Ttyjukl

Mortgage adviser recommends a longer term than necessary combined with overpayments

Do ℕ, mathbb{N}, BbbN, symbb{N} effectively differ, and is there a "canonical" specification of the naturals?

Am I ethically obligated to go into work on an off day if the reason is sudden?

"... to apply for a visa" or "... and applied for a visa"?

Variety of transposing instruments

Why don't hard Brexiteers insist on a hard border to prevent illegal immigration after Brexit?

Single author papers against my advisor's will?

Why doesn't a hydraulic lever violate conservation of energy?

Why doesn't shell automatically fix "useless use of cat"?

Ubuntu Err :18 http://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/deb stable Release.gpg KEYEXPIRED 1555048520

Deal with toxic manager when you can't quit

Working through Single Responsibility Principle in Python when Calls are Expensive

different output for groups and groups USERNAME after adding a username to a group

How did passengers keep warm on sail ships?

How do you keep chess fun when your opponent constantly beats you?

Drawing vertical/oblique lines in Metrical tree (tikz-qtree, tipa)

Can a flute soloist sit?

Do warforged have souls?

Categorical vs continuous feature selection/engineering

What can I do if neighbor is blocking my solar panels intentionally?

What does Linus Torvalds mean when he says that Git "never ever" tracks a file?

Did the new image of black hole confirm the general theory of relativity?

Humiliated in front of employees

Why can't devices on different VLANs, but on the same subnet, communicate?

Did the new image of black hole confirm the general theory of relativity?

4

2

$begingroup$

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

share|cite|improve this question

edited 2 hours ago

Liquid

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
  39 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

4

2

$begingroup$

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

share|cite|improve this question

edited 2 hours ago

Liquid

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
  39 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

share|cite|improve this question

edited 2 hours ago

Liquid

asked 2 hours ago

LiquidLiquid

212

$endgroup$

share|cite|improve this question

edited 2 hours ago

Liquid

asked 2 hours ago

LiquidLiquid

212

share|cite|improve this question

edited 2 hours ago

Liquid

asked 2 hours ago

LiquidLiquid

212

asked 2 hours ago

LiquidLiquid

212

asked 2 hours ago

LiquidLiquid

212

2 Answers
2

active

oldest

votes

3

$begingroup$

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.

share|cite|improve this answer

answered 1 hour ago

tfbtfb

15.6k43251

$endgroup$

add a comment | 

2

$begingroup$

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.

share|cite|improve this answer

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
});


}
});

draft saved

draft discarded

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

Name

Email

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

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

3

$begingroup$

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.

share|cite|improve this answer

answered 1 hour ago

tfbtfb

15.6k43251

$endgroup$

add a comment | 

3

$begingroup$

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.

share|cite|improve this answer

answered 1 hour 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.

share|cite|improve this answer

answered 1 hour ago

tfbtfb

15.6k43251

$endgroup$

share|cite|improve this answer

answered 1 hour ago

tfbtfb

15.6k43251

answered 1 hour ago

tfbtfb

15.6k43251

answered 1 hour ago

tfbtfb

15.6k43251

2

$begingroup$

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.

share|cite|improve this answer

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 | 

2

$begingroup$

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.

share|cite|improve this answer

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.

share|cite|improve this answer

answered 1 hour ago

anna vanna v

162k8153455

$endgroup$

share|cite|improve this answer

answered 1 hour ago

anna vanna v

162k8153455

answered 1 hour ago

anna vanna v

162k8153455

answered 1 hour ago

anna vanna v

162k8153455