Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Unveiling the first-ever image of a black hole [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 525 posts

Re: Unveiling the first-ever image of a black hole [video]

#501

Post by manigandham »

alpaca128 wrote: post #475
manigandham wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The observed both supermassive black holes at the center of M87 and our Milky Way galaxy Sagittarius A

Not according to Veritasium's comment on his own video as well as the RelAstro group who produced the material[1]: "As there seems to be some general confusion, please note that the image shown here is a simulated one and not an actual image. So far we only have an image of M87. Kind regards, the RelAstro group. " [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnsZj9RvhFU

Ah you're right. Looks like they all should've skipped Sagittarius A instead of adding confusion.

Re: Unveiling the first-ever image of a black hole [video]

#502

Post by manigandham »

misnome wrote: post #478
manigandham wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They observed both, watch the follow-up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_GVbuddri8 "The Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration observed the supermassive black holes at the center of M87 and our Milky Way galaxy (SgrA*) finding the dark central shadow in accordance with General Relativity, further demonstrating the power of this 100 year-old theory."

But in the press conference they specifically said they weren’t releasing SgrA* yes because they hadn’t completed their analysis. They released pictures after that?

You're right, it looks like they are still observing Sagittarius A but what they released was only a simulation for that one.

Re: Unveiling the first-ever image of a black hole [video]

#503

Post by wallace_f »

manigandham wrote: post #500
wallace_f wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, sure. Also, if you go to the EHT's own website, they have a gallery of predicted, simulated images. Here is another prediction: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/04/here-s-what-scientis... I just wanted to know why he went with that one because his prediction was really accurate. And I thought him saying 'just trust me' was bad form. He did talk some about this, but he didn't really say anything about why he t…

I don't see the difference, the predictions are the same. The only changes in the image depend on what angle the black hole is being viewed at which would influence whether we see a band across the middle and the slimmer inner ring.

Lol the image I linked is obviously very different.

There is some groupthink going on here affecting people like you and others. The above is obviously plain.

Re: Unveiling the first-ever image of a black hole [video]

#504

Post by aurailious »

m_mueller wrote: post #202
CharlesColeman wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IIRC, the black hole in Interstellar was also rapidly rotating, which I think was significant to how it looked: https://www.wired.com/2014/10/astrophysics-interstellar-blac... > Nolan's story relied on time dilation: time passing at different rates for different characters. To make this scientifically plausible, Thorne told him, he'd need a massive black hole—in the movie it's called Gargantua—spinning at nearly the…

I'm still wondering why the accretion disk from the released images isn't warped in a way we saw in interstellar. Are we looking at it top-down rather than from its orbital disk? would a differently oriented black hole look more like interstellar? Veritasium also has an explanation and I don't think it has anything to do with its spin.

I think the rotation from M87 is 15 degrees off from our perspective, so yes we are looking mostly "down" at it.

Re: Unveiling the first-ever image of a black hole [video]

#505

Post by aurailious »

m_mueller wrote: post #202
CharlesColeman wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IIRC, the black hole in Interstellar was also rapidly rotating, which I think was significant to how it looked: https://www.wired.com/2014/10/astrophysics-interstellar-blac... > Nolan's story relied on time dilation: time passing at different rates for different characters. To make this scientifically plausible, Thorne told him, he'd need a massive black hole—in the movie it's called Gargantua—spinning at nearly the…

I'm still wondering why the accretion disk from the released images isn't warped in a way we saw in interstellar. Are we looking at it top-down rather than from its orbital disk? would a differently oriented black hole look more like interstellar? Veritasium also has an explanation and I don't think it has anything to do with its spin.

Also, the following post on reddit might help you visualize this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/bc343r/for_those_con...

Re: Unveiling the first-ever image of a black hole [video]

#506

Post by wallace_f »

bdamm wrote: post #499
wallace_f wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea sort of. I mean I said I liked the episode, I just think this part is bad form (I'm paraphrasing): >why can you expect it to look like this? well because it's just going to look like this. Now, I'm not trying to say his prediction was unwise. I just think it's first of all bad form to say something like "the reason is just trust me," in scientific discussions (even if you are correct)... but second I actually do…

Well, for the record, it wasn't me. I did however read through your comments just now, and it seems there is a pattern of not really engaging in dialogue but just blasting your opinion over and over. Looking at your comments on Julian Assange, for example, it seems clear that you do not think there is any difference between what a NYTimes reporter does and what Assange did. I can't speak to everyone else but to me th…

Hmm there is some groupthink, lack of reason, or bullying going on here.

