads? Remove them while supporting the forum. Subscribe.

[PizzaOnTheRoof]

That's an amazing photo. Can't wait for James Webb to finally launch!

 

[MJ DeMarco]

Mind-boggling, and it took a telescope the size of the earth to see it.

On another tangent, here's another picture of a black hole.

 

[socaldude]

We've managed to directly image the event horizon around a black hole, using a planetary network (with one part here in Arizona) of radio dishes.

Is it true that some black holes are actually "topologically" connected that they are actually one and the same black hole but light years apart because they don't "occupy" space-time?

 

[lowtek]

Is it true that some black holes are actually "topologically" connected that they are actually one and the same black hole but light years apart because they don't "occupy" space-time?

Not sure, but it sounds like some woo to me. Black holes are definitely distinguishable, due to their mass, angular momentum, and charge... They're probably all topologically equivalent, but that doesn't imply they are connected any more than the fact that a donut and a coffee mug are topologically equivalent.

I'm just a humble experimentalist in condensed matter, rather than cosmology or the like. A quick google search didn't reveal any peer reviewed articles supporting the assertion, so I'm going to go with a no.

 

[Xeon]

Now I just need scientists to confirm findings as to what happens to things who go into black holes since space time is so warped inside. How warped?

Do things get erased out of existence or are they the portal to new dimensions? Hurry up NASA!

on another tangent, here's another picture of a black hole.

What an architectural beauty!

 

[lowtek]

Now I just need scientists to confirm findings as to what happens to things who go into black holes since space time is so warped inside. How warped?

Do things get erased out of existence or are they the portal to new dimensions? Hurry up NASA!



What an architectural beauty!

Check out this video by PBS Spacetime. Best science channel on YT, IMHO.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mht-1c4wc0Q

 

[404profound]

Mind-boggling, and it took a telescope the size of the earth to see it.

On another tangent, here's another picture of a black hole.

Word on the street is if you get too close your ability to think logically can't escape its event horizon, and you'll not return from a mindset of nepotism and hierarchical circle-jerking. I'd rather fall into M87.

 

[404profound]

We've managed to directly image the event horizon around a black hole, using a planetary network (with one part here in Arizona) of radio dishes.

While you may have heard the term in pop culture, let's make sure our definitions are straight. The event horizon is the boundary between two regions of space-time, typically associated with a black hole. "Inside" the event horizon, space-time is so warped, due to the massive gravitational field of the black hole, that the escape velocity is greater than that of light. Outside, the escape velocity is quite high, but less than that of light, so matter and energy can eventually escape.

As dust and debris fall into the black hole, it accelerates. Charged particles radiate light as they accelerate, and this results in the presence of a bright disk around the event horizon.

This is precisely what we have imaged for the first time in history. A bright disk of infalling matter around the supermassive black hole at the center of M87.

https://phys.org/news/2019-04-astronomers-unveil-photo-black-hole.html

What most people don't realize is that photo is a representational state from 55 million years ago, and doesn't reflect current reality. I wonder what the state of the hole is today.

 

[scottmsul]

I took a GR class back in grad school, I recall learning that if a black hole has high enough spin, it's possible to form closed time-like curves outside the event horizon...meaning it's possible to go back in time. I was (and still am) extremely skeptical of this, I feel like I either misinterpreted this fact, or maybe GR breaks down at those scales.

I also feel like I never fully understood the event horizon. For example if an object falls into the black hole, an observer at infinity will see the object approaching the event horizon forever but never cross it. But in the reference frame of something falling into the black hole, they cross the boundary and hit the center in a finite amount of time. But we know from Hawking radiation that black holes slowly evaporate over time, so wouldn't the observer at infinity see the black hole evaporate before the person falls in? And therefore, in the frame of falling into the black hole, wouldn't the black hole seem to evaporate really fast before you get the chance to fall in? But I recall my professor was very adamant that the person falls in before the black hole evaporates.

 

[lowtek]

I took a GR class back in grad school, I recall learning that if a black hole has high enough spin, it's possible to form closed time-like curves outside the event horizon...meaning it's possible to go back in time. I was (and still am) extremely skeptical of this, I feel like I either misinterpreted this fact, or maybe GR breaks down at those scales.

I also feel like I never fully understood the event horizon. For example if an object falls into the black hole, an observer at infinity will see the object approaching the event horizon forever but never cross it. But in the reference frame of something falling into the black hole, they cross the boundary and hit the center in a finite amount of time. But we know from Hawking radiation that black holes slowly evaporate over time, so wouldn't the observer at infinity see the black hole evaporate before the person falls in? And therefore, in the frame of falling into the black hole, wouldn't the black hole seem to evaporate really fast before you get the chance to fall in? But I recall my professor was very adamant that the person falls in before the black hole evaporates.

