First Photo of Black Hole Released

Technology, computers, sciences, mysteries and phenomena of all kinds, etc., etc. all here at The Loresraat!!

Moderator: Vraith

User avatar
Gaius Octavius
American Royalist and Admirer of All Things British
Posts: 3342
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2018 8:32 pm

First Photo of Black Hole Released

Post by Gaius Octavius »

Source

Image

The teams associated with the Event Horizon Telescope (EHT) have released the first ever real image (not computer generated) of a black hole, specifically a supermassive black hole in the center of the galaxy M87.

In this photo (above), you can see the glow of the accretion disc and the gravitational lensing as well as a doppler shift (brighter/dimmer appearance) of the light from the hot gases due to relativistic effects. The black center is the event horizon of the black hole. This is where dreams and Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign go to die. M87 black hole is also larger than our solar system.

Currently, they are still working on a photo of Sagittarius A*, the black hole at the center of the Milky Way galaxy.
User avatar
Gaius Octavius
American Royalist and Admirer of All Things British
Posts: 3342
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2018 8:32 pm

Post by Gaius Octavius »

Image
User avatar
Skyweir
Lord of Light
Posts: 25977
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2002 6:27 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 20 times

Post by Skyweir »

Wow sooo cool Nano .. bigger than our entire solar system? Wow 😮
ImageImageImageImage
keep smiling 😊 :D 😊

'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'
Image

EZBoard SURVIVOR
User avatar
Hashi Lebwohl
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19576
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:38 pm

Post by Hashi Lebwohl »

Some of the images seem to indicate that, impossibly, there is a planet in orbit around that particular black hole.
The Tank is gone and now so am I.
User avatar
Zarathustra
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19672
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:23 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Post by Zarathustra »

Why would that be impossible? You mean impossible for this particular telescope(s) to see a planet? Or impossible for a planet to orbit a black hole? I'm guessing the former, since the latter is possible.
Joe Biden … putting the Dem in dementia since (at least) 2020.
User avatar
wayfriend
.
Posts: 20957
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:34 am
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Post by wayfriend »

However, the black hole at the center of M87 is truly gigantic. Its mass is about 7 billion times the mass of our sun. And its dimensions are huge as black holes go. It is a sphere with a radius about 130 times that of the Earth's orbit or about three times bigger than the average orbit of Pluto.
I agree that sounds like an unlikely place to find a planet orbitting.
.
User avatar
Vraith
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 10621
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:03 pm
Location: everywhere, all the time

Post by Vraith »

wayfriend wrote:
However, the black hole at the center of M87 is truly gigantic. Its mass is about 7 billion times the mass of our sun. And its dimensions are huge as black holes go. It is a sphere with a radius about 130 times that of the Earth's orbit or about three times bigger than the average orbit of Pluto.
I agree that sounds like an unlikely place to find a planet orbitting.
Not really unlikely. A big fucker like that that hasn't had time to suck everything in YET, could have tons of planets. In fact, technically, being at the center of a galaxy, it has billions of STARS orbiting it, and most of them have planets.
HOWEVER:::whatever it is, can't be a planet. We simply could not see it if it was a planet.

But what I want to see [as I was saying to Ali elsewhere, and nano mentioned they're working on the image of] is OUR black hole Sag.A*. Wish the fuckers would hurry up.
[[ours is MUCH smaller---BUT it's so much closer the picture might be better, BUT it might not cuz there might be a lot more interfering stuff...if I recall the early storied about this correctly, looking at ours we're looking long-wise, THROUGH all the stuff in the plane of our galaxy [that's definitely so. we are] but M87 we're looking cross-wise, the thin direction ...so a lot less stuff in the way.
[spoiler]Sig-man, Libtard, Stupid piece of shit. change your text color to brown. Mr. Reliable, bullshit-slinging liarFucker-user.[/spoiler]
the difference between evidence and sources: whether they come from the horse's mouth or a horse's ass.
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
the hyperbole is a beauty...for we are then allowed to say a little more than the truth...and language is more efficient when it goes beyond reality than when it stops short of it.
User avatar
Zarathustra
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19672
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:23 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Post by Zarathustra »

As long as you do not go beyond the event horizon, black holes are just like any other source of gravity. They have less mass than their original star, since they formed from a supernova ( at least at first, before they start attracting any other matter). And there was nothing preventing that star from having planets. The main difference is that they pack their mass into a much smaller space. But from a distance, gravity is gravity. As long as the planet is in a stable orbit, and not falling into the black hole, there would be nothing impossible about this (well, except maybe for the radiation, but that would not be a given for all black holes, just black holes near a gas cloud--and it's possible for the planet to be far enough away from that to be safe. Afterall: Mercury.).
Joe Biden … putting the Dem in dementia since (at least) 2020.
User avatar
Skyweir
Lord of Light
Posts: 25977
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2002 6:27 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 20 times

