5 ms·
The black hole picture is both an astonishing achievement and a deceptive image
- gloflo 7y agoTo save you from the clickbait: 'The simplistic portrait masks a mind-bendingly complex reality' is the subtitle. If you plan grace the site with your visit be prepared to be forced to thank them for telling you about their tracking. And if you actually plan to read the text be prepared to be forced to thank them for putting some advertisement in front of it. I left feeling violated and disgusted.
- snazz 7y agoFor those of you not using an adblocker for some reason, the Outline link works fine, as usual: https://outline.com/DHUuhM https://outline.com/DHUuhM
- simias 7y agoGiven the original title of the submission I was expecting some clickbait drama but it's actually a pretty inspiring read.
- jameshart 7y agoThe use of the word 'deceptive' in this headline is astonishingly disingenuous. I don't think the article intends to accuse the publishers of the image of deception, but the headline sure reads that way. The article is just trying to explain that imaging a black hole is inherently counterintuitive.
- sk5t 7y agoWell, from the other side of the peanut gallery, I think your outrage is misplaced. "Deception" needn't be malicious, and the title already calls this out as an "astonishing achievement."
- markkanof 7y agoThat is the actual definition of deception.
- pushpop 7y agoOne of the definitions but not the only one. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/deceptive https://www.dictionary.com/browse/deceptive It’s quite common - in the UK at least - to say things like “It’s deceptively cold outside.” When the weather is cooler than it looks. Clearly we are not saying “The weather is not intentionally deceiving us.” Because that would imply sentience in something that isn’t. The same logic applies with this title as well.
- cgriswald 7y agoI don’t really buy your argument. First, your example is contextually different: weather is natural and lacks agency. Second, you used the adverb form which has a different implication. The title is not “...and a deceptively simple image.” If it we’re, we would probably not be having this discussion.
- pushpop 7y agoThat’s why it’s an example for comparison rather than a literally the same sentence repeated ;) You can apply the death by a thousand paper cut method of debate if you like but that doesn’t change the definition I also referenced. The fact is the title doesn’t have to mean intention even if that’s the meaning you chose to read in it.
- cgriswald 7y agoI think you’ve missed the point. By using the adverb-adjective form it removes agency and no longer has the negative connotations. Your example is inapt, not because it isn’t identical but because it is very different. In any case, implying one thing even though it can literally mean another thing is standard clickbait fair.
- lttlrck 7y ago‘deceiving’ may have been more appropriate.
- empath75 7y ago‘Deceptively simple’ would have been a better term probably.
- cmroanirgo 7y agoWhile it might appear click baitish, the opening paragraph certainly clarifies exactly what is meant: > The groundbreaking picture of a black hole that graced most newspaper front pages on 11th April must be one of the most deceptive scientific images ever. That’s not to impute any intentional deceit to the international team of 200 or so astronomers who created it—it’s just that nature conspires here to produce something that looks archetypally, almost simplistically black-holeish, but which in reality is a mind-bendingly complex sight. And the article then goes on to describe how such an image is deceptive (in its apparent simplicity), by describing the science behind it.
- nvahalik 7y agoFTA: "An object in the centre of our galaxy (the Milky Way) called Sagittarius A* is thought to be such a “supermassive” black hole." If this black hole is 55M LY away and the center of our galaxy should have one. So, why is it that we can see this one, but not the one at the center of our galaxy? Is it because there are things in our line of site with it?
- hannasanarion 7y agoOur local SMBH isn't presently eating anything substantial, so it isnt very bright. M87's black hole is eating something enormous, so it's easier to get a picture.
- simias 7y agoMy understanding is that the black hole imaged is both vastly bigger and much more active (i.e. actively consuming matter from its accretion disc) than Sgr A*. That makes it easier to get a compelling image out of it. I don't really know if line of sight is a factor here though.
- kristianc 7y agoFrom what I've read, they actually are a similar size to image when size/distance was taken into account, and they did initially consider imaging SagA*, but M87 proved easier for them to image.
- gibybo 7y agoThe black hole that they revealed is about 1,000 times larger than the one at the center of our milky way. So even though it's also 1,000 times further away, it's about the same angular diameter in the sky. Same size but less stuff in the way/more active makes it an easier target.
- wiredfool 7y ago1) This one is actively ingesting material (active galaxy) so there are emissions from the accretion disk. Our galaxy is quiet, so there isn't the same emission from the black hole. 2) The one in our galaxy is 1600x closer and roughly that much smaller, so they're approximately the same angular size. 3) They have tracked the orbit of a star that orbits our galaxy's central black hole through an orbit, and it goes ~2% (iirc) of the speed of light at closest approach, but it's nowhere near the event horizon. There are other things that have been tracked near A*, but nothing at the event horizon like this one.
- huhwatnow 7y agoIt's not deceptive as much as it is dumbed-down and devalued as a tool for increasing scientific literacy and curiosity - at the very least the image should have included a distance and radiation energy scales - preferably several at different distances from the event horizon to account for GR. As it was released the xkcd comic of it provides more value than the image itself.
- ianai 7y agoI’m surprised by the amount of criticism and general push back this image has taken. I don’t remember anything similar from the LIGO nor LHC results.
- tntn 7y ago... there's no criticism in this article.
- ianai 7y agoI wasn’t talking about just this article. Theres a movement to discredit the woman behind the algorithm and trump up a male researcher instead. But the word “deceptive” is in the title of this discussion, as well. I’m sure there are other examples and I’m not going to go searching. Further, of course a photo of a black hole is going to take some serious science and technology. If it were possible to do directly more easily then this wouldn’t be news.