Black hole

Atoms for Peace

So US scientists are set to unveil the first ever photo of a black hole. What took them so long, I'm certain with the right preparation I could take a photo of my black hole.

Pherekydes

I hope we'll have a few different angles.

Odhinn

Atoms for Peace wrote: »

So US scientists are set to unveil the first ever photo of a black hole. What took them so long, I'm certain with the right preparation I could take a photo of a black hole.

Durty fecker.


Anyhoo -

By creating a massive virtual telescope, the Event Horizon Telescope project aims to generate enough magnifying power to bring black hole environments into focus, allowing for the study of their characteristics. Because black holes do not emit light, they cannot be seen and are technically invisible. Instead, the Event Horizon Telescope looks to study areas surrounding a black hole, namely the gas which radiates around it due to its intensely strong gravity pull, in an attempt to capture images of its general dynamics.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/black-hole-picture-image-event-horizon-telescope-team-on-april-10/

punisher5112

There is a big red truck in my anus

greencap

Is it a gape?

punisher5112

Could this be used for rubbish disposal....

Atoms for Peace

Event horizon? I'm sure I saw a documentary on the subject, opening a gateway to hell dosen't end well.

punisher5112

Atoms for Peace wrote: »

Event horizon? I'm sure I saw a documentary on the subject, opening a gateway to hell dosen't end well.

Lots of fire and probes many many probes....

OldMrBrennan83

Atoms for Peace wrote: »

So US scientists are set to unveil the first ever photo of a black hole. What took them so long, I'm certain with the right preparation I could take a photo of my black hole.

Someone else already got one.

Your Face

It's interesting and I'm looking forward to it.

greencap

cosmic goatse

Atoms for Peace

greencap wrote: »

cosmic goatse

I miss the old internet.

ToddyDoody

Atoms for Peace wrote: »

So US scientists are set to unveil the first ever photo of a black hole. What took them so long, I'm certain with the right preparation I could take a photo of my black hole.

So we're not talking Jennifer Lopez here.

Kermit.de.frog

punisher5112 wrote: »

Could this be used for rubbish disposal....

Yes, yes it could.

Road-Hog

Black holes are what you end up with the night afte a skin full of Guinness.....fairly easy to get a look at if you are flexible enough or take a few snaps of it with your smart phone...!

Former Observer

The first photo of a black hole... lol... people will believe anything if you dress it up as respectable science.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.ted.com/talks/katie_bouman_what_does_a_black_hole_look_like/up-next&ved=2ahUKEwjy4qD8t7zhAhUVShUIHdalArgQwqsBMAV6BAgFEBo&usg=AOvVaw0WutxgVTMoJVHhIMAlLiZD&cshid=1554587105365

Facepalm

Atoms for Peace

Atoms for Peace wrote: »

So US scientists are set to unveil the first ever photo of a black hole. What took them so long, I'm certain with the right preparation I could take a photo of my black hole.

Have you ever put anything in yours that so far has failed to come back out?

I believe that is a prerequisite of it being photo worthy.

Atoms for Peace

So there it is, a black hole. I'm a bit underwhelmed to be honest, still fair play to Einstein for predicting their existence.

Zorya

Awwww all the haters on this thread, I think it's awesome. 55 million light years away! Just think about it. It's cosmic!

odyssey06

I dont get it. I saw the picture and I am still here... shouldnt I be screaming in terror right now?

Former Observer

Atoms for Peace wrote: »

So there it is, a black hole. I'm a bit underwhelmed to be honest, still fair play to Einstein for predicting their existence.

Given enough time you can predict anything with maths. Maths is just a language. A useful language sure, but not a privileged one.

rgodard80a

Atoms for Peace wrote: »

So there it is, a black hole. I'm a bit underwhelmed to be honest, still fair play to Einstein for predicting their existence.

In fairness he followed the math and made testable predictions.
These days scientists have to publish fast to avoid being beaten to the punch, so there's only incremental "discoveries" made.



But as the live Nasa press conference said, their black hole photo was the equivalent of taking a photo of a coin in Los Angelus when the camera was in Washington DC.


So... does this rule out the simulation theory, that we're living in a simulation or just mean that the simulation is more accurate than we can imagine?

