Here’s What the First Images from the Event Horizon Might Look Like

The largest object in our night sky—by far!—is invisible to us. The object is the Super-Massive Black Hole (SMBH) at the center of our Milky Way galaxy, called Sagittarius A. But soon we may have an image of Sagittarius A’s event horizon. And that image may pose a challenge to Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity.

more…

Tau.Neutrino said:

Here’s What the First Images from the Event Horizon Might Look Like

The largest object in our night sky—by far!—is invisible to us. The object is the Super-Massive Black Hole (SMBH) at the center of our Milky Way galaxy, called Sagittarius A. But soon we may have an image of Sagittarius A’s event horizon. And that image may pose a challenge to Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity.

more…

OK. But only if matter is falling from the accretion disk onto one side of the event horizon. I thought it was supposed to fall evenly in the plane of the disk, giving a two-lobed appearance rather than a one lobed as shown.

mollwollfumble said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Here’s What the First Images from the Event Horizon Might Look Like

The largest object in our night sky—by far!—is invisible to us. The object is the Super-Massive Black Hole (SMBH) at the center of our Milky Way galaxy, called Sagittarius A. But soon we may have an image of Sagittarius A’s event horizon. And that image may pose a challenge to Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity.

more…

OK. But only if matter is falling from the accretion disk onto one side of the event horizon. I thought it was supposed to fall evenly in the plane of the disk, giving a two-lobed appearance rather than a one lobed as shown.

Would that depend on the location of the object falling into the event horizon or would it get pulled apart and orbit the disk falling inwards from all directions

Cymek said:

mollwollfumble said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Here’s What the First Images from the Event Horizon Might Look Like

The largest object in our night sky—by far!—is invisible to us. The object is the Super-Massive Black Hole (SMBH) at the center of our Milky Way galaxy, called Sagittarius A*. But soon we may have an image of Sagittarius A’s event horizon. And that image may pose a challenge to Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity.

more…

OK. But only if matter is falling from the accretion disk onto one side of the event horizon. I thought it was supposed to fall evenly in the plane of the disk, giving a two-lobed appearance rather than a one lobed as shown.

Would that depend on the location of the object falling into the event horizon or would it get pulled apart and orbit the disk falling inwards from all directions

Exactly. One of the other. I think the second, that article thinks the first. Now if it’s a strongly elliptical orbit then they’re right, but for anything gaseous … hold on!

Slaps forehead. I need my brain examined. I forgot the difference between a stellar mass black hole and a galactic supermassive black hole. In a stellar mass black hole, the tidal forces shred any approaching object approaching the event horizon into gas and dust and you get an accretion disk with deposition all the way around.

BUT

For a supermassive black hole the tidal forces at the event horizon are very very much less, so much less that there is never an accretion disk at all – it can’t happen. Anything approaching falls straight in without breaking up. So they are right, for Sagittarius A* there would only be a glow from one side as the gas, dust or rock hits the event horizon.

mollwollfumble said:

Cymek said:

mollwollfumble said:

OK. But only if matter is falling from the accretion disk onto one side of the event horizon. I thought it was supposed to fall evenly in the plane of the disk, giving a two-lobed appearance rather than a one lobed as shown.

Would that depend on the location of the object falling into the event horizon or would it get pulled apart and orbit the disk falling inwards from all directions

Exactly. One of the other. I think the second, that article thinks the first. Now if it’s a strongly elliptical orbit then they’re right, but for anything gaseous … hold on!

Slaps forehead. I need my brain examined. I forgot the difference between a stellar mass black hole and a galactic supermassive black hole. In a stellar mass black hole, the tidal forces shred any approaching object approaching the event horizon into gas and dust and you get an accretion disk with deposition all the way around.

BUT

For a supermassive black hole the tidal forces at the event horizon are very very much less, so much less that there is never an accretion disk at all – it can’t happen. Anything approaching falls straight in without breaking up. So they are right, for Sagittarius A* there would only be a glow from one side as the gas, dust or rock hits the event horizon.

If I follow that thought through to its conclusion, it means that a stellar mass black hole is actually brighter than a supermassive black hole (except in the case of AGNs and their relatives, the quasars, blazars and damn it – what’s the more general class than blazar?)

It implies that rocks falling into an AGN generate no light at all, dust only if at extremely dense concentrations. The light from supermassive black holes actually comes from infalling gas.

> damn it – what’s the more general class than blazar?

Got it. FSRQ is the more general class. FSRQ = flat spectrum radio quasar.

Hawking radiation.

Are the blue or blistering?