Why haven't we observed distortion of objects near a black hole's event horizon?

Click For Summary
Observations of objects near a black hole's event horizon are limited due to the distance of black holes, particularly the supermassive ones at the center of the Milky Way. High-energy emissions from matter being accelerated and drawn in are detectable, but individual stars or planets cannot be observed. The radiation from these accreting materials obscures specific observations. Additionally, time dilation effects cause infalling objects to appear to slow down and dim, complicating direct observation. Consequently, the combination of distance, radiation interference, and relativistic effects explains the lack of observed distortion near black holes.
Benzoate
418
0
why haven't there been any observations of planets or stars or anything near a black hole's event horizon being distorted?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There are no black holes near enough to see individual stars. What has been observed is the high energy emissions resulting from things being speeded up (and ultimately falling in).
 
mathman said:
There are no black holes near enough to see individual stars. What has been observed is the high energy emissions resulting from things being speeded up (and ultimately falling in).

But aren't there supposedly to supermassive black holes at the center of our Milky way galaxy? Surely scientists should observed debris falling in since there are black holes at the center of our galaxies.
 
The center of our galaxy is pretty far away and the radiation from the stuff circling the black hole masks any individual things. Moreover there is a time dilation effect so that things falling in would appear to slow down and get dimmer (red shift), so that even if we were close enough to see, we would not see the actual infall.
 

Thread 'Is using r as a coordinate in Birkhoff's theorem a limitation?'

In Birkhoff’s theorem, doesn’t assuming we can use r (defined as circumference divided by for any given sphere) as a coordinate across the spacetime implicitly assume that the spheres must always be getting bigger in some specific direction? Is there a version of the proof that doesn’t have this limitation? I’m thinking about if we made a similar move on 2-dimensional manifolds that ought to exhibit infinite order rotational symmetry. A cylinder would clearly fit, but if we...
View full post »

Similar threads

I Falling through the event horizon of an evaporating black hole
2
Replies
51
Views
4K
I You can't actually enter a blackhole?
Replies
40
Views
3K
B Entering a black hole -- I know I must be wrong (Help me understand why)
Replies
29
Views
3K
B Is crossing a black hole's event horizon possible?
Replies
46
Views
7K
I I don't see how a black hole's event horizon can be crossed
2
Replies
73
Views
963
I Time Dilation at Moving Black Hole Event Horizon
Replies
16
Views
4K
A Timelike curves on event horizon
Replies
7
Views
2K
B Theories about light and time near a black hole
Replies
20
Views
2K
I Do any real macroscopic black holes have a singularity?
Replies
11
Views
2K
I Evaporating black hole: First principles consideration
Replies
1
Views
1K