/sci/ - Science & Math

Unfortunately /sci/ is a terrible place to ask this since you've just summoned every alt physic/simulation/spirituality/religion crank brainlet with an axe to grind to your thread

https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/k-4/stories/nasa-knows/what-is-a-black-hole-k4.html

I don't believe you, you don't need to "understand" physics to conceptualize the idea of a black hole.

They most likely don't even actually exist and are most likely misinterpreted, much like Dark matter and energy, the link I provided above explains it as basically as possible.

>>15243935
Normally, when you try to push atoms or elementary particles against each, there exists a fundamental force that makes them repel each other. However, if you manage to pack lots of matter densely enough, gravity overcomes this force and everything collapses into a single point in space. This is called a black hole. They're mostly remnants of dead stars whose cores got so dense that they collapsed.

>>15244032
>They most likely don't even actually exist
What? Why do all scientists who study the universe say they do exist then? And wasn't OP's picture an image of one?

>>15244048
>Why do all scientists who study the universe say they do exist then?
Not all of them do. It's not as widespread a position as you'd think, and there's a lot of nuance as to what people actually believe about them. Most scientists don't believe in singularities for example.
>And wasn't OP's picture an image of one?
No, it's an artist's rendition of what is believed to be one based on an algorithm similar to stable diffusion. The actual telescope image is only a few bytes of image data with a resolution smaller than the period at the end of this sentence.

>>15244052
>it's an artist's rendition of what is believed to be one based on an algorithm similar to stable diffusion.
Is this also how the James Webb telescope works, or no?

>>15243935
a black hole is a cope mechanism relativity fags use to deal with the fact that their "theory" doesn't work

>>15244016
2017 was the last good year

>>15244052
What do you know about interferometry?

there aren't black holes, phenomena we attribute to black holes are better explained as toroidal high energy plasma phenomena

>>15244048
It's literally impossible to take a picture of one, if they even do exist. You'd need a lens larger than the earth. That's the output of a computer program that was trained to output images like that.

>>15243935
your mother

>>15245056
You're confusing difficult with impossible.

>>15245056
>>15245092
Why would so many scientists say black holes exist when in fact they don't? From what I've read about them, all mathematical equations and telescope viewings seem to indicate black holes exist. Does /sci/ just think it's cool to be a contrarian about universally accepted science things?

>>15246225
Because they're paid to distract you from the lies they told you about the (((vaccine))

>>15246225
>Why would so many scientists say black holes exist when in fact they don't?
Because their careers depend on it.

>>15246225
Because relativity is bullshit but too much has been invested into the Einsteinian paradigm and willful ignorance of blatant electromagnetic (as opposed to exclusively gravitational) mechanisms to give up on it. Black holes, dark matter, neutron stars... it's the modern phlogiston and it's been stuck in their heads for more than a century.

>>15246331
explain gravity probe B right now, faggot

>>15246564
>oh no, someone on 4chan contradicted my high school physics text
why are you even here if that kind of thing upsets you so much?
just stay on reddit and you'll never have to get upset at witnessing the prepackaged conventional wisdom being contradicted, eternal happiness is that easy

>>15246564
That experiment has gotten a lot of criticism from physicists for being unreplicable and severely underestimating the error factor in their apparatus.

>>15246331
Either QM is wrong or GR is wrong and everyone knows this. That doesn't make elecric universe theories valid a priori. However, you can have an incorrect/incomplete theory that still makes observable predictions. Black holes fit the current models well and alternative theories do not explain what these are.

>>15246601
>Black holes fit the current models well
A bit of a stretch to say so. The math to force them to fit requires factors that don't exist in the real world.

>>15243935
and infinitely dense collection of particles that can suck in everything around them faster than light so you cant see them because if you shine a flashlight on them itll suck you in and you turn into spaghetti and it eats you like an italian

>>15246587
sauce nao

>>15246763
Just go look it up on wikipedia like you did to find any experiment that might prove relativity.