Post by Skyweir »

Roll on Sag A then, I say 😉 especially if the pics are even more impressive.
ImageImageImageImage
keep smiling 😊 :D 😊

'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'
Image

EZBoard SURVIVOR
User avatar
Hashi Lebwohl
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19576
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:38 pm

Post by Hashi Lebwohl »

Zarathustra wrote:Why would that be impossible? You mean impossible for this particular telescope(s) to see a planet? Or impossible for a planet to orbit a black hole? I'm guessing the former, since the latter is possible.
This planet is located far enough inside the gravity well that it should be falling into the black hole...and yet, it doesn't.
The Tank is gone and now so am I.
User avatar
Gaius Octavius
American Royalist and Admirer of All Things British
Posts: 3342
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2018 8:32 pm

Post by Gaius Octavius »

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:Some of the images seem to indicate that, impossibly, there is a planet in orbit around that particular black hole.
Which image?

I don't think it would be impossible for a planet to orbit this black hole at all, just pretty unlikely that it would find a stable orbit...more likely to be part of the matter being ripped to shreds and pulled in. At this scale, however, you wouldn't see any planets. I think I've heard that the event horizon is big enough to fit roughly three Terran solar systems side-by-side (the largest can fit nearly 50 side-by-side) with an accretion disc about 0.5 LY across. The matter moves very quickly around the black hole. In fact, we actually have an animated image/video produced of the M87 black hole where you can see the matter spinning around it and more matter being pulled into the accretion disc (which is what the faint blobs of plasma near the edges of the photo are).

EDIT: Technically, the planets in that galaxy all orbit around the black hole because all the stars are in orbit around it.
User avatar
Gaius Octavius
American Royalist and Admirer of All Things British
Posts: 3342
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2018 8:32 pm

Post by Gaius Octavius »

Skyweir wrote:Roll on Sag A then, I say 😉 especially if the pics are even more impressive.
The photo of Sag A* was released, actually. The photo isn't as impressive though. The halo looks more like half of a ring, but you can see the event horizon. It was released more for the academic community than the general public.
User avatar
peter
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 11850
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:08 am
Location: Another time. Another place.
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 9 times

Post by peter »

I'm a bit confused; I heard a scientist on TV when asked what exactly a black hole was, answer with a laugh. It's quite simple, he said, a black hole is an object of such huge mass that nothing, not even light, could escape from it's gravitational pull.

Does that mean that a black hole is a lump of matter, a dead star or the like. I thought a black hole was a singularity; a place where the gravitational force had become so intense that the matter had actually collapsed in upon itself to a point of infinite smallness, but infinite mass. A pinch-point where you could be drawn in and spun out to .......who knows where? That bit in films where they always show like a tube of swirling stretchy colours, not a regular workaday hunk of stuff, of bog standard matter? Tell me it isn't so!

;)
Song of the year. Judy Raindrop. Everyone is a cunt except me.

....and the glory of the world becomes less than it was....
'Have we not served you well'
'Of course - you know you have.'
'Then let it end.'

We are the Bloodguard
User avatar
Gaius Octavius
American Royalist and Admirer of All Things British
Posts: 3342
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2018 8:32 pm

Post by Gaius Octavius »

peter wrote:I'm a bit confused; I heard a scientist on TV when asked what exactly a black hole was, answer with a laugh. It's quite simple, he said, a black hole is an object of such huge mass that nothing, not even light, could escape from it's gravitational pull.

Does that mean that a black hole is a lump of matter, a dead star or the like. I thought a black hole was a singularity; a place where the gravitational force had become so intense that the matter had actually collapsed in upon itself to a point of infinite smallness, but infinite mass. A pinch-point where you could be drawn in and spun out to .......who knows where? That bit in films where they always show like a tube of swirling stretchy colours, not a regular workaday hunk of stuff, of bog standard matter? Tell me it isn't so!

;)
A black hole is just an object (like a baseball or whatever) with its mass confined to such a small area that it's gravity (which is inversely proportional to radius squared) becomes strong enough to "suck in" light. Any light lucky enough to not be too close gets bent around the object (gravitational lensing). The matter is confined to a single point called the singularity (although there is debate among physicists if it is a literal 1 dimensional point or just a lump of ultra-dense matter.

In the real world, the black hole forms from stars since they're the only objects in the universe that can naturally collapse to form a black hole (you need enough matter so gravitational force overcomes opposing forces such as gas pressure, electron repulsion, etc). Basically the star collapses forever if its matter is collapsing into infinity.

