Why not take a picture of a closer black hole?
$begingroup$
There are closer galaxies than Messier 87 for sure, even ours! It sparked my curiosity that they went with one 53 million light years away. Is there a reason for this?
black-hole supermassive-black-hole event-horizon-telescope
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There are closer galaxies than Messier 87 for sure, even ours! It sparked my curiosity that they went with one 53 million light years away. Is there a reason for this?
black-hole supermassive-black-hole event-horizon-telescope
New contributor
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Because black holes are dangerous and the IRB wouldn't let them get too close.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
53 million ly is just a short trip down the road, galactically speaking.
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
2 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There are closer galaxies than Messier 87 for sure, even ours! It sparked my curiosity that they went with one 53 million light years away. Is there a reason for this?
black-hole supermassive-black-hole event-horizon-telescope
New contributor
$endgroup$
There are closer galaxies than Messier 87 for sure, even ours! It sparked my curiosity that they went with one 53 million light years away. Is there a reason for this?
black-hole supermassive-black-hole event-horizon-telescope
black-hole supermassive-black-hole event-horizon-telescope
New contributor
New contributor
New contributor
asked yesterday
MorganMorgan
29326
29326
New contributor
New contributor
1
$begingroup$
Because black holes are dangerous and the IRB wouldn't let them get too close.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
53 million ly is just a short trip down the road, galactically speaking.
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
2 hours ago
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
Because black holes are dangerous and the IRB wouldn't let them get too close.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
53 million ly is just a short trip down the road, galactically speaking.
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
2 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Because black holes are dangerous and the IRB wouldn't let them get too close.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
Because black holes are dangerous and the IRB wouldn't let them get too close.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
53 million ly is just a short trip down the road, galactically speaking.
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
53 million ly is just a short trip down the road, galactically speaking.
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
2 hours ago
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
I was surprised too when I first heard they were trying to image M87's black hole.
The short answer is because it's really, really big. It is 1500 times bigger (diameter) than our Sagittarius A*, and 2100 times farther away. This makes its apparent size about 70% of that of Sgr A*.
A cursory search of wikipedia's List of Largest black holes shows that there's no other black holes with a combination of size and closeness greater than these two.
A couple of other candidates are not too far off. Andromeda's black hole is 50x the size of ours, and at 100x the distance, it would appear half the size of Sgr A*. The Sombrero galaxy is 380 times farther way than Sgr A*, and has a black hole estimated to be 1 billion solar masses, which is 232 times Sr A*, resulting in an angular diameter about 60% of Sgr A*.
There appear to be many other considerations to which black holes were chosen, as explained in this similar question. At a guess these would include how obscured each black hole is with foreground dust/stars etc, how active (and therefore bright) the nuclei are, and their inclination w.r.t earth affecting which observatories could observe them at which times.
Edit: I've found another plausible candidate. NGC_1600 is 200 M light years away with a central black hole estimated to be 17 billion solar masses heavy. This would put it at about 40% the apparent diameter of Sgr A*.
Comparison of the apparent size of the largest nearby black holes
And of course obligatory XKCD to remind us how small these objects really appear.
$endgroup$
31
$begingroup$
Don't forget to say space is kind of dusty in the direction of Sgr A*. It's quite a bit clearer in the direction of M87.
$endgroup$
– Florin Andrei
yesterday
2
$begingroup$
@FlorinAndrei Actually that doesn't really matter much, since the observations are made in radio where there's barely any extinction.
$endgroup$
– pela
20 hours ago
37
$begingroup$
@FlorinAndrei It may be dusty in the direction of Sgr A* but it’s messier in the direction of M87.
$endgroup$
– Konrad Rudolph
18 hours ago
5
$begingroup$
@KonradRudolph I see what you did there :D
$endgroup$
– pela
17 hours ago
$begingroup$
Given that we are on the edge of the milky way, half the dust and contents of the milky way are between us and Sgr A*. I'm not sure the exact orientation of milky way relative to M87, but I believe they mentioned Sgr A* being obscured in the press conference. They also said Sgr A*, being much smaller, was also much more highly variable over time. I REALLY hope they make a time lapse video or something. That'd rule.