>>15246766
no sauce

>>15246784
If you were capable of engaging in intelligent discourse in the field you would already know the objections scientists have with the experiment. You might even be able to identify some and check how right my comment was. The fact that you can't means you've been talking out of your ass this whole time and are thus not worth the effort of my research.

Though if you're willing to pay my hourly rate I could give you some sources.

>>15246802
still not even one sauce

We claim to have discovered something which confirms at all of our outlandish theories are true, what we've discovered is of such minuscule angular size that we know with absolute certainty that it will be impossible for anyone to ever confirm our findings, or prove them wrong, so you'll just to trust us, the people responsible for the replication crisis and so many other harmful lies and embarrassments to the intellectual community. We aren't lying this time, we totally promise, trust us, trust the scientists. You haven't of the vax yet, maybe we weren't lying about it being nonfatal in some cases. Please trust us this time, pleeeeeeeeeeeze!!!!!! You got to trust us!!
The burden of proof for our absurd and completely implausible claims is on everyone who thinks they're not true

>>15246933
A lensing effect from a rogue blackhole is sufficient evidence to confirm black hoes

>>15247414
>confirmation bias

>>15244114
The fuck???? The general theory of relativity PREDICTS black holes. You're possibly thinking of dark matter

>>15247441
>The general theory of relativity PREDICTS black holes.
And this is a sign that it's wrong.

>>15247419
What else would it be?

>>15245056
>That's the output of a computer program that was trained to output images
So is literally every digital photo but I bet you don't assume they're all fake.

>>15243935
black hole is when space, the more space it is the more black hole

>>15243935
A black hole is a region of spacetime that has exceeded the Bekenstein Bound.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound

>>15248505
>schizophasia & judeo-name-dropping

>>15243935
A dark star, basically a star that has collapsed on itself. They aren't black and they aren't holes either.

No one knows what they are exactly other than the exist.

https://youtu.be/e-P5IFTqB98

>>15250259
Based

Space ant colonies

>>15244048
Black holes exist, but that's not an image of one. That's an image of the disk of matter that orbits it.
Theres no known way to actually take a picture of a black hole, as beyond the event horizon, no light escapes. Beyond the event horizon, is the black hole.
Now recently some hypothesised that you might be able to get a glimpse of the black hole by looking at a thin corona that possibly encircles the hole, but it's just a hypothesis at this point.

>>15246605
The math doesn't require anything extra. The only issue is that you can solve for the exterior or the interior but not both. The rest of the math describing its properties works just fine. Observational data supports it. The interior is the main issue, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

>>15252120
>Observational data supports it.
Observational data supports a large object with high mass but low (not zero) emission, or the barycenter of a significant orbital grouping. It does not support singularities.

>>15252134
No, it does. The gravitational gradient we see around active galactic nuclei can only form close to the event horizon of a supermassive black hole.

>>15252192
>The gravitational gradient we see
Describe in your own words what this is and how this is measured.

>>15252196
A gravitational gradient is a region in which the gravitational field gets "steeper" the closer you get to some point. There's a gravitational gradient around the earth, for instance. There's a gravitational gradient around YOU but it's too small to measure. Astronomers can look at the light coming out of an active galactic nucleus and conclude that it can only be coming from matter accreting around the event horizon of a supermassive black hole.

>>15244016
>with an axe to grind
Shovel, actually, cause I'm gunna bury this fool.

>>15252215
>Astronomers can look at the light coming out of an active galactic nucleus and conclude that it can only be coming from matter accreting around the event horizon of a supermassive black hole.
kek. now that is a tall tale if i ever heard one.

>>15252192
soience faggots such as yourself are always basing their ridiculous assertions on claims of having seen something which no human could possibly have ever witnessed.
your religious zealot like belief in black holes is plainly based on a lie

>>15252234
The image posted by OP demonstrates gravitational lensing around, well, something. What is it?

>>15252134
Then we both agree. I already clearly stated that there is an issue with black hole physics as currently understood. It has been a known issue for 100 years. Every physicist knows this and won't disagree. For now, it is convenient to continue calling them black holes even if the interior doesn't work as modeled. Why are you still arguing when I have stated multiple times in the thread that there is an issue with gr and qm?

