Black Hole Photo Makes Einstein's Theory '500 Times Harder to Beat' (cnn.com) 31
"The first image of a black hole, captured in 2019, has revealed more support for Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity," reports CNN, adding that the new finding suggests his theory is now 500 times harder to beat.
[W]hile light can't escape the inside of a black hole, it's possible for light to make a getaway in a region around the event horizon, or point of no return. This in-between space can look like a shadow. Because black holes have such immense gravity, which curves space-time, it can actually act like magnifier that makes the black hole's shadow appear larger than it is. The research team measured this distortion and found that the size of this black hole's shadow aligns with the theory of relativity — or matter warping space-time to create gravity...
"This is really just the beginning. We have now shown that it is possible to use an image of a black hole to test the theory of gravity," said Lia Medeiros, study coauthor and postdoctoral fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study in New Jersey, in a statement. "This test will be even more powerful once we image the black hole in the center of our own galaxy and in future EHT observations with additional telescopes that are being added to the array...."
"For the first time we have a different gauge by which we can do a test that's 500 times better, and that gauge is the shadow size of a black hole," said Feryal Özel, study coauthor and University of Arizona astrophysics professor. "When we obtain an image of the black hole at the center of our own galaxy, then we can constrain deviations from general relativity even further."
"This is really just the beginning. We have now shown that it is possible to use an image of a black hole to test the theory of gravity," said Lia Medeiros, study coauthor and postdoctoral fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study in New Jersey, in a statement. "This test will be even more powerful once we image the black hole in the center of our own galaxy and in future EHT observations with additional telescopes that are being added to the array...."
"For the first time we have a different gauge by which we can do a test that's 500 times better, and that gauge is the shadow size of a black hole," said Feryal Özel, study coauthor and University of Arizona astrophysics professor. "When we obtain an image of the black hole at the center of our own galaxy, then we can constrain deviations from general relativity even further."
Re: (Score:1)
The goal of this post is to create a cohesive strategy for awakening our people and eventually generating a modern European cultural renaissance. It is less of a nuts-and-bolts solution, and is more of an over-arching philosophy and lifestyle, an ethos for white nationalists to follow which will allow solutions to occur and to move us forward towards the results that we want. These ideas aren't necessarily things that I invented. I am attempting to synthesize, f
CNN? (Score:3, Insightful)
CNN? CNN is now the new authority on General Relativity?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
CNN? CNN is now the new authority on General Relativity?
Well, we could ask Trump; he says he knows everything about everything. :-)
[ More than anyone else, the best "you know what" (pointing to his head, 'cause, I guess, he forgot the word "brain") -- the most knowledge, ever, folks. Only the best knowledge. Trust me ... ]
Re: (Score:2)
"(pointing to his head, 'cause, I guess, he forgot the word "brain")"
"Brain" must not be a very good word. Because, you know, he has all the best words.
Re: (Score:2)
"(pointing to his head, 'cause, I guess, he forgot the word "brain")"
"Brain" must not be a very good word. Because, you know, he has all the best words.
You're right, I've seen him slur and mispronounce a lot of them ... :-)
Re: (Score:2)
(pointing to his head, 'cause, I guess, he forgot the word "brain")
It looks weird until you realize he was not pointing at his brain but at his in-ear speaker.
Beating It (Score:2)
Re:Beating It (Score:5, Insightful)
Because Science isn't belief. It's a progression of experiments to see if observations still meet the theory when you get better access to data you'd previously not had.
The more that experiments and observation fit the theory, the stronger it is. No belief needed; it's right there in front of you (evidence, to the best of our ability to discern, and not necessarily a fact, but the closest thing we have to it at the moment).
Science thrives on attempts to overturn theories with evidence; it's an integral part of it. And yes, there are alternate theories, but none so far that last as well as relativity in general terms. As soon as people stop challenging things, you end up with academic structures like the political science ones, where someone postulates something as a philosophical exercise, then it becomes taboo to speak out against that assertion. It is "not to be challenged".
