These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Out of Pod Experience

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123Next page
 

What do black holes really look like?

First post
Author
Riyria Twinpeaks
Perkone
Caldari State
#21 - 2014-10-24 01:13:39 UTC
PotatoOverdose wrote:
Mr Epeen wrote:
PotatoOverdose wrote:
Mr Epeen wrote:
It's black and it's a hole. It looks like nothing.

Get out of here with that Hollywood claptrap.

Mr Epeen Cool

Gravitational lensing can be (and has been) observed with both orbital and terrestrial telescopes, as have the emission spectra of black hole accretion disks. So none of the things in that video are actually "claptrap."

Just saying.


The question wasn't about the effects a black hole has on it's surroundings that allow us to posit it's existence. It was, what does a black hole look like? Since the actual black hole is within the Schwarzschild radius, it is literally invisible. At all detectable wavelengths.

Just sayin'.

Mr Epeen Cool

This is also not strictly true for all detectable wavelengths, hawking radiation allows black holes to emit light via black body radiation. This is a necessary postulate in order to satisfy conservation of energy of experimentally observed rotating black holes via black hole evaporation.

Currently, research is under way to detect terminal gamma ray bursts from evaporating black holes, and there has been at least one experimental demonstration of the effect from a group out of the University of St Andrew's, UK.

Just saying.


The wikipedia article about Hawking radiation you've linked wrote:

This radiation does not come directly from the black hole itself, but rather is a result of virtual particles being "boosted" by the black hole's gravitation into becoming real particles.
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
Sedition.
#22 - 2014-10-24 01:27:54 UTC  |  Edited by: PotatoOverdose
Riyria Twinpeaks wrote:

The wikipedia article about Hawking radiation you've linked wrote:

This radiation does not come directly from the black hole itself, but rather is a result of virtual particles being "boosted" by the black hole's gravitation into becoming real particles.

You should re-read that entire passage:
Quote:
Physical insight into the process may be gained by imagining that particle-antiparticle radiation is emitted from just beyond the event horizon. This radiation does not come directly from the black hole itself, but rather is a result of virtual particles being "boosted" by the black hole's gravitation into becoming real particles.[11] As the particle-antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy, the escape of one of the particles takes away some of the mass of the black hole.[12]

The bolded part indicates that the radiation comes from within the schwarzschild radius, i.e. within the black hole. What it's saying is "it's not the entire black hole radiating, but little bits of it just within the edge." Furthermore, this is only a high level conceptual overview. A slightly more indepth analysis:

Quote:
A slightly more precise, but still much simplified, view of the process is that vacuum fluctuations cause a particle-antiparticle pair to appear close to the event horizon of a black hole. One of the pair falls into the black hole while the other escapes. In order to preserve total energy, the particle that fell into the black hole must have had a negative energy (with respect to an observer far away from the black hole). By this process, the black hole loses mass, and, to an outside observer, it would appear that the black hole has just emitted a particle. In another model, the process is a quantum tunnelling effect, whereby particle-antiparticle pairs will form from the vacuum, and one will tunnel outside the event horizon.[11]

Again, the bolded part is important. An electron-positron pair (most likely) is generated within the black hole. One of them effectively tunnels through a potential barrier (this is still a rough simplification of the actual mechanism) to the "outside" of the black hole. So the emission is still coming from within the black hole as defined by its schwarzschild radius.
Riyria Twinpeaks
Perkone
Caldari State
#23 - 2014-10-24 01:48:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Riyria Twinpeaks
In your first quoted passage it's mentioned, that your bolded part is something you can imagine to happen to maybe better understand its effects.

In the second quote it's clearly stated that the radiation originates from particle-antiparticle pairs that come into existence due to vacuum fluctuations close to the event horizon. This should mean they are not part of the actual mass of the black hole.
In your bolded part it states that this can happen inside the event horizon; but it's just "another model", and even if true, the forming particle-antiparticle pairs are not part of the black hole, but also an effect of it, at least that's how I understand the part "As the particle-antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy".
That one particle of the pair can escape and thus be detected by us, is definitely an effect the extreme gravitation of the black hole has on its environment, albeit a less intuitive one than the emission we see from the accretion disk, for example.


I guess the question is what is the black hole itself? If you say everything within the Schwarzschild radius is part of the black hole itself, then yes, assuming that model where particles tunnel outside from within the event horizon is true, there is radiation directly emitted by the black hole.
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
Sedition.
#24 - 2014-10-24 02:27:56 UTC  |  Edited by: PotatoOverdose
Riyria Twinpeaks wrote:
In your first quoted passage it's mentioned, that your bolded part is something you can imagine to happen to maybe better understand its effects.

In the second quote it's clearly stated that the radiation originates from particle-antiparticle pairs that come into existence due to vacuum fluctuations close to the event horizon. This should mean they are not part of the actual mass of the black hole.
In your bolded part it states that this can happen inside the event horizon; but it's just "another model", and even if true, the forming particle-antiparticle pairs are not part of the black hole, but also an effect of it, at least that's how I understand the part "As the particle-antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy".
That one particle of the pair can escape and thus be detected by us, is definitely an effect the extreme gravitation of the black hole has on its environment, albeit a less intuitive one than the emission we see from the accretion disk, for example.


