It's absolutely fantastic that I'm staring at a real-life picture of a black hole but I gotta ask... is there anything to gain from the higher resolution? It kinda looks like 20x20 pixel image...
It's absolutely fantastic that I'm staring at a real-life picture of a black hole but I gotta ask... is there anything to gain from the higher resolution? It kinda looks like 20x20 pixel image blown up in photoshop.
Every time I glance away and then look back at this image the accretion disk appears to be pulling in at the edges. I wonder what sort of optical illusion is at play. It seems to be related to...
Every time I glance away and then look back at this image the accretion disk appears to be pulling in at the edges. I wonder what sort of optical illusion is at play. It seems to be related to pupil dilation.
What I find fascinating is that Kip Thorne's work – the simulation of a black hole you see in the film Interstellar – is not that far off the real thing. I mean, think about it: something we've...
What I find fascinating is that Kip Thorne's work – the simulation of a black hole you see in the film Interstellar – is not that far off the real thing. I mean, think about it: something we've never seen yet been able to deduce through our limited understanding of physics and mathematics is not that far from reality.
That's a PhD-level pun, right there. Aside from that, there's a few revelations about our Universe already within the short minutes of the video: There's a black hole inside of our galaxy. This...
"If you're disappointed by this image, I think you're missing the gravity of the situation"
That's a PhD-level pun, right there.
Aside from that, there's a few revelations about our Universe already within the short minutes of the video:
There's a black hole inside of our galaxy. This fact alone is nothing new to me. What was new was that this might just be why the galaxy looks like the accretion disk of a black hole. This kind of connection I find fascinating, like the micro- and the macro-scale working on the same principles.
The light orbiting a black hole travels circularly in a way that will make you see your own head. It's the kind of a concept that makes you think, and even then you're not really getting it intellectually, but intuitively, this is amazing. How would that even work, given that I can't see my back even as light travels at c outside of black holes' Schwarzschild radii? I don't know – but it's amazing that such an irregular, mind-bending thing could even exist.
The black hole itself acts like the inverse, physical-property-wise, of a magnification glass towards its event horizon as it creates a "shadow" which maps onto all the light it caught from the direction opposite our view. Just... holy shit.
Adjacent to the previous one: depending on our angle of view, the light bent could even represent the accretion disk itself, which would appear over (or under) the black hole, rather nonchalantly, because fuck regularity with space-time as soon as a black hole walks in. (Hello, Interstellar!)
With all of that space-time bending, the Doppler effect still applies, 'cause fuck irregularity when a black hole walks in!
Both videos have provided me with such awe and curiosity + hours of wiki-surfing. Each new article and new piece of information about this gives more weight to the absolute insanity of the project...
Both videos have provided me with such awe and curiosity + hours of wiki-surfing. Each new article and new piece of information about this gives more weight to the absolute insanity of the project making me appreciate the image even more. It's just wonderful.
press conference this morning about this discovery and the event horizon telescope project in general can be found here (as of posting, it's currently ongoing).
press conference this morning about this discovery and the event horizon telescope project in general can be found here (as of posting, it's currently ongoing).
Listen, this is super cool and I'm all about it. But also it reminds me of looking at a picture of big foot or the loch ness monster. I know its there, but everything is so fuzzy. I'm not...
Listen, this is super cool and I'm all about it. But also it reminds me of looking at a picture of big foot or the loch ness monster. I know its there, but everything is so fuzzy. I'm not criticizing the photo, I get it and this is dope.
The thing is 55 million light years from Earth. They purposely chose it because it's such a behemoth, but it's very far away. We shouldn't have expected Interstellar-style resolution, especially...
The thing is 55 million light years from Earth. They purposely chose it because it's such a behemoth, but it's very far away. We shouldn't have expected Interstellar-style resolution, especially from radio telescopes.
on a relative cosmic scale, though, 53 million light years is still pretty "close", which is wild to think about. the number of galaxies within that radius of 53 million light years for example is...
The thing is 55 million light years from Earth. They purposely chose it because it's such a behemoth, but it's very far away. We shouldn't have expected Interstellar-style resolution, especially from radio telescopes.
on a relative cosmic scale, though, 53 million light years is still pretty "close", which is wild to think about. the number of galaxies within that radius of 53 million light years for example is probably only like, one thousand at the absolute most. there are only about 100 galaxies within even 10 lightyears of us, for context.
(addendum: also we'll hopefully get a better image from their eventual aim to do the same thing with Sagittarius A*, the black hole at the center of the milky way)
And from what I read, Sag A was only ineffective because the weather wasn't perfect. They're supposed to try it again, but it takes at least a year to crunch the data.
And from what I read, Sag A was only ineffective because the weather wasn't perfect. They're supposed to try it again, but it takes at least a year to crunch the data.
I dunno, I actually really like the picture as a picture. If I look at a high-resolution version, not some compressed copy that keeps floating around news articles, I actually find the color...
I dunno, I actually really like the picture as a picture. If I look at a high-resolution version, not some compressed copy that keeps floating around news articles, I actually find the color gradient visually fascinating, and the contrast is immediately striking. Their coloring of the image gives it this fiery intensity that corresponds pretty closely with the way we tend to romanticize black holes; these massive, scary, world-ending structures out there in the universe. I've been staring at it for a while now and the more I look, the more emotions I associate with it. At the center of the image is the unseeable darkness itself, staring right back at me (courtesy of Nietzsche). I would love a higher-resolution image, but I think the emotional magnitude of viewing such a picture would actually not be very different from what I get out of this!
