A Deeper Look At The First Ever Image Of A Black Hole

Nov 2012
10,582
8,740
nirvana
#1
By now, everyone must have seen and marveled at the first ever direct image of a black hole, which was released on Wed April 10 by the Event Horizon Telescope (EHT) team. There is a slew of good articles on the subject that contain the images, descriptions of how the world-wide team of researchers used a set of 8 telescopes spread across the globe to produce the images and how the massive 5 petabytes of data was transported using disk drives rather than the Internet.

Here we provide some supplementary information to help understand the EHT effort and the images themselves. Since I am not an astrophysicist, I am hoping that others will points out if I made any major mistakes in the analysis or the descriptions. The diary is rather large, but you can read selected sections while skipping others, if needed.

A Deeper Look at the First Ever Image of a Black Hole

Mind blown.
 
Oct 2010
66,934
26,997
Colorado
#2
By now, everyone must have seen and marveled at the first ever direct image of a black hole, which was released on Wed April 10 by the Event Horizon Telescope (EHT) team. There is a slew of good articles on the subject that contain the images, descriptions of how the world-wide team of researchers used a set of 8 telescopes spread across the globe to produce the images and how the massive 5 petabytes of data was transported using disk drives rather than the Internet.

Here we provide some supplementary information to help understand the EHT effort and the images themselves. Since I am not an astrophysicist, I am hoping that others will points out if I made any major mistakes in the analysis or the descriptions. The diary is rather large, but you can read selected sections while skipping others, if needed.

A Deeper Look at the First Ever Image of a Black Hole

Mind blown.
You did pretty well. Thanks!!
 
Nov 2012
10,582
8,740
nirvana
#3
You did pretty well. Thanks!!
No thanks necessary, I'm a tech geek, and have been a fan of the space program, since the Mercury program as a kid. The article gave me more insight into black holes, than everything I have read to date. Given the fact these things are the result of dead stars imploding on themselves, it raises the question that there can be nothing infinite about a body of mass, no matter how dense, and the infinity is derived from the mass surrounding the condensed remains of the star, absorbing the mass through gravity, including light, which apparently is matter itself, and then expelling it as plasma, because it cannot hold onto it infinitely.

Einstein is entitled to his theories.
 
Oct 2010
66,934
26,997
Colorado
#4
No thanks necessary, I'm a tech geek, and have been a fan of the space program, since the Mercury program as a kid. The article gave me more insight into black holes, than everything I have read to date. Given the fact these things are the result of dead stars imploding on themselves, it raises the question that there can be nothing infinite about a body of mass, no matter how dense, and the infinity is derived from the mass surrounding the condensed remains of the star, absorbing the mass through gravity, including light, which apparently is matter itself, and then expelling it as plasma, because it cannot hold onto it infinitely.

Einstein is entitled to his theories.
I think it's more useful to think of matter as "condensed" energy. Everything is energy.

And infinity, it's useful in equations, sort of, but it doesn't exist in the universe.

Planck length, Planck time, Planck units, ever look into that?

Planck units - Wikipedia
 
Likes: skews13
Nov 2012
10,582
8,740
nirvana
#5
I think it's more useful to think of matter as "condensed" energy. Everything is energy.

And infinity, it's useful in equations, sort of, but it doesn't exist in the universe.

Planck length, Planck time, Planck units, ever look into that?

Planck units - Wikipedia
Interesting read. A lot to absorb. Things noticed.

Natural units began in 1881, when George Johnstone Stoney, noting that electric charge is quantized, derived units of length, time, and mass

If some particular physical constant had changed, how would we notice it, or how would physical reality be different? Which changed constants result in a meaningful and measurable difference in physical reality? If a physical constant that is not dimensionless, such as the speed of light, did in fact change, would we be able to notice it or measure it unambiguously?

The only thing that counts in the definition of worlds are the values of the dimensionless constants of Nature. If all masses were doubled in value [including the Planck mass mP ] you cannot tell because all the pure numbers defined by the ratios of any pair of masses are unchanged.

the ambiguity in the phrase "changing a physical constant"; what would happen depends on whether (1) all other dimensionless constants were kept the same, or whether (2) all other dimension-dependent constants are kept the same. The second choice is a somewhat confusing possibility, since most of our units of measurement are defined in relation to the outcomes of physical experiments, and the experimental results depend on the constants.
 
Oct 2010
66,934
26,997
Colorado
#6
Interesting read. A lot to absorb. Things noticed.

Natural units began in 1881, when George Johnstone Stoney, noting that electric charge is quantized, derived units of length, time, and mass

If some particular physical constant had changed, how would we notice it, or how would physical reality be different? Which changed constants result in a meaningful and measurable difference in physical reality? If a physical constant that is not dimensionless, such as the speed of light, did in fact change, would we be able to notice it or measure it unambiguously?

The only thing that counts in the definition of worlds are the values of the dimensionless constants of Nature. If all masses were doubled in value [including the Planck mass mP ] you cannot tell because all the pure numbers defined by the ratios of any pair of masses are unchanged.

the ambiguity in the phrase "changing a physical constant"; what would happen depends on whether (1) all other dimensionless constants were kept the same, or whether (2) all other dimension-dependent constants are kept the same. The second choice is a somewhat confusing possibility, since most of our units of measurement are defined in relation to the outcomes of physical experiments, and the experimental results depend on the constants.
I see signposts that point to the material world as being "digital," with the Planck units serving to describe the resolution.

Analog recorded music is said to produce true sine waves, as opposed to digital recordings with all the little steps, quanta, but in fact, the so-called true sine waves of recorded music still are quantized according to the quantization of the material universe itself.
 

Similar Discussions