>>15252246
>The image posted by OP demonstrates gravitational lensing around, well, something. What is it?
Tell me how this torus image was generated in your own words, and provide the original image data from which it was made.

>>15252251
>Why are you still arguing when I have stated multiple times in the thread that there is an issue with gr and qm?
Because a stopped clock, despite being right twice a day, needs correction so it stops being wrong during the other 86,398 seconds.

>>15244016
Shit dude you were bang on, we've got every type of fucking midwit and retard here.

>>15252234
Telescopes, man. We have telescopes.

>>15243935
It’s a hole and it’s black. All there really is to it.

>>15252261
No telescopic image of a black hole or evidence of related structures has ever been produced which did not have alternative, much less soiency explanations. The picture in the OP isn't even real, it's an AI model's recreation of the shape scientists believe a black hole's accretion disk might look like.

>>15252263
/qa/ lost.

>>15252255
Despite what you may think, you're not correcting anything. You have a poor understanding based off of shitty pop-sci reporting. You're complaining you got milk instead of lactose. Stop being a Karen and do something useful.

>>15252264
meds

>>15252268
>proving me right

>>15252267
>You have a poor understanding based off of shitty pop-sci reporting.
You genuinely believe the OP pic is an actual telescope image. You don't even know how it was made. You're regurgitating the absolute most soi pop-soi out there thinking that it's genuinely true information.

>>15252263
Explain quasars then, genius.

>>15252269
About what? Your schizophrenia? You got so badly BTFO you think that this is some boogieman from a board that I've never even read, much less posted on.

>>15252263
>it's an AI model's recreation
coughbullshitcough

>>15252273
You have to answer >>15252252 before you can get anything from any of us. It's only fair, anon.

>>15252275
Show the class the original image that this artistic render was made from. I'll wait and see if you can identify it. BTW the code that generated it is a noising-denoising model not so different from diffusion.

>>15252283
>BTW the code that generated it is a noising-denoising model not so different from diffusion.
Can you explain how it works?

>>15252278
Explain quasars. Now. Go.

>>15252293

>>15252192
>The gravitational gradient we see
you don't see gravity, you see light. the discrepancy between mass presumed from light and the mass estimated by rotational velocities is all accounted for by the dark matter halo.

>>15252309
Dark matter halos are hundreds of thousands of light years away from galactic nuclei. Try again.

>>15252293
>Can you explain how it works?
Yes, but you need to provide the original image first.

>>15252315
In other words, "No."

>>15243935
Its where niggers tongue your anus.

>>15252293
>>15252299
Oh...and I was laughing at the other guy, this is funny. Youre the robot.

>>15252102
>That's an image of the disk of matter that orbits it.
That's an image of what they think the disk of matter that orbits should look like*

>>15252293
Yeah it works by shitting out whatever that was fed in.
You could feed it images of teapot and it would shitout a teapot.
The color of orange was a brilliant spark of genius only capable by human con artists though. The machine didn't have anything to do with that one.

Can you tell us where the beam is in that image?

>>15252343
its absolute insanity to look at bright object which is enshrouded in a dense could of matter and presume that you're not seeing a highly refraced and distorted image.
>we need HST so we can look at space without the distortions of Earth's atmosphere
>but also there is no distortion of what we see when peering through other atmospheres, the laws of optics only apply within Earth's atmosphere

>>15252330
No other words. Just waiting for you to out yourself.

>>15252384
Quasars. Explain them.

>>15252415
Show me the original image file from which the "black hole image" was derived.

objects with an escape velocity equal to light, that's why light can't escape a black hole, making it black
escape velocity is determined by mass and size, thats why things become black holes at a certain density

>>15252272
I haven't said anything about the image actually. My university has an observatory and I did work on image processing. We only looked at stars, but I have some idea of how the image was produced. Anyways, I've only spoken about how black holes are predicted as solutions to gr, how we know there are massive objects in Galaxy centers that match gr predictions (based on indirect observations of objects that can actually be photographed).

