Talk:Black hole

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Black hole article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17Auto-archiving period: 2 months

This page is not a forum for general discussion about black holes. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about black holes at the Reference desk. For science questions, you can ask an astrophysicist at NASA, post a question in Physics Forums, or post a question in sci.physics.research.

	Black 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.
	Black 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.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 23, 2004.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 27, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted November 19, 2006 Featured article review Demoted January 7, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed August 31, 2010 Good article nominee Listed 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

This  level-3 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Astronomy: Astronomical objects / Cosmology Top‑importance Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects. This article is supported by Cosmology task force. Physics: Relativity Top‑importance Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the relativity task force.

To-do list for Black hole: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2024-02-04 Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Expand : The article has no discussion on the interior of a black hole, for which numerous sources exist. Added references to newly revised sections/ identify statements that need referencing. (i.e. add {{fact}} tags.) Find references for "citation needed" tags. Expand history section Create a non-technical introduction to black holes, either as a new section or separate article (Talk:Black hole/Archive 15#Introduction article)

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 4 times. The weeks in which this happened: October 11 to 17, 2015 (13th) October 18 to 24, 2015 (6th) October 25 to 31, 2015 (2nd) April 7 to 13, 2019 (6th)

There is a request, submitted by Catfurball, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. The rationale behind the request is: "Important".

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

• https://news.osu.edu/black-hole-is-closest-to-earth-among-the-smallest-ever-discovered/

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

Intro paragraph

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.

create the paragraph: Quantum-field-theory singularity replacement

The maximal spatiotemporal density central region (probably chromodynamic fluid) has a complicated quantum-field-theory description (it's equivalent to virtual particles):

• the fermionic part of the virtual particles reaches maximal degeneracy
• the bosonic part cannot reach fermion degeneracy limitation but it reaches Schwarzschild mass–energy limitation

We cannot simply add the fermion degeneracy limitation and the Schwarzschild mass–energy bosonic limitation (probably we can explain only 80% of the phenomenon in the densest black hole region) because some of the mass–energy is converted to dark matter (20% percent of the densest black hole region phenomenon has to be described with a future dark matter formula we don't have today). 2A02:587:4F0C:9300:6803:FAB1:62CE:527A (talk) 09:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2025 [change image caption to explicitly reference the Event Horizon Telescope]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The caption for the first image should explicitly state that it is from the Event Horizon Telescope project, so that it is clear that the image is based on observation, in contrast with the second image, which is described as a "simulated view". Also, the image info does not use the word "composite", so "composite" should be removed from the caption.

Suggested edit to caption: Change "Composite image" to "Event Horizon Telescope image".

-- 50.47.140.1 (talk) 16:35, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this proposed change. The current caption is clear enough:

• Composite image of the core region of Messier 87 taken at radio wavelengths showing glowing gas surrounding a supermassive black hole.

Specifically "composite" should remain as this is not a direct image. The Wikimedia Commons image info is not relevant, what counts is the publication of the image. Typical of these kinds of images is the first sentence of the image processing section of the article from the EHT in Astronomy and Astrophysics 681, A79 (2024)

The EHT’s sparse (u, v) coverage results in an ill-posed inverse problem that prevents the recovery of a unique image from a measured set of visibilities.

In my opinion "composite" is a concise and appropriate word in the context of the introduction. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Using the word "composite" is original research. Please cite a reliable source that uses the word "composite". --50.47.140.1 (talk) 17:05, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The cited source does not use the word "composite". The source says that "We have presented imaging analysis and results for EHT observations of M87 in 2017 April." (p. 29) --50.47.140.1 (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So "Image processing result from the sparse array of radio telescopes known as the EHT" is better than "Composite"? Johnjbarton (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that the experts do not use the word "composite", so defending its use in the caption is defending original research. If readers want to delve into the complexities of how the image was created, they can read the EHT article and the cited source. Basically, saying "composite" oversimplifies how the image was created, so the caption is misleading. That should be reason enough to remove "composite" from the caption. --50.47.140.1 (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, there is no such thing as a "direct image". All images are processed in some way. Even your visual system "processes" images. --50.47.140.1 (talk) 17:13, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I agree, but your eye does not solve an ill-posed inverse problem requiring pages to explain. The source clearly says "prevents the recovery of a unique image" so some kind of qualification is needed. If other editors insist we can give a more complete description in the image caption. However, I think "composite" captures the idea that no one looking through a telescope will see this image. I'm unsure why you think this is a big deal. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The EHT is a radio telescope, so it doesn't have an eye piece. That would be immediately apparent to readers if the caption linked to Event Horizon Telescope. --50.47.140.1 (talk) 18:16, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The cited source says that "We generated images of M87 from the 2017 EHT data in two stages." (p. 2)

Based on that sentence, here is another suggested wording for the caption:

Image of the core region of Messier 87 generated by the Event Horizon Telescope project from data taken at radio wavelengths. The image shows the glowing gas surrounding a supermassive black hole.

The words "generated by" are reliably sourced, and they suggest that nothing like the image could be seen through an eye piece.

