They have quite big plans, but almost 14. Million € on hand. I hope they manage to achieve their goal.
We produce for the first time high-resolution multi-colour movies with the EHT combined with new telescopes probing the variable extremes of the electromagnetic spectrum (e.g. CTA, MeerKAT/SKA1). The data are analysed and interpreted with innovative models finally combining micro- and macrophysics. The PIs bring together complementary expertise over the entire black hole mass scale in radio imaging and multi-wavelength monitoring, astroparticle physics, and theoretical modelling to bear on the problem. This is accompanied by four major investments: construction of a new mm-wave telescope in Africa enabling full dynamical imaging of black holes with the EHT, new model development, supercomputing hardware, and a vibrant team of young scientists to help develop a new, truly universal black hole paradigm.
What if dark matter is some form of black hole or exotic ultra dense material made entirely out of the missing antimatter, which for whatever reason doesn’t otherwise interact with electromagnetism? 2 birds, 1 stone.
If it can be infinitely dense inside a black hole, doesn’t that mean the scale doesn’t matter and that the ‘inside’ is pretty much it’s own whole universe with different physics rules?
Mathematically, it’s possible, but scientists are still skeptical about whether or not they are real. They’re called white holes and you can actually create a model of one in your kitchen sink. If you let the water just hit the bottom and spread out evenly in all directions, you can kind of visualize the way it’s supposed to work. Action Lab on YouTube actually has a pretty good video about it which I suggest watching if you’re interested. youtu.be/p3P4iKb24Ng?si=b3_RHuj0J3F_7DC1
That’s how alot of these discoveries seem like. Partly it’s just science reporting hyping up anything that happens, but then for many of these astronomical discoveries, it’s just a couple of pixels on a screen. And then somehow they can infer all sorts of things about it based on that. It’s just mind-blowing to think of all the data they can get from that about stars that are millions of light years away.
I would like to understand how they infer these things without becoming a science major. Is it just math equations based on what they think is the distance to the planet and then more math based on what they think the atmosphere is, and so on? Because they can’t actually see the planet.
I can’t explain this one, but I’d like to offer some other identifiers used. When searching for likely planets, they observe stars for wobble in their position. Large planets like jupiter and Saturn have some hefty pull on our own star. The common orbital point between them, called the barycenter, is still inside the sun, but their great distance apart pulls that barycenter closer to the edge of the sun. Our sun has a pretty notable wobble as a result. That’s the kind of thing they look for elsewhere. If there’s no other star causing the wobble in a binary system, then it must be a planet pulling it.
By estimating the mass of the star by various observations of color, brightness, and brightness variation, they can do some “easy” algebra to calculate the size of the affecting planet. From there, they can scan for radiation frequencies in the darkness where they think a planet is sitting. Water has a frequency, hydrogen has a frequency, oxygen has a frequency, helium, etc. By stuffing objects close to home, we can extrapolate that info and apply it to further objects with some confidence. This is how organic compounds were discovered in Venus’ atmosphere.
A lot of it is based on what we have at home, meaning we’re largely looking for what we have and then identifying it as the same. There is uncertainty about some details, but that’s how it always goes with science. It’s always being updated. It’s takes a lot of creativity to imagine what else might be out there and to devise how to look for it. Black holes are a pretty notable example. Since they’re not observable directly, what do you look for? Well, you look for other things being eaten and hope the matter is hot enough to throw a lot of radiation. 80 years ago, they were just an idea. Now we have images of a few galactic-center black holes. Some have been observed free floating through space by distorting the apparent position of stars behind it. Do we absolutely know it was a black hole? No, but that’s what solid theories can identify it as given the darkness and huge mass required to cause that kind of effect. But, as a result, estimates for dark and cold objects vary greatly because they’re the hardest to observe. There’s talk of finding more “hot jupiters” than expected, but it’s totally valid that maybe wevre just missing the cold Jupiter’s because they’re hard to see.
astronomy
Ważne
Magazyn ze zdalnego serwera może być niekompletny. Zobacz więcej na oryginalnej instancji.