You have an irrational anger about this topic. You should write a paper about it.

>>15243935
a one-dimensional rock

>>15250046
>They aren't black and they aren't holes
>>15252262
>It’s a hole and it’s black.
Bros. You two need to figure this shit out asap.

>>15252331
Is that why it's tilted on its side? For better access?

(1/2)

I'll just describe the (classical, not quantum) theory of black holes because idk anything about the observed astronomy.

A black hole is a type of solution to the Einstein equations; the simplest is the Schwarzschild solution, which is spherically symmetric and static. It describes a non-rotating static black hole, with a point singularity at the origin, and a spherically shaped "event horizon" enclosing the singularity.

AFAIK most black hole solutions have a singularity and an "event horizon" encolsing it. (Another well-known solution is the Kerr solution, which describes rotating black holes, and gives the Schwarzschild solution in the case of no rotating.)

Also, the gravitational field produced by any spherically symmetric object is described (outside of it) by the Schwarzschild solution outside some distance beyond the event horizon; that is, unless the object has already collapsed under its gravity (overcoming its internal pressure) past the event horizon, thus becoming a black hole.


Strangely, from the perspective of someone outside the event horizon (their time can be considered an external "coordinate time" if they are moving slowly), someone falling in towards the event horizon would appear to slow down more and more, their internal time ("proper time") slowing asymptotically to 0, as they asymptotically approach but never cross, the event horizon.

(2/2)

However, from the perspective of the person falling in, nothing slows down as they pass the singularity; they pass through unscathed. (Although in reality, while falling towards the singularity you will be "spaghettified" due to tidal forces.)

But, once something is inside the event horizon, if it is already inward-directed it must hit the singularity in finite proper time (& I think coordinate time); and if it is already outward directed it must hit the event horizon, and cross it, in finite proper time (but I think infinite coordinate time).
This is due to some kind of "switching" of the time direction inside the event horizon, from the "coordinate time" to the radial direction. In particular, when you're inside the event horizon, then moving along the radial coordinate direction is literally like moving forward (or backward in time).


Intriguingly, there is a sort of natural way to mathematically extend the Schwarzschild geometry past the line-shaped singularity (point in space, line in spacetime); if we assume the black hole has this extended spacetime, then a person who passes the event horizon and hits the singularity would simply pass through, and seemingly emerge from the singularity of an entirely new black hole, then pass its event horizon in finite proper time (but I think infinite coordinate time), finding themselves in an entirely new (or maybe the same) spacetime.
Look up "Penrose diagram" for more related to this.

>>15243935
I will forever associate that image with the waifu-fied version. Giantess chads have been eating good the last few years.

>>15245056
Hey, dipshit, the picture is 4 peta-fucking-bytes.
https://ec.europa.eu/research-and-innovation/en/horizon-magazine/astronomers-reveal-first-ever-image-black-hole#:~:text=Using%20a%20technique%20called%20very,could%20not%20be%20digitally%20transferred.

>Using a technique called very-long-baseline interferometry (VLBI), the teams then combined the observations of the telescopes to give the final image.

But so much data was collected – 4 petabytes, or 4 million gigabytes – that it could not be digitally transferred.

>>15253749
That's basically a cope for how little of the final product actually contained the alleged black hole. Out of those "4 petabytes" of information, the final image resolution of the "black hole" was equivalent to 2 horizontal pixels and around 3 vertical pixels. And that's only if you believe 100% that the calibrations used in the experiment were sufficient to denoise the image, which has been challenged by the astrophysics community.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.04623

>>15253756
Hm, never knew that. Does that mean to suggest that the image itself is faked? Or just that its representation is not as accurate as it can be?

>>15253763
The image in OP is fake yes. It was made by a computer program utilizing a noising-denoising algorithm which turned a very small amount of image data about a faintly glowing object into what the scientists wanted people to see.
Giving them the benefit of the doubt, I'd consider this motivated reasoning at best. They wanted a black hole and an accretion disk so they programmed the computer to give them one.

