Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/613301/this-is-the-first-ever-photo-of-a-black-hole/

Mental. I still don't get it.

I think CNet put it best: it's the Eye of Sauron.

I don't think anyone didn't think that to be fair. Although I prefer the eye of horus personally.

It does kind of look like it's staring back at you...

It’s actually a leaked image from the Ant-Man vs. Thanos fight scene in Endgame.

so its like 53 million years old....I bet it hatched since then and have loads of white donut holes since then.

Its a real cool visualization of a thing we could never see. but does a shadow of an object count as a picture of that object?

 Desubot wrote:
Its a real cool visualization of a thing we could never see. but does a shadow of an object count as a picture of that object?

It's more the very bright stuff around the black hole, presumably lit up from collisions with Hawking Radiation.

 Desubot wrote:
Its a real cool visualization of a thing we could never see. but does a shadow of an object count as a picture of that object?

I would says so, yes. X-rays are basically just shadows as well.

This is so awesome!! Apparently they'll be imaging the black hole at the center of the Milky Way next. Can't wait to see that

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
Its a real cool visualization of a thing we could never see. but does a shadow of an object count as a picture of that object?

I would says so, yes. X-rays are basically just shadows as well.

Oh derp thats right. friend sent this to me earlier and i had a chuckle.

Like everything in science it's a step in a process. Compare it to the first pictures of the planets in our solar system, first blurry and vague, now rather vibrant and clear. Indeed the true achievement of this event isn't actually the blackhole itself but the tech that was developed to find said blackhole. Could help us find out even more about our universe, and what resources/threats exist within.

Indeed this picture may not have ground breaking effects on your day to day life. But i'm sure they said the same thing about the first engine which would have been nothing but a novelty at the time.

Because frequently "thoughts" become reality, someone has to observe things and develop ideas to invent anything. Such as planes or cars, or music and other creations. Hell, even science fiction has frequently become reality through inspiration and the desire of inventors. As to why they can't give us reasons? Lack of available information at the time, maybe as we keep observing, testing and exploring they'll be able to give us a reason, an answer. And that's what makes science so damn awesome to some people, that possibility that with enough work and dedication anyone could help discover information about our universe. (Though a blackhole cannot allow passage back in time, as we know at this moment it's a super dense object that creates enough gravitational pull to draw everything including light to it. Hence why having even a blurry photo of it is pretty wicked.)

These astronomical discoveries and achievements like this really get me excited! I've been interested in space stuff since I was pretty small, so when I saw the picture this morning on the news I nearly jumped out of my chair in the break room at work. Sure, the photo doesn't exactly show detail, but who cares, it's a hell of a lot better than anything we had before!

GW announces new Slaanesh stuff.

NASA releases pics of the Eye of Terror.

Coincidence?

 Nostromodamus wrote:
GW announces new Slaanesh stuff.

NASA releases pics of the Eye of Terror.

Coincidence?

Just as Tzeentch intended.

There is still so much we don't know about blackholes, it's part of their mystical allure to those into science fiction. How do they form? How are they stable? How much force to they actually exert. Does every other galaxy have a black hole at it's center? This is just an early step on what's potentially an entire branch of science. Hell it's possible we could harness them for energy creation in some manner, like the tides or solar energy. I dunno, I find all of it rather awesome.

And if as Stormatious believes blackholes don't exist (which is a possibility.) then that leaves the question of what causes these strange anomalies we observe absorbing light and matter from solar bodies such as stars (something we have observed and is rather beautiful in a chilling way.)

For those who understand VLBI, this is an impressive feat. I can remember many a time sitting in class and having discussions about what this image might be like. When I worked for NRAO as a tour guide several years ago at one of their installations, we would always get questions about what a Black Hole looks like. It's amazing to think we'll now be able to show people.

Unfortunately I have to make this comment, and I might get dinged for it, but, here goes...

This achievement has shown me just how uneducated, and poorly reasoned our society has become. Just reading through some of the comments today, listening to the media coverage has made my ears and eyes bleed. It's amazing how out of touch the public is with very simple science.

Unfortunately I have to make this comment, and I might get dinged for it, but, here goes...

This achievement has shown me just how uneducated, and poorly reasoned our society has become. Just reading through some of the comments today, listening to the media coverage has made my ears and eyes bleed. It's amazing how out of touch the public is with very simple science.

I'm actually curious as to what you mean? Like, you obviously seem to have some genuine knowledge/interest in the subject. Do you mean the "hole" part of the name confusing people? Much like how darkmatter isn't actually just stuff that's black but a sort of catchall term for a spectrum of stuff in the galaxy we don't quite understand yet. But then you see it in sci-fi as some sort of weapon material.

This thread got really stupid and rule breaking really quickly. We have three rules here and they are easy to remember, follow them. Any more rule breaking, insults, spam or thread derailment will earn their poster a warning or a vacation from the site as merited.