I guess the question is what is the black hole itself? If you say everything within the Schwarzschild radius is part of the black hole itself, then yes, assuming that model where particles tunnel outside from within the event horizon is true, there is radiation directly emitted by the black hole.

The whole imaginary thing is implied by the "virtual particle" bit. Also, black holes are formally defined by the schwarzschild radius, so yes that is exactly what a black hole is.

To be honest, both of the passages we discussed are gobledygook for the consumption of the layman with no understanding of the rigorous formalism which produces the results in question. There are other theories which stipulate that the entire body of the black hole as a whole must radiate:
Quote:
However, according to the conjectured gauge-gravity duality (also known as the AdS/CFT correspondence), black holes in certain cases (and perhaps in general) are equivalent to solutions of quantum field theory at a non-zero temperature. This means that no information loss is expected in black holes (since the theory permits no such loss) and the radiation emitted by a black hole is probably the usual thermal radiation.


We could quote wikipedia all day. What is generally not in dispute in the physics community is that due to the Unruh effect and the equivalence principle (both of which effectively boil down to conservation of energy) is that black holes, as defined by the Schwarzschild radius, must emit some form of black body radiation (light) from within that Schwarzschild radius. A somewhat rigorous treatment of this can be found in the Wikipedia article beginning in the "Emission Process" section.



A lot of people tend to get confused by the term "black hole." In simplest terms, a black hole is nothing more than a body who's gravitational pull prohibits a photon, incident on the event horizion (or Schwarzschild radius) from escaping. This actually isn't anything special in and of itself. Some blackholes, like Sagittarius A*, are so large that they have an average density less than that of the water you drink every day and a gravity of ~0.1 G at the event horizon, which has a radius over 42 AU. You can think of photons trapped in such a black hole as merely being pulled into it's orbit, like the moon is orbiting earth, or the earth orbiting the sun.

Where our understanding of physics breaks down is the smaller black holes (and the center of larger ones), where gravity and the ensuing tidal forces are so strong that matter is compressed into dimensions for which we have no physical understanding. When matter is compressed beyond a certain size limit, we have no idea how physics works. And within these black holes are the only known locations in the universe where matter can be compressed to such a degree.
NEONOVUS
Mindstar Technology
Goonswarm Federation
#25 - 2014-10-24 03:00:44 UTC
Black holes would theoretically be emitting in the energetic bands akin to higher level magnetar or neutron star
Basically all nice and bright and agh the glasses do nothing!
Derrick Miles
Death Rabbit Ky Oneida
#26 - 2014-10-24 03:18:45 UTC
A black hole is black.

The outside edge of a black hole looks pretty neat though.
Chopper Rollins
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#27 - 2014-10-24 08:22:42 UTC
Abrazzar wrote:
How can you see something that does not reflect light?

The Sun reflects no light, some black holes burp gamma rays that can be detected, early next year massive amounts of stuff are going to hit the black hole at the centre of o9ur galaxy and that will become visible.



Goggles. Making me look good. Making you look good.

Swiip Eleandor
Perkone
Caldari State
#28 - 2014-10-24 09:07:58 UTC
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#29 - 2014-10-24 09:15:19 UTC
Abrazzar wrote:
How can you see something that does not reflect light?


By virtue of it being surrounded by stuff that does, as well as the gravitational lensing, as explained in the video. I'm looking forward to reading the technical papers being produced as a result.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104

ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#30 - 2014-10-24 09:17:34 UTC
Well the thing about black holes, their main redeeming quality, is that they're black. And th thing about space is, it's black. Anyone could have made that mistake really.

ISD Dorrim Barstorlode

Senior Lead

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

stoicfaux
#31 - 2014-10-24 11:54:56 UTC
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode wrote:
Well the thing about black holes, their main redeeming quality, is that they're black. And th thing about space is, it's black. Anyone could have made that mistake really.

Black holes aren't black. Black is simply the lack of visible light being reflected back to the viewer which means the black object has absorbed all of the light. White light is all visible light (i.e. all colors.) Since the black object has absorbed all of the light, and all light is all colors and all colors together appear as white, then the "black" hole is actually white, but to the viewer it appears as black.

Black is white, and conversely, white is black.


tl;dr - My mother wanted me to be a lawyer.

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.

Primary This Rifter
Mutual Fund of the Something
#32 - 2014-10-24 11:57:57 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:
PotatoOverdose wrote:
Mr Epeen wrote:
It's black and it's a hole. It looks like nothing.

Get out of here with that Hollywood claptrap.

Mr Epeen Cool

Gravitational lensing can be (and has been) observed with both orbital and terrestrial telescopes, as have the emission spectra of black hole accretion disks. So none of the things in that video are actually "claptrap."

Just saying.


The question wasn't about the effects a black hole has on it's surroundings that allow us to posit it's existence. It was, "What does a black hole look like?". Since the actual black hole is within the Schwarzschild radius, it is literally invisible.

Just sayin'.

