Why aren't black holes the brightest objects in the universe?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the question of why black holes are not perceived as the brightest objects in the universe, exploring concepts related to light behavior near event horizons, time dilation, and observational limitations. The scope includes theoretical reasoning and conceptual clarifications regarding black holes and their interactions with light.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that an observer sees an object approaching the event horizon slow down, leading to the question of why we do not see everything that crosses the horizon frozen in time.
  • One participant suggests that light from objects near the event horizon gets redshifted over time, eventually moving into the radio wave spectrum.
  • Another participant questions whether radio telescopes would be overwhelmed by such redshifted radiation.
  • It is argued that the power observed from an object falling into a black hole approaches zero due to increasing time dilation, which affects the detectability of emitted radiation.
  • A participant raises the idea that there is a constant source of energy, such as photons, entering the horizon, prompting further discussion on visibility.
  • Some participants emphasize that photons must enter an observer's eye to be seen, implying that those falling into a black hole cannot be observed.
  • One participant discusses the implications of time dilation on the emission of photons from a source falling into a black hole, suggesting that the time between emissions becomes infinitely long as it approaches the event horizon.
  • A later reply introduces the concept of conformal time and its relevance to observing black holes, questioning its effect in the context of our galaxy.
  • Another participant mentions quasars, indicating that under certain conditions, black holes can be among the brightest objects, but not for the reasons initially proposed in the thread.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the visibility of objects near black holes, the effects of time dilation, and the implications of conformal time. No consensus is reached regarding the primary reasons for the perceived brightness of black holes.

Contextual Notes

Some discussions involve complex concepts like conformal time and gravitational redshift, which may depend on specific definitions and assumptions that are not fully resolved in the conversation.

DARKSYDE
Messages
50
Reaction score
0
I've seen many examples that an observer witnessing an object approach the event horizon will see it slow down to a point where it never seems to cross. Why then do we not see "everything" that has crossed into this horizon frozen in time?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
The light from the "frozen" object gets red shifted as time passes. Sooner or later the radiation will be in the radio wave spectrum.
 
Then radio telescopes would be blinded by them if that were true?
 
We'd be talking about wavelengths many orders of magnitude larger then the observable universe. I don't think any radio telescopes yet developed detect these.
 
mrspeedybob said:
We'd be talking about wavelengths many orders of magnitude larger then the observable universe. I don't think any radio telescopes yet developed detect these.

Regardless of the wavelength, the power observed by an external observer will just go asymptotically down to zero as the time dilation increases. The wavelength shift just means that this radiation (what little amount there is after an appreciable time) leaves the detectable regime that much faster.
 
But wouldn't there be a constant source of energy entering this horizon? Such as photons ??
 
You are not seeing the big picture here.
 
Chronos said:
You are not seeing the big picture here.

This was way more humorous than it had any right to be, Chronos... :)

Darksyde: In order for you to SEE photons they have to enter your eye! If they're falling into the black hole, they're clearly not going to enter your eye, now are they?
 
Nabeshim,

That's the point, the observer never fully sees an object cross the horizon. The photons will reach your eye until that point.
 
  • #10
Applying my limited understanding of the subject:

If a source of light falls into a black hole, it appears to have its time dilated in such a way so as to never reach the event horizon. But it also means that any two events happening on the source become infinitely stretched in time, as seen by an external observer.
If the two events are two consecutive emissions of a photon, then as it asymptotically approaches the event horizon, the time between the emissions becomes inifitely long. As a result the source appears to grow dimmer(flux goes down) across all wavelengths, even before taking into account the gravitational redshift.
 
  • #11
You still fail to 'see' what is happening in conformal time. If you draw it out in a Penrose diagram, it will become obvious.
 
  • #12
-Chronos

Would conformal time have any effect if we were to observe black holes in our own galaxy? Since there the expansion of the universe does not apply to this kind of observation, would the Hubble constant be somewhat diminished?
 
  • #13
The Hubble effect is too small to measure over distances less than millions of light years.
 
  • #14
That is what I thought as well. Why did you mention it then?
 
  • #15
You are confusing conformal time with distance. It also applies to gravitational wells.
 
  • #16
I just got introduced to quasars.

It would seem that under certain circumstances black holes are among the brightest objects in the universe, though not for the reason the O.P. had in mind.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
4K