That dark sphere you see in the photo (black holes are 3D) is actually the shadow of the singularity, called the event horizon. That's the point at which the light can't escape. The bright edges are the points where light can just escape. The light is generated from the matter being so close that it "rubs off" their electrons, generating the plasma, which glows.

You know how metal glows brightly when it's heated? Same principle.

Going back to the equation I referred to, I guess you could wonder if the gravitational force will become stronger and stronger on its own without matter being fed to the black hole since technically gravity acts on objects an infinity distance away from the object (Newton's laws). The object is collapsing infinitely, so it's radius is infinity. I would say (and I might not be accurate here...it's not my profession) that the math would work out something like how 1/infinity = 0.... Basically you wouldn't get any appreciable difference in gravity so you could say it remains constant (disregarding Hawking radiation causing the black hole to evaporate over an eternity) if matter is not fed into it. Obviously, the singularity becomes heavier with more mass added to it from devouring nearby stars, gas clouds, planets, etc. So its gravity will grow as well, although not in any appreciable sense for a supermassive black hole like TON (largest BH in known universe) or M87. They would grow a lot more if they devoured other black holes.
User avatar
Vraith
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 10621
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:03 pm
Location: everywhere, all the time

Post by Vraith »

ur-Nanothnir wrote: The photo of Sag A* was released, actually. The photo isn't as impressive though.
Do you have a public link to the image? I just keep finding M87 pics. I'm sad that it isn't as good---I had hopes due to closeness despite other problems...still I'd like to see it.

peter---thing you asked that nano didn't address:

No, it probably isn't "bog standard" matter under those conditions, even if it originates from the ordinary stuff.
I don't think anyone has a really good idea exactly what the stuff will act like.
Below a link on how fucking weird just your ordinary neutron star gets---or at least might get---...and black holes are a whole nother animal. [[that swirly/stretchy stuff in the films is pretty accurate---at least in some---BUT, it's not AT the "surface" yet, [in fact, since you can see it, it wouldn't even be past the event horizon yet...poetiphysics license.] in those...it's still falling in


https://www.quantamagazine.org/squishy- ... -20171030/
[spoiler]Sig-man, Libtard, Stupid piece of shit. change your text color to brown. Mr. Reliable, bullshit-slinging liarFucker-user.[/spoiler]
the difference between evidence and sources: whether they come from the horse's mouth or a horse's ass.
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
the hyperbole is a beauty...for we are then allowed to say a little more than the truth...and language is more efficient when it goes beyond reality than when it stops short of it.
User avatar
Hashi Lebwohl
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19576
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:38 pm

Post by Hashi Lebwohl »

My attempts to remind everyone of the great Doctor Who episode "The Impossible Planet" have failed. What a shame. Three memorable things from those two episodes--first appearance of The Ood, a written language which was so old that the TARDIS could not translate it (the language predates Gallifreyan technology), and a being who claims to have existed before the Universe did.

Anyway....back on to the real topic....

Yes, stars in excess of 3 solar masses run the risk of collapsing into a black hole after having gone nova. It isn't so much that "gravity is so strong that light cannot escape"; rather, the gravitational pull from the almost-infinitely compressed matter "stretches" and "warps" space so much that the path light follows does not allow to move beyond the event horizon.

The reason that it is sometimes difficult to discuss black holes is because of their asymptotic nature--the mass becomes infinite, the radius of the singularity becomes zero, the acceleration due to gravity and the dilation also become infinite. The universe is not "closed", from a topological point of view--there are points you can approach but never actually reach, like singularities.
The Tank is gone and now so am I.
User avatar
Vraith
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 10621
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:03 pm
Location: everywhere, all the time

Post by Vraith »

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:My attempts to remind everyone of the great Doctor Who episode "The Impossible Planet" have failed.
That is great...though, IIRC, it's a set of at least 2, maybe 3 episodes to get the whole story.
But where did you try to remind people? I didn't see it....


Anyway, I sorta/kinda agree on the difficulties of discussing it...but they aren't ONLY difficulties of discussion.
In the real things, the MATH breaks [and so do the "words" if you're trying to use normal language]...that's hard to discuss sometimes, but usually not. Math breaks all the time...so we switch to a different math.
Same with words.