>>15253763
>>15253756

JFC what the fuck is wrong with you fucking idiots.

Its a image compiled from a telescope that was the size of the Earth. It compiles dozens of telescopes of observation, no fucking shit its a generated image. Last time I checked, XRays and magnetism isn't in the visible spectrum

Do we need to get into the philosophy of how humans experience the senses? You realize what you see with you eyeballs is all made up by your brain and isn't close to reality?

>>15253777
Instead of seething and raging I suggest you read the article or watch a video from a critic of the experiment. I'm not taking issue with false-color images or any such thing, I'm taking issue with producing a 4k image from a few tens of bytes of telescope data and saying that it's a "real photograph of a black hole."
As the paper clearly shows, scientists do not agree that it was a valid representation of the structure.

>>15253769
Well that does not mean its fake. Would an image taken with infrared be considered fake? Yes of course its run through a computer but that does not change that fact it is a compiling of image data taken from a real object.

>>15253780
You're missing the point or not reading. The OP's image is an artist's rendition, produced by a computer program designed to make a small speck of electromagnetic data look like a black hole.

>>15253778
>from a few tens of bytes of telescope data
petabytes, you extraordinary retard

>>15253791
The actual angular resolution of the black hole was much much smaller. You're just not listening lol.

>>15253780
If I program a computer to output pepe the frog and feed it data from a real telescope is the output pepe fake or real?

>>15253804
to you? no, I'm not listening to you, because you're a fucking retard who refuses to learn about one of the greatest achievements in modern astronomy

>>15253812
You need to take your meds, schizo.

>>15253812
>the greatest achievements in modern astronomy
Outright fraud and conjob. This is the fate you chose. There is no turning back.

>>15244052
>Not all of them do. It's not as widespread a position as you'd think, and there's a lot of nuance as to what people actually believe about them. Most scientists don't believe in singularities for example.

This just isn't true. What are you basing this on?

>>15253812
Take your estrogen, calm down, leave 4chan and never come back.

>>15253873
It is well known that gr solutions for black holes either fix coordinates at the event horizon or the singularity but not both. It's in the wiki for the scwarzchild metric. Also, anything predicting truly infinite curvature like a singularity is problematic. It is also well known that in extreme spacetime curvature, quantum gravity would need to be used but there are no models for it. So yes, singularities and the interior of black holes are still contentious and pretty much everyone knows that gr and qm are incompatible. This means they are either incorrect approximations or there is a more general theory that reduces to them at the proper scale. There has been a massive effort for the last 100 years to solve these problems and nothing concrete has been concluded. There are tons of yt videos, papers, and conferences that explain these issues in more detail, and what alternatives are being suggested.

>>15253910
I was more pertaining to the part about a lot of scientists not believing in black holes. I work in gr-qc so I know the general motivation for why we want to study models that regularise singularities, though not many people actually work on the quantum side. But even in my field, you'd be hard pushed to find physicsts who say they don't believe black holes exist.

Although I'm not sure what you're talking about regarding fixing coordinates, and I do not agree with this.

what is it about black holes that makes them the number one most popular popsci topic of discussion amongst the brainlet soience fangoys?
is it the comic bookish aspects of the spectacular, unrealistic and completely non disprovable conjectures which go along with the topic that make black holes so popular amongst the scientist posers and wannabes?

>>15253606
The thing is, the person falling into the black hole would see the universe speed up, faster and faster, until they would see the end of the universe. Isn't this some kind of paradox?

>>15253756
>the final image resolution of the "black hole" was equivalent to 2 horizontal pixels and around 3 vertical pixels.
This is just nonsense. Interferometery works in Fourier space, there are no pixels. You can sample the final image in whatever scale you want, the resolution is given by the beam diameter.
Also note that what you say is completely incompatible with the paper you posted, which shows much more complex images from the same data.

