The image is taken from real data but is preliminary, this is the first time anything like this has been attempted and they are just starting to work out the new techniques needed. The quality and resolution will improve over the next few years as the algorithms become more robust and more observatories join the group.

The really interesting images will come from Sag A* which is much smaller and evolves more rapidly. We'll be able to see the core stars and maybe gas clouds like G2 as they pass it.

Dear Manigandan Sekar,

What is your opinion. In last 120 years in USA mainstream science we see lot of fake stories:

SR-GR of Einstein: ( Article A 2017. Fizikai Nobel-díj „gravitációs hullámai”

plate-tectonics ( Article A szubdukció jelensége összeegyeztethetetlen a Föld felszíni...

Discovery of GW150914

and now story about Black Hole ... Like a story of UFO's

Regards,

Laszlo

The image is taken from real data but is preliminary, this is the first time anything like this has been attempted and they are just starting to work out the new techniques needed. The quality and resolution will improve over the next few years as the algorithms become more robust and more observatories join the group.

The really interesting images will come from Sag A* which is much smaller and evolves more rapidly. We'll be able to see the core stars and maybe gas clouds like G2 as they pass it.

The image is "fake" in the sense that the telescopes used were radio telescopes and so their signals were processed to give an optical image. But I would say that the image agrees well with what is theoretically predicted.

Manigandan,

I have no reason to doubt that that is an image of an accretion disc around a very dense object.

It is a real image (not a photograph) of radio waves showing us the unstable photon orbits on the edges of the black hole. The event horizon (or schwarzschild radius) is smaller than the black shape in the middle because of the “shadow” of the black hole giving that gradient. The asymmetry is partially likely due to the spin of the black hole and any potential gravitational lensing from light farther away. I am certain this is an actual correct rendering as their algorithms took years of hard work. Its quite astonishing really to think that soon we’ll have detailed black hole maps of each galactic core...

Einstein himself denied the existence of Schwarzschild black hole in an article published in Annals of Mathematics, on the mature stage of his scientific career.

Fabio Lima

Dear Fabio, Do you have the reference or links to the Annals of Mathematics in which Einstein published his article dismissing the possibility of "Black Hole"?

I wonder whether the article you talk about is the same one that was posted in the following website (I have a copy), but is no more available now!

The following is the conclusion of that paper and the link from which I made a copy:

"The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the "Schwarzschild singularities" do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters whose particles move along circular paths it does not seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that mote general cases will have analogous results. The "Schwarzschild singularity" does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light.

This investigation arose out of discussions the author conducted with Professor H. P. Robertson and with Drs. V. Bargmann and P. Bergmann on the mathematical and physical significance of the Schwarzschild singularity. The problem quite naturally leads to the question, answered by this paper in the negative, as to whether physical models are capable of exhibiting such a singularity." Albert Einstein. https://www.cscamm.umd.edu/people/faculty/tiglio/GR2012/Syllabus_files/EinsteinSchwarzschild.pdf

Andrew James Bruce

AJB> "But I would say that the image agrees well with what is theoretically predicted".

The irony is that most of modern theoretical physics is mere tautology - the conclution (or an experimental "proof", like geometrical deductions) are already contained in the premise of the theory. The truth of the conclusion must be inconformity with that of the premise.

So, whether you do or pretend to do an experiment; you can easily make a computer simulation based on the theory alone; without any actual experimental data. My guess is that some minor experimental data - the ones that conform to the theory are selectively extracted (to justify the experiment); but most of it comes from simulation of the theory.

Even in the most homely setup like the LHC, a pre-selected algorithm (that will prove the theory) is used to select an insignificant fraction of the collected data to "prove" the theory and the "discovery" of the God Particle (Higgs boson). To find the trick how it is done, please follow "futurehuman's" comments at the bottom of the page of the of the following article:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/life-and-physics/2015/sep/20/how-the-higgs-boson-is-born-and-how-it-dies-the-most-precise-picture-so-far

The primary goal of most high-value physics "research" is to "prove" the theory!

Dear Abdul Malek,

The reference is:

A. Einstein, ''ON A STATIONARY SYSTEM WITH SPHERICAL SYMMETRY CONSISTING OF MANY GRAVITATING MASSES'', ANNALS OF MATHEMATICS 40(4), 922 (1939).

I got a PDF file of this nice paper, in which Einstein himself shows mathematically the impossibility of a black hole!

Dear Manigandan Sekar,

In English, questions must be ended with a ''?'' symbol. Could you correct this above?

