This has been rumored for days. It looks pretty much like the M87 black hole. What will be the next major discovery:
The information we imaged left the black hole 55 million years ago. During that time we rotated a quarter of the way around the black hole. Did the information rotate with us so that we are viewing from the perspective of where we were 55 million years ago or did we intersect with what left the surface 90 degrees ahead of where we were 55 million years ago?
Interesting question. I would say intersection. But in that case all the stars at different distances would have moved since the light left them and you would have a smeared effect according to distance.
I think we intersected with left 90 degrees ahead of us. Generally speaking, light travels in a straight line unless it is bent or reflected.
Yes - the different distances and speeds of the stars means that the constellations we see are gradually twisting out of shape due to the different distances and different individual speeds of the stars. And, today they are very different than the star patterns as seen in year 0, for example. I'm not sure what you mean by smeared. They look like pinpoints, even through the Hubble telescope.
I suspect the best images will come from radio telescopes being developed today. The radio telescopes being developed today will gather far more pixels than such telescopes have been able to gather in the past. Instead of dishes, the will include large fields of detectors. Look up the "square kilometer array" as one initial telescope. And, the electromagnetic frequency range gathered by these telescopes is far better at penetrating the central regions of galaxies, I think.
Light is a wave function or a photon depending on tldr: magic. Double slit would tell us the quantum radiates like a wave and a particle because a guy named Shroedinger was quite uncertain about his cat. The fact that almost all of light was accelerated from behind the hole to begin with confounds the question. And oddly enough things like light travel straight along the curvature of time and space. Which, as is implied, is quite curved. It's certainly a challenge to stick your mind in the appropriate reference frame, since the space the light is apparently traveling straight through is also spinning through a higher frame.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ang...arry angular,axis while it propagates forward. Does this shed any light on the question?
Well, yes. Light is a strange creature, and I didn't bring up things like the possibility of being curved around a massive star or anything like that as I didn't want to over complicate my answer. While my "expertise" in quantum physics is entirely self taught, and I lack any validation of my knowledge in the form of a diploma (though I suppose I could just print myself one), I have actually written a whitepaper on a lot of the weirdness, the double slit experiment, wave/particle duality, quantum tunneling, the fact that our universe is pixelized and light doesn't "move" from point a to point b, it teleports from one pixel to another at a frame rate so fast that I'm not even sure we can actually measure it. I have, as have many others, including everyone I've ever talked about it with who does have that diploma I lack, concluded that our universe itself, our very existence, is (METAPHORICALLY) a huge simulation. It's like we're playing an MMORPG from the inside and have, quite literally, forgotten that important little tidbit.
A couple of things: Firstly, Light does not accelerate; at least not linearly. What do you mean it came from behind the hole? Or are you just referring to our movement around the center over 55 million years?
That is at best highly speculative; in fact wild speculation at this point and certainly NOT a consensus opinion. And I do have an actual physics degree - several of them. I do find the simulation hypothesis fascinating but it isn't even physics. At this point it is just a philosophical proposition. More than likely, some of the findings such as "error correction" math found buried in String Theory, result from a universe that has characteristics that make us think of a simulation but not an actual simulation.
PS You don't learn physics by reading a book. You learn it doing the homework problems after reading the book and attending the lecture. I generally had 5 to 10 hours of math and physics homework every night. Students who think they can read the book [a real physics book and not an internet page] and pass the test, and never do the homework, flunk about 100% of the time.
What other hypothesis simultaneously explains wave/particle duality; the fact that at the quantum level, light doesn't move, rather it teleports, thus creating a universal "framerate"; quantum tunneling; the results of so-called "quantum eraser" experiments; and of course, the double-slit experiment itself, and more? I am personally unaware of even the existence of another hypothesis that could explain all of that, but then again, I don't know what I don't know. The point being is that the behavior of objects at the quantum level is calculated rather than actualized, at least until a consciousness comes along and actually measures something, making those calculations "decide" what they're going to be/do.
Light (information about the black hole) propagates through the field between us and the black hole at the speed of light through the materials that exist between us and the black hole. For that most part, it travelled through vacuum, however there is dust and gas along the way that effect the instantaneous velocity of the information at any given point along the journey. Think of light as it refracts through a glass of water. The light slows in the water, and speeds back up again after exiting. Light also has an angular momentum. So my original question could be restated as: if the galaxy rotates, does the field also rotate? If I shot a laser at an object 55 million years away, do I have to lead the object (if so which inertial frame do I lead it in, and by how much) or do aim right at it? This brings us to the next question: The black hole, by definition, cannot emit light for us to view. Instead, what we are seeing is light that is accelerated around the black hole, including from behind the black hole. It's an orbital sling shot except with light instead of a space craft. Now another aspect of the question I didn't consider is the fact that the image is a composite of information collected by many telescopes over a period of time. During that time a whole lot of complex motion took place in the wider inertial frame. The hole was spinning 55 million years ago, and we aren't sure what perspective we're looking at the spin. The actual image we're shown has to take this rotation into account when we re-assemble it and that requires some assumptions about the motion we observed. The axis of rotation as an example. Are we viewing it from a pole, or tangent to the pole, etc. Our guess at it could have easily produced an iPhone like rolling shutter effect that would be difficult for us to mitigate.