$endgroup$
– S. Imp
11 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There are a few criteria necessary to see a black hole with the Event Horizon Telescope. They are, in importance:
- Active Feeding: you need a thick accretion disk with lots of matter accreting onto the black hole. M87 fits this criteria, and is a glut, consuming about 90 Earth masses a day.
- Apparent size. Even though it is 53 million light-years away, M87 is 6.5 billion solar masses. Since the radius of the event horizon scales linearly with mass, its distance is made up for by sheer scale.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Calculates quickly... the M87 BH consumes one Earth mass every 16 MINUTES!
$endgroup$
– Chappo
22 hours ago
$begingroup$
Mmmmm, Earth-masses. :)
$endgroup$
– Barmar
11 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
As Ingolifs says, Sgr A* and M87* are the obvious candidates. At the press conference, Heino Falcke explained why they got a picture of M87* first:
But it would take some more time because Sagittarius A Star is 1000 times faster and smaller. Its like a toddler who is moving constantly. In comparison, M87 is much slower, like a big bear.
— The Deccan Herald
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Another quick note - They are trying to get a photo of Sag. A*:
From Space.com
The project has been scrutinizing two black holes — the M87 behemoth, which harbors about 6.5 billion times the mass of Earth's sun, and our own Milky Way galaxy's central black hole, known as Sagittarius A*. This latter object, while still a supermassive black hole, is a runt compared to M87's beast, containing a mere 4.3 million solar masses.
Both of these objects are tough targets because of their immense distance from Earth. Sagittarius A* lies about 26,000 light-years from us, and M87's black hole is a whopping 53.5 million light-years away.
From our perspective, Sagittarius A*'s event horizon "is so small that it's the equivalent of seeing an orange on the moon or being able to read the newspaper in Los Angeles while you're sitting in New York City," Doeleman said during the SXSW event last month.
...
And in case you're wondering about Sagittarius A*: The EHT team hopes to get imagery of that supermassive black hole soon, Doeleman said today. The researchers looked at M87 first, and it's a bit easier to resolve than Sagittarius A* because it's less variable over short timescales, he explained.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "514"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Morgan is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fastronomy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f30339%2fwhy-not-take-a-picture-of-a-closer-black-hole%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
I was surprised too when I first heard they were trying to image M87's black hole.
The short answer is because it's really, really big. It is 1500 times bigger (diameter) than our Sagittarius A*, and 2100 times farther away. This makes its apparent size about 70% of that of Sgr A*.
A cursory search of wikipedia's List of Largest black holes shows that there's no other black holes with a combination of size and closeness greater than these two.
A couple of other candidates are not too far off. Andromeda's black hole is 50x the size of ours, and at 100x the distance, it would appear half the size of Sgr A*. The Sombrero galaxy is 380 times farther way than Sgr A*, and has a black hole estimated to be 1 billion solar masses, which is 232 times Sr A*, resulting in an angular diameter about 60% of Sgr A*.
There appear to be many other considerations to which black holes were chosen, as explained in this similar question. At a guess these would include how obscured each black hole is with foreground dust/stars etc, how active (and therefore bright) the nuclei are, and their inclination w.r.t earth affecting which observatories could observe them at which times.
Edit: I've found another plausible candidate. NGC_1600 is 200 M light years away with a central black hole estimated to be 17 billion solar masses heavy. This would put it at about 40% the apparent diameter of Sgr A*.
Comparison of the apparent size of the largest nearby black holes
And of course obligatory XKCD to remind us how small these objects really appear.
$endgroup$
31
$begingroup$
Don't forget to say space is kind of dusty in the direction of Sgr A*. It's quite a bit clearer in the direction of M87.
$endgroup$
– Florin Andrei
yesterday
2
$begingroup$
@FlorinAndrei Actually that doesn't really matter much, since the observations are made in radio where there's barely any extinction.
$endgroup$
– pela
20 hours ago
37
$begingroup$
@FlorinAndrei It may be dusty in the direction of Sgr A* but it’s messier in the direction of M87.
$endgroup$
– Konrad Rudolph
18 hours ago
5
$begingroup$
@KonradRudolph I see what you did there :D
$endgroup$
– pela
17 hours ago
$begingroup$
Given that we are on the edge of the milky way, half the dust and contents of the milky way are between us and Sgr A*. I'm not sure the exact orientation of milky way relative to M87, but I believe they mentioned Sgr A* being obscured in the press conference. They also said Sgr A*, being much smaller, was also much more highly variable over time. I REALLY hope they make a time lapse video or something. That'd rule.
$endgroup$
– S. Imp
11 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I was surprised too when I first heard they were trying to image M87's black hole.
The short answer is because it's really, really big. It is 1500 times bigger (diameter) than our Sagittarius A*, and 2100 times farther away. This makes its apparent size about 70% of that of Sgr A*.
A cursory search of wikipedia's List of Largest black holes shows that there's no other black holes with a combination of size and closeness greater than these two.
A couple of other candidates are not too far off. Andromeda's black hole is 50x the size of ours, and at 100x the distance, it would appear half the size of Sgr A*. The Sombrero galaxy is 380 times farther way than Sgr A*, and has a black hole estimated to be 1 billion solar masses, which is 232 times Sr A*, resulting in an angular diameter about 60% of Sgr A*.
There appear to be many other considerations to which black holes were chosen, as explained in this similar question. At a guess these would include how obscured each black hole is with foreground dust/stars etc, how active (and therefore bright) the nuclei are, and their inclination w.r.t earth affecting which observatories could observe them at which times.
Edit: I've found another plausible candidate. NGC_1600 is 200 M light years away with a central black hole estimated to be 17 billion solar masses heavy. This would put it at about 40% the apparent diameter of Sgr A*.
Comparison of the apparent size of the largest nearby black holes
And of course obligatory XKCD to remind us how small these objects really appear.
$endgroup$
31
$begingroup$
Don't forget to say space is kind of dusty in the direction of Sgr A*. It's quite a bit clearer in the direction of M87.
$endgroup$
– Florin Andrei
yesterday
2
$begingroup$
@FlorinAndrei Actually that doesn't really matter much, since the observations are made in radio where there's barely any extinction.
$endgroup$
– pela
20 hours ago
37
$begingroup$
@FlorinAndrei It may be dusty in the direction of Sgr A* but it’s messier in the direction of M87.
$endgroup$
– Konrad Rudolph
18 hours ago
5
$begingroup$
@KonradRudolph I see what you did there :D
$endgroup$
– pela
17 hours ago
$begingroup$
Given that we are on the edge of the milky way, half the dust and contents of the milky way are between us and Sgr A*. I'm not sure the exact orientation of milky way relative to M87, but I believe they mentioned Sgr A* being obscured in the press conference. They also said Sgr A*, being much smaller, was also much more highly variable over time. I REALLY hope they make a time lapse video or something. That'd rule.
$endgroup$
– S. Imp
11 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I was surprised too when I first heard they were trying to image M87's black hole.
The short answer is because it's really, really big. It is 1500 times bigger (diameter) than our Sagittarius A*, and 2100 times farther away. This makes its apparent size about 70% of that of Sgr A*.
A cursory search of wikipedia's List of Largest black holes shows that there's no other black holes with a combination of size and closeness greater than these two.
A couple of other candidates are not too far off. Andromeda's black hole is 50x the size of ours, and at 100x the distance, it would appear half the size of Sgr A*. The Sombrero galaxy is 380 times farther way than Sgr A*, and has a black hole estimated to be 1 billion solar masses, which is 232 times Sr A*, resulting in an angular diameter about 60% of Sgr A*.
There appear to be many other considerations to which black holes were chosen, as explained in this similar question. At a guess these would include how obscured each black hole is with foreground dust/stars etc, how active (and therefore bright) the nuclei are, and their inclination w.r.t earth affecting which observatories could observe them at which times.
Edit: I've found another plausible candidate. NGC_1600 is 200 M light years away with a central black hole estimated to be 17 billion solar masses heavy. This would put it at about 40% the apparent diameter of Sgr A*.
Comparison of the apparent size of the largest nearby black holes
And of course obligatory XKCD to remind us how small these objects really appear.
$endgroup$
I was surprised too when I first heard they were trying to image M87's black hole.
The short answer is because it's really, really big. It is 1500 times bigger (diameter) than our Sagittarius A*, and 2100 times farther away. This makes its apparent size about 70% of that of Sgr A*.
A cursory search of wikipedia's List of Largest black holes shows that there's no other black holes with a combination of size and closeness greater than these two.
A couple of other candidates are not too far off. Andromeda's black hole is 50x the size of ours, and at 100x the distance, it would appear half the size of Sgr A*. The Sombrero galaxy is 380 times farther way than Sgr A*, and has a black hole estimated to be 1 billion solar masses, which is 232 times Sr A*, resulting in an angular diameter about 60% of Sgr A*.
There appear to be many other considerations to which black holes were chosen, as explained in this similar question. At a guess these would include how obscured each black hole is with foreground dust/stars etc, how active (and therefore bright) the nuclei are, and their inclination w.r.t earth affecting which observatories could observe them at which times.
Edit: I've found another plausible candidate. NGC_1600 is 200 M light years away with a central black hole estimated to be 17 billion solar masses heavy. This would put it at about 40% the apparent diameter of Sgr A*.
Comparison of the apparent size of the largest nearby black holes
And of course obligatory XKCD to remind us how small these objects really appear.
edited 22 hours ago
answered yesterday
IngolifsIngolifs
1,8061921
1,8061921
31
$begingroup$
Don't forget to say space is kind of dusty in the direction of Sgr A*. It's quite a bit clearer in the direction of M87.
$endgroup$
– Florin Andrei
yesterday
2
$begingroup$
@FlorinAndrei Actually that doesn't really matter much, since the observations are made in radio where there's barely any extinction.
$endgroup$
– pela
20 hours ago
37
$begingroup$
@FlorinAndrei It may be dusty in the direction of Sgr A* but it’s messier in the direction of M87.
$endgroup$
– Konrad Rudolph
18 hours ago
5
$begingroup$
@KonradRudolph I see what you did there :D
$endgroup$
– pela
17 hours ago
$begingroup$
Given that we are on the edge of the milky way, half the dust and contents of the milky way are between us and Sgr A*. I'm not sure the exact orientation of milky way relative to M87, but I believe they mentioned Sgr A* being obscured in the press conference. They also said Sgr A*, being much smaller, was also much more highly variable over time. I REALLY hope they make a time lapse video or something. That'd rule.
$endgroup$
– S. Imp
11 hours ago
add a comment |
31
$begingroup$
Don't forget to say space is kind of dusty in the direction of Sgr A*. It's quite a bit clearer in the direction of M87.
$endgroup$
– Florin Andrei
yesterday
2
$begingroup$
@FlorinAndrei Actually that doesn't really matter much, since the observations are made in radio where there's barely any extinction.
$endgroup$
– pela
20 hours ago
37
$begingroup$
@FlorinAndrei It may be dusty in the direction of Sgr A* but it’s messier in the direction of M87.
$endgroup$
– Konrad Rudolph
18 hours ago
5
$begingroup$
@KonradRudolph I see what you did there :D
$endgroup$
– pela
17 hours ago
$begingroup$
Given that we are on the edge of the milky way, half the dust and contents of the milky way are between us and Sgr A*. I'm not sure the exact orientation of milky way relative to M87, but I believe they mentioned Sgr A* being obscured in the press conference. They also said Sgr A*, being much smaller, was also much more highly variable over time. I REALLY hope they make a time lapse video or something. That'd rule.
