2019 first image blackhole

[71st_Mastiff]

Wow!

[f-18hornet]

Finally no simulation... just a real image of curved reality.:thumbup:

[71st_Mastiff]

Now we can time travel.

[TLTeo]

Now we can time travel.

 

 

That's a bit of a stretch :)

 

 

Also, I'm an astrophysicist focusing on black holes and while I'm not part of the EHT collaboration my boss is (she was actually on the NSF conference panel earlier today and in the OP's screenshots, haha), so if you have any questions feel free to ask here and I'll do my best to answer!

[Coxy_99]

Its clearing space pollution :)

[71st_Mastiff]

That's a bit of a stretch :)

 

 

Also, I'm an astrophysicist focusing on black holes and while I'm not part of the EHT collaboration my boss is (she was actually on the NSF conference panel earlier today and in the OP's screenshots, haha), so if you have any questions feel free to ask here and I'll do my best to answer!

 

Yea I know, but we now know more than we knew 3 years ago, and if we can use that giant gravity well in the universe there’s no telling what we can achieve in the future of space time travel. To understand the universe is to learn we can manipulate it.

One day.

[Ghost117]

That's a bit of a stretch :)

 

 

Also, I'm an astrophysicist focusing on black holes and while I'm not part of the EHT collaboration my boss is (she was actually on the NSF conference panel earlier today and in the OP's screenshots, haha), so if you have any questions feel free to ask here and I'll do my best to answer!

First of all, congratulations for the team! Historic feat!

Did they image Sagittarius A as well/when are they going to release the first images for that?

[TLTeo]

First of all, congratulations for the team! Historic feat!

Did they image Sagittarius A as well/when are they going to release the first images for that?

 

 

Thanks (although I wasn't really involved directly)! Yes, Sgr A* was observed as well but currently there is no ETA for the data to be released that I'm aware of.

 

 

As far as I understand (and again, I'm not in the collaboration itself) what makes Sgr A* harder is that since its mass is about one thousand times smaller than M87, the emission around it also varies about one thousand times faster. In practical terms that means that while the emission and images in M87 vary over timescales of days, Sgr A* does so over minutes. That makes the data analysis far more complex and messy.

[71st_Mastiff]

I once read Einstein’s theory of relativity, and I was waiting like a little nerd for this picture!

I’m so excited for many more pics to come out at more res.

And tell the whole team awesomeness!!!

[Ghost117]

Thanks for the insight! So it was easier to picture something 53 Mly further away :P

Also, do you happen to know in what spectrum was today's image taken?

[impeller83]

That's a bit of a stretch :)

 

 

Also, I'm an astrophysicist focusing on black holes and while I'm not part of the EHT collaboration my boss is (she was actually on the NSF conference panel earlier today and in the OP's screenshots, haha), so if you have any questions feel free to ask here and I'll do my best to answer!

Hello,

 

I'm an interested space nerd. And I have just found the interested so I'm hard core rookie. Im listening to a few audio books. So two question, any tips on a good book about black holes or space any is welcome, and what do you think this awesome and historic picture will learn us?

 

That feeling standing outside in the pitch dark at night and turn your head straight up watching what's out there... it's so amazing, sometimes overwhelming for my head

 

Tnx best regards Patrik

 

 

 

Skickat från min SM-G965F via Tapatalk

[TLTeo]

Thanks for the insight! So it was easier to picture something 53 Mly further away :P

Also, do you happen to know in what spectrum was today's image taken?

 

 

230 Ghz, or 1.3mm in wavelength. In principle the same technique has been used to image black hole jets for decades, but what makes this observation amazing is

a) Building observatories that are sensitive enough at high frequencies (think 90 Ghz and above) is really really hard, so until recently we didn't really have anything with enough sensitivity. Also, around a few hundred Ghz the Earth's atmosphere starts getting in the way and making osbervations harder.

 

b) The problem with lower frequencies is that in general images become less sharp, to the point of not being able to resolve something as small as a black hole

c) Even if lower frequency telescopes did have enough resolution, the gas around the black hole becomes opaque at lower frequencies, so you still can't actually look at the black hole itself unless you go around 200 Ghz and above.

Future observations are planned to also try 345 Ghz to get even sharper images.

 

 

Hello,

 

I'm an interested space nerd. And I have just found the interested so I'm hard core rookie. Im listening to a few audio books. So two question, any tips on a good book about black holes or space any is welcome

 

 

Hello!

