Earlier quoted context omitted.
So how much this picture cost ?
$40m So basically nothing in the grand scheme of anything.
I've taken to measuring moderately large amounts of money in "juiceros". Forty million dollars is one third of a juicero.
Unveiling the first-ever image of a black hole [video]
331–340 of 525 posts
Re: Unveiling the first-ever image of a black hole [video]
#332Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does that image have a weird pulsing optical illusion for anyone else?
Yes, reminds me of the Eye of Sauron.
The supreme astronomical example of the Eye of Sauron is this Hubble shot of the star Fomalhaut and its debris disk: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fomalhaut#/media/File:Fomalhau...
Re: Unveiling the first-ever image of a black hole [video]
#333Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not correct. Around 25% of the video is discussion around the concept of the radius of photon sphere to the event horizon, and what constitutes the light surrounding the photon sphere (one explanation he gives is that there are infinite reflections). Then he spends the last 30% of the video talking about reflections of the acretion disk. This is the theory that he never included in his original prediction, but…
Uh.. It's the reason that the "shadow" is larger than the Schwarzschild radius. He's describing the ratio of the "rim" to the "hole". So while the picture may be fuzzy, there's information in it anyway about what the pictures means relative to how large/spin we think the black hole is. In fact I wish he'd said more about the Doppler effect.
Ok I mean, now what you're writing, that's not even wrong. The black part of the image being larger than the actual radius of the blackhole is a discussion about the relative size of the black area you see in the image, to the actual black hole itself. I think that should make sense to you? It's not an argument about why he predicts it will look like a "fuzzy coffee stain," as opposed to other simulated images. Are you able to see the difference between those two ideas?
I think you have some other discussion you were having confused with this one. To remind you about your earlier comment, you stated disagreement with me, saying this video was him only talking about why he predicted the image to look like a "fuzzy coffee stain" as opposed to some other simulated and theorized predicgions. I think the above paragraph and reply should obviously show you why this is actually not true. Are you still with me?
I do think most of the video is interesting, but he never states an argument about why he chose that prediction. That was what I thought was ridiculous. Science is about reason and evidence, not just saying "believe me."
Maybe you watched a different video? You should watch this video, the last 30% talks about simulations done in which the acretion disk reflects around the black hole, he uses example images which look a bit different!
Re: Unveiling the first-ever image of a black hole [video]
#334Earlier quoted context omitted.
So amazing that scientists were able to predict what something would look like that we have never seen before.
Einstein predicted the existence of black hole back in early 1915. Pretty amazing.
Einstein first developed the theory and the equations that allowed for them to be discovered.
You can imagine that space-time equations have many solutions and properties that can't be contemplated all at once even having them right in front of you.
Schwarzschild took the equations and obsessed over them for countless hours and eventually discovered that one solution to them implied this phenomenon and therefore he discovered black holes by discovering a specific solution to Einstein's equations.
Of course no one knew at the time if the mathematical solution represented real physical objects that exist in the universe, because it doesn't always happen that way. Occasionally some obscure corner of the math predicts something that's a dead end or anomaly that doesn't have any meaning of value as far as it is known.
They had no way to know one possibility from the other.
Re: Unveiling the first-ever image of a black hole [video]
#335Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the color scheme. I think in matplotlib it's called "hot". I do a lot of 2D kernel density plots that by having a black zero level and dozens of contour levels produce a smooth look with aesthetics similarities to this. I used to use that scheme because "heatmaps" but stopped because of the pulsing illusion. I'm not sure if this image is real color or just lightness value and they used a color scheme for drama.
Grrr, why aren't scientists all using perceptually uniforms color schemes! This would still look awesome in `plasma`. Is there any where I can get the data and do it myself? One of my favorite talks ever is on this subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAoljeRJ3lU
Can you run it through the colormap in reverse to (approximately) recover the data?
Re: Unveiling the first-ever image of a black hole [video]
#336Earlier quoted context omitted.
