You’ve seen them. Those glowing, blurry, orange-ish rings floating in a void of total darkness. When the first images of black hole M87* dropped back in 2019, the world kinda went nuts. It was everywhere. It was on the front page of every major newspaper, trending for days, and honestly, a lot of people were a little underwhelmed. Why was it so blurry? Why didn't it look like the high-definition, shimmering light-show from Interstellar?
The truth is way more interesting than a Hollywood CGI render.
Black holes are, by definition, invisible. They are regions of spacetime where gravity is so intense that not even light—the fastest thing in the universe—can escape. So, when we talk about images of black hole targets like M87* or Sagittarius A* (the one in our own backyard), we aren't actually looking at the black hole itself. We are looking at the "shadow." We're seeing the silhouette of a monster against the backdrop of its own glowing dinner.
Why images of black hole targets are so hard to capture
Imagine trying to take a photo of a donut sitting on the surface of the Moon. Now imagine you're trying to do that from your backyard in New Jersey. That’s the level of difficulty we’re talking about here.
To get that 2019 shot of M87*, which is 55 million light-years away, astronomers couldn't just use a big telescope. They needed a telescope the size of the entire Earth. Since we can't actually build a planet-sized mirror (yet), they used a technique called Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI). Basically, they linked up eight radio observatories around the globe—from the South Pole to Hawaii to the Spanish Sierra Nevada—and synchronized them with atomic clocks. This created the Event Horizon Telescope (EHT).
It wasn't a "snap and post" situation.
The EHT collected petabytes of data. So much data, in fact, that it was faster to fly hard drives on planes than to try and send the files over the internet. Then came the math. Katie Bouman and a massive team of researchers had to develop algorithms to stitch all those data points together into a single, cohesive image. They had to account for the fact that the Earth is spinning, the atmosphere is messy, and the data was naturally "patchy."
The "Fuzzy" Problem
People complain about the resolution. "It’s out of focus," they say. Well, yeah. But consider this: M87* is about 6.5 billion times the mass of our sun. It's a behemoth. But because it’s so far away, it appears tiny in our sky. The resolution of the EHT is equivalent to being able to read a newspaper in New York while sitting in a cafe in Paris.
💡 You might also like: How to Convert Kilograms to Milligrams Without Making a Mess of the Math
The "blur" isn't a mistake. It’s the limit of physics.
In 2023, things got a bit sharper. Scientists used a new machine-learning algorithm called PRIMO to reprocess the original M87* data. It basically filled in the gaps where the telescopes didn't have coverage. The result? A much thinner, crisper ring. It showed that the "donut" was actually skinnier than we first thought, which helps physicists refine their models of how matter falls into the abyss.
The weird physics of the "Ring"
When you look at images of black hole accretion disks, you’ll notice one side of the ring is always brighter than the other. It’s not because one side has more gas. It’s actually because of a phenomenon called relativistic beaming.
Think of it like this: the gas and dust are swirling around the black hole at speeds approaching the speed of light. The stuff moving toward us appears brighter because the light is being "pushed" in our direction. The stuff moving away looks dimmer. It’s like the Doppler effect, but for light and gravity.
Then there’s the photon ring.
If you were standing near a black hole (which, please don't), light would actually be bent so severely by gravity that it would orbit the black hole. You could theoretically look straight ahead and see the back of your own head. The bright rings we see in these images are the result of light being bent and twisted around the event horizon before finally escaping toward Earth.
Sagittarius A*: Our local monster
While M87* was the first, the 2022 image of Sagittarius A* (Sgr A*) was arguably more impressive. Sgr A* is the black hole at the center of the Milky Way. It's much closer than M87*, but it's also much smaller and way more "jittery."
📖 Related: Amazon Fire HD 8 Kindle Features and Why Your Tablet Choice Actually Matters
Imagine trying to take a long-exposure photo of a toddler who won't stop running. That’s Sgr A*. Because it’s smaller, the matter orbits it much faster—completing a circuit in minutes rather than days or weeks. This made it incredibly difficult to get a "still" shot. The EHT team had to work for years to figure out how to average the movement so we could see the structure.