Good example of one of the many things that annoy me about Reddit - that I'll often see the same post a gazillion times on different subreddits when browsing r/all. Even RES doesn't have a way to...
Good example of one of the many things that annoy me about Reddit - that I'll often see the same post a gazillion times on different subreddits when browsing r/all. Even RES doesn't have a way to filter it out
To be fair, when Reddit's abuzz with something, that something is big news. This is how I get mine. Similarly right now, after watching one video, my recommendations are full of "ooh, black hole!"...
To be fair, when Reddit's abuzz with something, that something is big news. This is how I get mine.
Similarly right now, after watching one video, my recommendations are full of "ooh, black hole!" videos. All of them appear serious and modestly-excited, but still.
Here is a direct link to a high-res version of the image: https://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/blackholes/downloads/A-Consensus.jpg
It's absolutely fantastic that I'm staring at a real-life picture of a black hole but I gotta ask... is there anything to gain from the higher resolution? It kinda looks like 20x20 pixel image blown up in photoshop.
This one just doesn't look at blotchy as the one in the guardian article.
Every time I glance away and then look back at this image the accretion disk appears to be pulling in at the edges. I wonder what sort of optical illusion is at play. It seems to be related to pupil dilation.
What I find fascinating is that Kip Thorne's work – the simulation of a black hole you see in the film Interstellar – is not that far off the real thing. I mean, think about it: something we've never seen yet been able to deduce through our limited understanding of physics and mathematics is not that far from reality.
Ain't humanity bitchin'.
That's a PhD-level pun, right there.
Aside from that, there's a few revelations about our Universe already within the short minutes of the video:
There's a black hole inside of our galaxy. This fact alone is nothing new to me. What was new was that this might just be why the galaxy looks like the accretion disk of a black hole. This kind of connection I find fascinating, like the micro- and the macro-scale working on the same principles.
The light orbiting a black hole travels circularly in a way that will make you see your own head. It's the kind of a concept that makes you think, and even then you're not really getting it intellectually, but intuitively, this is amazing. How would that even work, given that I can't see my back even as light travels at c outside of black holes' Schwarzschild radii? I don't know – but it's amazing that such an irregular, mind-bending thing could even exist.
The black hole itself acts like the inverse, physical-property-wise, of a magnification glass towards its event horizon as it creates a "shadow" which maps onto all the light it caught from the direction opposite our view. Just... holy shit.
Adjacent to the previous one: depending on our angle of view, the light bent could even represent the accretion disk itself, which would appear over (or under) the black hole, rather nonchalantly, because fuck regularity with space-time as soon as a black hole walks in. (Hello, Interstellar!)
With all of that space-time bending, the Doppler effect still applies, 'cause fuck irregularity when a black hole walks in!
Hoo boy. That video is a doozy if you're a nerd.
Both videos have provided me with such awe and curiosity + hours of wiki-surfing. Each new article and new piece of information about this gives more weight to the absolute insanity of the project making me appreciate the image even more. It's just wonderful.
press conference this morning about this discovery and the event horizon telescope project in general can be found here (as of posting, it's currently ongoing).
Listen, this is super cool and I'm all about it. But also it reminds me of looking at a picture of big foot or the loch ness monster. I know its there, but everything is so fuzzy. I'm not criticizing the photo, I get it and this is dope.
I felt the same way. It's cool we can actually see it, but the picture itself isn't impressive, it's the fact that we were able to take it.
The thing is 55 million light years from Earth. They purposely chose it because it's such a behemoth, but it's very far away. We shouldn't have expected Interstellar-style resolution, especially from radio telescopes.
on a relative cosmic scale, though, 53 million light years is still pretty "close", which is wild to think about. the number of galaxies within that radius of 53 million light years for example is probably only like, one thousand at the absolute most. there are only about 100 galaxies within even 10 lightyears of us, for context.
(addendum: also we'll hopefully get a better image from their eventual aim to do the same thing with Sagittarius A*, the black hole at the center of the milky way)
And from what I read, Sag A was only ineffective because the weather wasn't perfect. They're supposed to try it again, but it takes at least a year to crunch the data.
Yes, but the media sure teased it enough that a reasonable reaction from a layperson might be to expect something a bit more dramatic.
I dunno, I actually really like the picture as a picture. If I look at a high-resolution version, not some compressed copy that keeps floating around news articles, I actually find the color gradient visually fascinating, and the contrast is immediately striking. Their coloring of the image gives it this fiery intensity that corresponds pretty closely with the way we tend to romanticize black holes; these massive, scary, world-ending structures out there in the universe. I've been staring at it for a while now and the more I look, the more emotions I associate with it. At the center of the image is the unseeable darkness itself, staring right back at me (courtesy of Nietzsche). I would love a higher-resolution image, but I think the emotional magnitude of viewing such a picture would actually not be very different from what I get out of this!
Great perspective!
Related: Reddit's front page at the moment (non-black-hole-related entries cut out; note the numbers)
Good example of one of the many things that annoy me about Reddit - that I'll often see the same post a gazillion times on different subreddits when browsing r/all. Even RES doesn't have a way to filter it out
To be fair, when Reddit's abuzz with something, that something is big news. This is how I get mine.
Similarly right now, after watching one video, my recommendations are full of "ooh, black hole!" videos. All of them appear serious and modestly-excited, but still.