body.skin-vector-2022 .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk,body.mw-mf .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk{display:none}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a{display:block;text-align:center;font-style:italic;line-height:1.9}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before,.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{content:"↓";font-size:larger;line-height:1.6;font-style:normal}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before{float:left}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{float:right}Skip to table of contents
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
DateProcessResult
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


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.

It says nothing can escape[edit]

Hawking radiation is mentioned to escape despite it saying nothing escaped 152.76.2.2 (talk) 23:51, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the article pretty clearly states that the radiation is emitted outside the event horizon. What would you suggest make that clearer? ——Digital Jedi Master (talk) 01:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

English?[edit]

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.

Incorrect citation[edit]

The citation for the M87 black hole image does not appear to link to the correct article. Should be https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ab0e85 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.241.149 (talk) 04:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Which citation are you referring to? There are a few different citations about M87. - Parejkoj (talk) 17:33, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

different formula astronomical distance[edit]

In his book the Quantum Theory of Gravitation (2003) the russian scientist Vasily Yanchilin gives arguments opposing existence of black holes. Pleas add this book to the literature and more: Explain whether he is right or wrong with solid argumentation. (Jitso Keizer, www.janjitso.blogspot.com for more info). 194.171.56.13 (talk) 09:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

F152, JJ Cluster Colony, Narela[edit]

F152, JJ Cluster Colony, Narela 106.210.59.75 (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

F152, JJ Cluster Colony, Narela[edit]

F152, JJ Cluster Colony, Narela 106.210.59.75 (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Media addition suggestion[edit]

Do you guys think a simulation like this would add value to the page ?

This particular Gif was made with a render engine me and a friend made. Obviously for a included version i would make a 1080p version.

My argument for why this adds value; We have a lot of very good technical illustrations of say geodesics but at least in my opinion there is still a general confusion regarding how the image of the disk changes depending on the view direction. All renders tend to just show the disk perpendicular to the viewing plane. I think adding a simulation like this could be a good way of illustrating how the image actually changes a lot. This particular simulation includes the Kerr Metric, Time Dilation, relativistic beaming, relativistic doppler effect and a physically accurate blackbody model. So the colors of the disk are accurate, in so far as if we pretend the disk is like 2000 Kelvin hot. For a showcase we could switch the temperature distribution model to something more accurate. Erik Hall (talk) 21:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That file doesn't appear to be freely licensed, so it can't be added regardless. Di (they-them) (talk) 01:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Isn't the creator of the image the one making the suggestion? ——Digital Jedi Master (talk) 15:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clearer Image Found[edit]

The photo used is actually from an unfocused lens from the Perseverance Rover on Mars. The "black hole" is actually the "moon" Phobos orbiting Mars and eclipsing the sun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwEoyntzAz0

I told you it was fake. 76.135.35.127 (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Littered with the assumption of singularity, the article needs a major rewrite.[edit]

In a paper released 5 Dec 2023 (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2312.00841.pdf, 'Do Black Holes have Singularities?', Prof. R. P. Kerr, University of Canterbury, Christchurch) states: 'There is no proof that black holes contain singularities when they are generated by real physical bodies'. The paper was also discussed on 8 Jan 2024 by popular astrophysicist YouTuber Anton Petrov here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnlIjiyhAWE.

Also, this article makes mention of quark degeneracy pressure (although without a wikilink) and quark stars, yet makes no mention of the closely related strange star and strange matter theories, even though the article does mention the surely even more speculative preon stars, (preons are hypothetical point particles, conceived of as sub-components of quarks and leptons).

I also suggest linking to QCD matter, Quark–gluon plasma.

Also noteworthy, CERN claims to have created matter '30 to 50 times as dense as an ordinary nucleus': https://home.cern/science/physics/heavy-ions-and-quark-gluon-plasma. MathewMunro (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories