Perhaps... black holes aren't invisible

[Baby Astronaut]

Let's think.

 

Supposedly, you'll never detect a black hole visually. It doesn't let anything -- including light -- escape. So all we'd see is a black patch of space.

 

Yet also, if an object were to fall towards a black hole, we'd perceive it as eternally "frozen" on its journey due to relativity.

 

Therefore, shouldn't a black hole appear as a messy, cluttered ball in space? Due to the accumulated multitudes of cosmic debris that should be "frozen" on all the edges of a black hole.

[Spyman]

I think we would be able to see a starved Black Hole despite its invisible interior, since a black hole can be observed by the stars that are obscured by it.

 

Simulated view of a black hole in front of the Large Magellanic Cloud.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole

 

 

A Black Hole that is feeding can also be observed through the accretion disc of material that spiral inward towards the center while emitting radiation.

 

Artist's conception of a binary star system with one black hole and one main sequence star.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accretion_disc

Edited June 17, 2010 by Cap'n Refsmmat

[New Zealand]

Yet also, if an object were to fall towards a black hole, we'd perceive it as eternally "frozen" on its journey due to relativity.

 

Therefore, shouldn't a black hole appear as a messy, cluttered ball in space? Due to the accumulated multitudes of cosmic debris that should be "frozen" on all the edges of a black hole.

I don't know...

 

By that do you mean that you think Black Holes are not what they are currently beleived to be?:eyebrow:

[Baby Astronaut]

@Spyman: perhaps you can edit those pics smaller and only enlarged when clicked, or a mod do it. Then your post is also easier to read.

 

By that do you mean that you think Black Holes are not what they are currently beleived to be?:eyebrow:

No, they function as descried. But maybe they're not black due to the relativistic images of objects frozen (eternally) on their way in.

[Spyman]

@Spyman: perhaps you can edit those pics smaller and only enlarged when clicked, or a mod do it. Then your post is also easier to read.

Sorry, I don't know how to do that, the images are on Wikipedia and I only post the link to them.

 

If a mod can do it and/or someone explain how I could make them smaller when linking to them I would be grateful.

 

 

[EDIT] @Cap'n Refsmmat, Thanks for the help with fixing the size of the "monster" pictures!

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Yet also, if an object were to fall towards a black hole, we'd perceive it as eternally "frozen" on its journey due to relativity.

 

Therefore, shouldn't a black hole appear as a messy, cluttered ball in space? Due to the accumulated multitudes of cosmic debris that should be "frozen" on all the edges of a black hole.

I managed to stumble onto this today while I was looking for something else:

(I bolded the interesting part.)

 

Oppenheimer and his co-authors used Schwarzschild's system of coordinates (the only coordinates available in 1939), which produced mathematical singularities at the Schwarzschild radius, in other words some of the terms in the equations became infinite at the Schwarzschild radius. This was interpreted as indicating that the Schwarzschild radius was the boundary of a bubble in which time stopped. This is a valid point of view for external observers, but not for infalling observers. Because of this property, the collapsed stars were called "frozen stars," because an outside observer would see the surface of the star frozen in time at the instant where its collapse takes it inside the Schwarzschild radius. This is a known property of modern black holes, but it must be emphasized that the light from the surface of the frozen star becomes redshifted very fast, turning the black hole black very quickly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole

Edited June 18, 2010 by Spyman
Adding Thanks to Cap'n Refsmmat

[Johanluus]

"but it must be emphasized that the light from the surface of the frozen star becomes redshifted very fast, turning the black hole black very quickly"

 

But from our point of view as an observer outside , the light is still just outside the event horizon is still "frozen there"? Will we continue to see it forever?

[Spyman]

Photons that are "frozen" will never reach us, and the photons that do reach us has moved from the emission spot to us so the image does not remain. Every photon carries a small piece of energy with them and the last image from the object falling through has a limited amount of energy.

 

[EDIT]

Also, there is a limit on how redshifted photons we can detect, very close to the Event Horizon they get redshifted to much for observation.

Edited June 18, 2010 by Spyman

[Baby Astronaut]

Because of this property, the collapsed stars were called "frozen stars," because an outside observer would see the surface of the star frozen in time at the instant where its collapse takes it inside the Schwarzschild radius. This is a known property of modern black holes, but it must be emphasized that the light from the surface of the frozen star becomes redshifted very fast, turning the black hole black very quickly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole

 

Also, there is a limit on how redshifted photons we can detect, very close to the Event Horizon they get redshifted to much for observation.

Great find, Spyman. That means the black hole's definitely still gonna appear black.

 

However, the part about excessive redshift (blackshift?) opens up a new implication: theoretically, it should be possible, that if for some reason the universe were everywhere full of *blackshifted* light we'd be totally unaware of it.