Uh.. It's the reason that the "shadow" is larger than the Schwarzschild radius. He's describing the ratio of the "rim" to the "hole". So while the picture may be fuzzy, there's information in it anyway about what the pictures means relative to how large/spin we think the black hole is. In fact I wish he'd said more about the Doppler effect.
Ok I mean, now what you're writing, that's not even wrong. The black part of the image being larger than the actual radius of the blackhole is a discussion about the relative size of the black area you see in the image, to the actual black hole itself. I think that should make sense to you? It's not an argument about why he predicts it will look like a "fuzzy coffee stain," as opposed to other simulated images. Are y…
The reason for the fuzziness should be obvious. It's really far away and it's really hard to see. Expecting a jump from "never seen before" to "seen in amazing visual clarity" is unrealistic.
Re: Unveiling the first-ever image of a black hole [video]
#337Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the color scheme. I think in matplotlib it's called "hot". I do a lot of 2D kernel density plots that by having a black zero level and dozens of contour levels produce a smooth look with aesthetics similarities to this. I used to use that scheme because "heatmaps" but stopped because of the pulsing illusion. I'm not sure if this image is real color or just lightness value and they used a color scheme for drama.
Grrr, why aren't scientists all using perceptually uniforms color schemes! This would still look awesome in `plasma`. Is there any where I can get the data and do it myself? One of my favorite talks ever is on this subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAoljeRJ3lU
'Inferno' would be nice for this, also perceptually uniform, and has the benefit that space is still black.
Re: Unveiling the first-ever image of a black hole [video]
#338Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a little of both, but yes Schwarzschild technically first predicted them. > In 1915, Albert Einstein developed his theory of general relativity, having earlier shown that gravity does influence light's motion. Only a few months later, Karl Schwarzschild found a solution to the Einstein field equations, which describes the gravitational field of a point mass and a spherical mass. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bla…
Or was it the Revd. John Michell? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Michell
Michell. And maybe Laplace.
Of course they "invented" Newtonian black holes, not relativistic black holes.
Even so - well ahead of the rest.
Re: Unveiling the first-ever image of a black hole [video]
#339Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok I mean, now what you're writing, that's not even wrong. The black part of the image being larger than the actual radius of the blackhole is a discussion about the relative size of the black area you see in the image, to the actual black hole itself. I think that should make sense to you? It's not an argument about why he predicts it will look like a "fuzzy coffee stain," as opposed to other simulated images. Are y…
The reason for the fuzziness should be obvious. It's really far away and it's really hard to see. Expecting a jump from "never seen before" to "seen in amazing visual clarity" is unrealistic.
That's also not even wrong. You can't see why?
Let's say we're imagining what Uranus would look like. I draw a picture, and say it should look like a "fuzzy Jupter." But you ask, why should it look that way? Do you have a reason? And I say you should be confident, but don't provide an argument. By the end, I start talking about how it might look like Saturn.
Then I come along and say, "it should be obvious the fuzziness is because it is far away."
That final statement is not even wrong. It misses the point.
Re: Unveiling the first-ever image of a black hole [video]
#340Earlier quoted context omitted.
The reason for the fuzziness should be obvious. It's really far away and it's really hard to see. Expecting a jump from "never seen before" to "seen in amazing visual clarity" is unrealistic.
That's also not even wrong. You can't see why? Let's say we're imagining what Uranus would look like. I draw a picture, and say it should look like a "fuzzy Jupter." But you ask, why should it look that way? Do you have a reason? And I say you should be confident, but don't provide an argument. By the end, I start talking about how it might look like Saturn. Then I come along and say, "it should be obvious the fuzzin…
Are you upset that the Veritasium video didn't explicitly spell out for you that this black hole is very far away, so the first image of it ever is basically certain to be fuzzier than IMAX fidelity computer simulations used in a Hollywood movie?
I think you're being very silly.