171–180 of 329 posts
I'm sorry, I am really confused. Didn't we get "the first picture of the black hole at the center of our galaxy" like 2-3 years ago? I definitely remember seeing a nearly identical photo, and lots of press coverage about a particularly young woman who was closely involved in the project. What that something different?
I'm sorry, I am really confused. Didn't we get "the first picture of the black hole at the center of our galaxy" like 2-3 years ago? I definitely remember seeing a nearly identical photo, and lots of press coverage about a particularly young woman who was closely involved in the project. What that something different?
I'm sorry, I am really confused. Didn't we get "the first picture of the black hole at the center of our galaxy" like 2-3 years ago? I definitely remember seeing a nearly identical photo, and lots of press coverage about a particularly young woman who was closely involved in the project. What that something different?
Can the smart people in here confirm if we are getting sucked into this someday or not?
The sun itself may get ejected into intergalactic space when the Milky Way merges with Andromeda. (Earth will probably be totally engulfed by the sun when it goes red giant, or it might not in which case presumably it will continue orbiting. (7.59 billion years from now)
By 100 billion–1 trillion years from now all galaxies in the local group are expected to have merged, so there will probably be other opportunities for the sun to get yeeted into intergalactic space.
By 10–100 quintillion it's expected that 90-99% of all stellar remnants will be ejected.
Finally, at 10^30 (1 nonillion) years from now, we get this gem: Estimated time until most or all of the remaining 1–10% of stellar remnants not ejected from galaxies fall into their galaxies' central supermassive black holes. By this point, with binary stars having fallen into each other, and planets into their stars, via emission of gravitational radiation, only solitary objects (stellar remnants, brown dwarfs, ejected planetary-mass objects, black holes) will remain in the universe.
One thing to keep in mind though is that by the time our sun gets sucked into a black hole, the galaxy will have merged so it may very well be a different black hole, or this paticular black hole may have merged with multiple other ones.
I'm sorry, I am really confused. Didn't we get "the first picture of the black hole at the center of our galaxy" like 2-3 years ago? I definitely remember seeing a nearly identical photo, and lots of press coverage about a particularly young woman who was closely involved in the project. What that something different?
I'm sorry, I am really confused. Didn't we get "the first picture of the black hole at the center of our galaxy" like 2-3 years ago? I definitely remember seeing a nearly identical photo, and lots of press coverage about a particularly young woman who was closely involved in the project. What that something different?
For those wondering if we could get sharper images with JWST, here’s the previously imaged black hole (same angular size as our own) compared to a single pixel from Hubble’s wide field camera 3: https://twitter.com/alex_parker/status/1116070667068170240?s... JWST will have smaller “pixels” but is in the same ballpark.
So you’re saying no, JWST won’t provide significantly sharper images of black holes than the Event Horizon Telescope?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It reminds me of all the hype and exuberance around the "first ever picture of a black hole". An achievement worthy of being lauded, for sure, but something just felt so artificial about the coverage. And truth be told, the photo itself was underwhelming in light of how incredible it was made out to be.
Speak for yourself :-) No one ever before was able to see this. It feels very similar to when I hold an expensive CPU in my hand or a very expensive (because handmade) watch which is 'more' than just a CPU or watch. It's the marvel of our time. Craftsmanship
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How sharp do we expect an infinite-res picture to be?
The resolution of these telescopes is limited by diffraction, not by the number of pixels on the sensors. The achievable angular resolution is roughly the wavelength divided by the aperture diameter [1]. JWST works in the few µm wavelength range and has a 6.5 m aperture, such that the angular resolution is ~0.1 arcsec. The EHT works with 1.3 mm wavelength and has an effective aperture of roughly the earth diameter (~…