Did the new image of black hole confirm the general theory of relativity?
$begingroup$
How can we do it just by looking at the image. But I heard in news saying "Einstein was right! black hole image confirms GTR. The image is so less detailed that I can't even make some pretty good points. Please correct me if I'm wrong on any aspect. Please provide a link if this question sounds duplicate.
general-relativity black-holes astronomy
asked 2 hours ago
LiquidLiquid
212
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
How can we do it just by looking at the image. But I heard in news saying "Einstein was right! black hole image confirms GTR. The image is so less detailed that I can't even make some pretty good points. Please correct me if I'm wrong on any aspect. Please provide a link if this question sounds duplicate.
general-relativity black-holes astronomy
asked 2 hours ago
LiquidLiquid
212
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Read the science explained at the official website; it should answer your questions: eventhorizontelescope.org/science. News is not the best place to go to for science.
$endgroup$
– Avantgarde
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Re, "...just by looking at the image." You can't learn much just by looking at that image. But if you use the theory to predict what the picture should look like, and then you take the picture and it agrees with your prediction, then that ought to boost your confidence in the theory.
$endgroup$
– Solomon Slow
18 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
How can we do it just by looking at the image. But I heard in news saying "Einstein was right! black hole image confirms GTR. The image is so less detailed that I can't even make some pretty good points. Please correct me if I'm wrong on any aspect. Please provide a link if this question sounds duplicate.
general-relativity black-holes astronomy
asked 2 hours ago
LiquidLiquid
212
$endgroup$
How can we do it just by looking at the image. But I heard in news saying "Einstein was right! black hole image confirms GTR. The image is so less detailed that I can't even make some pretty good points. Please correct me if I'm wrong on any aspect. Please provide a link if this question sounds duplicate.
general-relativity black-holes astronomy
general-relativity black-holes astronomy
asked 2 hours ago
LiquidLiquid
212
asked 2 hours ago
LiquidLiquid
212
edited 1 hour ago
Liquid
asked 2 hours ago
LiquidLiquid
212
asked 2 hours ago
LiquidLiquid
212
asked 2 hours ago
LiquidLiquid
212
212
2
$begingroup$
Read the science explained at the official website; it should answer your questions: eventhorizontelescope.org/science. News is not the best place to go to for science.
$endgroup$
– Avantgarde
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Re, "...just by looking at the image." You can't learn much just by looking at that image. But if you use the theory to predict what the picture should look like, and then you take the picture and it agrees with your prediction, then that ought to boost your confidence in the theory.
$endgroup$
– Solomon Slow
18 mins ago
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
Read the science explained at the official website; it should answer your questions: eventhorizontelescope.org/science. News is not the best place to go to for science.
$endgroup$
– Avantgarde
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Re, "...just by looking at the image." You can't learn much just by looking at that image. But if you use the theory to predict what the picture should look like, and then you take the picture and it agrees with your prediction, then that ought to boost your confidence in the theory.
$endgroup$
– Solomon Slow
18 mins ago
2
2
$begingroup$
Read the science explained at the official website; it should answer your questions: eventhorizontelescope.org/science. News is not the best place to go to for science.
$endgroup$
– Avantgarde
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Read the science explained at the official website; it should answer your questions: eventhorizontelescope.org/science. News is not the best place to go to for science.
$endgroup$
– Avantgarde
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Re, "...just by looking at the image." You can't learn much just by looking at that image. But if you use the theory to predict what the picture should look like, and then you take the picture and it agrees with your prediction, then that ought to boost your confidence in the theory.
$endgroup$
– Solomon Slow
18 mins ago
$begingroup$
Re, "...just by looking at the image." You can't learn much just by looking at that image. But if you use the theory to predict what the picture should look like, and then you take the picture and it agrees with your prediction, then that ought to boost your confidence in the theory.
$endgroup$
– Solomon Slow
18 mins ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
I think it's fair to say that the EHT image definitely is consistent with GR, and so GR continues to agree with experimental data so far. The leading paper in the 10th April 2019 issue of Astrophysical Journal letters says (first sentence of the 'Discussion' section):
A number of elements reinforce the robustness of our image and the conclusion that it is consistent with the shadow of a black hole as predicted by GR.