--50.47.140.1 (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see you made an edit while I was writing that. I would suggest linking radio telescopes and EHT. --50.47.140.1 (talk) 19:10, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2025 [suggest linking radio telescopes and EHT in the caption for the first image]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I suggest linking radio telescopes and EHT in the caption for the first image. Radio telescope has a link to radio astronomy.

-- 50.47.140.1 (talk) 19:23, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done: Added EHT link. Left radio astronomy link alone as it gives broader context of the method by which black holes are studied and also links to radio telescopes within the article. SI09 (talk) 00:06, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. My concern with the "[[Radio astronomy|radio]]" piped link is that readers would expect to be redirected to Radio instead of Radio astronomy. Readers would thus be surprised by a moderate instance of an easter egg link. Working the phrase "radio astronomy" into the caption and linking that would solve the problem.

• Suggested caption edit: "A radio astronomy image ...".

The phrase "radio astronomy image" is accepted usage in radio astronomy.

Of course, the essential requirement for the caption is that readers clearly understand that the image is generated from observed data.

--50.47.157.199 (talk) 16:10, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, John. Changing back to "answered=yes". --50.47.157.199 (talk) 21:11, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest referring to "pulsars" in the lead instead of "neutron stars"

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The lead says: "The discovery of neutron stars by Jocelyn Bell Burnell in 1967 ...".

However, the body of the article says "pulsars" in exactly the same context.

For consistency and accuracy, the lead should say "pulsars", because the researchers didn't know for sure that they had discovered neutron stars at the time.

A text search for "Burnell" will find both cases.

-- 50.47.157.199 (talk) 21:53, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I deleted this intro sentence for now. The only source cited that connects Burnell to the history of black holes says only:

• By identifying the first pulsars, Jocelyn Bell Burnell set the stage for discoveries in black holes and gravitational waves.

I'll look in to some secondary refs for the History. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:58, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The current content in the body of the article is

• This process was helped by the discovery of pulsars by Jocelyn Bell Burnell in 1967, which, by 1969, were shown to be rapidly rotating neutron stars. Until that time, neutron stars, like black holes, were regarded as just theoretical curiosities; but the discovery of pulsars showed their physical relevance and spurred a further interest in all types of compact objects that might be formed by gravitational collapse.

However the sources are two primary sources about pulsars and a reliable website with a single sentence quoted above. Bartusiak mentions Burnell only for the discovery of pulsars. Thorne does not make the analysis in the article either. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:22, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reworked the History section to reduce the prominence of Hewish/Burnell discovery in the context of black holes per sources. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:38, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, John. Those are great improvements to the article. --50.47.157.199 (talk) 19:26, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2025 [copyedits]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

These quotes from the article need to be copyedited:

• "In 1967 Antony Hewish and Jocelyn Bell Burnell discovered of pulsars ..."

Remove "of".

• "... and Wheeler' statuture in the field ensured ..."

Change to "Wheeler's stature".

-- 50.47.157.199 (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done [1]. Thanks for spotting. - DVdm (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. However, "Wheeler' stature" should be "Wheeler's stature". --50.47.157.199 (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oops again: [2]. - DVdm (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --50.47.157.199 (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image mangled in mobile view

If you select Mobile View from the bottom of the web page, you can see what I see on an iPad. The top of the page has a confusing chipped image. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:31, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Making the intro more understandable

As a layperson with little knowledge of the type of science discussed in the article, the intro to this page borders on incomprehensible. I suggest that the intro be edited so it is more palatable to a general audience. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 02:44, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your specific suggestions are welcomed. The current first sentence is

• A black hole is a massive, compact astronomical object so dense that its gravity prevents anything from escaping, even light.

I don't know what we could change to make it clearer. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:31, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That first sentence is fine, but other parts of the intro are difficult to understand. I was hoping that, at some point, someone with a thorough knowledge of the subject could simplify the language throughout the intro. I'm not qualified to do that, and I just wanted to offer my feedback. I came to this article because I wanted to know what black holes are, but I had to go elsewhere to learn about them, because this page was too hard to comprehend. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 01:41, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you provided sources that you think are clearer, that would be very helpful. Johnjbarton (talk) 13:43, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source does not verify questionable content.

The following sentences make no sense to me:

• The evidence for the existence of stellar and supermassive black holes implies that in order for black holes not to form, general relativity must fail as a theory of gravity, perhaps due to the onset of quantum mechanical corrections. A much anticipated feature of a theory of quantum gravity is that it will not feature singularities or event horizons and thus black holes would not be real artefacts.

I can't fathom how evidence for the existence of black holes can imply that they do not form or how such evidence could, due to new theory, imply they are not real. The sentences are sourced to

• Kiefer, C. (12 January 2006). "Quantum gravity: general introduction and recent developments". Annalen der Physik. 518 (1–2): 129–148. doi:10.1002/andp.200651801-210. ISSN 0003-3804.

The source talks about the need for quantum gravity to understand the evolution of black holes. I found nothing in the article to support these two sentences. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:38, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]