$endgroup$
– S. Imp
11 hours ago
31
31
$begingroup$
Don't forget to say space is kind of dusty in the direction of Sgr A*. It's quite a bit clearer in the direction of M87.
$endgroup$
– Florin Andrei
yesterday
$begingroup$
Don't forget to say space is kind of dusty in the direction of Sgr A*. It's quite a bit clearer in the direction of M87.
$endgroup$
– Florin Andrei
yesterday
2
2
$begingroup$
@FlorinAndrei Actually that doesn't really matter much, since the observations are made in radio where there's barely any extinction.
$endgroup$
– pela
20 hours ago
$begingroup$
@FlorinAndrei Actually that doesn't really matter much, since the observations are made in radio where there's barely any extinction.
$endgroup$
– pela
20 hours ago
37
37
$begingroup$
@FlorinAndrei It may be dusty in the direction of Sgr A* but it’s messier in the direction of M87.
$endgroup$
– Konrad Rudolph
18 hours ago
$begingroup$
@FlorinAndrei It may be dusty in the direction of Sgr A* but it’s messier in the direction of M87.
$endgroup$
– Konrad Rudolph
18 hours ago
5
5
$begingroup$
@KonradRudolph I see what you did there :D
$endgroup$
– pela
17 hours ago
$begingroup$
@KonradRudolph I see what you did there :D
$endgroup$
– pela
17 hours ago
$begingroup$
Given that we are on the edge of the milky way, half the dust and contents of the milky way are between us and Sgr A*. I'm not sure the exact orientation of milky way relative to M87, but I believe they mentioned Sgr A* being obscured in the press conference. They also said Sgr A*, being much smaller, was also much more highly variable over time. I REALLY hope they make a time lapse video or something. That'd rule.
$endgroup$
– S. Imp
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
Given that we are on the edge of the milky way, half the dust and contents of the milky way are between us and Sgr A*. I'm not sure the exact orientation of milky way relative to M87, but I believe they mentioned Sgr A* being obscured in the press conference. They also said Sgr A*, being much smaller, was also much more highly variable over time. I REALLY hope they make a time lapse video or something. That'd rule.
$endgroup$
– S. Imp
11 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There are a few criteria necessary to see a black hole with the Event Horizon Telescope. They are, in importance:
- Active Feeding: you need a thick accretion disk with lots of matter accreting onto the black hole. M87 fits this criteria, and is a glut, consuming about 90 Earth masses a day.
- Apparent size. Even though it is 53 million light-years away, M87 is 6.5 billion solar masses. Since the radius of the event horizon scales linearly with mass, its distance is made up for by sheer scale.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Calculates quickly... the M87 BH consumes one Earth mass every 16 MINUTES!
$endgroup$
– Chappo
22 hours ago
$begingroup$
Mmmmm, Earth-masses. :)
$endgroup$
– Barmar
11 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There are a few criteria necessary to see a black hole with the Event Horizon Telescope. They are, in importance:
- Active Feeding: you need a thick accretion disk with lots of matter accreting onto the black hole. M87 fits this criteria, and is a glut, consuming about 90 Earth masses a day.
- Apparent size. Even though it is 53 million light-years away, M87 is 6.5 billion solar masses. Since the radius of the event horizon scales linearly with mass, its distance is made up for by sheer scale.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Calculates quickly... the M87 BH consumes one Earth mass every 16 MINUTES!
$endgroup$
– Chappo
22 hours ago
$begingroup$
Mmmmm, Earth-masses. :)
$endgroup$
– Barmar
11 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There are a few criteria necessary to see a black hole with the Event Horizon Telescope. They are, in importance:
- Active Feeding: you need a thick accretion disk with lots of matter accreting onto the black hole. M87 fits this criteria, and is a glut, consuming about 90 Earth masses a day.
