Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Photo of a super-massive blackhole

Options

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 7,962 ✭✭✭jumpguy


    How're they so bright if they're meant to be invisible? :confused:


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,174 ✭✭✭✭Captain Chaos


    jumpguy wrote: »
    How're they so bright if they're meant to be invisible? :confused:
    Sleipnir wrote: »
    a photo of the material around it being sucked in.
    .


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,962 ✭✭✭jumpguy


    .
    Oh touché my friend.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,127 ✭✭✭Linguo


    Great pic! It's nice to see something like this to put things in perspective when you're sitting in your office in work, going about your business!:D


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,127 ✭✭✭Linguo


    jumpguy wrote: »
    How're they so bright if they're meant to be invisible? :confused:

    The material being sucked in is being heated and emits light I think!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,957 ✭✭✭DenMan


    The light is being bent around the black hole. Spectacular shot. Nice find OP.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,290 ✭✭✭bigeasyeah


    Awe-inspiring.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,935 ✭✭✭SuprSi


    I'm very curious to know how quickly (relatively speaking) matter is being sucked into the black hole and if it will continue sucking stuff from further and further away into itself or whether it will just die once the immediate matter has disappeared?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 336 ✭✭geuro


    Is 'super-massive' black hole not a contradiction in terms?

    Obviously not, as the nasa site refers to the black hole's mass - but i was under the impression that a black hole packed everything together so densely that it's mass becomes negligible.

    Obviously I'm no scientist (I'm a computer scientist ;)). Do I have a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of mass?


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    geuro wrote: »
    Is 'super-massive' black hole not a contradiction in terms?

    Nope. A normal black hole is the collapsed remnant of a massive star. A super massive black hole is when multiple stars (or black holes) combine to form... well a super massive black hole.
    geuro wrote: »
    Obviously not, as the nasa site refers to the black hole's mass - but i was under the impression that a black hole packed everything together so densely that it's mass becomes negligible.

    Obviously I'm no scientist (I'm a computer scientist ;)). Do I have a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of mass?

    Yep. Mass is only lost if matter is lost. The whole point of a black hole is that it retains all of that mass in a very compact space. That mass is what produces the huge gravity.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,149 ✭✭✭ZorbaTehZ


    When you speak about the relative sizes of black holes, you're not refering to the volume of the black hole itself (the "singularity",which is zero (usually)) but the radius of the event horizon which is proportional to the mass of the black hole, i.e. the more stuff that gets sucked in will increase it's schwarzschild radius, and thus make it "larger".


Advertisement