What did we find? It looks remarkably like M87*.
This was a huge win for Albert Einstein. His theory of General Relativity predicted that black holes should look like this, regardless of their size. Whether it’s 4 million suns (Sgr A*) or 6.5 billion suns (M87*), the math holds up. Gravity is gravity.
Beyond the orange: Multi-wavelength views
Most of the images of black hole structures we see are orange because that’s the color humans chose to represent radio waves. We can't see radio waves with our eyes, so scientists use "false color" to make the data understandable. Orange feels hot and energetic, so it fits.
But we have other ways of looking.
- X-Rays: The Chandra X-ray Observatory looks at the super-heated jets shooting out of black holes. These jets can be thousands of light-years long.
- Infrared: The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) is currently peering through the dust of distant galaxies to see how black holes influence the birth of stars.
- Visible Light: While we can't see the event horizon in visible light, we can see the stars orbiting it. This is how Andrea Ghez and Reinhard Genzel proved Sgr A* existed in the first place—by tracking stars moving at impossible speeds around an invisible point.
It’s a multi-layered puzzle. No single image tells the whole story.
Common misconceptions that still float around
We need to clear some things up. First, black holes aren't vacuum cleaners. They don't "suck" things in from across the galaxy. If our Sun were replaced by a black hole of the same mass, Earth wouldn't get sucked in. We'd just keep orbiting in the dark (and we'd freeze, obviously). You have to get pretty close to the "innermost stable circular orbit" before things get really hairy.
👉 See also: How I Fooled the Internet in 7 Days: The Reality of Viral Deception
Second, the "black" part of the black hole image isn't just empty space. It's a shadow. It’s the region where light has been captured.
Third, that "Interstellar" look? It’s actually quite accurate. Kip Thorne, a Nobel-winning physicist, worked on the movie's effects. The main difference is that the movie shows what you’d see with your eyes if you were right there, whereas the EHT images show us radio emissions from millions of light-years away. Both are "correct" in their own way, just different perspectives.
What’s next for black hole photography?
We aren't done. The EHT is adding more telescopes to its array. There’s talk of putting a radio telescope in space to create an even larger "virtual" telescope. This would give us a "High Definition" view of these objects.
We might soon get "movies."
Instead of a still image, we want to see the accretion disk moving in real-time. We want to see the magnetic fields twisting and snapping, launching those massive jets of plasma into space. We're also looking for the "photon ring," a thin, sharp circle of light that lies even closer to the event horizon. Finding that would be the ultimate test of General Relativity.
Practical steps for the amateur space fan
You don't need a PhD to follow this stuff, but you do need to know where to look. Most people just see a headline and move on, missing the actual science.
- Check the EHT's official site. They release the raw-ish data and explain the "why" behind the colors. It's much better than a summary on a news site.
- Use a star-chart app. Find the constellation Sagittarius. That’s where our black hole lives. You can't see it, but just knowing you're looking toward the heart of the galaxy changes your perspective on a clear night.
- Follow the "Event Horizon" updates. The next big data release is expected to focus on the magnetic fields of Sgr A*. This tells us how these monsters "eat."
- Look into the "Black Hole Pie" analogy. It’s a famous explanation used by the EHT team to describe the scale of their images. It helps ground the cosmic numbers in reality.
The study of images of black hole phenomena is still in its infancy. We've only really seen two of them. There are millions more out there, some spinning so fast they drag spacetime with them, others sitting quietly in the dark, waiting to be found. Every new pixel we capture is a piece of a map showing us how the universe actually works at its most extreme limits.
If you want to stay ahead of the curve, keep an eye on the ALMA (Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array) results. They are the "workhorse" of this project. While the big glamorous photos get the headlines, the day-to-day data from ALMA is where the real discoveries about black hole growth and galaxy evolution are happening right now. Don't wait for the next big press conference; the data is trickling out every month in academic journals.
Stay curious, but stay skeptical of clickbait. Real science is often blurry, difficult, and takes years of math to produce a single, beautiful orange ring. That's what makes it worth it.