- Apparent size. Even though it is 53 million light-years away, M87 is 6.5 billion solar masses. Since the radius of the event horizon scales linearly with mass, its distance is made up for by sheer scale.
$endgroup$
There are a few criteria necessary to see a black hole with the Event Horizon Telescope. They are, in importance:
- Active Feeding: you need a thick accretion disk with lots of matter accreting onto the black hole. M87 fits this criteria, and is a glut, consuming about 90 Earth masses a day.
- Apparent size. Even though it is 53 million light-years away, M87 is 6.5 billion solar masses. Since the radius of the event horizon scales linearly with mass, its distance is made up for by sheer scale.
edited yesterday
Cendolt
677
677
answered yesterday
cmscms
45615
45615
$begingroup$
Calculates quickly... the M87 BH consumes one Earth mass every 16 MINUTES!
$endgroup$
– Chappo
22 hours ago
$begingroup$
Mmmmm, Earth-masses. :)
$endgroup$
– Barmar
11 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Calculates quickly... the M87 BH consumes one Earth mass every 16 MINUTES!
$endgroup$
– Chappo
22 hours ago
$begingroup$
Mmmmm, Earth-masses. :)
$endgroup$
– Barmar
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
Calculates quickly... the M87 BH consumes one Earth mass every 16 MINUTES!
$endgroup$
– Chappo
22 hours ago
$begingroup$
Calculates quickly... the M87 BH consumes one Earth mass every 16 MINUTES!
$endgroup$
– Chappo
22 hours ago
$begingroup$
Mmmmm, Earth-masses. :)
$endgroup$
– Barmar
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
Mmmmm, Earth-masses. :)
$endgroup$
– Barmar
11 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
As Ingolifs says, Sgr A* and M87* are the obvious candidates. At the press conference, Heino Falcke explained why they got a picture of M87* first:
But it would take some more time because Sagittarius A Star is 1000 times faster and smaller. Its like a toddler who is moving constantly. In comparison, M87 is much slower, like a big bear.
— The Deccan Herald
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
As Ingolifs says, Sgr A* and M87* are the obvious candidates. At the press conference, Heino Falcke explained why they got a picture of M87* first:
But it would take some more time because Sagittarius A Star is 1000 times faster and smaller. Its like a toddler who is moving constantly. In comparison, M87 is much slower, like a big bear.
— The Deccan Herald
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
As Ingolifs says, Sgr A* and M87* are the obvious candidates. At the press conference, Heino Falcke explained why they got a picture of M87* first:
But it would take some more time because Sagittarius A Star is 1000 times faster and smaller. Its like a toddler who is moving constantly. In comparison, M87 is much slower, like a big bear.
— The Deccan Herald
New contributor
$endgroup$
As Ingolifs says, Sgr A* and M87* are the obvious candidates. At the press conference, Heino Falcke explained why they got a picture of M87* first:
But it would take some more time because Sagittarius A Star is 1000 times faster and smaller. Its like a toddler who is moving constantly. In comparison, M87 is much slower, like a big bear.
— The Deccan Herald
New contributor
New contributor
answered 20 hours ago
user24582user24582
2012
2012
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Another quick note - They are trying to get a photo of Sag. A*:
From Space.com
The project has been scrutinizing two black holes — the M87 behemoth, which harbors about 6.5 billion times the mass of Earth's sun, and our own Milky Way galaxy's central black hole, known as Sagittarius A*. This latter object, while still a supermassive black hole, is a runt compared to M87's beast, containing a mere 4.3 million solar masses.
Both of these objects are tough targets because of their immense distance from Earth. Sagittarius A* lies about 26,000 light-years from us, and M87's black hole is a whopping 53.5 million light-years away.
From our perspective, Sagittarius A*'s event horizon "is so small that it's the equivalent of seeing an orange on the moon or being able to read the newspaper in Los Angeles while you're sitting in New York City," Doeleman said during the SXSW event last month.