I'm unhappy about the notion that this 'confirms' GR: it would be more correct to say that GR has not been shown to be wrong by this observation: nothing can definitively confirm a theory, which can only be shown to agree with experimental data so far. This might depend on your definition of 'confirm' I suppose however: I'm taking it to mean 'shown to be correct', and it's that meaning I object to. In particular it is clearly not the case that this shows 'Einstein was right': it shows that GR agrees with experiment (extremely well!) so far, and this and LIGO both show (or are showing) that GR agrees with experiment in regions where the gravitational field is strong.
answered 59 mins ago
tfbtfb
15.6k43251
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If you google "m87 and general relativity" you get a list and videos on confirmation.
This is an exaggerated response to an interesting "photograph", because it looks just like what has been calculated using the theory of general relativity for black holes.
General relativity has been confirmed by many cosmological observations, including the calculations for the GPS signal and black holes were proposed within the framework of General relativity by Karl Schwarzschild . It is very interesting that the image developed exactly in the topology predicted by the GR equations, but the validation of GR did not really depend on this. (If a funny topology not predicted had been seen it would actually be more interesting because it would have to be modeled by something more complicated than a Kerr black hole., and maybe a modification to GR might have been proposed) .
So the image is consistent with the expectation of a Kerr black hole, and in this sense it validates General Relativity.
answered 1 hour ago
anna vanna v
162k8153455
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Anna thank you . But if say so , you mean GR is what final theory of gravity or is it simply the best of we have explaining everything that come ahead. But I have very acute problem knowing why didn't he tell us about why exactly space curves
$endgroup$
– Liquid
1 hour ago
2
$begingroup$
GR is the theory that fits our observations up to now. There are theorists trying to propose modification to GR. Well, in physics we cannot answer "Why" questions, but "how" from certain postulates using some equations we can fit observations. The "why these postulates and equations" belongs to metaphysics, not physics. Einstein was a physicist.
$endgroup$
– anna v
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
};
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
});
}
});
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%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f472323%2fdid-the-new-image-of-black-hole-confirm-the-general-theory-of-relativity%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 think it's fair to say that the EHT image definitely is consistent with GR, and so GR continues to agree with experimental data so far. The leading paper in the 10th April 2019 issue of Astrophysical Journal letters says (first sentence of the 'Discussion' section):
A number of elements reinforce the robustness of our image and the conclusion that it is consistent with the shadow of a black hole as predicted by GR.
I'm unhappy about the notion that this 'confirms' GR: it would be more correct to say that GR has not been shown to be wrong by this observation: nothing can definitively confirm a theory, which can only be shown to agree with experimental data so far. This might depend on your definition of 'confirm' I suppose however: I'm taking it to mean 'shown to be correct', and it's that meaning I object to. In particular it is clearly not the case that this shows 'Einstein was right': it shows that GR agrees with experiment (extremely well!) so far, and this and LIGO both show (or are showing) that GR agrees with experiment in regions where the gravitational field is strong.
answered 59 mins ago
tfbtfb
15.6k43251
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I think it's fair to say that the EHT image definitely is consistent with GR, and so GR continues to agree with experimental data so far. The leading paper in the 10th April 2019 issue of Astrophysical Journal letters says (first sentence of the 'Discussion' section):
A number of elements reinforce the robustness of our image and the conclusion that it is consistent with the shadow of a black hole as predicted by GR.
I'm unhappy about the notion that this 'confirms' GR: it would be more correct to say that GR has not been shown to be wrong by this observation: nothing can definitively confirm a theory, which can only be shown to agree with experimental data so far. This might depend on your definition of 'confirm' I suppose however: I'm taking it to mean 'shown to be correct', and it's that meaning I object to. In particular it is clearly not the case that this shows 'Einstein was right': it shows that GR agrees with experiment (extremely well!) so far, and this and LIGO both show (or are showing) that GR agrees with experiment in regions where the gravitational field is strong.
answered 59 mins ago
tfbtfb
15.6k43251
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I think it's fair to say that the EHT image definitely is consistent with GR, and so GR continues to agree with experimental data so far. The leading paper in the 10th April 2019 issue of Astrophysical Journal letters says (first sentence of the 'Discussion' section):
A number of elements reinforce the robustness of our image and the conclusion that it is consistent with the shadow of a black hole as predicted by GR.
I'm unhappy about the notion that this 'confirms' GR: it would be more correct to say that GR has not been shown to be wrong by this observation: nothing can definitively confirm a theory, which can only be shown to agree with experimental data so far. This might depend on your definition of 'confirm' I suppose however: I'm taking it to mean 'shown to be correct', and it's that meaning I object to. In particular it is clearly not the case that this shows 'Einstein was right': it shows that GR agrees with experiment (extremely well!) so far, and this and LIGO both show (or are showing) that GR agrees with experiment in regions where the gravitational field is strong.
answered 59 mins ago
tfbtfb
15.6k43251
$endgroup$
I think it's fair to say that the EHT image definitely is consistent with GR, and so GR continues to agree with experimental data so far. The leading paper in the 10th April 2019 issue of Astrophysical Journal letters says (first sentence of the 'Discussion' section):
A number of elements reinforce the robustness of our image and the conclusion that it is consistent with the shadow of a black hole as predicted by GR.
I'm unhappy about the notion that this 'confirms' GR: it would be more correct to say that GR has not been shown to be wrong by this observation: nothing can definitively confirm a theory, which can only be shown to agree with experimental data so far. This might depend on your definition of 'confirm' I suppose however: I'm taking it to mean 'shown to be correct', and it's that meaning I object to. In particular it is clearly not the case that this shows 'Einstein was right': it shows that GR agrees with experiment (extremely well!) so far, and this and LIGO both show (or are showing) that GR agrees with experiment in regions where the gravitational field is strong.
answered 59 mins ago
tfbtfb
15.6k43251
answered 59 mins ago
tfbtfb
15.6k43251
answered 59 mins ago
tfbtfb
15.6k43251
answered 59 mins ago
tfbtfb
15.6k43251
15.6k43251
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If you google "m87 and general relativity" you get a list and videos on confirmation.
This is an exaggerated response to an interesting "photograph", because it looks just like what has been calculated using the theory of general relativity for black holes.
General relativity has been confirmed by many cosmological observations, including the calculations for the GPS signal and black holes were proposed within the framework of General relativity by Karl Schwarzschild . It is very interesting that the image developed exactly in the topology predicted by the GR equations, but the validation of GR did not really depend on this. (If a funny topology not predicted had been seen it would actually be more interesting because it would have to be modeled by something more complicated than a Kerr black hole., and maybe a modification to GR might have been proposed) .
So the image is consistent with the expectation of a Kerr black hole, and in this sense it validates General Relativity.
answered 1 hour ago
anna vanna v
162k8153455
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Anna thank you . But if say so , you mean GR is what final theory of gravity or is it simply the best of we have explaining everything that come ahead. But I have very acute problem knowing why didn't he tell us about why exactly space curves
$endgroup$
– Liquid
1 hour ago
2
$begingroup$
GR is the theory that fits our observations up to now. There are theorists trying to propose modification to GR. Well, in physics we cannot answer "Why" questions, but "how" from certain postulates using some equations we can fit observations. The "why these postulates and equations" belongs to metaphysics, not physics. Einstein was a physicist.
$endgroup$
– anna v
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If you google "m87 and general relativity" you get a list and videos on confirmation.
This is an exaggerated response to an interesting "photograph", because it looks just like what has been calculated using the theory of general relativity for black holes.
General relativity has been confirmed by many cosmological observations, including the calculations for the GPS signal and black holes were proposed within the framework of General relativity by Karl Schwarzschild . It is very interesting that the image developed exactly in the topology predicted by the GR equations, but the validation of GR did not really depend on this. (If a funny topology not predicted had been seen it would actually be more interesting because it would have to be modeled by something more complicated than a Kerr black hole., and maybe a modification to GR might have been proposed) .
So the image is consistent with the expectation of a Kerr black hole, and in this sense it validates General Relativity.
answered 1 hour ago
anna vanna v
162k8153455
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Anna thank you . But if say so , you mean GR is what final theory of gravity or is it simply the best of we have explaining everything that come ahead. But I have very acute problem knowing why didn't he tell us about why exactly space curves
$endgroup$
– Liquid
1 hour ago
2
$begingroup$
GR is the theory that fits our observations up to now. There are theorists trying to propose modification to GR. Well, in physics we cannot answer "Why" questions, but "how" from certain postulates using some equations we can fit observations. The "why these postulates and equations" belongs to metaphysics, not physics. Einstein was a physicist.
$endgroup$
– anna v
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If you google "m87 and general relativity" you get a list and videos on confirmation.
This is an exaggerated response to an interesting "photograph", because it looks just like what has been calculated using the theory of general relativity for black holes.
General relativity has been confirmed by many cosmological observations, including the calculations for the GPS signal and black holes were proposed within the framework of General relativity by Karl Schwarzschild . It is very interesting that the image developed exactly in the topology predicted by the GR equations, but the validation of GR did not really depend on this. (If a funny topology not predicted had been seen it would actually be more interesting because it would have to be modeled by something more complicated than a Kerr black hole., and maybe a modification to GR might have been proposed) .
So the image is consistent with the expectation of a Kerr black hole, and in this sense it validates General Relativity.
answered 1 hour ago
anna vanna v
162k8153455
$endgroup$
If you google "m87 and general relativity" you get a list and videos on confirmation.
This is an exaggerated response to an interesting "photograph", because it looks just like what has been calculated using the theory of general relativity for black holes.
General relativity has been confirmed by many cosmological observations, including the calculations for the GPS signal and black holes were proposed within the framework of General relativity by Karl Schwarzschild . It is very interesting that the image developed exactly in the topology predicted by the GR equations, but the validation of GR did not really depend on this. (If a funny topology not predicted had been seen it would actually be more interesting because it would have to be modeled by something more complicated than a Kerr black hole., and maybe a modification to GR might have been proposed) .
So the image is consistent with the expectation of a Kerr black hole, and in this sense it validates General Relativity.
answered 1 hour ago
anna vanna v
162k8153455
answered 1 hour ago
anna vanna v
162k8153455
answered 1 hour ago
anna vanna v
162k8153455
answered 1 hour ago
anna vanna v
162k8153455
162k8153455
$begingroup$
Anna thank you . But if say so , you mean GR is what final theory of gravity or is it simply the best of we have explaining everything that come ahead. But I have very acute problem knowing why didn't he tell us about why exactly space curves
$endgroup$
– Liquid
1 hour ago
2
$begingroup$
GR is the theory that fits our observations up to now. There are theorists trying to propose modification to GR. Well, in physics we cannot answer "Why" questions, but "how" from certain postulates using some equations we can fit observations. The "why these postulates and equations" belongs to metaphysics, not physics. Einstein was a physicist.
$endgroup$
– anna v
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Anna thank you . But if say so , you mean GR is what final theory of gravity or is it simply the best of we have explaining everything that come ahead. But I have very acute problem knowing why didn't he tell us about why exactly space curves
$endgroup$
– Liquid
1 hour ago
2
$begingroup$
GR is the theory that fits our observations up to now. There are theorists trying to propose modification to GR. Well, in physics we cannot answer "Why" questions, but "how" from certain postulates using some equations we can fit observations. The "why these postulates and equations" belongs to metaphysics, not physics. Einstein was a physicist.
$endgroup$
– anna v
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Anna thank you . But if say so , you mean GR is what final theory of gravity or is it simply the best of we have explaining everything that come ahead. But I have very acute problem knowing why didn't he tell us about why exactly space curves
$endgroup$
– Liquid
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Anna thank you . But if say so , you mean GR is what final theory of gravity or is it simply the best of we have explaining everything that come ahead. But I have very acute problem knowing why didn't he tell us about why exactly space curves
$endgroup$
– Liquid
1 hour ago
2
2
$begingroup$
GR is the theory that fits our observations up to now. There are theorists trying to propose modification to GR. Well, in physics we cannot answer "Why" questions, but "how" from certain postulates using some equations we can fit observations. The "why these postulates and equations" belongs to metaphysics, not physics. Einstein was a physicist.
$endgroup$
– anna v
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
GR is the theory that fits our observations up to now. There are theorists trying to propose modification to GR. Well, in physics we cannot answer "Why" questions, but "how" from certain postulates using some equations we can fit observations. The "why these postulates and equations" belongs to metaphysics, not physics. Einstein was a physicist.
$endgroup$
– anna v
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics 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%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f472323%2fdid-the-new-image-of-black-hole-confirm-the-general-theory-of-relativity%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
2
$begingroup$
Read the science explained at the official website; it should answer your questions: eventhorizontelescope.org/science. News is not the best place to go to for science.
$endgroup$
– Avantgarde
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Re, "...just by looking at the image." You can't learn much just by looking at that image. But if you use the theory to predict what the picture should look like, and then you take the picture and it agrees with your prediction, then that ought to boost your confidence in the theory.
$endgroup$
– Solomon Slow
18 mins ago