/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10540883
It's explained in the conference. Watch it

>>10540883
Nice simulation

>>10540883
actually it's a black hole

>>10540883
Yes

>>10540883
What I want to know is what the actual size of this is in relation to human perception. Is it a size of a coin if we are to focus on some space? Or a size of a grain of sand when we look up at the sky?

>>10540903
With the naked eye? You probably wouldn't even see it.

>>10540887
I watched both the PBS conference and the EU commission and they were mildly contradictory on what the ring is

>>10540903
its like 10^13 m across and 10^23 m away. so it would be like seeing a 10^-10 m object from 1 m away

>>10540960
So roughly 100K times smaller than width of human hair at 1 m away. Neat

>>10540903
almost as big as your mom

>>10540903

https://youtu.be/S_GVbuddri8

>>10540903
trying to see an orange on the moon's surface with ur naked eye. Give it up anon

goatse edit when?

>>10540887
>EU commission
which conference are you reference to, if i may ask?

>>10542445
Already done

this is the angle we are seeing it at

>>10542474
Why does it appear so round in the original picture?

>>10542511
You're observing the shadow

>>10542474
Wait so using this method can we calculate the mass of a black hole by the apparent size of the inner blackness on the event surface?

>>10542571
we knew the mass for ages already

>>10542610
then why was this picture so important
can we deduce some new information from it or confirm something we didn't already know?

>>10542610
Yeah but if we were approaching it with a spacecraft or something.

>>10542474
Brainlet here, the angle is the blue thing or where the pic is shot?

>>10540883
"first ever photo"
uhh isnt this not exactly true

>>10542844
where the pic is shot
the blue thing is the relativistic jet, although cut off in the pic

I didn't want to start my own thread but had a question

I thought we already had pictures of black holes, were those all simulations/artist rendition? Or is this the first picture of a "supermassive" black hole?

>>10540883
Honest question here. I'm not a skeptic, just trying to understand... what about this image proves that it's a black hole and not an eclipse of some sort? If you showed me that picture without any context, I'd say it looks like the moon eclipsing the sun.

>>10542942
I’ve been on a black hole. They’re very similar.

its a dust cloud

>>10540883
>Does this image show the photon sphere of an accretion disk or is it plasma?
Gosh wouldn't that be nice to know? Too bad we had a woman get the picture instead of a real scientist, then maybe we could tell?

>>10542619
Scientists expected, based on commonly accepted theories, this outcome. Seeing that the image generated from the data matches with the expectation can be seen as a verification of said theories.

>>10542972

>>10542942
The spectrometry for an eclipse is completely different

>>10540903
Its pretty much as big as our solar system

>>10542942
>what about this image proves that it's a black hole and not an eclipse of some sort

>>10540903
Better question is how far does the black hole have to be if you can see it like a size of a coin from 1 meter away.

>>10540883
the accretion disk is plasma

>>10542923
This is the first real picture. It's important because it looks exactly like our sims we have made so it confirms a lot.

>>10540883
2 minutes in paint.

>>10540883
Why do people care about this at all? First off it’s not a photo, it’s a composite image based on radio waves. Second off it’s blurry as fuck. Third off, any scientist that gives a shit about what this photo represents has already been studying the data for months so this information isn’t new

>>10543451
It’s not a real picture, it’s a composite photo based on radio waves. We will never have a real picture of a black hole because we’d either need to be right next to it or have a mirror the size of the sun to get a telescopic image of one

Why did it take this long to find one if indeed you can see them?

And how did we determine that something with so much mass that even light can't escape exists, even when we had never spotted one?

>>10543491
You can't "see" them, this image was created using algorithms.

We "determined" black holes exist through mathematics, no direct evidence. The algorithms mentioned above are based on that mathematics.

>>10543491
1. It was calculated we need an earth sized telescope, and this image is the limit of our technology right now.
2.Einstein was a clever boi

>>10543491
Same way we measure the mass of everything. We look at how it affects objects near it, measure distances those objects travel and at what speeds, and calculate the gravitational pull. We don’t measure mass based on size for anything

>>10543244
Depends on the mass. A few solar masses and you are dead. But a super massive black hole a million times our own black hole in the milkyway would be possible to observe without dying. They are larger in size, but their danger zone is closer, relatively speaking.

>>10543491
>Why did it take this long to find one if indeed you can see them?
Too many women in science these days, it's slowing things down

>>10543473
>>10543482
>it’s a composite photo based on radio waves
>it’s not a real picture
Imagine being this dumb.

>>10543546

It's true though.