Check out the video I linked above. PBS Spacetime does great work exploring all this stuff.

 

Don't like ads? Remove them while supporting the forum. Subscribe.

[Siddhartha]

Veritasium had a great pair of videos on this.
Scientists have also produced some more detailed simulaton images from the data that will probably be bang on until we have a telescope system large enough to capture m87 in detail:

I find this whole situation interesting; because the original mission was to capture data and render an image of the black hole at the center of our galaxy, but that was hard to capture. So instead, scientists went and found a black hole many, many times further away weighing 6.5 billion times the weight of the sun and with a swarzchild radius the size of the solar system (unimaginably huge) and captured an image of that instead.

For sense of scale, blob in bottom half is the best quality image of the black hole until now:

 

[Itsnotablackhole]

It's not a black hole, it's an asteroid. Sorry, Cheers Kali. There is a black hole out there for viewing but the problem is not knowing what they look like in the first place makes them hard to identify, unfortunately on this occasion it is not a black hole, but the photo is of fantastic quality and accuracy, very impressive technical skills, but my skills of observation are correct. If the brightness of the moniter image is increased, you will see lines appear in the shape of an asteroid, the effect is created by light from the background star bending around the asteroid.

 

[lowtek]

It's not a black hole, it's an asteroid. Sorry, Cheers Kali. There is a black hole out there for viewing but the problem is not knowing what they look like in the first place makes them hard to identify, unfortunately on this occasion it is not a black hole, but the photo is of fantastic quality and accuracy, very impressive technical skills, but my skills of observation are correct. If the brightness of the moniter image is increased, you will see lines appear in the shape of an asteroid, the effect is created by light from the background star bending around the asteroid.

Wait ... what? You're saying it's microlensing from an asteroid?

You realize that's pretty much impossible, yeah? How much lensing do you see from a mountain?

 

[MJ DeMarco]

How much lensing do you see from a mountain?

He must be pretty convicted to name his ID after the assertion.

 

[G-Man]

@lowtek can you speak retard for a minute. I understand, at least as an abstraction that what we experience as time is the curvature in space created by mass, is that more or less correct?

If that’s true, when they say black holes are eternal do they mean they’ve existed since all that mass was projected out at the Big Bang? What does eternal mean when we know the universe has a starting point?

I am neither a professional or amateur scientist and I’m really effing confused.

Dear Abby

 

[lowtek]

@lowtek can you speak retard for a minute. I understand, at least as an abstraction that what we experience as time is the curvature in space created by mass, is that more or less correct?

If that’s true, when they say black holes are eternal do they mean they’ve existed since all that mass was projected out at the Big Bang? What does eternal mean when we know the universe has a starting point?

I am neither a professional or amateur scientist and I’m really effing confused.

Dear Abby

If Hawking is correct, black holes are not eternal, but they are extremely long lived. As in, they'll be around for many millions of times longer than the present age of the universe. The longevity of a black hole is inversely proportional to its size. The largest ones will outlive everything else in the universe, while the smallest ones will die out in something like a trillion years.

They haven't been around since the big bang. The largest black holes (millions of times the mass of our sun) formed millions of years afterward, and form the anchor point for most galaxies, including our own. There is some speculation that much smaller black holes formed during the big bang, and are still running around, but I think it's tentative at this point ( don't quote me on that ). Moderate sized black holes form when large stars (10s to hundreds of times the mass of our sun) collapse at the end of their life cycle, and so have only been around since the universe was hundreds of millions of years old and onward.

The relative passage of time is indeed affected by gravitation as well as velocity. The closer you get to the speed of light, the slower your clock runs relative to a stationary observer. The closer you get to a black hole, the slower your clock runs relative to someone much further away.

 

[Itsnotablackhole]

Wait ... what? You're saying it's microlensing from an asteroid?

You realize that's pretty much impossible, yeah? How much lensing do you see from a mountain?

Yes, micro lensing from an asteroid. Yes I am convinced. There is an experiment with light, involving a black disc of card, light is shone at the black disc and bends around it's edges, forming a series of rings (circles) on the wall (behind it). Similary there is a series of outlines of the asteroid moving in towards the centre. This can be seen in the photo I added which has removed enough glare to make out the outside edge of the asteroid, and it's outline parallels heading in towards the central dark area. Normally the asteroid would be made invisible by the glare of the star behind it, the star light would just completely bend around the asteroid and we wouldn't even know that the asteroid is there, we would just see the star. But if the asteroid is closer, then we would expect see outlines and a dark spot in middle , where light is finding it hardest to get to that area. Light bends around all objects , micro or macro , so the same effects can be reproduced by lab experiment.

