Can you ask the professor how come the Telescope has an angular resolution of 25uAS (micro arc seconds) and the object is ~50uAS accross, that they get so much "detail" from about 4 pixles? And given the Signal to noise ratio of the data at arround one, how any of the can be regarded as science?

@@ZeroRyoko Yeah I also want that answer ;)

this image is a total FRAUD it is based on approximately 4 pixels worth of data that was "filtered" from what amounts to white noise using modeling that simply disregarded anything that was not the desired result...and as if that were not bad enough the data set its self is fraudulent because several of the radio telescopes involved were in use on other observations at the time and could NOT have been part of the array.

@@kevint1910 It's worse than that even. The paper they published states that the JCMT and PV telescopes (the ones that define the angular resolution) never even observed the calibration target at the same time! That means that they can't rely on the data at all, further reducing the data integrity. It makes me sad that people allow themselves to be hoodwinked by rubbish like this in modern science. 😞

My theory is all scientists and physicists and astronomers are wrong about black holes, black holes are depicted as a black pit when in reality it’s shape is a sphere( black orb) and not a hole!!!

If I had a science teacher like this I may have got past intro to science in high-school a.k.a past core curriculum, failed every year because teachers are all burnt out here in oregon

While I too wish he were my teacher, I'm actually glad I wasn't his student. (because my younger self was awful)

He is your teacher 🙂.

Man I know!

Best on the channel now that the one bald guy retired.

It looks like it might just be the airpods mic

1990s: Blackhole takes everything. 2021: Blackhole is the gift that keeps on giving.

*hawking radiation has entered the chat*

@@mastershooter64 I believe HawkingRadiation can only ever leave the chat ;-)

@@thereisaplace I guess a better one would be *virtual particles have entered the chat* *Hawking radiation has left the chat*

Kerr and einstein also left the chat

It's even a pretty sweet experience for those of us that just watch these videos tbh :)

Almost top 100 ranking in the world.

I live near there. It's pretty neat in general

Nottinghams great 😃

It's not. I study there.

+Justin Rus The image their showing of a black hole is in reality a plasmoid see the work of Winston Bostic or Brian J. Ford. Kristian Birkeland, and or the SAFIRE project for specifics.

Videos with prof Merrifield are always worth watching

Yes he is an excellent science communicator.

@@Jesse__H And Brady asks brilliant questions

You're in for a treat then

He's done _a lot_ of videos for Sixty Symbols and they're all of this kind of quality. You'll really enjoy going through the back-catalogue!

Don’t forget to add the ‘clickety clickety’ on a keyboard

You spelled years wrong

Yeah, fast as lighting huh.

EXACTLY-

I kinda mist 2020 was there something?

It's complex because it's a lot of handwaving to disguise the fact that this isn't valid signal processing. If such algorithms existed to clarify a data stream suffering from under-sampling in comparison to the desired sampling rate for high fidelity reproduction, then cell phone calls wouldn't sound so lousy. And being linear data, as opposed to 2-dimensional data, cleaning up cell phone calls by this same method would be exceedingly cheap. Cheap enough to put multiple processors on EVERY cell-phone tower antenna for under $5/cellular antenna (and these things have costs in the $1000 range, and that doesn't even include the additional $1000s it costs to install the antenna ON the tower. Cell-tower technicians are extremely expensive).

But he has a cool porthole with a view from his space ship though :)

Scientists are trying their best, ok?

Algorithm: A set of instructions created to give a 'desired' outcome. Believe me I trust in science, but given the right algorithm, a binary data set of the magnitude gathered for this project could be manipulated to create an image of absolutely anything.

Only when one makes any progress the curiosity is sustained. Otherwise all gets in the cold bag.

The no hair theorem says that black holes are completely characterized by mass, charge, and spin. That does not preclude a magnetic field, any more than it precludes an electric or gravitational field, because that field would be completely described by the charge and spin. If a black hole were to have a magnetic field, it would be aligned with the spin axis. Look up the Kerr-Newman metric.

@@michaelsommers2356 Yes I looked that up in combination with dipole, but didn't find a definitive statement. But then the video is wrong where it says that because of the no hair it cannot have a magnetic field itself, you confirm. I thought as much, since far away the dipole should behave the same whether the charged rotating mass has collapsed into a black hole or not, was my intuition.

You are right. And moreover, electric and magnetic fields are not invariants and can change depending on the observer. An electric field outside a purely charged black hole can be seen as a magnetic field by a moving observer.

@@landsgevaer Since any charge on a black hole will be very small, any magnetic field it creates will also be very small, and not significant on relevant scales. For practical purposes, it doesn't matter.

@@michaelsommers2356 Yes, I'm aware of that. But the prof didn't say it was practically irrelevant for this observed black hole, but that it was fundamentally impossible because not even magnetic field lines can escape from a black hole. So without meaning to bash an excellent educator, that is still wrong it seems.

Actually neutron’s would be affected because they have a magnetic dipole moment, albeit one of less magnitude than a proton. Despite having no electric charge, neutrons are hadrons, so their magnetic moment comes from the magnetic moments of the up quark and two down quarks composing them. An up quark has electric charge +2/3 e, while the two down quarks each have electric charge -1/3 e, leaving the neutron with no net electric charge.

that’s great Edward

College these days is a total scam.

The matter around it.

You'd have to be able to see radio waves, too.

Too bright to look at with the naked eyes. Real black hole will disappoint everyone.

@@Linkwii64 just need a really big welding helmet :P

That's the date the photons were collected, the publication date is just now. The first image was 2019 and if you look up Katie Bouman's lectures in 2019 you can hear a detailed explanation of the process in between that created the image from the data.

If charges are moving in a circle, their magnetic field will be orthogonal to the plane of the circle.