The tragic truth is that the theories of relativity, the related field based theories, “Big Bang Creation", and ALL the Dark/Black Cosmic Monsters are Mathematics based Myths; which are masquerading as “science”. These myths were created at the turn of the 20th century after the rationale of conventional theology collapsed with the recognition of evolution of life (not the-creation of God) and particularly after the Evil quantum phenomena (non-deterministic) were recognized.

These myths were imposed on physics in particular and society in general by parasitic monopoly capitalism; the same way the theological myths were imposed by equally parasitic medieval feudalism. The only difference is that the new myths has to be given the vaneer of “science” with contrived, deceptive and even false “proofs” to make them credible to the gullible mortals of our time!

Aside from the case of the "discovery" of the God Particle mentioned above; how this trick is done would be clear from the following comment even on a credible finding of astrophysics, reported at the link below: Preprint Multi-Physics of AGN Jets in the Multi-Messenger Era

Comment: [Dear Ms. Rani, If you start with an initial axiom or premise of a truth, in your case “ AGN jets from the accretion disk of a black hole”; all the subsequent deduction and explanation must conform with your assumed truth. And you then have to devise all kinds of extraneous factors to explain things away.

Take the particular case of high energy hump (in your spectra) at around 1MeV or even at 1.87 GeV, which seems to be of considerable intensity. Your only way to explain these high energy cases, from your perspective, must depend on something like “inverse Compton effect” . But how much efficiency do you expect for such a process per unit area, given the cross sections of a photon and (say) an electron at their relative high velocities in the same direction of emission? Luckily, you do not invoke a mysterious “Dark matter” (kind of a phlogiston of official astrophysics), which would have made your admirable work even less credible.

The point I am driving at in my criticism of the apparent lesson from this work, (which is inconclusive) is that if you look at this work without any compulsory (for most of the official astrophysicists) pre-supposition (of Big Bang, Black Hole etc.); then probably you can think outside the box and consider other possibilities, which might give better insight into the system under consideration.

You would notice that the I MeV peak is close to the electron-positron annihilation energy and similarly the 1.87GeV is close to the proton-antiproton annihilation energy and now you can guess what I am driving at! But I know very well your predicament that any consideration of large scale occurrence of antiparticle in the universe is an absolutely forbidden idea and a sin and sacrilege for “Big Bang”, “Black Hole”, “Dark Matter “ etc., ad nauseum cosmology!

You may (if you wish) possibly find some guidance in understanding the results you obtained from (at least) the following two of my publications, which (Late) Halton (Chip) Arp admired:

Article The Cosmic Gamma-Ray Halo - New Imperative for a Dialectical...

Article Ambartsumian, Arp and the Breeding Galaxies*

Abdul Malek

> The irony is that most of modern theoretical physics is mere tautology - the conclution (or an experimental "proof", like geometrical deductions) are already contained in the premise of the theory

Well, what is true is that any observation needs to be interpreted in the context of a mathematical model. I do not think there is a way out of this. So, the best we can say - and this is what physicists actually say - is that the observations match the theory well or they do not. A theory is good if it matches observations well and is bad otherwise. You have to take into account the domain of validity of the theory, experimental errors and make some decision on how well we require the data to fit the theoretical predictions.

Now, in the context of general relativity and black holes, the data from gravitational wave observations and this image of the black hole "shadow" are consistent with general relativity. This together with lots of other experiments/observations tell us that general relativity is a good theory.

Andrew James Bruce

AJB> “Well, what is true is that any observation needs to be interpreted in the context of a mathematical model.”

This is not true for natural science. It is only true for Einsteinian “physics”(which is not science), geometry and theology! “Interpreting observation in the context of mathematical model or theory” is not the way for searching for new truth, but only attempts to force assumed truths on objective reality. And as is the case with “New Physics”, with subjective, contrived, deceptive and even fake “experimental evidence”, if necessary!

Natural science traditionally first searched for objective facts and experimental data (without the bias of an assumed theory) and then systematized the objective facts and data to form concepts, hypotheses and theories that allowed science to deal and assimilate mountains of jumbled, often confusing and contradictory facts and data, illiminated by the brilliant insight of a theory. The theory in turn led to search for new objective facts in a dialectical relation with empirical and experimental investigation.

Einsteinian “physics” (the pabulum of official science) reversed the powerful scientific method to mere tautology – i.e., making experiment and observation to establish the truth assumed in the theory and to make any new observation consistent with the theory with new parameters if necessary. Like the Epicycles, this methodology does not seek new truth but only tries to explain and demonstrate the manifestation of the assumed truth (like the truth of God) in the details of Nature and the world. Modern official physicists are but the new priests of theology.