 

[The Abundant Man]

The relative passage of time is indeed affected by gravitation as well as velocity. The closer you get to the speed of light, the slower your clock runs relative to a stationary observer. The closer you get to a black hole, the slower your clock runs relative to someone much further away.

Einstein's Theory of Relativity aka Time Dilation.

This was shown in Christopher Nolan's Interstellar. Physicist Kip Thorn helped with that movie.

Kip Thorne gave equations of a Black Hole to the effects team. The computer models allowed him to write brand new scientific papers on Black Holes which he won awards for.

Black hole in that movie was pretty accurate except the part where Matthew McCauhney gets sucked in, that part's fiction. Also, the whole "1 hour on this planet = 7 years on Earth" thing was also kind of accurate but it was used in a fictional context.

 

[Roli]

Wait ... what? You're saying it's microlensing from an asteroid?

You realize that's pretty much impossible, yeah? How much lensing do you see from a mountain?

Welcome to the post truth world, whereby just saying random shit constitutes a theory and your words as a youtuber carry just as much as a Nobel Prize winning physicist.

Ladies & Gentlemen, I bring you... the future.

:-(

 

[Roli]

Yes, micro lensing from an asteroid. Yes I am convinced. There is an experiment with light, involving a black disc of card, light is shone at the black disc and bends around it's edges, forming a series of rings (circles) on the wall (behind it). Similary there is a series of outlines of the asteroid moving in towards the centre. This can be seen in the photo I added which has removed enough glare to make out the outside edge of the asteroid, and it's outline parallels heading in towards the central dark area. Normally the asteroid would be made invisible by the glare of the star behind it, the star light would just completely bend around the asteroid and we wouldn't even know that the asteroid is there, we would just see the star. But if the asteroid is closer, then we would expect see outlines and a dark spot in middle , where light is finding it hardest to get to that area. Light bends around all objects , micro or macro , so the same effects can be reproduced by lab experiment.

You should read my thread about staying in school. I wrote it with people like you in mind.

 

Don't like ads? Remove them while supporting the forum. Subscribe.

[Itsnotablackhole]

You should read my thread about staying in school. I wrote it with people like you in mind.

? Are you ok?
Why are you trying to tell me what to do?
Did you have an actual intellectual scientific response to my hypothesis, or just purile insults? Who am I talking to? Have some courage and tell me your name ? And your address? We should talk face to face. It's all very well DREAMING that it could be a black hole and then going off into one, quoting Einstein's work on time dilation etc, and then getting insulting, another, observation requires firstly clarity, the simple identification, the simple facts, can you prove its a black hole? I think it's fascinating, whatever it is. Seeing as your so sure your right,,, Why don't we have a bet on it, I will bet you money it's an asteroid, not a black hole.

 

[lowtek]

? Are you ok?

He's fine. It's YOU that has the issue.

This thread was meant to celebrate a major milestone in science. The first direct image of a black hole.

I'm all for questioning scientists and not accepting "agreed upon science" or "consensus science". However, objections should be thoughtful, adhere to basic logical principles, and pointed at particular pillars of an argument.

Asserting that the team was trying to image a blackhole, but managed to image an asteroid occluding a star, is absolutely preposterous. Not because we should accept the establishment narrative, or that we should take the competence of the team for granted, but because it is a genuinely insane idea.

 

[The Abundant Man]

It's not a black hole, it's an asteroid. Sorry, Cheers Kali. There is a black hole out there for viewing but the problem is not knowing what they look like in the first place makes them hard to identify, unfortunately on this occasion it is not a black hole, but the photo is of fantastic quality and accuracy, very impressive technical skills, but my skills of observation are correct. If the brightness of the moniter image is increased, you will see lines appear in the shape of an asteroid, the effect is created by light from the background star bending around the asteroid.