>which has been challenged by the astrophysics community.
Only if you ignore the multiple successful replications using different methods to the original EHT analysis.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.06948
https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.10267
https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.05218
https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.11626

Note the last link for example doesn't use any kind of training, and yet still produces a ring. The second link published their code.

>>15253606
>>15254615
I've been wondering, if time slows down as you approach a black hole, wouldn't it essentially stop at the event horizon? Which would mean nothing actually crosses that line in space?

>>15243935
A region in space where there is too much mass so everything around it is being pulled towards the center of that huge mass, is a consequence of gravity but is also an unsolved problem since it's unknown what happens inside the core black holes

>>15254941
>https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.11626
>
>Note the last link for example doesn't use any kind of training, and yet still produces a ring.

>We apply traditional hybrid mapping techniques to the publicly available `network-calibrated' data
In other words it's already been massaged to produce rings

>Starting with the other models leads to a surface brightness distribution with a similar size, and an internal depression, but not as clearly ring-like.
Even then they could not output a ring like you said.

Besides, this is sufficient proof for me that the image can be made whatever you want to be. There should be no starting model at all.

>>15255233
>In other words it's already been massaged to produce rings
Nope. The data they start with is not even imaging. I'm guessing you don't know what visibilities are, and I'm sure you didn't read it.
>Even then they could not output a ring like you said.
First don't cherry pick your quotes.
>The source appears as a ring, or edge-brightened disk, with higher surface brightness in the southern half, consistent with previous results. Starting with the other models leads to a surface brightness distribution with a similar size, and an internal depression, but not as clearly ring-like.
They reproduce the EHT result. And secondly this clear states that even with non ring models they get a ring. They're just not as well defined as if they use an annulus, disk or point. But not all of these solutions are as good as fitting the data.

>Besides, this is sufficient proof for me that the image can be made whatever you want to be.
Yes, you're clearly an expert after misreading half an abstract without opening the paper. And look at the images, they are not "whatever you want." Don't make shit up. And note this is one paper, with one method.

>>15255250
I don't give a shit anymore to argue with you fag. You provided a source to me that just bolstered my argument.

There should not be any starting models and zero variations in output image if they're claiming to make an observations.

The only observation they made here is what the starting model was.

>And look at the images
Post them.

>>15255260
>There should not be any starting models and zero variations in output image if they're claiming to make an observations.
Let's take your image as an example. JPEGs convert an image to Fourier space (like complex visibilities in VLBI) and then it applies a model to discard information it thinks is unimportant. So with a different model your childish reaction image would show variations. The point is it retarded to believe you image the smallest structures in the sky with perfect precision while in reality even a simple image doesn't satisfy that.
>The only observation they made here is what the starting model was.
Wrong. With a point source or a disk they recover the ring. Neither are a ring.
>Post them.
So you didn't bother to open the paper then. Quelle surprise.

>>15255278
>So with a different model your childish reaction image would show variations
Except we can compare source image to destination image because we know what the source ACTUALLY looks like.
Thus proof that whatever the fuck jpeg chooses is accurate.

With your blackhole images you have zero idea what the blackhole actually looks like. It is the thing which you set out to proof in the first place.

All variations are equally valid. Not only that, there are infinite variations with starting models that maybe incomprehensible to human minds.

>Wrong. With a point source or a disk they recover the ring. Neither are a ring.
I don't belive you until you post the images.

>you didn't bother to open the paper then
Nope. Post the images.
The variations.
Post them.

>>15255286
>Thus proof that whatever the fuck jpeg chooses is accurate.
But it's different and you said very clearly that's not allowed.
>All variations are equally valid.
Nope. They fit the data with different levels of quality. As you'd see if you ever looked at the paper.

>>15255291
>They fit the data with different levels of quality
Is the metric for quality the one that looks most like a ring?

>>15255367
No, they measure the Chi square of closure phase residuals.

>>15255385

>>15255091
Yes. As seen by a distant observer in flat space, nothing ever actually crosses the event horizon. It gets time-dilated and red-shifted all the way to infinity when it reaches the event horizon, meaning it effectively just disappears.