Talk:Black hole

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleBlack hole is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good articleBlack hole has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 23, 2004.
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive Article milestones
July 27, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
November 19, 2006Featured article reviewDemoted
January 7, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
August 31, 2010Good article nomineeListed
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of March 7, 2007.
Current status: Former featured article, current good article

Light "cannot escape a black hole"[edit]

"no particles or even electromagnetic radiation such as light — can escape from it."

I believe it to be the case that photons do not touch a black hole, and simply go past it. Light always goes in straight line, but black holes bend spacetime and therefore cause light to go "around" the black hole; light does not touch it. Is this incorrect? -- (talk) 14:26, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arguably incorrect. Light with a path towards a Black Hole (specifically, towards its center) will arguably pass through the Event Horizon. I write "arguably" because a Black Hole is a space-time singularity and light will take an infinite time to actually pass the EH, with corresponding (infinite) red-shift (if it could be observed). So, while it is definitely incorrect to say that all light goes around a BH, it is also the case that no light has yet gone through a BH's Event Horizon. It is light passing *near* a BH that is lensed (bent). (With the understanding that the Event Horizon is a theoretical surface and has no material existence, nothing to 'touch' there.) (talk) 10:35, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi all - not my field whatsoever, but I have read a bit about Hawking raditation. The beginning part of this wiki states that no electromagnetic radiation is emitted from a black hole. Should this be highlighted to show that, within the theory of Hawking radiation, this might not be completely true? Jamzze (talk) 10:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It does not say that no radiation is emitted. It says that none escapes (from inside). It then says that Hawking radiation is emitted from the horizon. This is correct according to mainstream theory.Weburbia (talk) 12:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. There appears to be a misconception going around that light is gravitationally pulled into a black hole. The wording here brings that to mind and doesn't seem entirely clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 15:26, 29 March 2022 (UTC) Are black holes real — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utka05 (talkcontribs) 08:56, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Write on the main table: smallest observed so-and-so, smallest theorized so-and-so // biggest observed so-and-so, biggest theorized so-and-so[edit]

Write both observed AND theorized (if you hide theory vs data science doesn't evolve).

Intro paragraph[edit]

Replace the dashes for commas. Introduce John Michell and Pierre Simon in the beginning of the second paragraph. Meaning put the subjects who discovered it first.

risk to earth[edit]

Today I wanted to add the following to the introduction:

There is no risk for earth to be destroyed by a black hole<ref>{{Cite web|url=|title=Can Earth Be Affected by a Black Hole in the Future?|work=[[The Wire (India)]]|date=2019-08-02|access-date=2022-12-16}}</ref> within the next four billion years.<ref>{{Cite web|url=|title=Is Earth In Danger Of Getting Devoured By A Black Hole?|work=[[International Business Times]]|date=2019-08-30|access-date=2022-12-16}}</ref>

It was removed as "not needed", but I believe this point to be the most relevant of all. Best regards,--Vergänglichkeit (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think we need to include a negative. Zaathras (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I reverted it. If there is no risk, why mention it? The article is not about Earth, and there is no black holes close to Earth, and there is no real life scenario where black holes can affect Earth. No need to include speculations. Artem.G (talk) 17:34, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2022[edit]

Siddarthkoushik (talk) 14:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)hii I want write short answer for students who want it short answer for black holeReply[reply]

 Not done: This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". - DVdm (talk) 15:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

edit request[edit]

can someone add a picture of the Sagittarius A* black hole. BrokeStudent69 (talk) 02:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It says nothing can escape[edit]

Hawking radiation is mentioned to escape despite it saying nothing escaped (talk) 23:51, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Black holes must be hot inside[edit]

There is a continual entry of matter to excite. How can hawking radiation be emitted if they are not Hot? (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Black holes could also be stars that are so big that the gravitational pull is strong enough to pull back light but not strong enough somehow to collapse the star on itself. This is the "Dark Star" theory Randomsmartkid (talk) 14:53, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Event Horizon[edit]

The event horizon could be a optical illusion because it may not have mass. Since the beyond the event horizon is near instant absorbtion into the singularity. The Event Horizon might not have mass and therefore could be a optical illusion. Randomsmartkid (talk) 14:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The passage

"Scholars of the time were initially excited by the proposal that giant but invisible 'dark stars' might be hiding in plain view, but enthusiasm dampened when the wavelike nature of light became apparent in the early nineteenth century, as if light were a wave rather than a particle, it was unclear what, if any, influence gravity would have on escaping light waves."

I hope that someone knowledgeable about the subject can rewrite this, but in English.