I just assume now since most pictures of galaxies are artist impressions or c.g. over the real pixelated satellite images...

You got to do something to get general public interested. Once they are interested they don't care that it's an artist impression.

Pretty much. It's the brightest part of the image and the most clear. We expect a lot of the image to be warped, such as the parts on the side, where the image of the disc is being warped 90 degrees, and the top part is from behind the hole. This was just the best that could be done with the current data.

1-30 Gauss, or roughly twice to 60x Earth's field. On the one hand, this isn't very 'powerful' in terms of absolute field strength. We can exceed that easily. On the other hand though, the field is very large, and size really does matter here. A field of that strength stretching over such vast distances has a LOT of power behind it.

No, field lines don't exist _per se._ Field lines are just a visualization of the local direction of the field. Suppose you're looking at a dry, sandy beach on a windy day. You see the grains of sand being picked up by the wind and moved around. If you took a photograph with a slow-ish shutter speed, you'd see the grains turn into streaks, and those streaks would indicate the field lines. In this case, the field is the velocity (speed and direction) of the wind. The statement in the video about field lines "not liking to be close together" comes with an implicit idea of scale. Think of contour lines on a map. Obviously, if you draw your contour lines at one-metre elevation intervals, they'll be much closer than if you drew then at ten-metre intervals. But whatever interval you choose, you'll find that the contour lines tend to be relatively far apart (relative to your interval), corresponding to the fact that, in most places, the ground doesn't slope steeply. The same is true of magnetic fields: you don't tend to get very steep gradients in magnetic fields, i.e., places with a strong magnetic field that are close to places with a much weaker magnetic field.

In this case the physics works itself out. There's a minimum distance where no accretion disk will be stable, matter must just fall straight into the hole. This is part of the big black sphere in the center of the image and is a greater distance than detectable (>1%) time dilation occurs. There WILL be 'imprints' of the infalling matter as its redshifted and appears to slow, but it's... redshifted and significantly so as >10% time dilation sets in. As such it should be too dim for us to detect with current technology. The third point is that it's not that the disc appears halted as in frozen in time, but rather it's *magnetically halted*, which is different. In systems like the sun gas moves freely and warps magnetic fields. In this system gas also moves, but cannot carry the field with it, instead it flows along field lines, still moving but in a different way. And it does seem like the disc is changing over time.

Moving charges cause the electric field to change, which causes the magnetic field to change, but moving charges are not the same as a magnetic field.

The two are discrete. This can be seen in a bar magnet. There electrons are the moving charges, with their spins aligned. Though they exist only inside the metal bar, the field lines they create extend outwards (In theory to infinity.) and it's possible for a magnet to guide the path of matter (Smaller magnets) without that matter being anywhere near the charges involved in producing the field.

Moving plasma. How gas splits into nuclei and electrons and when that flows the moving charges make a magnetic field. Similar phenomena power our sun's field.

Nobody knows if gravitons actually exist. Nevertheless, *nothing* can escape from the event horizon of a black hole.

Sort of. Black holes have three minimal properties, mass, spin and charge. The first two rely on gravity the third on electromagnetism. The charge of a hole can be modeled as imprinted on the event horizon and generating virtual photons just outside that move off into space. Likewise it's possible to model its gravity in the same way. It's not that something escapes from inside the hole so much as the properties of the event horizon itself create virtual particles that always exist outside the hole.

@@alexwilding8451 Not true, Hawking's Radiation can

It is a complicated question! I can think of 4 answers: 1. You *can* think of a black hole as as point in space with some mass, which is packed into infinite density and no volume. With no volume, it also has no "shape". 2. But what we usually mean by _black hole_ is not just the point (or "singularity") but the sphere around it that nothing can escape, not even light or a magnetic field. This is a perfect sphere. (I forget whether the sphere is theorized to be "hairy" or "smooth". I'm not sure whether theoretical physicists agree on this.) The size of the sphere is the *Schwarzschild radius,* and its surface is the *event horizon.* 3. But that's not all. If the black hole is rotating - and they always are - the space around the sphere (or "spacetime") is distorted, not unlike spinning a spoon handle in a bowl of honey. Even if the handle doesn't change shape, the honey around it is distorted. This is gravitational *frame dragging,* and all rotating things do it, but it's particularly noticeable in black holes. So, due to this distortion of spacetime, I'm not sure how that would affect the shape you would perceive. 4. Finally, there's all the debris that is rotating around a black hole but hasn't fallen in. This is the *accretion disk* and, as the name implies, is roughly disk-shaped. The reason for the disk shape is the same as the disk shape of our solar system and our galaxy. Basically, any matter that rotates around the black hole but isn't in the same plane as the accretion disk will eventually have enough collisions with matter in the accretion disk that its momentum will be altered and it will join the disk. (And vice versa: the orbits of everything else in the accretion disk will be altered slightly as well. So the accretion disk can wobble around as new matter comes in, but it will remain disk-shaped.)

Mmmmmm ... not really. Everything in a galaxy holds it together. We're *all* rotating around each other, not just around the the supermassive black hole at the center. This black hole contributes more to this effect than its fair share, but it does not dominate the mass of the galaxy the way our sun dominates the mass of our solar system. Also: dark matter! There's an enormous amount of matter in most galaxies that *also* helps hold them together - but which we cannot see. This _dark matter_ is even more important for holding a galaxy together than the supermassive black hole. Too bad that, because we have no way to detect it other than its gravitational influence, we can't figure out what it is yet.

Well, the original image of the black hole to be honest. The original, blurry, donut-shaped image of the black hole and its accretion disk required the combined datasets of MULTIPLE radiotelescopes scattered across multiple continents. These datasets were then combined and visualized to create the original image. This effectively represents a radiotelescope the size of the Earth!