[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 546 KB, 1867x1323, black-holes-infographic-v2 (med6).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9538614 No.9538614 [Reply] [Original]

i need to know this from scientific guy

>> No.9538628

Define observed

>> No.9538633

>>9538628

seen with telescope lens and the what not

>> No.9538639

>>9538614
>singularity with infinite density

i hate that everyone, even some scientists, still say this, even though they know it's probably wrong

>> No.9538649

>>9538639
It's the same thing as calling dark matter "dark matter"because we don't understand it. Under our current theory, density *should* be infinite, but since that's not exactly true and we don't know what exactly true, we just go with calling it "infinite density"

>> No.9538727

>>9538614
Can't (by definition) "see" holes with any kind of telescope. If close, background would be obviously distorted.
CAN see radiation from accretion disc, jets pointed in same direction for millions of years, "wobble" in motion of companion stars, high-speed motion of stars within a few lightyears, gravitational lensing.

Also, gravitational radiation from colliding holes precisely matches the "ringing down" pattern predicted by GR.

All above evidence of event horizons with gravitational fields equivalent to that of a mass several times that of the Sun. Exact nature of "what's inside" unknown and unknowable by any form of direct observation. Only theory to go on and even that breaks down right at the center. Awaiting theory of Quantum Gravity.

>> No.9538761

>>9538614
http://eventhorizontelescope.org/blog/eht-status-update-december-15-2017
https://phys.org/news/2017-04-astronomers-piece-image-black-hole.html

they're still (((processing))) the image

>> No.9538781
File: 31 KB, 1024x576, maxresdefault.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9538781

>>9538761
And they're still only going to see what's "near" the hole. Maybe no more distant than a fraction of the hole's circumference away ("radius" is ambiguous near holes) but still not the hole itself.

I'd be thrilled by an image anywhere near THIS good. Kip Thorne swears that's what it ought to look like.

>> No.9539205

>>9538781
>And they're still only going to see what's "near" the hole. Maybe no more distant than a fraction of the hole's circumference away ("radius" is ambiguous near holes) but still not the hole itself.
The hole itself doesn't emit/reflect any light by definition, it's what makes it a black hole. Wtf are you even arguing?

>> No.9539251

>>9539205
Not arguing.
OP asked "ACTUALLY being observed?"

I posted >>9538727 to say "yes, but indirectly, by their effects."
>>9538761 headlines "image of black hole"
Somewhat misleading. Should say "image of region NEAR black hole".
I'm hoping (probably futilely) it'll convince even die-hard brainlet deniers on /sci/ they're real.

>> No.9539349

>>9538614
Sometimes we see shit whipping fast as fuck around a seemingly "empty" spot. Sometimes we see luminous accretion around a small, likely-dense area, Jap-anon

>> No.9539372

>>9538614

no, it is an abstract concept, there is no proof of the existence of black holes

>> No.9539412

>>9539349
>it looks like objects/plants are orbiting black spots in the sky, which fits the idea of black holes
>black holes have very intense gravity that should be able to bend light and we seem to see areas that light bends around

>> No.9539965

>>9538633
No