The following is what Einstein had to say of geometry in particular and of Einsteinian “physics” in general: “Geometry sets out from certain conceptions such as "plane," "point," and "straight line," with which we are able to associate more or less definite ideas, and from certain simple propositions (axioms) which, in virtue of these ideas, we are inclined to accept as "true." Then, on the basis of a logical process, the justification of which we feel ourselves compelled to admit, all remaining propositions are shown to follow from those axioms, i.e. they are proven. A proposition is then correct ("true") when it has been derived in the recognized manner from the axioms. The question of "truth" of the individual geometrical propositions is thus reduced to one of the "truth" of the axioms.

Now it has long been known that the last question is not only unanswerable by the methods of geometry, but that it is in itself entirely without meaning … The concept "true" does not tally with the assertions of pure geometry, because by the word "true" we are eventually in the habit of designating always the correspondence with a "real" object; geometry, however, is not concerned with the relation of the ideas involved in it to objects of experience, but only with the logical connection of these ideas among themselves” Albert Einstein; Relativity: The Special and General Theory.. Methuen & Co. Ltd. 1952.

Dear Abdul Malek,

I plainly agree to your above post. Modern Physics has created more and more epicycles... Until some new Galileo arise...

Abdul Malek

>This is not true for natural science.

It is for sure true in the context of physics, which is what we are discussing.

> “Interpreting observation in the context of mathematical model or theory” is not the way for searching for new truth, but only attempts to force assumed truths on objective reality.

I disagree as does every physicist.

Physics is all about making mathematical models and seeing how they match to nature. The key point is that these models are used to make predictions that can be tested against nature. It is this predictive power that is important in physics and its applications.

No one is really forcing anything on nature, but rather constructing mathematical models.

Andrew James Bruce

AJB> “Physics is all about making mathematical models”

This is ALL that you official theoretical physicists and the followers of Albert Einstein do, shut-up and calculate! But how and from where do you make your “mathematical models”? Not from facts of objective reality as was the case with old physics, but from thought, from head and from the “consistency of mathematics”; because for you lot (like Plato) mathematics is the a priori determinant of the universe ("Our Mathematical Universe": Max Tegmark). You then impose your cooked-up models on Nature, the same way Kant imposed his “logical categories” on objective reality!

This tragic turn for humanity and natural science came about with the breakdown of causality in philosophy (for Kant) and in natural science (for Einstein) after the recognition of the quantum phenomena. To save failed causality as the tool of epistemology (instead of replacing it); both Kant and Einstein abandoned objective reality as "unknowable thing-in-itself" and transcended to the Kingdom of Thought (of Plato) to cook-up in their head the “logical” and the “mathematical” categories respectively; which poor objective reality must now follow. Regressive monopoly capitalism and moribund theology found perfect resonance of their interest with this tragic turn of philosophy and physics.

This is where we stand now, Sir! You official physicists are not looking for objective truth in Nature, but are engaged in interpreting and revealing the workings of the truth of your theory (“logical categories”) in the details of Nature, the same way the priests do with the truth of God! Gone are the days of the free thinkers, the passionate and creative giants who pursued their profession for the mere thirst of knowledge and truth under the most severe conditions and more often under the threat of persecution and death. They are now replaced by troops of conformed "scientist serfs" (to borrow an expression from the Bengali poet Tagore) who are totally dependent on monopoly capital for their livelihood, career and crafts and who toil mightily to bring out only "expected" and "acceptable" results! You create "fact" (aka, myths) from your theory and "prove" it shamelessly through tricks, to impress the lowly mortals and to win their loyalty to the decadent established order!

Please note: "Causality" as a crude tool for epistemology was still satisfactory enough for classical physics; but it is totally unsatisfactory for modern times, specially after the recognition of evolution in Nature and particularly after the recognition of the quantum phenomena. Only "materialist dialectics" as a powerful tool of epistemology can fulfil this task for modern physics and philosophy. Please see my RG profile and my humble efforts in that direction as represented through my publications.

Abdul Malek

> But how and from where do you make your “mathematical models”? ...

It depends on what you are specifically talking about as well as who the originators of the models in question. It can be a either mathematically driven, phenomenological driven or a mixture.

Personally, I work in mathematical physics and so my work is much more mathematics than physics.

> You then impose your cooked-up models on Nature...