...
And in case you're wondering about Sagittarius A*: The EHT team hopes to get imagery of that supermassive black hole soon, Doeleman said today. The researchers looked at M87 first, and it's a bit easier to resolve than Sagittarius A* because it's less variable over short timescales, he explained.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Another quick note - They are trying to get a photo of Sag. A*:
From Space.com
The project has been scrutinizing two black holes — the M87 behemoth, which harbors about 6.5 billion times the mass of Earth's sun, and our own Milky Way galaxy's central black hole, known as Sagittarius A*. This latter object, while still a supermassive black hole, is a runt compared to M87's beast, containing a mere 4.3 million solar masses.
Both of these objects are tough targets because of their immense distance from Earth. Sagittarius A* lies about 26,000 light-years from us, and M87's black hole is a whopping 53.5 million light-years away.
From our perspective, Sagittarius A*'s event horizon "is so small that it's the equivalent of seeing an orange on the moon or being able to read the newspaper in Los Angeles while you're sitting in New York City," Doeleman said during the SXSW event last month.
...
And in case you're wondering about Sagittarius A*: The EHT team hopes to get imagery of that supermassive black hole soon, Doeleman said today. The researchers looked at M87 first, and it's a bit easier to resolve than Sagittarius A* because it's less variable over short timescales, he explained.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Another quick note - They are trying to get a photo of Sag. A*:
From Space.com
The project has been scrutinizing two black holes — the M87 behemoth, which harbors about 6.5 billion times the mass of Earth's sun, and our own Milky Way galaxy's central black hole, known as Sagittarius A*. This latter object, while still a supermassive black hole, is a runt compared to M87's beast, containing a mere 4.3 million solar masses.
Both of these objects are tough targets because of their immense distance from Earth. Sagittarius A* lies about 26,000 light-years from us, and M87's black hole is a whopping 53.5 million light-years away.
From our perspective, Sagittarius A*'s event horizon "is so small that it's the equivalent of seeing an orange on the moon or being able to read the newspaper in Los Angeles while you're sitting in New York City," Doeleman said during the SXSW event last month.
...
And in case you're wondering about Sagittarius A*: The EHT team hopes to get imagery of that supermassive black hole soon, Doeleman said today. The researchers looked at M87 first, and it's a bit easier to resolve than Sagittarius A* because it's less variable over short timescales, he explained.
$endgroup$
Another quick note - They are trying to get a photo of Sag. A*:
From Space.com
The project has been scrutinizing two black holes — the M87 behemoth, which harbors about 6.5 billion times the mass of Earth's sun, and our own Milky Way galaxy's central black hole, known as Sagittarius A*. This latter object, while still a supermassive black hole, is a runt compared to M87's beast, containing a mere 4.3 million solar masses.
Both of these objects are tough targets because of their immense distance from Earth. Sagittarius A* lies about 26,000 light-years from us, and M87's black hole is a whopping 53.5 million light-years away.
From our perspective, Sagittarius A*'s event horizon "is so small that it's the equivalent of seeing an orange on the moon or being able to read the newspaper in Los Angeles while you're sitting in New York City," Doeleman said during the SXSW event last month.
...
And in case you're wondering about Sagittarius A*: The EHT team hopes to get imagery of that supermassive black hole soon, Doeleman said today. The researchers looked at M87 first, and it's a bit easier to resolve than Sagittarius A* because it's less variable over short timescales, he explained.
edited 15 hours ago
answered 15 hours ago
BruceWayneBruceWayne
21817
21817
add a comment |
add a comment |
Morgan is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Morgan is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Morgan is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Morgan is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Astronomy Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fastronomy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f30339%2fwhy-not-take-a-picture-of-a-closer-black-hole%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
$begingroup$
Because black holes are dangerous and the IRB wouldn't let them get too close.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
53 million ly is just a short trip down the road, galactically speaking.
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
2 hours ago