How to take a picture of a black hole

At the heart of the Milky Way, there's a supermassive black hole that feeds off a spinning disk of hot gas, sucking up anything that ventures too close -- even light. We can't see it, but its event horizon casts a shadow, and an image of that shadow could help answer some important questions...

www.ted.com

Inside the black hole image that made history

At the center of a galaxy more than 55 million light-years away, there's a supermassive black hole with the mass of several billion suns. And now, for the first time ever, we can see it. Astrophysicist Sheperd Doeleman, head of the Event Horizon Telescope collaboration, speaks with TED's Chris...

www.ted.com

 

[Siddhartha]

Black hole denier dude:

If it was gravitational lensing from an asteroid, then you would see an Einstein's cross, and only an Einstein cross.
For your reading:

Einstein Cross - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Itsnotablackhole]

Yes, micro lensing from an asteroid. Yes I am convinced. There is an experiment with light, involving a black disc of card, light is shone at the black disc and bends around it's edges, forming a series of rings (circles) on the wall (behind it). Similary there is a series of outlines of the asteroid moving in towards the centre. This can be seen in the photo I added which has removed enough glare to make out the outside edge of the asteroid, and it's outline parallels heading in towards the central dark area. Normally the asteroid would be made invisible by the glare of the star behind it, the star light would just completely bend around the asteroid and we wouldn't even know that the asteroid is there, we would just see the star. But if the asteroid is closer, then we would expect see outlines and a dark spot in middle , where light is finding it hardest to get to that area. Light bends around all objects , micro or macro , so the same effects can be reproduced by lab experiment.

Last try with you lot, here is a photo of an actual black hole, which has been misinterpreted as gravitational lensing, but the objects seem like many but are only a few repeated images (like reflections but time delays) of the same objects, trailing off into the central dark region, I.e. accelerating towards the black hole and leaving a trail of time frame images behind, as they approach the black hole.

 

[The Abundant Man]

Last try with you lot, here is a photo of an actual black hole, which has been misinterpreted as gravitational lensing, but the objects seem like many but are only a few repeated images (like reflections but time delays) of the same objects, trailing off into the central dark region, I.e. accelerating towards the black hole and leaving a trail of time frame images behind, as they approach the black hole.

How to take a picture of a black hole

At the heart of the Milky Way, there's a supermassive black hole that feeds off a spinning disk of hot gas, sucking up anything that ventures too close -- even light. We can't see it, but its event horizon casts a shadow, and an image of that shadow could help answer some important questions...

www.ted.com

Inside the black hole image that made history

At the center of a galaxy more than 55 million light-years away, there's a supermassive black hole with the mass of several billion suns. And now, for the first time ever, we can see it. Astrophysicist Sheperd Doeleman, head of the Event Horizon Telescope collaboration, speaks with TED's Chris...

www.ted.com

 

[Itsnotablackhole]

He's fine. It's YOU that has the issue.

This thread was meant to celebrate a major milestone in science. The first direct image of a black hole.

I'm all for questioning scientists and not accepting "agreed upon science" or "consensus science". However, objections should be thoughtful, adhere to basic logical principles, and pointed at particular pillars of an argument.

Asserting that the team was trying to image a blackhole, but managed to image an asteroid occluding a star, is absolutely preposterous. Not because we should accept the establishment narrative, or that we should take the competence of the team for granted, but because it is a genuinely insane idea.

I have attached a photo of an actual black hole, misinterpreted as gravitational lensing,,, a few objects accelerate towards it, and they appear as many objects, like reflections, but time delay shots of the same objects trailing off into the distance accelerating towards the dark central region (black hole). Light is still emitted from stars (objects) accelerating towards the black hole, before they have entered the black hole. So you would expect to see objects heading towards it, being sucked in.

 

[lowtek]

I have attached a photo of an actual black hole, misinterpreted as gravitational lensing,,, a few objects accelerate towards it, and they appear as many objects, like reflections, but time delay shots of the same objects trailing off into the distance accelerating towards the dark central region (black hole). Light is still emitted from stars (objects) accelerating towards the black hole, before they have entered the black hole. So you would expect to see objects heading towards it, being sucked in.

Yes, you, the lone genius, are correct while the entire astrophysics community is wrong. All the thousands of people who spent thousands of hours studying their field are making a simple error and are photographing an asteroid eclipsing a star 53 million light years away, all in a relative motion of hundreds of thousands of kilometers per hour.

Go collect your Nobel and leave the thread in peace.

 

[The Abundant Man]

I have attached a photo of an actual black hole, misinterpreted as gravitational lensing,,, a few objects accelerate towards it, and they appear as many objects, like reflections, but time delay shots of the same objects trailing off into the distance accelerating towards the dark central region (black hole). Light is still emitted from stars (objects) accelerating towards the black hole, before they have entered the black hole. So you would expect to see objects heading towards it, being sucked in.

But how can you deny Dr. Katie Bouman person of her accomplishments?


and the other people of NASA who worked on this project?