TomSweeney

It's not actually the interior of the black hole, this is impossible to see, it's just the event horizon.
It is nice the way they predicated it well, and Interstellar got it right too

rgodard80a

I was actually somewhat surprised that the centre was black in the photo.

If the black hole is a sphere I would expect light to be escaping equally from all directions, so no black hole in the middle of the photo.

Zorya

rgodard80a wrote: »

I was actually somewhat surprised that the centre was black in the photo.



If the black hole is a sphere and there's light emitted/escaping around the edges, is there not light emitted from the nearest edge of the sphere towards us too?


Like a light bulb emitting light in all directions?

:eek: Mind blown

Maybe it's toroidal shape?

kneemos

rgodard80a wrote: »

In fairness he followed the math and made testable predictions.
These days scientists have to publish fast to avoid being beaten to the punch, so there's only incremental "discoveries" made.



But as the live Nasa press conference said, their black hole photo was the equivalent of taking a photo of a coin in Los Angelus when the camera was in Washington DC.


So... does this rule out the simulation theory, that we're living in a simulation or just mean that the simulation is more accurate than we can imagine?

There's a geeky idea if ever I heard one. Raised on comic books no doubt.

Former Observer

Zorya wrote: »

Awwww all the haters on this thread, I think it's awesome. 55 million light years away! Just think about it. It's cosmic!

Yeah. It's very exciting. And romantic. But is it really 'a picture' of a black hole? If my camera or telescope can't capture an image of something very far away then it really doesn't matter if I use ten or twenty telescopes of the same ability.

You can't collate an image of what you can't see in the first place. Whole thing sounds like bullchite.

rgodard80a

kneemos wrote: »

There's a geeky idea if ever I heard one. Raised on comic books no doubt.

Nope, no comic books since the Beano.
More like the Matrix and living through the invention of the PC and the incredible improvements in computer graphics and gaming technology/simulations.

Sonics2k

Former Observer wrote: »

Yeah. It's very exciting. And romantic. But is it really 'a picture' of a black hole? If my camera or telescope can't capture an image of something very far away then it really doesn't matter if I use ten or twenty telescopes of the same ability.

You can't collate an image of what you can't see in the first place. Whole thing sounds like bullchite.

You have literally no clue what you're talking about, do you?

OldMrBrennan83

rgodard80a wrote: »

In fairness he followed the math and made testable predictions.
These days scientists have to publish fast to avoid being beaten to the punch, so there's only incremental "discoveries" made.



But as the live Nasa press conference said, their black hole photo was the equivalent of taking a photo of a coin in Los Angelus when the camera was in Washington DC.


So... does this rule out the simulation theory, that we're living in a simulation or just mean that the simulation is more accurate than we can imagine?

Accurate to what? If it's all a simulation then it can be anything.

Purple Mountain

I was expecting to see a satellite image of Tipperary town tbh.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Former Observer wrote: »

Yeah. It's very exciting. And romantic. But is it really 'a picture' of a black hole? If my camera or telescope can't capture an image of something very far away then it really doesn't matter if I use ten or twenty telescopes of the same ability.

You can't collate an image of what you can't see in the first place. Whole thing sounds like bullchite.

You can see it. That’s why there is a picture. There’s a lot of energy around a black hole.

Zorya

Former Observer wrote: »

Yeah. It's very exciting. And romantic. But is it really 'a picture' of a black hole? If my camera or telescope can't capture an image of something very far away then it really doesn't matter if I use ten or twenty telescopes of the same ability.

You can't collate an image of what you can't see in the first place. Whole thing sounds like bullchite.

I'll have to read up about it.

castletownman

Might as well have had an aerial shot of Roscommon.

Equally as vast, vacuum-like and dark.

rgodard80a

Zorya wrote: »

:eek: Mind blown

Maybe it's toroidal shape?

I believe black holes rotate, so maybe that skews it?
But then it would have to be a stable rotation that held it's position relative to us... maybe angular momentum would keep it like a gyroscope pointing in a certain direction. I love physics but only vague theories, I have nowhere near the math for it...

Beasty

Doesn't look very black to me - you would have thought they could have called it something that reflects what it looks like....

kneemos

Former Observer wrote: »

Yeah. It's very exciting. And romantic. But is it really 'a picture' of a black hole? If my camera or telescope can't capture an image of something very far away then it really doesn't matter if I use ten or twenty telescopes of the same ability.

