# Stuff and Things > HISTORY, veterans & science >  A star orbiting the Milky Ways giant black hole confirms Einstein was right

## Oceander

A star orbiting the Milky Ways giant black hole confirms Einstein was right

Decades of observations revealed the rotation of the stars elliptical orbit

By Emily Conover
April 16, 2020



The first sign that Albert Einsteins theory of gravity was correct has made a repeat appearance, this time near a supermassive black hole.

In 1915, Einstein realized that his newly formulated general theory of relativity explained a weird quirk in the orbit of Mercury. Now, that same effect has been found in a stars orbit of the enormous black hole at the heart of the Milky Way, researchers with the GRAVITY collaboration report April 16 in Astronomy & Astrophysics.

The star, called S2, is part of a stellar entourage that surrounds the Milky Ways central black hole. For decades, researchers have tracked S2s elliptical motion around the black hole. The researchers previously had used observations of S2 to identify a different effect of general relativity, the reddening of the stars light due to whats called gravitational redshift (SN: 7/26/18).

Now, theyve determined that the ellipse rotates over time, whats known as Schwarzschild precession. That precession is the result of the warping of spacetime caused by massive objects, according to general relativity. A similar precession in Mercurys orbit had stumped scientists before Einstein came along (SN: 4/11/18).

While physicists have never found a case where general relativity fails, they are searching for any cracks in the theory that could help lead to a new, improved theory of gravity. The new study confirms that Einsteins theory checks out once again, even in the intense gravitational environment around a supermassive black hole.


*  *  *

Source:  A star orbiting the Milky Ways black hole validates Einstein | Science News

----------

Conservative Libertarian (08-01-2020),Quark (08-01-2020),RMNIXON (08-01-2020),Rutabaga (08-01-2020)

----------


## Old Tex

*The first sign that Albert Einstein’s theory of gravity was correct has made a repeat appearance, this time near a supermassive black hole.*

Who knew? I thought that it was proven every time someone jumps up in the air & doesn't keep going up.

----------

Conservative Libertarian (08-01-2020),Oceander (08-01-2020),Ragot the Gerbil (08-01-2020),Rutabaga (08-01-2020),ruthless terrier (08-02-2020)

----------


## Oceander

> *The first sign that Albert Einstein’s theory of gravity was correct has made a repeat appearance, this time near a supermassive black hole.*
> 
> Who knew? I thought that it was proven every time someone jumps up in the air & doesn't keep going up.


That would be gravity in general; however, Einstein's general relativity adds some distinct wrinkles to the general theory.

----------

Conservative Libertarian (08-01-2020),Quark (08-01-2020)

----------


## Rutabaga

al was pretty smart,,,he invented pi...

----------

Hillofbeans (08-02-2020)

----------


## Captain Kirk!

Isaac Newton was the gravity guy they say, but when it came down to it the only thing he ever discovered was fags.

----------

Oceander (08-01-2020),Ragot the Gerbil (08-01-2020),ruthless terrier (08-02-2020)

----------


## Ragot the Gerbil

> Isaac Newton was the gravity guy they say, but when it came down to it the only thing he ever discovered was fags.


I knew there was something 'off' with him, bum bangers the lot of 'em.

----------


## Ragot the Gerbil

> *The first sign that Albert Einstein’s theory of gravity was correct has made a repeat appearance, this time near a supermassive black hole.*
> 
> Who knew? I thought that it was proven every time someone jumps up in the air & doesn't keep going up.


Gravity doesn't exist, according to the guy I used to work with. Who, in this day and age, was and still is convinced the earth is flat.

----------

Northern Rivers (08-09-2020)

----------


## Oceander

> Gravity doesn't exist, according to the guy I used to work with. Who, in this day and age, was and still is convinced the earth is flat.


Depends on what you mean by existing.  There is a reasonable argument to be made that what we call "gravity" is really an epiphenomenon that arises from the way that space-time and matter interact with each other.

----------

Ragot the Gerbil (08-08-2020)

----------


## Quark

This is all above my pay grade.

----------

Dr. Felix Birdbiter (08-09-2020),Ragot the Gerbil (08-08-2020)

----------


## Oceander

> This is all above my pay grade.


Mine too, which is why I find it so much fun to dabble in it.

----------

Quark (08-08-2020),Ragot the Gerbil (08-08-2020)

----------


## RMNIXON

To be fair Newton's observations and laws were quite accurate and advanced science at the time. They are fine for calculating planetary orbits for example. 

It is only when dealing with massive gravity that we see with stars, black holes, ect....that they break down.

----------

Oceander (08-01-2020),Quark (08-08-2020)

----------


## Oceander

> To be fair Newton's observations and laws were quite accurate and advanced science at the time. They are fine for calculating planetary orbits for example. 
> 
> It is only when dealing with massive gravity that we see with stars, black holes, ect....that they break down.


Of course, and I think that Einstein himself would be the first to agree with you on that.

----------


## UKSmartypants

It doesn't actually break down, the field equations just point to  a barely believable end result, a singularity.   Einstein disbelieved his own equations. Hawking proved the were correct up to a point delimited by  the Schwarzchild Radius. After that we cant prove anything. Which makes it a bit tricky. Although fun to play with mathematically, I dont think anyone seriously believes in  naked singularities any more. Theres something else going on.

Theres a fun theory going round at the moment about medium (up to 1 million solar masses) black holes.