Look at this image for yourself. The article is titled: "Here is what scientists think a black hole. Looks like:" https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/04/here-s-what-scientis...

There are not massive differences in the images, but the Vetiasium prediction was (and this is very plain) much more accurate.

This isn't controversial at all.

I also thought the particular statement, "why is it like this, because it is just going to look like this" was bad form.

This is very plainly reasonable.

I think the fact that you and a few other users turned this into an opportunity to go through the effort of writing belittling comments and even put downs and troll bait over something as plain and ordinary as this is indicative of some bad qualities of humanity expressing themselves here.

Of course, your only response will be further negativity as bad people dont possess the ability to admit when they were wrong.

And the statement about Assange is very widely expressed. See here(1). There are articles all over the media, just like that one, echoing the same exact view. They are literally everywhere.

Finally, I noticed over the last 30 minutes all my recent comments went down by -1 each. That really makes it look like I'm engaging with some quite petty and insecure people.

Edit: see, right after I wrote this comment, all my recent comments each, in perfect synchronization, down by -1 again haha.

Re: Unveiling the first-ever image of a black hole [video]

#507

Post by PavlikPaja »

localhostdotdev wrote: post #238
piker wrote: post #30

Higher resolution official release seems to be: https://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/blackholes/download...

editing that image reveals all kinds of details: https://imgur.com/a/TvQsgbA (and I don't even know what I'm doing)

I do (I think...) the bands are atifacts:

https://imgur.com/a/dhN9Pf9

Re: Unveiling the first-ever image of a black hole [video]

#508

Post by aubricus »

aepiepaey wrote: post #145
piker wrote: post #30

Higher resolution official release seems to be: https://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/blackholes/download...

The article linking to that image: https://nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=298276

Thanks for the source article! I had heard about this but not seen any material on it until now.

Re: Unveiling the first-ever image of a black hole [video]

#509

Post by manigandham »

wallace_f wrote: post #503
manigandham wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see the difference, the predictions are the same. The only changes in the image depend on what angle the black hole is being viewed at which would influence whether we see a band across the middle and the slimmer inner ring.

Lol the image I linked is obviously very different. There is some groupthink going on here affecting people like you and others. The above is obviously plain.

There are 4 images on that page, 1 of which is the Interstellar movie rendition that I already linked to. They are also all the same model only in better detail as graphics technology has improved.

Perhaps you should post exactly what image you're talking about and what you think is different.

Re: Unveiling the first-ever image of a black hole [video]

#510

Post by wallace_f »

manigandham wrote: post #509
wallace_f wrote: post #503

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lol the image I linked is obviously very different. There is some groupthink going on here affecting people like you and others. The above is obviously plain.

There are 4 images on that page, 1 of which is the Interstellar movie rendition that I already linked to. They are also all the same model only in better detail as graphics technology has improved. Perhaps you should post exactly what image you're talking about and what you think is different.

In the images I linked to, the black hole images don't have any "blobbiness," and seem to have these perfect gradiants.

In the veritasium video the "coffee stain" was not really as blobby as the real image, but it seemed a lot closer than the smooth-gradiant, no blobbiness and no irregularities predictions.

I dont just mean the fuzziness from low resolution.

This isn't really a big deal, but it's also obvious that I am just stating plain facts about what is in these images.

At the time I saw this video when he said "you can be confident, because... (no reason given)" was really the thing that I thought was annoying.

I think you can see the differences in the images. They're not huge but the smooth gradiants vs irregularities/coffee stain/blobbiness is plain to see I think.

Edit: from the horses mouth himself, one of the lead researchers says he didn't expect the image to look like it did: https://youtu.be/ZrDhHDBHkQY

Some of the people here in other parts of this thread have been really offensive for this. It's honestly pretty ridiculous.

Post reply on HN