shavefan
I’m not a fan
Apparently it took two years for the algo to decipher all of the data. Very cool...
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
First Image of a Black Hole
- Thread starter shavefan
- Start date
And something like two decades t get to the point where they had data to decrypt. Massive breakthrough.
- Thread starter
- #3
shavefan
I’m not a fan
Stellar!
Looks like a donut.
Suspect it would be a different kind, one dealing with imaging. A simple test would be to apply it to another type of object and see if it looks like the released images.
My question:
A black hole exists in the middle of three dimensional space.
Theoretically it sucks in stuff from all sides, i.e. spherically around the black hole.
How is it that it appears as a simple ring around it in 2 dimensions, conveniently facing us?
(An idea just occurred to me, but I’ll wait for other input first)
A black hole exists in the middle of three dimensional space.
Theoretically it sucks in stuff from all sides, i.e. spherically around the black hole.
How is it that it appears as a simple ring around it in 2 dimensions, conveniently facing us?
(An idea just occurred to me, but I’ll wait for other input first)
My W.A.G.? The reason that the portion of the image facing the lens is "black" is because the light cannot escape, whereas from the "side" we can see that light before it crosses the Hole's event horizon and is no longer visible.
He was modeling the old fashioned way, with straight mathematics. OTOH, not many decades later, they were running Monte Carlo simulations for you-know-what.
The concept is straight forward: When gravity reaches the point where the escape velocity is greater than the speed of light, light's not going anywhere. Since heavy enough gravity tends to pull things into spheres or ellipsoids, then event horizons should be similar. Too back we can't see if the boundary isn't quite a sphere or ellipsoid, like the Earth's gravitational field isn't uniform. OTOH, what state of matter could resist that much gravity and not result in an uniform event horizon?
A General Relativity where an event horizon around a single black hole wasn't spherical is way above my pay grade. But science happens when someone looks at the results of an experiment and says "Hmm ... that's funny."
It's really a question of how any sort of matter can form a disk around a massive object, from Saturn's rings to a disk condensing around a newborn sun. Short answer is that it's from random particle motion plus angular momentum, the result being a disk. But I'm just parroting that - I can't really visualize it.
Oh, and sometimes things line up just right. Just like there're galaxies oriented that we can see their entire disk.
Yes, that’s what I conjectured when I typed my previous post.
OK, back to algorithms fitting the data, or vice-versus:
Here's what scientists think their first picture of a black hole migh
Here's what scientists think their first picture of a black hole migh
On second thought;
Yes, the light that has passed the event horizon would be “blacked out”, but there would still be other light that was still accelerating towards the event horizon that would be red shifted to various degrees in between us and the singularity?
Not sure I follow. Let's say a beam of light is heading in from the right of the photo. We wouldn't see it unless it hit something. But all light isn't going to head toward it like it was a drain - but that might not be what you're talking about. If a star in M-87 between us and the black hole went supernova, the only shifting would be due to other movement, like universe expansion and the star's motion.
Too much gin, being old and overweight, I guess the pic will be the closest I come to being able to kiss my arse goodbye.
I would guess because the material orbiting the event horizon isn't evenly distributed around it.
I don't know much about it but it runs an Ubuntu OS.