Some guy has discovered the light going round the black hole, the light within a protons width of the surface, forms shells. Like an onion. Each shell, it turns out can only hold a certain number of photons, when full a new shell slightly further out forms. Practically, each shell holds about 6 seconds in time's worth of light, ie each shell represents a 6 second movie of the black holes view of the incoming light from the rest of the universe, thus the trillions of shells of light round a massive black hole would form a movie of the history of local universe round the black hole going back god knows how long?  - assuming you coudl sample an store the shells, and play them back in sequence

----------

Oceander (08-02-2020),Quark (08-08-2020)

----------


## Oceander

> It doesn't actually break down, the field equations just point to  a barely believable end result, a singularity.   Einstein disbelieved his own equations. Hawking proved the were correct up to a point delimited by  the Schwarzchild Radius. After that we cant prove anything. Which makes it a bit tricky. Although fun to play with mathematically, I dont think anyone seriously believes in  naked singularities any more. Theres something else going on.
> 
> Theres a fun theory going round at the moment about medium (up to 1 million solar masses) black holes.
> 
> Some guy has discovered the light going round the black hole, the light within a protons width of the surface, forms shells. Like an onion. Each shell, it turns out can only hold a certain number of photons, when full a new shell slightly further out forms. Practically, each shell holds about 6 seconds in time's worth of light, ie each shell represents a 6 second movie of the black holes view of the incoming light from the rest of the universe, thus the trillions of shells of light round a massive black hole would form a movie of the history of local universe round the black hole going back god knows how long?  - assuming you coudl sample an store the shells, and play them back in sequence


Sounds interesting.  Got a link?

----------


## UKSmartypants

> Sounds interesting.  Got a link?


https://www.newscientist.com/article...glowing-rings/

----------

Oceander (08-02-2020)

----------


## Oceander

> https://www.newscientist.com/article...glowing-rings/



Thx

----------


## Captain Kirk!

*Am i gravity?*Bc im letting everyone down.




*Women are the only creatures to defy the laws of gravity.*The heavier they are, the easier they are to pick up






*Im reading a book about anti-gravity.*Its impossible to put down.




*In what season did Isaac Newton discover gravity?*Fall

----------

Hillofbeans (08-02-2020),Oceander (08-02-2020),Quark (08-08-2020),UKSmartypants (08-02-2020)

----------


## Oceander

> *Am i gravity?*
> 
> Bc im letting everyone down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Women are the only creatures to defy the laws of gravity.*
> 
> ...

----------

Captain Kirk! (08-02-2020),Quark (08-08-2020),UKSmartypants (08-02-2020)

----------


## UKSmartypants

> Thx


never ever doubt i have a link  :Smiley20: 

BS we post not.

----------

Oceander (08-02-2020)

----------


## Ragot the Gerbil

> Mine too, which is why I find it so much fun to dabble in it.


Me too!

----------

Oceander (08-08-2020),Quark (08-09-2020)

----------


## Northern Rivers

> Gravity doesn't exist, according to the guy I used to work with. Who, in this day and age, was and still is convinced the earth is flat.


I tend tp agree with him. Gravity and motion are inexorably linked.

----------


## UKSmartypants

But the issue is that Gravity isnt a fundamental force,  no one has managed to fit it into any model of Symmetry breaking, and its linked with the problem of time, which is more likely to be a local effect and not a dimension.  But tryig to linkj it with motion is also wrong. All motion is relative, so whats you reference frame?  There is no fixed reference frame to provide a measure against, yet we can quantify it.  The point you've missed  is mass. Mass and gravity are somehow linked, by the Higgs Boson, but we dont know how.

Gravity, time and mass. Thats the heart of the problem.

----------

Oceander (08-09-2020),Quark (08-09-2020)

----------


## nonsqtr

> But the issue is that Gravity isnt a fundamental force,  no one has managed to fit it into any model of Symmetry breaking, and its linked with the problem of time, which is more likely to be a local effect and not a dimension.  But tryig to linkj it with motion is also wrong. All motion is relative, so whats you reference frame?  There is no fixed reference frame to provide a measure against, yet we can quantify it.  The point you've missed  is mass. Mass and gravity are somehow linked, by the Higgs Boson, but we dont know how.
> 
> Gravity, time and mass. Thats the heart of the problem.


CPT symmetry is a big clue.

See, if you studied neural networks for a while you'd know a lot about optimization. Especially non-local optimization.

Which is really just a slightly advanced version of the calculus of variations - look here - you speak of "unfolding" which is a very specific mathematical operation, it has very strict requirements, it does NOT happen because of a measly quantum fluctuation.

Consider - when you compactify, you have to compactify "into" something (it's called an embedding). You can't just Willy Nilly add points, or equate points, it isn't allowed. The points you add have to 'come from somewhere", in a manner of speaking - they have to "exist", in another manner of speaking. The only reason you can compactify a dimension is because some other dimension exists.

The brain creates (non-local) probability "fields" which are exactly like quantum fields. They are described by the same math, they "look the same and do the same things".

The attractors you find in the cosmos will look a lot like the ones you find in the brain.

When you determine the shape of an orbital, you're essentially solving an optimization problem. Which you can do abstractly without the need to generate gazillions of random numbers. The Malliavin calculus will give you a simple equation you can program into Matlab and quickly visualize the results.

----------


## UKSmartypants

no no no. i refuse to try and explain cosmology in term of 'psychology', its just bollox........

----------

