all 19 comments

[–]Zanthous 43 points44 points  (3 children)

so glad we get to hear every day that they'll release an image soon

[–]hopesfail 6 points7 points  (2 children)

Yea, thought this one might have included a rough timeline, rather than sometime in 2018. Guess I'll wait a couple weeks before I click on another article like this.

[–]andygates2323 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Given that all articles like this will be fluff like this, it's probably worth avoiding them all until the EHT team actually publish their results. It's a super exciting project though!

[–]zeeblecroid 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm just ignoring any links about this that aren't actually hosted at the project's website. At this point whenever someone writes an article about it, five other sites immediately slightly rewrite it so they can wrap the same nonstory in their ads instead.

[–]lilhedgehog87 5 points6 points  (2 children)

I thought photography required light to be reflected off something back into the camera in order for an image to be created, so how can an image be produced of a black hole that absorbs everything including light?

[–]SwoleMedic1 5 points6 points  (1 child)

The short version is that black holes are pretty cool, and the way they bend light is called lensing. So everything behind the black holes that emit light are warped around the black hole because of their bending in spacetime. Also, as things get closer and closer to the event horizon (past which is darkness thanks to what you said) things speed up, much like Mercury goes faster around the sun than we do thanks to closeness (amongst other things) and as they speed up, they get hotter and the light gets brighter, which can, ideally, show us an "image" of what the black hole looks like.

[–]march_rabbit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Still it’s not “direct image” of black hole. At most it’s image of its surroundings. Like photographing person you show his shadow, his footsteps, the things he have touched and such stuff but not person itself.

[–]Jonesdeclectice 1 point2 points  (5 children)

Ummm, isn't a black hole by definition unobservable (directly, anyways)? All they can hope to directly image is signs of it.

[–]discreteAndDiscreet 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don't think anyone has ever observed anything directly.

[–]AlexanderReiss 2 points3 points  (0 children)

We can see the Event Horizon around it and very dark spot in the center of it

[–]HarbingerDe 0 points1 point  (2 children)

That's like saying a hole can't be observed because it doesn't reflect light... That's why we can see it, and why we call it a hole.

Blackholes don't emit visible light, and thus we can see the large dark event horizon they create.

[–]Jonesdeclectice 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Exactly, so the hole itself isnt directly observable, we can only actually see the affect it has on the space around it.

[–]HarbingerDe 4 points5 points  (0 children)

This is just semantics at this point. There are plenty of things we can observe that we can't "observe".
Seeing the event horizon of a blackhole, is directly observing a blackhole. We've never done this before, and that's why it's exciting.

[–]centuryofprogress 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’ve heard it suggested that the main reason Stephen Hawking doesn’t have a Nobel Prize is because we didn’t have enough evidence that black holes truly existed, that it was all a bit too theoretical. I wonder, if that was even true, if this would change that.