>>10540883
AAAH I'M SO LONELY AND HORNY. I DON'T EVEN CARE IF A QT DISCOVERED,I JUST WANT TO FUCK THE SHIT OUT OF THAT BLACK HOLE

>>10543546
It’s an image generated through data collected from radio waves. If you call that a real picture, I think that makes you the dumb one

>>10543577
>reeeeeeeee only visible wavelengths count as photographs

>>10543566
The ultimate succ in space and time.

>>10543585
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/photograph

Yeah.

>>10540883
this is radiometric data so there will be plasma vibrations all throughout the peripheral ring

>>10543585
i don't subscribe to your visual spectrum's sapien.

>>10543577
>>10543605
Can you tell me what's so special about visible wavelengths and why they are the only ones that can accurately describe reality?

>>10543638
Best post
/thread

>>10543638
the colored part of this spectrum is the part of light that your human eye can see, everything else is either too small or too big for our eye aperture.

>>10543655
So? Other spectrums exist, and we can use technology to render them visible. It’s a picture.

>>10543655
if a picture is made of light it is still by definition a photo

>>10543663
exactly! we just make up the colors but the image is real.

>>10543663
>>10543674
I said it wasn’t a photograph, which it isn’t, and to say so is misleading

>>10543704
A photograph is simply an image made by light striking photosensors (in this case radio telescopes)

>>10543704
Try searching for "infrared photography" and despair over how much of a brainlet you are

>>10543704
its an image made from light what more do u want.

>>10543726
>>10543745
Light waves are not radio waves.

>>10543460
kek

>>10544005
why the fuck do you retards even come to /sci/?

>>10544046
Light waves aren't radio waves. They're completely different wavelengths.

what would happen if a lava black hole collided with an ice black hole

>>10544051
I feel genuinely sorry for you and I hope god kills you painlessly

>>10544055
>Hey guys I made a retarded statement
>Someone calls me out
>I hope you die

???

>>10544051
Visible light is a subset of light. Radio waves are light, visible light is light, infrared light is light, ultraviolet light is light, x rays are light, gamma rays are light.
X ray photographs are used all the time in medicine. There's no reason you can't make a radio photograph.

>>10544076
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light
>Light is electromagnetic radiation within a certain portion of the electromagnetic spectrum.

Oh no he's retarded

>>10542619
It's good to actually verify the theory(s) if you can.

That said, I think earlier pictures of relativistic jets effectively settled the matter already.

>>10544084
Explain this
>seething

>>10544084
>t. brainlet

>>10540883
To think that black spot in the middle is much larger than the orbit of Neptune. I wonder how the size of the accretion disk compares with the Oort cloud.

>>10544113
>>10544126
Bats see using sonar. Is sound light?
If we can't see it, it's not light

>>10544140
Sound isn't an electromagnetic wave. It's not that hard.

Can we use black holes for anything? Dumping nuclear waste?

>>10544113
>>10544126
"Light Wave" by itself specifically refers to the visible band of the electromagnetic spectrum. Notice they don't say "Ultraviolet light is a light wave with these wave lengths" or "Infrared light is a light wave with these wave lengths". I literally gave a definition of light and you gave offhand talk of someone using the word "light" in a qualifying statement to refer to something else.

>>10544140
This statement is somehow even more retarded than these other guys. Sound waves are not electromagnetic waves.

>>10544147
So gamma rays are light?

>>10544140
>if I make a ridiculous shitpost maybe they'll think my earlier posts were also ironic jokes

>>10544150
"Light" as it's commonly used is usually just visible light, but when physicists talk about light, they typically refer to the entire electromagnetic spectrum. Photographs can be made using any frequency of light (EM radiation).

>>10544149
It would be better to use Ocean floor disposal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_floor_disposal
Basically you leave it in the abyssal plain and let it get buried in meters of geologically stable mud.

>>10544152
Yes. Gamma rays and visible light are quantities of energy in the same field, just in different normal modes. It makes little physical sense to consider gamma rays and visible light as fundamentally distinct entities.

>>10544156
So then if they're useless, can we just dump in a bunch of stuff to fill them up?

Seems like they're an intergalactic hazard otherwise. I mean, what if your starship accidentally runs into one?

>>10544156
>tfw nebula are just radioactive waste being dumped into the black hole containing our universe

>>10544170
Type III civilizations just dump their waste in the central black hole

>>10544173
I wonder how much waste these kinds of civilizations produce.