Mr Epeen Cool

You're being pedantic.
Stop.
Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#33 - 2014-10-24 12:18:28 UTC
Unsuccessful At Everything wrote:
Hasikan Miallok wrote:
Seems to me the OP is a bit like saying "if you were really invisible what would you look like" ?

It is kind of a Zen Koan, a bit like "what is the sound of one hand clapping" or "is it possible to have an excruciating pain you cannot feel" .


If a tree falls in a forest, and lands on a mime.. does anyone care?

i laughed way harder and way longer than i should have at this
Bastion Arzi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#34 - 2014-10-24 13:05:45 UTC
Abrazzar wrote:
How can you see something that does not reflect light?


i think u see the light being sucked into it
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#35 - 2014-10-24 13:16:11 UTC
stoicfaux wrote:
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode wrote:
Well the thing about black holes, their main redeeming quality, is that they're black. And th thing about space is, it's black. Anyone could have made that mistake really.

Black holes aren't black. Black is simply the lack of visible light being reflected back to the viewer which means the black object has absorbed all of the light. White light is all visible light (i.e. all colors.) Since the black object has absorbed all of the light, and all light is all colors and all colors together appear as white, then the "black" hole is actually white, but to the viewer it appears as black.

Black is white, and conversely, white is black.


tl;dr - My mother wanted me to be a lawyer.



Additionally, a black hole isn't actually a hole, either.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104

Wendrika Hydreiga
#36 - 2014-10-24 13:24:11 UTC
You can't grasp their true form, they are unspeakable!

Like Cthullu. Or Galactus!
Arronicus
State War Academy
Caldari State
#37 - 2014-10-24 13:39:01 UTC
Serene Repose wrote:
Let's see, what do they "look" like? Um...the gravitational pull is so strong it even pulls light, right? Sight is reflected light through the lens of an eye, right? No light. No sight.

I wonder why they call them "black" holes....

Next thing you know people will be saying we can fly in outer space. Flying uses an airfoil. No air. No foil. No flight.

Ain't being a human being strange?


Flying by the traditional uses of the word involves the sustained force of lift sufficiently counteracting downward forces like gravity. However, Spaceflight refers to flight in space. It is most certainly not a fantasy word. So yes, there is flying in outerspace. A thrown rock flies through the air, but it has no airfoil. A submarine can fly out of the water, again, without an airfoil. Your definition is far too simplistic, and simply wrong.

As for being strange, I'd have to disagree there, too. Being a human is the only thing I know, the only thing truly familiar to me. The idea of being anything else but human is strange. To be human, is natural.

Oh and as for what does a black hole look like: A void of light. Since we can observe that void with our eyes, we can see it, just like we can see a shadow on the ground. You don't need light to see, you need light to distinguish the indentity and appearance of the object the light is reflecting off of, except in cases where the darkness gives shape and appearance to the object. In this case, a black hole.

Without air, and light, there is flight, and sight.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#38 - 2014-10-24 15:24:41 UTC
Take a good hard look at goatse that's what it looks like.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133

ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#39 - 2014-10-24 15:59:24 UTC
stoicfaux wrote:
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode wrote:
Well the thing about black holes, their main redeeming quality, is that they're black. And th thing about space is, it's black. Anyone could have made that mistake really.

Black holes aren't black. Black is simply the lack of visible light being reflected back to the viewer which means the black object has absorbed all of the light. White light is all visible light (i.e. all colors.) Since the black object has absorbed all of the light, and all light is all colors and all colors together appear as white, then the "black" hole is actually white, but to the viewer it appears as black.

Black is white, and conversely, white is black.


tl;dr - My mother wanted me to be a lawyer.


I'll be sure to check zebra crossings for you.

ISD Dorrim Barstorlode

Senior Lead

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

Miyammato Musashi
Freeport Exploration
Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
#40 - 2014-10-24 17:46:48 UTC
I would think the appearance of a black hole would dramatically change relative to your point of observation. The singularity itself can't be viewed directly, as I understand it, because it's folded space itself so hard it's pushing the boundary of a deeeeep gravity well. While not technically dropping out of space time, it may as well have. A viewer from some great distance might see the light from stars being warped and doubled all around the object though. That would be detectible and would probably look very strange. If the black hole is consuming a star or a gas cloud, the accretion disk (outside the schwartzwald radius) would be visible as well. Brilliant, hot rings would be visible, and appear extremely distorted and warped to that far off observer. If you were very near the rings they might just appear comparable to Saturn. Accretion disk aside, someone falling into a black hole might not see anything at all. For that observer, the light is bent around their position in such a way that it appears as though nothing is amiss at all.

...but wtf do I know about black holes. We've yet to directly observe one. They are such weird and poorly understood objects, I'd be very cautious of anyone claiming to know with an absolute degree of confidence wtf they look like.

Maybe they look like EvE wormholes. Maybe they look like Cheerios. Who knows?

I just thought the vid was interesting, as was the explanation about how light and space are being bent outside the event horizon. We have black holes, this was about black holes... thought you guys would dig it.

I am a meat popsicle. 

Previous page123Next page