First Light... Now Darkness

  • Thread starter Deleted member 27505
  • Start date
A few days ago, we got to see light move.

Now, we may get to see light stop moving...

I'm certainly no astrophysicist but the entire theory of black holes has always interested me. Trying to wrap my head around something that enormous, powerful and ominous seems unlikely, perhaps an actual image will make it seem more real. I know it isn't going to be an actual optic image, but a picture built on data from sensors is better than nothing. It would be cool if the four independent teams all reveal almost identical images based on the data they were given.
 
I'm certainly no astrophysicist but the entire theory of black holes has always interested me. Trying to wrap my head around something that enormous, powerful and ominous seems unlikely, perhaps an actual image will make it seem more real. I know it isn't going to be an actual optic image, but a picture built on data from sensors is better than nothing. It would be cool if the four independent teams all reveal almost identical images based on the data they were given.
Strangely, it's not enormous at all. It's infinitesimally small.

What I'm having a hard time wrapping my wee noggin around is the idea of using light to see light moving at the speed of light, and/or seeing light disappear.

An optical photo requires light to shine on the object being photographed, be reflected off that object, and then move from that object back to the camera. If light moving at light speed is your object to be photographed and is located at point A., and you are trying to capture light reflected off that object in a camera at point B., there is distance that must need be covered by light between point A. and B. Assuming that the light being photographed and the light being used to illuminate and capture the image are moving at the same speed (to wit, the speed of light), that seems problematic, or at least extremely Heisenbergian or Schrödinger-esque.

Other end of the spectrum... how do you reflect light off an object that sucks all light, indeed all EM waves of any length?? Again, rather problematic... at least in my limited, three-dimensionally-hobbled cranium.

All that said, there are strange things done in the midnight sun. An acquaintance of mine runs a company that optically inspects chips to a resolution shorter than the wavelength of light. Huh?? He explained some of the PFM behind how that's possible. It kinda sorta makes sense, but still feels like PFM. Big organizations with three letter monikers are paying him scads of lucre... so, like F35s, it must work good and last a long time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
They observed the emissions of particles being heated to seriously extreme temperatures by gravity and friction just before they are swallowed beyond the event horizon. Also while the black hole itself is a singularity like you alluded to, the event horizon can be a BMF
 
Also as black holes eat themselves slowly and emit hawking radiation which I think is observable and neat
 
Strangely, it's not enormous at all. It's infinitesimally small.

What I'm having a hard time wrapping my wee noggin around is the idea of using light to see light moving at the speed of light, and/or seeing light disappear.

An optical photo requires light to shine on the object being photographed, be reflected off that object, and then move from that object back to the camera. If light moving at light speed is your object to be photographed and is located at point A., and you are trying to capture light reflected off that object in a camera at point B., there is distance that must need be covered by light between point A. and B. Assuming that the light being photographed and the light being used to illuminate and capture the image are moving at the same speed (to wit, the speed of light), that seems problematic, or at least extremely Heisenbergian or Schrödinger-esque.

Other end of the spectrum... how do you reflect light off an object that sucks all light, indeed all EM waves of any length?? Again, rather problematic... at least in my limited, three-dimensionally-hobbled cranium.

All that said, there are strange things done in the midnight sun. An acquaintance of mine runs a company that optically inspects chips to a resolution shorter than the wavelength of light. Huh?? He explained some of the PFM behind how that's possible. It kinda sorta makes sense, but still feels like PFM. Big organizations with three letter monikers are paying him scads of lucre... so, like F35s, it must work good and last a long time.
I'd imagine the image is built by looking at how light is effected when it's close to the "black hole" and the lack of any light at all from the center. I don't think that's an optical image, it's the interpretation of bunch of data from a network of radio telescopes by 4 different indendent groups (I'm sure you're aware of that). You're right about it being infinitesamilly small relative to the the grand scale of the universe but the article you posted said it's 6 (or maybe 14, can't remember, too lazy to look it up) million times the size of our sun. In my feeble head, relative to my world, that's incomprehensible.
Thinking about stars in general, why does it seem as if they're always trying to destroy everything around them. I'm a fairly pasty white guy and I know without a doubt our sun has been trying to kill me for almost 50 years. Then once it gets done trying to turn planets into radioactive wastelands it's going to collapse and suck all of the planets into itself and eat them. I think we're safe for now, this little blip in time that spans all of human evolution seems to be in a sweet spot between temper tantrums from that life giving antagonist. Eventually though, the gloves will come off and a bad time will be had by all.
 
I'd imagine the image is built by looking at how light is effected when it's close to the "black hole" and the lack of any light at all from the center. I don't think that's an optical image, it's the interpretation of bunch of data from a network of radio telescopes by 4 different indendent groups (I'm sure you're aware of that). You're right about it being infinitesamilly small relative to the the grand scale of the universe but the article you posted said it's 6 (or maybe 14, can't remember, too lazy to look it up) million times the size of our sun. In my feeble head, relative to my world, that's incomprehensible.
Thinking about stars in general, why does it seem as if they're always trying to destroy everything around them. I'm a fairly pasty white guy and I know without a doubt our sun has been trying to kill me for almost 50 years. Then once it gets done trying to turn planets into radioactive wastelands it's going to collapse and suck all of the planets into itself and eat them. I think we're safe for now, this little blip in time that spans all of human evolution seems to be in a sweet spot between temper tantrums from that life giving antagonist. Eventually though, the gloves will come off and a bad time will be had by all.
The black hole itself is infinitely small, it’s a singularity; the event horizon (area where light cannot escape) is pretty large though. There’s an accretion disk where matter starts spinning together and it heats up a lot, and when it heats up it gives off radiation. That’s what they measured!

What're the differences between a black hole and a white hole. Which is more powerful?
Well I don’t want to get to political here....
 
The black hole itself is infinitely small, it’s a singularity; the event horizon (area where light cannot escape) is pretty large though. There’s an accretion disk where matter starts spinning together and it heats up a lot, and when it heats up it gives off radiation. That’s what they measured!


Well I don’t want to get to political here....
I've been told about the singularity and I didn't use that term because I can't fathom how all of that mass and energy can be compressed into something that small. I guess my perception of a black hole is actually the event horizon because at that point if you've fallen in its over. Or is it? If matter can't be eliminated from existence what happens to a singularity? Is it now permanent? Math hypothesis has proven a lot of physics in the past but things like a singularity seem to change the laws we use to form the hypothesis.
 
Back
Top