What does a black hole look like?
I can not wait to find out!! Tomorrow, first ever image of the black hole (technically, the gas and dust around the black hole, hence the "silhouette")
This black hole is Sgr A*, mass of about 4e6 times the Sun
https://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/blackholes/
Press release starts tomorrow 9:00 am EST
This black hole is Sgr A*, mass of about 4e6 times the Sun
https://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/blackholes/
Press release starts tomorrow 9:00 am EST
Comments
Well hopefully my keys are in it, cant find them anywhere
Sure about that? If they are inside the Schwarzschild radius, you are not getting them back!
It's live-streaming now, and they just showed the photo! Gave me chills.
Link?
Black holes are black, so we know what they "look" like. We'll only be seeing the accretion disc, hopefully confirming the physics behind them.
Originally posted by: dra600n
Originally posted by: coffeewithmrsaturn
It's live-streaming now, and they just showed the photo! Gave me chills.
Link? Black holes are black, so we know what they "look" like. We'll only be seeing the accretion disc, hopefully confirming the physics behind them.
see first post of thread
Originally posted by: dra600n
Originally posted by: coffeewithmrsaturn
It's live-streaming now, and they just showed the photo! Gave me chills.
Link? Black holes are black, so we know what they "look" like. We'll only be seeing the accretion disc, hopefully confirming the physics behind them.
see first post of thread
D'oh! Thanks
Goes without saying doesn't it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_OCa8wSg8g
This is in M87. It's a few billion times the mass of the Sun
Doesn't LOOK so big! Pffff.
This is in M87. It's a few billion times the mass of the Sun
https://postimg.cc/Snk0v1bH...' target='_blank'>
It's about 2000 times the size of Sag A*, which is how we can image it like it's in our own galaxy. M87 dwarfs the MW, fwiw
try again: okay, Sgr A* (not Sag A* - yeah I'm a scientist, we're annoying like that
is 4e6 and M87 BH is about 4e9 and since it's a linear relationship the size of the Schwarzchild radius is roughly 1000 times larger which is why the first image is M87 and not our own SMBH
try again: okay, Sgr A* (not Sag A* - yeah I'm a scientist, we're annoying like that
is 4e6 and M87 BH is about 4e9 and since it's a linear relationship the size of the Schwarzchild radius is roughly 1000 times larger which is why the first image is M87 and not our own SMBH
You can be pedantic and abbreviate Sagittarius however you like
try again: okay, Sgr A* (not Sag A* - yeah I'm a scientist, we're annoying like that
is 4e6 and M87 BH is about 4e9 and since it's a linear relationship the size of the Schwarzchild radius is roughly 1000 times larger which is why the first image is M87 and not our own SMBH
You can be pedantic and abbreviate Sagittarius however you like
Don't get into scientific debate on forums, folks, someone always knows like a gazillion times more than you or your feeble mind can even dare to contend with. These people are angry at your bro-science/lack of a Master's Degree and will NOT hear of it. Seriously, you all know nothing. Not compared to ME, anyways! *breaths on knuckles, dusts knuckles off on shirt*
It’s only a debate when actual debating is going on - not being annoyingly pedantic over an abbreviation. This is just typical Avatar and his nonsense that he brings in every thread he posts about.
Funny how in this cosmic event, software on my phone could impede an entire black hole. I guess Red Dwarf was right, it's a white hole.
Black hole, yeah right, looks pretty orange to me
looks like Soundgarden was right afterall.
Pretty crazy that the Earth was big enough to make this work. If we had had to use another receiver on the Moon or something, it would have required a lot more processing, possibly making it prohibitive. No wonder they needed atomic clocks.
But maybe I don't understand how they put the image together? The explanation of each radio receiver filling in "points" of the image and being able to "see" different "points" and then filling in the gaps "using algorithms" doesn't make any sense. It would make sense if each radio receiver were actually a telescope, but since we can only call it a telescope when we correlate the data from each receiver all together, the idea of piecing together individual points and needing algorithms to do the rest sounds like public-facing fluff talk. Brb, reading the wikipedia page for Interferometry.
Bonkers that it's so far away but we can "image" it like this. (or at least assign a color scale to the different wavelengths. Not like this is a photograph of what it "looks" like) Who knows what kind of cool stuff is visible to us, if we went to the effort to image it.
Pretty crazy that the Earth was big enough to make this work. If we had had to use another receiver on the Moon or something, it would have required a lot more processing, possibly making it prohibitive. No wonder they needed atomic clocks.
But maybe I don't understand how they put the image together? The explanation of each radio receiver filling in "points" of the image and being able to "see" different "points" and then filling in the gaps "using algorithms" doesn't make any sense. It would make sense if each radio receiver were actually a telescope, but since we can only call it a telescope when we correlate the data from each receiver all together, the idea of piecing together individual points and needing algorithms to do the rest sounds like public-facing fluff talk. Brb, reading the wikipedia page for Interferometry.
Interferometry is crazy difficult stuff. What I can say is that light hits the telescopes (radio dishes) as a wave. It hits one dish, then the next, then the next...
If (and only if) they know the exact distances between the waves and the timing, they can "fill in" (using math basically) what the wave should look like. All that analysis is very difficult, especially since they're using so many dishes. By the way, they are building more, and yes they're talking about having some in space, which would greatly increase the resolution. So, maybe in the next decade we'll move from 16-bit graphic BHs to 32-bit