 

 

A personal favourite of mine that I read while I was studying for my Master's is Dan Maoz's "Astrophysics in a nutshell", but it does require some background in physics as it actually goes a bit into the math of a bunch of different astrophysical systems. Otherwise you can't really go wrong with classics from, say, Stephen Hawking or Neil DeGrasse Tyson!

 

 

 

and what do you think this awesome and historic picture will learn us?

I haven't read the articles yet (they came out during the press conference today, and it's a lot to digest), and I apologize for getting technical, but to me the two most important results are:

1) We have a very, very accurate measure of the black hole's mass. This in turn can help astrophysicists calibrate any model that relies on precise knowledge of the black hole mass, for example to estimate how much energy is deposited by the black hole on its host galaxy

2) The data tells us a lot about how the relativistic outflows (or jets) that black holes launch are formed. In particular, we are now very confident that a lot of their energy must come from the black hole itself rather than from the infalling gas.

 

 

That feeling standing outside in the pitch dark at night and turn your head straight up watching what's out there... it's so amazing, sometimes overwhelming for my head

 

Skickat från min SM-G965F via Tapatalk

Eh me too. This past summer I was on holiday in the middle of lake Kariba in Africa with almost no artificial light, and I would spend ages just staring at the night sky. It was one of the most beautiful things I've ever seen.

[SUBS17]

That's a bit of a stretch :)

 

 

Also, I'm an astrophysicist focusing on black holes and while I'm not part of the EHT collaboration my boss is (she was actually on the NSF conference panel earlier today and in the OP's screenshots, haha), so if you have any questions feel free to ask here and I'll do my best to answer!

 

Hello, that image may not be a black hole.

Tell me in your opinion what is a black hole?

[TLTeo]

Hello, that image may not be a black hole.

Tell me in your opinion what is a black hole?

 

 

On the most fundamental level, a black hole is defined as a solution of the equations of general relativity. That particular solution requires an object whose mass is entirely concentrated in a single point of space time; what this implies is in that one point of spacetime, the density is infinite and literally every equation we know of, general relativity or quantum mechanics, fails completely.

 

 

What is very interesting about black holes however is that, despite relativity's failure of describing that one central point, we can describe spacetime around them very well. We also need to invoke some sort of incredibly dense object to explain the properties of objects like M87.

 

 

What really makes us say that the image shows a black hole is a simple argument. Many of my colleagues have been running computer simulations of what the gas around a black hole would look like if observed by the EHT, and it turns out those images match the data exactly. To the best of our limited knowledge of physics, we have nothing that can describe the image better than a black hole

[SUBS17]

Ok to work out what a black hole is one must know more about stars. So a star comprises of a fuel dimension which has a wormhole in its centre that has a gravity field which draws fuel into the wormhole(the fuel dimension is bigger than this Universe). The exit point for the wormhole is in the centre of the star, the fuel arrives at the centre of the star through the wormhole. The star has a shell which has holes in it(that is what a sunspot is, it is a hole in the stars shell and you can map them. It reveals something about the stars construction.) The fuel exudes through the holes and reacts to a catalyst that covers the shell. The fuel rises to the upper atmosphere and combusts. When a star has a supernova the polarity of the wormhole is reversed and it draws everything inside the former stars gravity field and teleports it via the wormhole(black hole) into the former stars fuel dimension. That is where stuff goes when it is pulled into a black hole.:thumbup:

[TLTeo]

Uh, that's not correct actually, at all.

1) We do not need to know anything about stars to talk about a black hole that already exists. The only reason the two are connected is that we think that every black hole was born as a star collapsing on itself.

2) Wormholes, like black holes, are allowed to exist by the equations of relativity. Unlike black holes however we do not have any direct evidence of their existence, and they are not needed to explain any astrophysical source that we know of.

3) A star does not work like that. The fuel necessary for the nuclear reactions that maintain a star's balance is already present in the core of the star - for example, our Sun is currently turning Hydrogen into Helium in its core, which keeps it both stable and is the reason why it's emitting light.

4) Basically everything else you're saying about stellar astrophysics and supernovae is incorrect too I'm afraid. There are no black holes in a stellar interior, I have no idea what a wormhole's polarity is but they are not involved with supernovae, there's no such thing as a "fuel dimension" in any type of standard, lab-tested physics, and we have no idea where stuff goes when it's pulled into a black hole.

[Gerrard]

Uh, that's not correct actually, at all.

1) We do not need to know anything about stars to talk about a black hole that already exists. The only reason the two are connected is that we think that every black hole was born as a star collapsing on itself.

2) Wormholes, like black holes, are allowed to exist by the equations of relativity. Unlike black holes however we do not have any direct evidence of their existence, and they are not needed to explain any astrophysical source that we know of.

3) A star does not work like that. The fuel necessary for the nuclear reactions that maintain a star's balance is already present in the core of the star - for example, our Sun is currently turning Hydrogen into Helium in its core, which keeps it both stable and is the reason why it's emitting light.

4) Basically everything else you're saying about stellar astrophysics and supernovae is incorrect too I'm afraid. There are no black holes in a stellar interior, I have no idea what a wormhole's polarity is but they are not involved with supernovae, there's no such thing as a "fuel dimension" in any type of standard, lab-tested physics, and we have no idea where stuff goes when it's pulled into a black hole.

 

Lol, I think Subs had his tongue firmly lodged in his cheek there! ;)

 

But I appreciate your explanation of the images and what they could mean. Hawking would have been thrilled.

[impeller83]

230 Ghz, or 1.3mm in wavelength. In principle the same technique has been used to image black hole jets for decades, but what makes this observation amazing is

a) Building observatories that are sensitive enough at high frequencies (think 90 Ghz and above) is really really hard, so until recently we didn't really have anything with enough sensitivity. Also, around a few hundred Ghz the Earth's atmosphere starts getting in the way and making osbervations harder.

 

b) The problem with lower frequencies is that in general images become less sharp, to the point of not being able to resolve something as small as a black hole

c) Even if lower frequency telescopes did have enough resolution, the gas around the black hole becomes opaque at lower frequencies, so you still can't actually look at the black hole itself unless you go around 200 Ghz and above.

Future observations are planned to also try 345 Ghz to get even sharper images.

 

 

 

 

 

Hello!

 

 

A personal favourite of mine that I read while I was studying for my Master's is Dan Maoz's "Astrophysics in a nutshell", but it does require some background in physics as it actually goes a bit into the math of a bunch of different astrophysical systems. Otherwise you can't really go wrong with classics from, say, Stephen Hawking or Neil DeGrasse Tyson!

 

 

 

 

I haven't read the articles yet (they came out during the press conference today, and it's a lot to digest), and I apologize for getting technical, but to me the two most important results are:

1) We have a very, very accurate measure of the black hole's mass. This in turn can help astrophysicists calibrate any model that relies on precise knowledge of the black hole mass, for example to estimate how much energy is deposited by the black hole on its host galaxy

2) The data tells us a lot about how the relativistic outflows (or jets) that black holes launch are formed. In particular, we are now very confident that a lot of their energy must come from the black hole itself rather than from the infalling gas.

 

 

 

Eh me too. This past summer I was on holiday in the middle of lake Kariba in Africa with almost no artificial light, and I would spend ages just staring at the night sky. It was one of the most beautiful things I've ever seen.

Thank you so much for the tips, I'll sure check it out.

 

There must be so much going on now, or it has been I guess. I'm sure the team has waited for a long time to get to this point. I can only imagine the feeling they must have right now

 

I'm sure this mass will get alot of attention onward, all the data and information we can get. Exiting times for sure, any idea were to get info about this and other news regarding astrophysics and this things?

 

I live far up north in Sweden, plenty of stars to look at, and plenty of darkness

 

 

Skickat från min SM-G965F via Tapatalk

[Knock-Knock]

[VZ_342]

Wouldn’t those images technically be of the event horizon? (A black hole doesn’t let light escape, so no light from the BH would be on an image)

[TLTeo]

Exiting times for sure, any idea were to get info about this and other news regarding astrophysics and this things?

 

 

I like the Facebook pages of the main observatories (to name a few, Hubble, Chandra, XMM-Newton, LIGO, ALMA, Magic, NuSTAR, Swift, Fermi, Integral, Icecube), most of them are maintained by the actual operators of the instruments so they post actual content rather than random clickbait silliness.

 

 

On a much smaller scale you can also check out the blog of the research group I'm currently working in (https://www.seramarkoff.com/category/group-blog/), we post about one update a week focusing on our work, but also sometimes giving a bit of a glimpse into life as an academic.

 

 

Wouldn’t those images technically be of the event horizon? (A black hole doesn’t let light escape, so no light from the BH would be on an image)

 

 

 

The black part in the centre is the black hole itself (roughly speaking). The red/yellow is the gas falling on the black hole, and shining as it falls due to its high temperature (also very roughly speaking). The image shows the effect the black hole has on the gas and light around it, and we can use that information to figure out, for example, what the exact mass of the black hole is.