Incredible picture.

I try not to think about black holes too much*, the concept of them sucking up light kind of makes my brain hurt.

*other than in Event Horizon type scenarios, obviously.

 Togusa wrote:
For those who understand VLBI, this is an impressive feat

I had never heard of VLBI before this. Here is the Wiki article for anyone else in the same boat, it's incredible..

I didn't even know there was aparantly a black hole in the centre if our galaxy.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
I didn't even know there was aparantly a black hole in the centre if our galaxy.

A very big one, or maybe a bunch of smaller ones. Its thought that most galaxies have a black hole cluster in the very middle, which provides the center of mass for the whole galaxy to orbit around.

Love the image, and it's honestly hard to comprehend the size of this thing.

 John Prins wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
Its a real cool visualization of a thing we could never see. but does a shadow of an object count as a picture of that object?

It's more the very bright stuff around the black hole, presumably lit up from collisions with Hawking Radiation.

Not Hakwing radiation. Hawking radiation is a very slow release of energy as it requires extremely specific conditions for the radiation generated to escape the hole. Most of the light emitted from black hole systems is due to the incredible heat generated as the matter is pulled into the black hole. Good old friction between the particles of dust. In some AGN (active galactic nuclei) this can even kick photons up to X-ray energy levels through a process called inverse compton scattering.

Black Hole accretion is incredibly efficient at converting matter to radiation, up to 52 times more efficient than fusion, capable of converting up to 6% of the rest energy into radiation.

cody.d. wrote:

Unfortunately I have to make this comment, and I might get dinged for it, but, here goes...

This achievement has shown me just how uneducated, and poorly reasoned our society has become. Just reading through some of the comments today, listening to the media coverage has made my ears and eyes bleed. It's amazing how out of touch the public is with very simple science.

I'm actually curious as to what you mean? Like, you obviously seem to have some genuine knowledge/interest in the subject. Do you mean the "hole" part of the name confusing people? Much like how darkmatter isn't actually just stuff that's black but a sort of catchall term for a spectrum of stuff in the galaxy we don't quite understand yet. But then you see it in sci-fi as some sort of weapon material.

He's talking about the technology used to take the image, not the black hole itself.

Basically, they used multiple telescopes around the world, and by precisely synchronising the time at which they individually took an image, they could combine the separate images into one, which increases the resolution (effectively it's as if they took a single image using a telescope as wide as the earth).

As for the image itself, remember the black hole in Inception?



The black hole is in the middle. The glowing ring around it is the matter falling in, being heated by friction as it does so. That's what this new image shows you (what looks like the vertical ring around the black hole in the Inception image is actually the light from the ring on the other side of the black hole being bent by the gravity of the hole so that it's sent almost back on itself). The difference here is that the shot from inception is looking at the black hole from roughly its equator, whereas this new image is looking down from roughly one of the poles.

cody.d. wrote:
There is still so much we don't know about blackholes, it's part of their mystical allure to those into science fiction. How do they form? How are they stable? How much force to they actually exert. Does every other galaxy have a black hole at it's center? This is just an early step on what's potentially an entire branch of science. Hell it's possible we could harness them for energy creation in some manner, like the tides or solar energy. I dunno, I find all of it rather awesome.

And if as Stormatious believes blackholes don't exist (which is a possibility.) then that leaves the question of what causes these strange anomalies we observe absorbing light and matter from solar bodies such as stars (something we have observed and is rather beautiful in a chilling way.)

Most likely all that is involved is massive, superdense bodies pulling together and collapsing into something even more massive. Which would make them fairly common in the center of galaxies, due to local density of stars in the galaxies we've observed. Nothing mystical about it, just gravity.

The sheer mass would likely be what keeps them stable. And unlike fiction, the 'affect' of a black hole is 'you are dead,' long before you get anywhere near it (let alone 'going through' it) We aren't a species that does well in large multiples of 1G.

Actually, you could cross the event horizon of this black hole easily. At a radius of 80 AU (twice the orbital radius of Pluto round the Sun), the tidal forces will be irrelevant, so you can just fly through without noticing - until you try to get out ...

There are mathematical solutions of the equations of General Relativity that appear to allow an object to travel into its own past, but they're all rather unusual (for example, they aren't compatible with the universe as we observe it). If I'm understanding correctly, the interior of a rotating black hole is one of those solutions, but ultimately it doesn't matter since you won't be able to get back out again to tell anyone. Or, it's all just a mathematical artefact and it isn't really like that. Regardless, it's all totally theoretical and there's no way for us to make use of the theory with any forseeable technology. Makes for a good sci fi novel and lests the author throw around terms like "Kerr Metric", "closed timelike curves" and suchlike to sound cool, that's all.

And as has been mentioned previously, exactly that effect has been measured on Earth; sufficiently accurate clocks sent up in aircraft will measure less elapsed time than ones left on the ground.