You can't collate an image of what you can't see in the first place. Whole thing sounds like bullchite.

They collect radio waves and what not and the data is constructed into an image afaik.

Ipso

And to think a lot of people are more interested in horoscopes than this.

Charles Ingles

It's a composite picture.
Saw the news a lot of conjecture presented as facts

rgodard80a

Ipso wrote: »

And to think a lot of people are more interested in horoscopes than this.

Only because horoscopes directly relate to their emotional state.
It's hard for a lot of people to appreciate stuff that doesn't directly affect their daily life like astronomy, chemistry, quantum physics etc.


They just want to live simple newtonian lives.

rgodard80a

Deleted User wrote: »

A composite of nine satellites around the world to the millisecond focusing on a source 26,000 lights away. I''m rather impressed.

Not satelites but land based telescopes in "high and dry" locations.

Former Observer

Sonics2k wrote: »

You have literally no clue what you're talking about, do you?

Well why don't you explain it to me genius? Hopefully you can do a better job than Katie Bouman does: https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DBIvezCVcsYs&ved=2ahUKEwj-9enivMbhAhXlXhUIHWMUDcQQwqsBMAB6BAgEEAU&usg=AOvVaw1D3OabkZLRlQD5VXL1frE3

How do you use an algorithm to create an image which is comparable to a photograph? Please watch the entire video and explain in lay person's terms how any of it, particularly the absurd, comedic last one third makes any sense.

The Enbalmer

Black hole me hole.

Former Observer

Ipso wrote: »

And to think a lot of people are more interested in horoscopes than this.

The irony being that this is very much a form of pseudoscience for a different type of sheep.

Charles Ingles

[Deleted User] wrote: »

A composite of nine satellites around the world to the millisecond focusing on a source 26,000 light years away. I''m rather impressed.

Allegedly, they have no idea what it actually is!
Theories presented as facts

Charles Ingles

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Allegedly, they have no idea what it actually is!
Theories presented as facts

Giblet

Former Observer wrote: »

Well why don't you explain it to me genius? Hopefully you can do a better job than Katie Bouman does: https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DBIvezCVcsYs&ved=2ahUKEwj-9enivMbhAhXlXhUIHWMUDcQQwqsBMAB6BAgEEAU&usg=AOvVaw1D3OabkZLRlQD5VXL1frE3

How do you use an algorithm to create an image which is comparable to a photograph? Please watch the entire video and explain in lay person's terms how any of it, particularly the absurd, comedic last one third makes any sense.

All photographs are approximations, this is just an approximation you do not understand (I lie, you don't understand any of them)

Doesn't matter if you understood it, she stlll did it anyway, as Science doesn't care about you.

Charles Ingles

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Makes just as much sense, they have no idea what it is.
They are looking to confirm their own theories

rgodard80a

Former Observer wrote: »

How do you use an algorithm to create an image which is comparable to a photograph? Please watch the entire video and explain in lay person's terms how any of it, particularly the absurd, comedic last one third makes any sense.

Take your smart phone camera, it may have 1600x1200 pixels for a photo.
So 1,920,000 little light tubes that record the light that falls into them.


Two or more cameras pointing at the same point in space record the same image EXACTLY at the same time (to atomic clock precision) where each clock only loses a second every 15 billion years.
So that guarantees they all record the exact same signal at the same time and can filter out noise possibly by averaging the signal.
Recording the signal as far apart as possible (other sides of the world for each telescope) give the same resolution as a camera lense that is as big as the distance between them.


Over time (was it 10 years here?) I think 6 telescopes kept taking photos of the same position in space. Painstakingly building up the picture dot by dot. That's my laymans explanation although I only watched the first 15 mins of the live Nasa stream.

Former Observer

Giblet wrote: »

All photographs are approximations, this is just an approximation you do not understand (I lie, you don't understand any of them)

Doesn't matter if you understood it, she stlll did it anyway, as Science doesn't care about you.

Not the sharpest tool in the box are you. Go back to gawking at your Brian Cox posters and reading popular science books written by imbeciles like Richard Dawkins. It's a quaint, cozy, self-fulfilling little life and it'll suit you down to the ground.

Ipso

Who wants to join the flat black hole society, all hail the black circle.