That is exactly the antithesis of science.
Re: (Score:2)
There; corrected that for you.
"Science" most certainly is a belief while "science" is a study of phenomenon; the development of theories; the testing of theories; and re-evaluating the theories once new information is found. "Science", with Big S is a belief system which permits no heretics or non-adherents.
IMHO
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Beating It (Score:1)
Because Science isn't belief.
What? Perhaps the term you want to denigrate is "faith". From Websters: "belief - a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing." Science doesn't preclude belief, it merely insists that evidence be the basis of belief. I believe that the stars are all burning suns because there is good, strong evidence for that statement. If there arises some good evidence to the contrary, then I'll believe something else. The suggestion that science is somehow opposed to beli
Re:Beating It (Score:5, Interesting)
The other replier mentionned a good reason, but there's another one. Unless you've been living under a rock for the past few decades, you'll know that there has been a systematic anti-science, anti-intellectual movement that, unfortunately, has been consistantly gaining traction over the years. "alternative" medecine, snake-oil "miracle" natural products, "super"-foods, anti-vaxers, moon-landing hoaxers, flat-earthers, creationists and other anti-evolutionists, climate-change deniers, to name just a few. This is not simply the product of a bunch of quacks perched on their social-media soap-boxes; this is a deliberate, coordinated, and organized disinformation campain, the goal of which is to systematically destroy the general public's trust in scientists, science in general, and the scientific method, in order to better control it.
The nefarious actors behind this gaslighting campain must be fought.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Beating It (Score:4, Interesting)
Out of curiosity, what makes you think that any of those things you listed (and any number of other things that you didn't) are in any way either malicious or externally organized?
People as a mass have always been superstitious, illogical, irrational, and prone to believe in whatever is easiest for them to believe in, facts be damned. I mean, you can literally see this in every society in the world at every time in history.
I think it's also worth noting that the smartest and most scientifically inclined are not even necessarily less impacted, though in different ways.
Human nature.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Scientists have disproved Newton, now taking aim at Einstein!"
That's not how it works. Relativity reduced to Newtonian mechanics in the correct limits. It didn't disprove anything. In fact it proves newton's laws are more even more correct.
Re: (Score:1)
--
"There is no such thing as public opinion. There is only published opinion." - Winston Churchill
Re:Beating It (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, no. We KNOW that either General Relativity or Quantum Theory is wrong. We don't know which. Both have passed every test we've been able to devise. But they make contradictory predictions in certain areas that we can't test.
OTOH, we also know that both are at least "nearly right". Just like Newton was "nearly right", and even though wrong, Newton is still used for calculations by places like NASA and JPL.
Re: (Score:3)
Feel good -vs- truth: who wins? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This depends on what you're contrasting against. If you compare the spherical Earth theory against the oblate spheroid theory, the oblate spheroid wins. But the spherical Earth theory is a lot easier to explain. Sometimes the "easier to explain" theory wins against all who aren't "experts in the field".
Whenever I try to envision the moon's rotation around the earth and illumination by the sun, I fail, because I can't envision the distances even close to correctly. (There are other problems that would ca
Ya, but ... (Score:2)
Event Horizon [wikipedia.org] and Point of No Return [wikipedia.org] are two *completely* different movies.
But a cross-over sequel might be interesting, hmm...
harder to beat, but not unbeatable (Score:3)
all this means is that the eventual successor to Einstein's works will have a slightly higher bar to jump before it becomes accepted.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That is what I meant actually.
A new theory needs to cover everything the preceded it, so the bar is high because it includes everything that came before it.
like jumping a stack of boxes.
500x harder to bear != 500x better measuerment (Score:2)
"For the first time we have a different gauge by which we can do a test that's 500 times better, and that gauge is the shadow size of a black hole,"
This quantification is not explained in TFA but even then how is that "500x harder to bear" now?