[deleted]

We already have https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2022/05/second-black-hole-image-unveiled-first-from-our-galaxy/

[removed]

1. We never took (EDIT: detailed) pictures of exoplanets. These pictures are illustrated and fake. The only pictures we have, are spectral lines and so on.
2. We took a picture of Sagittarius A*, not exactly of the black hole but of the hot gas around it

A black hole itself cannot be seen as it absorbs everything including light, but hypothesis says that black holes do emit some radiation, which we can photograph in the appropriate spectrum.

> We never took pictures of exoplanets. These pictures are illustrated and fake.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_directly_imaged_exoplanets ;)

Sure they're no artist's rendition, but they are legit pictures of exoplanets :P

Based on [0], it seems that the radiation is from outside the event horizon, not the black hole itself:

"Hawking radiation is black body radiation that is theorized to be released outside a black hole's event horizon because of relativistic quantum effects. "

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation

> We never took pictures of exoplanets. These pictures are illustrated and fake. The only pictures we have, are spectral lines and so on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_directly_imaged_exoplanets

Now you can complain about how these are unresolved, and to the extent we have maps of exoplanets, they're very low resolution reconstructions of temperature, but we do have pictures.

It actually IS from the black hole. If you read on in that text:

>Hawking radiation reduces the mass and rotational energy of black holes and is therefore also theorized to cause black hole evaporation. Because of this, black holes that do not gain mass through other means are expected to shrink and ultimately vanish.

It's not a dumb question given how the scientific community often present images to the general non technical public without properly explaining that they are completely made up representations of how these astronomical entities might look.

Ok, that was uncalled for. Are you expecting for me to read the whole article before I blast off a reply to you? Thanks for the info.

We have "data" of exoplanets. Low rez maps spectrograph, thermal etc.

We have not the resolution yet. Picture of the forge of God voyager would only be a pixel away from sun on jwt image. We talking things so far away they don't even take up a pixel at current resolutions. Give it time, ten years from now we will have doubled or maybe even quadrupled resolution.

[removed]

No, we can’t photograph the Hawking radiation. It’s much (much!) to weak. What we can see is the accretion ring around the BH, which is very hot and glowing.

[deleted]

It's worth noting that those are some of the closest exoplanets to our solar system. There's only a few star systems with exoplanets that are close enough to get pictures with.

Hello u/Ok-Internet7999, your submission "Potentially a dumb question about the centre of our galaxy." has been removed from r/space because:

• Such questions should be asked in the "All space questions" thread stickied at the top of the sub.

Please read the rules in the sidebar and check r/space for duplicate submissions before posting. If you have any questions about this removal please message the r/space moderators. Thank you.