Live data from Hacker News

Most images of black holes are illustrations. Here’s what our telescopes capture

vox.com

121–130 of 167 posts

Re: Most images of black holes are illustrations. Here’s what our telescopes capture

#121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would prefer if black holes were called "Dark Stars". Because that really is what they are. A weird star that is so massive, its gravitational field distorted the fabric of its local space, that not even light can escape it. It is theoretically possible that the black hole is still performing fusion, and emitting light and heat, like a regular star. But its gravitational field is so intense, that even light cannot…

It is my understanding that black holes create new stars. It's also my understanding that small mass will eventually be drawn towards bigger mass. Does this mean the eventual "heat death of the universe" won't actually happen as stray light/heat/RF/particles/whatever will always get drawn in back towards a mass like a blackhole and reformed?

> small mass will eventually be drawn towards bigger mass

Common misunderstanding. All mass has acceleration from gravity, but stuff like orbits can still happen due to existing velocity.

More importantly, even if objects were to be pulled together, there space expanding means they might still be futher apart, if the space between objects grows faster then they move togeather. So the heat death looks like it will happen anyways.

Re: Most images of black holes are illustrations. Here’s what our telescopes capture

#122
post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because we found no better analogy, we named them "holes" despite the fact that they are basically the opposite: an object with enormous mass. No, they actually are holes. We don’t need analogies or metaphors to describe black holes. Their mathematical properties are quite complicated to define and we have to reason about what happens around or inside them using figurative thought experiments, but their action does…

does it make sense to you that a "hole" has mass, electric charge, and angular momentum and is completely characterized by these properties?

[deleted]

Re: Most images of black holes are illustrations. Here’s what our telescopes capture

#123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Since from an observers POV nothing can actually fall into the black hole, no black hole can form. The event horizon isn't really a physical boundary in that sense. It's the mathematical boundary at which, according to general relativity, a particle must have velocity equal to the speed of light in order to escape. A density change inside the star can change the size and shape of that boundary without things fallin…

> a particle must have velocity equal to the speed of light in order to escape This has always confused me. Does a photon have mass? I've always thought the answer is no and so I don't understand why even light can't escape from a black hole.

It's a consequence of the bending of spacetime around a singularity. All possible paths that light (or anything else) can take through spacetime lead towards the singularity.

Re: Most images of black holes are illustrations. Here’s what our telescopes capture

#124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Since from an observers POV nothing can actually fall into the black hole, no black hole can form. The event horizon isn't really a physical boundary in that sense. It's the mathematical boundary at which, according to general relativity, a particle must have velocity equal to the speed of light in order to escape. A density change inside the star can change the size and shape of that boundary without things fallin…

> a particle must have velocity equal to the speed of light in order to escape This has always confused me. Does a photon have mass? I've always thought the answer is no and so I don't understand why even light can't escape from a black hole.

[deleted]

Re: Most images of black holes are illustrations. Here’s what our telescopes capture

#125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Since from an observers POV nothing can actually fall into the black hole, no black hole can form. The event horizon isn't really a physical boundary in that sense. It's the mathematical boundary at which, according to general relativity, a particle must have velocity equal to the speed of light in order to escape. A density change inside the star can change the size and shape of that boundary without things fallin…

> a particle must have velocity equal to the speed of light in order to escape This has always confused me. Does a photon have mass? I've always thought the answer is no and so I don't understand why even light can't escape from a black hole.

In spacetime there are paths of least resistance called geodesics, and an object left alone will bind to a geodesic determined by the distribution of moving masses in the spacetime. If we take two parallel geodesics in empty spacetime and draw (a section of each of) them like this ||. But let's consider if we put a massive object like a star (O) somewhere near the geodesics. We'll exaggerate in the diagrams: OO vs >ONow we just have to bind an object to one of these ten geodesics shown schematically above.

The strong equivalence principle stems from the observations by Galileo et al. that objects of different weights and configurations fall at the same rate (if one can eliminate air drag and so on). Any object may bind to an available geodesic, whether it's a feather, a bowling-ball, a beam of light, or a moon. One has to do work to move an object off a geodesic [1].

That light binds to geodesics and geodesics are determined by proximity to mass was tested by Eddington et al. during the 1919 solar eclipse, where they observed something similar to the |>O diagram above. Gravitational lensing works the same way.

As we increase the mass of O, the closer geodesics are more and more bent towards O. So for a lighter star: |)o

Black holes are much more massive (and yet more compact) than O, so there are geodesics more bent towards the black hole (because of the mass) and and more geodesics closer to the black hole's centre of mass. The closer geodesics can be bent around the black hole, possibly several times.

Additionally there are "no return" geodesics that twist into circular orbits around the black hole. There is an innermost stable circular orbit (ISCO) too.

Finally, there are "no return" geodesics that lead past the ISCO and into the region covered by the event horizon. @ | could be a diagram where we replace O in )O | with a black hole.

Light can bind to any of these "no return" geodesics just like any other object like a feather or a bowling ball.

- --

[1] Strictly speaking, our universe is 1+3 Lorentzian with extremely high experimental confidence. One dimension is timelike and the other three spacelike. This lets us sort geodesics into three types: spacelike, timelike, and null (or lightlike). In normal empty space light (and any other massless particle) always moves along a null geodesic, and moving it off a null geodesic is energetically impossible. Likewise, in normal empty space, massive particles always move along timelike geodesics, and while (with a lot of work) you can move them onto timelike geodesics that look more and more lightlike, it's energetically impossible to push it onto a lightlike geodesic.

Distinguishing between lightlike and timelike is best done with respect to some coordinates, intervals, and using a tiny bit of calculus. The Euclidean distance for an object only moving in one spatial direction is ds^2 = dx^2. The spacetime interval for an object only moving in the timelike direction is ds^2 = c^2dt^2. If we let it move in the x direction, it's ds^2 = c^2dt^2 - dx^2. For light, and units of lightseconds in x and seconds in t, we have ds^2 = 0, thus "null". If ds^2 > 0, the interval is timelike. If between every two points on a geodesic the interval is lightlike, the geodesic is lightlike. If between every two points on a geodesic the interval is timelike, the geodesic is timelike: an object bound to such a geodesic does not travel as far in space over a given time as light does.

The most lightlike but still timelike geodesic is available to ultra-relativistic massive objects. So if we define an event horizon as the surface below which all lightlike geodesics lead inward, we have also forced ultra-relativistic massive objects inwards on their almost-lightlike geodesics.

Putting this more colloquially, if you are inside the event horizon, even if you could accelerate to the speed of light, you aren't getting out.

Re: Most images of black holes are illustrations. Here’s what our telescopes capture

#126
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll take your comment in good faith, but there are very good reasons to believe black holes exist and that, for instance, the center of our galaxy contains a very massive black hole and not a neutron star. This is basic general relativity, which only has (physical and theoretical) evidence in support of it. While quantum gravity is still very much uncertain, that would (most likely) only have to do with understandin…

OP's claim is that black holes infinite amount of time to form, because matter would take an infinite amount of time to fall into it. Personally, as a layman on the subject of black holes, what I understand is that mass does take infinite amount of time to fall into an event horizon. But I don't know about the formation process of how/when that event horizon is formed. Perhaps you can help me, and him, understand why…

Signals take an infinte amount of time to reach a distant observer from just outside the event horizon. Which means we cannot see the event horizon or what is beyond, and we cannot also 'see' the event horizon being formed, or any matter crossing the event horizon. When the star collapses, light takes progressively longer to reach an outside observer, and eventually becomes too dim to detect. The same thing happens with an object falling into a black hole. But since the gravitational effect can still be felt, we cannot also say that the black hole never formed. At all events, a region of spacetime that emits no discernable signals has formed. You can call it a black hole or speculate further about what it is, but the phenomenon is still right there.

Re: Most images of black holes are illustrations. Here’s what our telescopes capture

#127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a particle must have velocity equal to the speed of light in order to escape This has always confused me. Does a photon have mass? I've always thought the answer is no and so I don't understand why even light can't escape from a black hole.

It's a consequence of the bending of spacetime around a singularity. All possible paths that light (or anything else) can take through spacetime lead towards the singularity.

So it's the same mechanism as gravitational lensing (or whatever it's called) that bends the path a photon takes when it passes something massive?

Re: Most images of black holes are illustrations. Here’s what our telescopes capture

#128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a consequence of the bending of spacetime around a singularity. All possible paths that light (or anything else) can take through spacetime lead towards the singularity.

So it's the same mechanism as gravitational lensing (or whatever it's called) that bends the path a photon takes when it passes something massive?

Yes, except here its much more extreme so that inside a certain distance (event horizon) spacetime is bent in such a way that all paths through it lead towards the singularity. That's the theory at least.

Re: Most images of black holes are illustrations. Here’s what our telescopes capture

#129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP's claim is that black holes infinite amount of time to form, because matter would take an infinite amount of time to fall into it. Personally, as a layman on the subject of black holes, what I understand is that mass does take infinite amount of time to fall into an event horizon. But I don't know about the formation process of how/when that event horizon is formed. Perhaps you can help me, and him, understand why…

Signals take an infinte amount of time to reach a distant observer from just outside the event horizon. Which means we cannot see the event horizon or what is beyond, and we cannot also 'see' the event horizon being formed, or any matter crossing the event horizon. When the star collapses, light takes progressively longer to reach an outside observer, and eventually becomes too dim to detect. The same thing happens w…

>we cannot also 'see' the event horizon being formed

I think what you're saying here is the confusing part.

If no observer in the universe can ever witness a black hole being formed, it stands to reason they cannot exist (within the reference frame of observers outside it).

Now I'm not asserting this as true or not, because I wouldn't assert such contrarian conclusions on a subject I have not properly studied; rather I am just highlighting what appears to be the confusing bit here.

Re: Most images of black holes are illustrations. Here’s what our telescopes capture

#130

If the speed of light of this universe was raised significantly, is there some point where black holes would be impossible to form? I assume if the speed of light were lowered black holes would become far more common?

In the Death's End by Cixin Liu, there is a speed of light weapon that lowers the local speed of light to almost nothing, effectively taking an enemy out of the game until the end of the universe.
Post reply on HN