Edited April 10, 2019 by TLTeo

[SUBS17]

Uh, that's not correct actually, at all.

1) We do not need to know anything about stars to talk about a black hole that already exists. The only reason the two are connected is that we think that every black hole was born as a star collapsing on itself.

2) Wormholes, like black holes, are allowed to exist by the equations of relativity. Unlike black holes however we do not have any direct evidence of their existence, and they are not needed to explain any astrophysical source that we know of.

3) A star does not work like that. The fuel necessary for the nuclear reactions that maintain a star's balance is already present in the core of the star - for example, our Sun is currently turning Hydrogen into Helium in its core, which keeps it both stable and is the reason why it's emitting light.

4) Basically everything else you're saying about stellar astrophysics and supernovae is incorrect too I'm afraid. There are no black holes in a stellar interior, I have no idea what a wormhole's polarity is but they are not involved with supernovae, there's no such thing as a "fuel dimension" in any type of standard, lab-tested physics, and we have no idea where stuff goes when it's pulled into a black hole.

 

People have observed a star have a supernova and turn into a black hole. It is a theory that hydrogen is involved in powering a star, theory's are not science yet seem to be accepted by many. No one has actually sent something towards the sun in order to find out because nothing has been on the suns surface yet. When we observe a stars sunspots and map them then we can see the holes in the shell! If you count the holes and map them then you will see an irregularity in how they are laid out. There will be a line in the equator which indicates that you are seeing a shell that has two halves. This will disprove the big bang theory. If we were to go to the fuel dimension then we would see no light because the wormhole exit point is inside the shell and fuel burns in the upper atmosphere. So when we see a sunspot we see through the shell, into the wormhole and into the fuel dimension.

One question on that image of the black hole, is that Galaxy still moving? If it is then it cannot be a black hole. Also so that you know the Milky Way Galaxy is not moving it is stationary, this might help people better understand what they are observing through telescopes to factor in that the Milky way is stationary.:thumbup:

[SUBS17]

I like the Facebook pages of the main observatories (to name a few, Hubble, Chandra, XMM-Newton, LIGO, ALMA, Magic, NuSTAR, Swift, Fermi, Integral, Icecube), most of them are maintained by the actual operators of the instruments so they post actual content rather than random clickbait silliness.

 

 

On a much smaller scale you can also check out the blog of the research group I'm currently working in (https://www.seramarkoff.com/category/group-blog/), we post about one update a week focusing on our work, but also sometimes giving a bit of a glimpse into life as an academic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The black part in the centre is the black hole itself (roughly speaking). The red/yellow is the gas falling on the black hole, and shining as it falls due to its high temperature (also very roughly speaking). The image shows the effect the black hole has on the gas and light around it, and we can use that information to figure out, for example, what the exact mass of the black hole is.

 

Black holes and wormholes do not have mass.

[71st_Mastiff]

People have observed a star have a supernova and turn into a black hole. It is a theory that hydrogen is involved in powering a star, theory's are not science yet seem to be accepted by many. No one has actually sent something towards the sun in order to find out because nothing has been on the suns surface yet. When we observe a stars sunspots and map them then we can see the holes in the shell! If you count the holes and map them then you will see an irregularity in how they are laid out. There will be a line in the equator which indicates that you are seeing a shell that has two halves. This will disprove the big bang theory. If we were to go to the fuel dimension then we would see no light because the wormhole exit point is inside the shell and fuel burns in the upper atmosphere. So when we see a sunspot we see through the shell, into the wormhole and into the fuel dimension.

One question on that image of the black hole, is that Galaxy still moving? If it is then it cannot be a black hole. Also so that you know the Milky Way Galaxy is not moving it is stationary, this might help people better understand what they are observing through telescopes to factor in that the Milky way is stationary.:thumbup:

Lol flatter. Of course the hole is in shift, hence gravity is in the ether another dimension. That’s why dark matter is suspect.

[TLTeo]

@subs17

If you have any peer reviewed works that support your claims feel free to link them to me. Until then our discussion is not happening on the same level, because you clearly don't seem to be familiar with what the scientific agrees as the standards of theoretical astrophysics, which have stood the test of time and observational evidence over and over again unlike whatever it is that you're claiming.

 

 

@Mastiff the same goes for your last post. The reason dark matter is suspect has nothing to do with extra dimensions and everything to do with particle physics and cosmology both being weird as hell.