>>10544155
Do you have anything to back that up other than someone qualifying "light" with a specific band of the spectrum?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/light
https://www.delmarfans.com/educate/science-behind-how-light-works/
https://www.britannica.com/science/light
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum
https://eyelighting.com/lighting-technology-education/general-lighting-basics/light-spectrum
https://www.universetoday.com/50720/light-spectrum/

Where are the jets? This black hole is known for blasting huge fucking jets way beyond the galaxy it's in.

>potentially the most important scientific breakthrough in human history
>/sci/ doesn't have a sticky
Why?

>>10540892
Actually is not an image of a black hole, is a computer generate image from a source of radio frequency information, that was adjust by a algorithm that reconstructs and infer data into a visual representation. But who cares I m a faggot according to any possible reply

>>10544212
>>potentially the most important scientific breakthrough in human history

????????????

How? All it did was provide more evidence for what we already knew.

>>10544181
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light
>In physics, the term light sometimes refers to electromagnetic radiation of any wavelength, whether visible or not.[5][6] In this sense, gamma rays, X-rays, microwaves and radio waves are also light.
https://science.nasa.gov/ems/02_anatomy

The same electromagnetic radiation can be seen in the visible range by one observer, and out of the visible range by another observer due to the Doppler effect. Do we say that it's light for one observer, and not light for the other? Of course not. It's the same radiation, just detected by differently moving observers. The light hasn't undergone some physical transformation to make it not-light. No quantity of electromagnetic radiation can be uniquely identified as being light or not light, as differently moving observers (and observers in different gravitational fields) will observe it differently. But it's fundamentally just oscillations in the electromagnetic field.
http://cmb.physics.wisc.edu/pub/tutorial/light.html
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/light-waves/introduction-to-light-waves/a/light-and-the-electromagnetic-spectrum

>>10544233
The text in the center is mine, I meant to place it after all the links.

>>10542445

>>10540883
No, because photons never leave the photon sphere.

>>10540883
It looks like my asshole

>>10540883
Is that its north or southern pole?

>>10544340
You sure they can't quantum tunnel away?

>>10542960
big if true

>>10544384
It’s more wide. Black holes are flat.

>>10544225
>All it did was provide more evidence for what we already knew.
No, it verifies existing calculations. like the solar eclipse of 1919

>>10542942
source: trust me dude

>>10544195
Only fast rotating black holes create those jets.
I guess M87 isn't rotating, or not fast enough.

>>10544853
I just realized your pic WAS M87. Hell then, I dunno

>>10542960
through astral projection?

>>10544221
so its biased to construct blackhole-like images?

>>10545107
Yes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIvezCVcsYs

>>10544314
>only post in the thread worth looking at

>>10542994
Calling it a verification would be unscientific, but it points in that direction.

>>10544005
brainlet

>>10544181
>>10544150
>>10544084
>>10544051
So what even is your point with this anyway? If we go by your definition of light being only the visible part of the spectrum then it's still entirely arbitrary to the argument.
You (or maybe another retarded anon) implied that it not being an image captured by visible light somehow makes it a less valid depiction of the black hole. Really radio waves are of the same electromagnetic field as light and therefore in principle capturing an image using those is not really any different to capturing it using visible light, it's just we have to adapt the image into the visible spectrum for our own eyes to see it.

>>10543209
>>10543209
You dont know what youre talking about. Stop it.

>>10543566

>>10544177
it's probably super condensed

>>10540883
Black holes don't exist this is a fake image done using photoshop.

NASA truly is desperate to make you believe more of their lies.

>>10547498
quality bait, but I don't think NASA took the picture.
Although, I do agree that it's a fake.

>>10542619
The data itself is certainly more useful scientifically. The picture is just to verify that our simulations and predictions are correct.

>>10543566
I hope you like being turned into spaghetti

>>10542942
iwehfi qhwinngeyFYFUYARFYHBFYHFD

>>10544212
>provides no new info about black holes
>picture of something we already proved existed
>they even already knew what it would look like
Woah its fucking nothing

>5 mya humans lost their tail and started walking on legs
>4.5 mya humans first picked up a stone
>it took THIS fucking much time to make a shitty picture of something that we can't even approach or begin to analyze
>everyone is happy somehow instead of realising how fucking pathetic we are

>>10540883

Space isn't real and blackhole's are flat.

Can someone shop it on Hillary's hand?

Anon, how come the center of the image is black? Shouldn't accretion be all around it? There is obviously hot matter falling into that black hole around it. Around it but not in right in front of it? I smell bullshit here.

>>10547779
come on anon really.

Completely different question: if a charge fell into a black hole, could you detect it's position within the black hole after it passed the event horizon but before it hit the singularity from how the the field exterior to the event horizon changes with the new charge?