In black holes it's not that. Yea, the words break, yea the math breaks but the problem is that the actual, physical WORLD breaks...at least for us so far. Cuz gravity overwhelms every other thing...and gravity is the thing that we know the LEAST about. In a way, we know nothing about it.
[spoiler]Sig-man, Libtard, Stupid piece of shit. change your text color to brown. Mr. Reliable, bullshit-slinging liarFucker-user.[/spoiler]
the difference between evidence and sources: whether they come from the horse's mouth or a horse's ass.
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
the hyperbole is a beauty...for we are then allowed to say a little more than the truth...and language is more efficient when it goes beyond reality than when it stops short of it.
User avatar
wayfriend
.
Posts: 20957
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:34 am
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Post by wayfriend »

Agree, math and words break. It's not "just" a dense object. Anywhere that gravity is strong enough to suck light back into it is subject to relativistic forces like we cannot even yet comprehend.
.
User avatar
peter
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 11850
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:08 am
Location: Another time. Another place.
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 9 times

Post by peter »

If I get it I think we are saying that black holes can have different masses, the use of the term supermassive before the name would imply that some are not so. This being so, again if I get it, they are not then necessarily infinite in mass - though examples might exist that are so? Neither is it the case that the intense gravitational force has literally squeezed the matter down to a point of infinite smallness - literally to the point where the actual particles of the matter have ceased to occupy any amount of space that may be considered meaningful, that is, infinitely small. We are talking small to the point where even say a planc length is like a trip to the outer edge of the universe in comparison.

These two things, infinite mass - not infinite density mind you......or are they by necessity coexistent? - and infinite smallness constitute my understanding of what a singularity is? And black holes, not necessarily having them, are then not bound necessarily to be singularities? Corrector not?

Also I'm a little confused about the idea of the math 'breaking down' in the theory underpinning black holes. I'm comfortable with the idea of the words breaking down - the meaning of words is fuzzy at best - but math? Seems to me that if you are forced to swap to a different kind of math in order to get your understanding of a thing to hang together- then you are on shaky ground at best. A bit like that brain teaser where you send a I'd out to the shops with ten pennies, do a bit of inconsistent jiggling about from both ends and one of the pennies disapears, start changing horses mid race in a thing like this and it can only result in problems.........

No doubt the bods who do this stuff know what they are doing, by just saying is all.....

;)
Song of the year. Judy Raindrop. Everyone is a cunt except me.

....and the glory of the world becomes less than it was....
'Have we not served you well'
'Of course - you know you have.'
'Then let it end.'

We are the Bloodguard
User avatar
Vraith
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 10621
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:03 pm
Location: everywhere, all the time

Post by Vraith »

peter wrote: These two things, infinite mass - not infinite density mind you......or are they by necessity coexistent? - and infinite smallness constitute my understanding of what a singularity is?


Also I'm a little confused about the idea of the math 'breaking down' in the theory underpinning black holes.
if you are forced to swap to a different kind of math in order to get your understanding of a thing to hang together- then you are on shaky ground at best.

No doubt the bods who do this stuff know what they are doing, by just saying is all..... ;)
Infinite mass and infinite density are not necessarily coexistent. Though infinite mass---IF unopposed by other forces/situations/realities---would eventually become infinite-density Uni-Hole.
IIRC, micro-black holes are possible with unbelievably small masses...I THINK you could make several micro ones from a single average eyelash. But the conditions to do so don't happen naturally very often. The common, natural ones start from masses a few times larger than our sun and on up. [[at least once I've seen the idea that very early on in the universe, LOTS of micro-holes could have been produced, and those micro-holes are what dark matter is.]]

Mass---of nearly ANY amount, no infinity required---contained in infinite [or at least "on its way to becoming infinite"] volume/smallness is what a singularity is, pretty much. [[almost any amount of mass, made DENSE enough, means the gravity sprints toward infinity...doing things that are mathematically incalculable and physically/geometrically impossible as everything is currently understood]]

But that isn't THAT hard to understand math breaking. [[the problem in general, I mean, not the problem with gravity/math/matter/black-holes...that's CRAZY hard...so hard no one's figured it out, they just know all the stuff we have breaks.]]

You can't draw an undistorted/unbroken map of the world on flat paper. You cannot wrap a ball in flat wrapping paper without ruining the paper...or the ball.

a-squared plus b-squared equals c-squared is TRUE on your map-paper, but it is FALSE on an actual globe. They require different math. Maths that contradict each other. [[but because we're smart we can code switch, and because of scale/size, many maths are often "close enough" even though, in real terms, they're always wrong.]]

The bods doing this DO know what they're doing...and they also know what they're doing isn't right/complete, so far. It's just way the hell righter than PREVIOUS stuff.
[[just like, contrary to the popular myth, most decent ancient seafarers knew damn well the world was round and they wouldn't fall off...they didn't know what WAS out there---hence discovery---but they knew it wasn't a fucking cliff to sail off]].
[spoiler]Sig-man, Libtard, Stupid piece of shit. change your text color to brown. Mr. Reliable, bullshit-slinging liarFucker-user.[/spoiler]
the difference between evidence and sources: whether they come from the horse's mouth or a horse's ass.
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
the hyperbole is a beauty...for we are then allowed to say a little more than the truth...and language is more efficient when it goes beyond reality than when it stops short of it.
Post Reply

Return to “The Loresraat”