Not exactly. They are then tested against nature before being accepted as a good or bad model. Or at least this is what should happen in principle.

What is true is that many of the models today are out of reach of being tested. Thus they are treated as tentative possible models. One can learn a lot from such models as well as toy models. They may not match nature well, but they may be useful in exploring mathematical structures that might be behind more realistic models.

>... because for you lot (like Plato) mathematics is the a priori determinant of the universe

This is a very philosophical point and opinions here are opinions and can change.

I personally do not quite agree with Tegmark that the Universe necessarily "is" mathematical in nature. However, it seems undeniable that mathematics is the best way to describe Nature. It gives predictive powers to our understanding. For example, rather than just saying that a massive object falls to the ground, we can say with an acceleration of 9.8 m/s/s. You can calculate the speed of the object just before it hits the ground. You can then test this against observations.

> You official physicists are not looking for objective truth in Nature...

We are looking for a deeper understanding of Nature via mathematical models. I am not quite sure what you mean by objective truth in this context.

>... the same way the priests do with the truth of God!

Comparing science with religion like this is a very poor show. It shows lack of understanding. It is also insulting.

>... monopoly capital for their livelihood, career and crafts and who toil mightily to bring out only "expected" and "acceptable" results!

It is true that one, especially in an early stage, needs to take into account the trends and hot topics in science. This just a fact of life when applying for funding and jobs.

However, you are very wrong with your comment of "expected" and "acceptable" results. Most of us are looking for unexpected and novel things. If these results are at odds with accepted science, then this needs to be explained. It may be an error or some misunderstanding, or it really could be a new thing. But again, you will not make much impact in science by just giving the obvious and expected results.

I have not replied to all your points as most of them are not worth me commenting on.

Andrew James Bruce

AJB> "Comparing science with religion like this is a very poor show. It shows lack of understanding. It is also insulting."

I think it is useless to continue this discussion because you are just repeating your naive idealist views of what you call “theoretical physics”. What you lot are practicing Sir, is not physics or science in the usual sense of the term; you are involved in making Math (or is it rather Methe) driven mysticism and fantasies – a causality based one-sided metaphysics, from one extreme of “Hypotheses no fingo” of the crass materialism of Newton to the other extreme of Einsteinian mathematical idealism – “Matter is a Myth”! Mathematics is the epitome of causality based Platonic idealism and theology.

At best you are engaged in medieval and mathematics based scholasticism, tautology, Kantian antinomies etc., - a practice that the Churchmen (especially) in Western Europe continued even after Copernican revolution and continue till modern times in the persons like Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître of Begium, John Polkinghorne of UK and also the theological groups around Wilton Park (founded by none other than Winston Churchill!) in UK, the Templeton foundation in US and of course the “scientists” around the Vatican. You must know that what is now known as Einsteinian theoretical physics and cosmology is dictated and dominated by these groups, as the following report will indicate: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-19870036

Also you must know who decided that the “Big Bang theory” must be the theory of physics from what Geoffrey Burbidge had to say, “By 1982, when a conference on cosmology was held at the Vatican, a new approach was taken. The radicals around, such as F. Hoyle, V. Ambartsuminan and this speaker (to mention a few) were not even invited. The conference was confined completely to Big Bang cosmology and its proponents. In fact in the introduction to the published volume of the proceedings of the meeting (Pontifical Academy of Sciences, 1982) it was emphasized that only believers (in the Big Bang) were present; and that there was clearly a deliberate decision of the organizers” : G Burbidge, In “The Universe at Large: Key Issues in Astronomy and Cosmology.

I hope these information will show you what kind of “theoretical physics” you lot are engaged in. Social/historical practice and not theory, which decides what scientific knowledge is! Subjective, contrived, deceptive “proof” etc. ad nauseum, is no measure for positive knowledge. The theories of classical physics arose out of practice and experimental facts (not from Thought); needed no “proof” at all and are being proved millions of times daily through the practice of modern social life. On the contrary, much promoted theories of “field”-based Einsteinian theories have led to not a single practice in more than hundred years of their existence! Before you mention GPS or such other things, please see at least the following RG discussion:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_much_and_how_does_a_Global_Positioning_System_GPS_depend_on_relativity_theories

Abdul Malek

> I think it is useless to continue this discussion because you are just repeating your naive idealist views of what you call “theoretical physics”.

We agree, but for different reasons.

Andrew James Bruce and to ALL,

The very loud conclusion that comes out of this dicussion is that truth hurts, where it must!