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
asked 4 hours ago
MorganMorgan
1412
New contributor
Morgan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
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
asked 4 hours ago
MorganMorgan
1412
New contributor
Morgan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
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
asked 4 hours ago
MorganMorgan
1412
New contributor
Morgan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
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
asked 4 hours ago
MorganMorgan
1412
New contributor
Morgan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 4 hours ago
MorganMorgan
1412
New contributor
Morgan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 4 hours ago
MorganMorgan
1412
New contributor
Morgan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 4 hours ago
MorganMorgan
1412
asked 4 hours ago
MorganMorgan
1412
1412
New contributor
Morgan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Morgan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Morgan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
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*.
answered 4 hours ago
IngolifsIngolifs
1,5921619
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
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
21 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There are a few criteria necessary to see a black hole with the event-horizons 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 15 million light-years away, M87 is 6.5 billion solar masses. Since the radius of the event horizon scales linearly with mass, it’s distance is made up for by sheer scale.
answered 3 hours ago
cmscms
2364
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
The distance is about 50 million ly, I thought.
$endgroup$
– Ingolifs
3 hours ago
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
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
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*.
answered 4 hours ago
IngolifsIngolifs
1,5921619
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
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
21 mins 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*.
answered 4 hours ago
IngolifsIngolifs
1,5921619
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
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
21 mins 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*.
answered 4 hours ago
IngolifsIngolifs
1,5921619
$endgroup$
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*.
answered 4 hours ago
IngolifsIngolifs
1,5921619
edited 3 hours ago
answered 4 hours ago
IngolifsIngolifs
1,5921619
answered 4 hours ago
IngolifsIngolifs
1,5921619
answered 4 hours ago
IngolifsIngolifs
1,5921619
1,5921619
2
$begingroup$
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
21 mins ago
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
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
21 mins ago
2
2
$begingroup$
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
21 mins ago
$begingroup$
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
21 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There are a few criteria necessary to see a black hole with the event-horizons 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 15 million light-years away, M87 is 6.5 billion solar masses. Since the radius of the event horizon scales linearly with mass, it’s distance is made up for by sheer scale.
answered 3 hours ago
cmscms
2364
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
The distance is about 50 million ly, I thought.
$endgroup$
– Ingolifs
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There are a few criteria necessary to see a black hole with the event-horizons 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 15 million light-years away, M87 is 6.5 billion solar masses. Since the radius of the event horizon scales linearly with mass, it’s distance is made up for by sheer scale.
answered 3 hours ago
cmscms
2364
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
The distance is about 50 million ly, I thought.
$endgroup$
– Ingolifs
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There are a few criteria necessary to see a black hole with the event-horizons 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 15 million light-years away, M87 is 6.5 billion solar masses. Since the radius of the event horizon scales linearly with mass, it’s distance is made up for by sheer scale.
answered 3 hours ago
cmscms
2364
$endgroup$
There are a few criteria necessary to see a black hole with the event-horizons 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 15 million light-years away, M87 is 6.5 billion solar masses. Since the radius of the event horizon scales linearly with mass, it’s distance is made up for by sheer scale.
answered 3 hours ago
cmscms
2364
answered 3 hours ago
cmscms
2364
answered 3 hours ago
cmscms
2364
answered 3 hours ago
cmscms
2364
2364
1
$begingroup$
The distance is about 50 million ly, I thought.
$endgroup$
– Ingolifs
3 hours ago
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
The distance is about 50 million ly, I thought.
$endgroup$
– Ingolifs
3 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
The distance is about 50 million ly, I thought.
$endgroup$
– Ingolifs
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
The distance is about 50 million ly, I thought.
$endgroup$
– Ingolifs
3 hours ago
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
