6 ms·

Most likely they imaged Sagitarius A* the black hole at the center of our milky way and will present this image. Some more info: https://www.sciencealert.com/a

Most likely they imaged Sagitarius A* the black hole at the center of our milky way and will present this image. Some more info: https://www.sciencealert.com/astronomers-are-about-to-make-a-massive-announcement-about-the-milky-way https://www.sciencealert.com/astronomers-are-about-to-make-a...

JohnJamesRambo 4y ago
I would classify the last build up to the reveal of a fuzzy donut image to be a debacle and embarrassment for science. Not because the image wasn’t neat but because of the misguided PR campaign before the reveal when they knew damn well the image was not going to impress anyone outside of a tiny subset of astronomers and space buffs. The hyperbole in this press release seems to suggest they didn’t learn from their previous mistakes. https://slate.com/technology/2019/04/black-hole-photo-just-isnt-very-good.html https://slate.com/technology/2019/04/black-hole-photo-just-i...
- capableweb 4y ago
  Most people I spoke to about the black hole photo was just as excited as anyone else, even though they maybe didn't understand the full implications. And if your argument boils down to "I mean, it’s just not that aesthetically pleasing" (like the article you linked to), I don't know what to tell you.
  - tecleandor 4y ago
    The corrections for the article are hilarious: Correction, April 10, 2019: Due to an editing error, this post originally misstated that the black hole is 6.5 million times the size of the sun. It has 6.5 billion times the mass of the sun. Correction, April 11, 2019: Due to an editing error, the post also originally misstated that the black hole was 55 million light-years old. It is 55 million light-years away.
    - LandR 4y ago
      > the black hole was 55 million light-years old. It is 55 million light-years away. Are these not basically the same thing ?
      - HPsquared 4y ago
        No, just that our view of it is how it looked 55 million years ago. Time is relative anyway though, so...
      - Cthulhu_ 4y ago
        Nope; it means that the light we captured now took 55 million years (give or take) to get here, the black hole is likely much older.
  - ianai 4y ago
    I always took the pushback against the original photo to be from a very vocal fringe. But if people want better images of astrophysical observations they should express their support for increasing that funding accordingly. Physics needs huge, expensive, long term projects to expand our knowledge. And those projects will lead to this we can’t imagine at the outset and there will be jobs for many along the way. (Jobs for the best and the brightest and don’t boil down to getting people to buy things from advertisements.) I’d love to see more research into expansion of the periodic table and a telescope that could utilize the suns gravitational lensing to resolve far off objects, to cherry pick a couple.
  - belter 4y ago
    Maybe that is not what @JohnJamesRambo was talking about. You do realize it's not a photo?
    - wumpus 4y ago
      Among my VLBI colleagues, we used to call these things "maps", but now we mostly say "images". "photo", while rare, is not considered wrong.
      - belter 4y ago
        The EHT Director during the announcing conference... "...We have seen, and taken a picture, of a Black Hole." Video at the correct time: https://youtu.be/lnJi0Jy692w?t=456 https://youtu.be/lnJi0Jy692w?t=456 Let's not even talk about how it come up with that color, or the fact that in reality there are four different images, corresponding to the different four teams that worked with the same data, and the project then decided to publish only one, "averaged" from the four. ;-)
        wumpus 4y ago
        I'm glad you've read enough to realize how that image was made, but we did publish a lot more than just the one image. The raw data will be published eventually. Thanks for being interested in our data.
        belter 4y ago
        Sorry if I upset the team. But I don't think it was ok to let the image being published in the front of all newspapers worldwide, and forgot to mention the color comes from the libraries used to compose the "map". It would be equally scientifically correct if you used a blue color or white, since it was a completely arbitrary choice. I know it defeats from the "picture" story, but just was too much overlooking for my taste. I want to see how "creative" the new release will be.
        4y ago
- devoutsalsa 4y ago
  Fuzzy donut… I’m laughing. I thought it was super cool, in a super heated has kind of way.
  - wumpus 4y ago
    I like calling it the "angry orange bagel".
- doliveira 4y ago
  Considering the image was seen by half of mankind, I'd say PR wasn't an issue.

JohnJamesRambo 4y ago

I would classify the last build up to the reveal of a fuzzy donut image to be a debacle and embarrassment for science. Not because the image wasn’t neat but because of the misguided PR campaign before the reveal when they knew damn well the image was not going to impress anyone outside of a tiny subset of astronomers and space buffs. The hyperbole in this press release seems to suggest they didn’t learn from their previous mistakes. https://slate.com/technology/2019/04/black-hole-photo-just-isnt-very-good.html https://slate.com/technology/2019/04/black-hole-photo-just-i...

capableweb 4y ago
Most people I spoke to about the black hole photo was just as excited as anyone else, even though they maybe didn't understand the full implications. And if your argument boils down to "I mean, it’s just not that aesthetically pleasing" (like the article you linked to), I don't know what to tell you.
- tecleandor 4y ago
  The corrections for the article are hilarious: Correction, April 10, 2019: Due to an editing error, this post originally misstated that the black hole is 6.5 million times the size of the sun. It has 6.5 billion times the mass of the sun. Correction, April 11, 2019: Due to an editing error, the post also originally misstated that the black hole was 55 million light-years old. It is 55 million light-years away.
  - LandR 4y ago
    > the black hole was 55 million light-years old. It is 55 million light-years away. Are these not basically the same thing ?
    - HPsquared 4y ago
      No, just that our view of it is how it looked 55 million years ago. Time is relative anyway though, so...
    - Cthulhu_ 4y ago
      Nope; it means that the light we captured now took 55 million years (give or take) to get here, the black hole is likely much older.
- ianai 4y ago
  I always took the pushback against the original photo to be from a very vocal fringe. But if people want better images of astrophysical observations they should express their support for increasing that funding accordingly. Physics needs huge, expensive, long term projects to expand our knowledge. And those projects will lead to this we can’t imagine at the outset and there will be jobs for many along the way. (Jobs for the best and the brightest and don’t boil down to getting people to buy things from advertisements.) I’d love to see more research into expansion of the periodic table and a telescope that could utilize the suns gravitational lensing to resolve far off objects, to cherry pick a couple.
- belter 4y ago
  Maybe that is not what @JohnJamesRambo was talking about. You do realize it's not a photo?
  - wumpus 4y ago
    Among my VLBI colleagues, we used to call these things "maps", but now we mostly say "images". "photo", while rare, is not considered wrong.
    - belter 4y ago
      The EHT Director during the announcing conference... "...We have seen, and taken a picture, of a Black Hole." Video at the correct time: https://youtu.be/lnJi0Jy692w?t=456 https://youtu.be/lnJi0Jy692w?t=456 Let's not even talk about how it come up with that color, or the fact that in reality there are four different images, corresponding to the different four teams that worked with the same data, and the project then decided to publish only one, "averaged" from the four. ;-)
      - wumpus 4y ago
        I'm glad you've read enough to realize how that image was made, but we did publish a lot more than just the one image. The raw data will be published eventually. Thanks for being interested in our data.
        belter 4y ago
        Sorry if I upset the team. But I don't think it was ok to let the image being published in the front of all newspapers worldwide, and forgot to mention the color comes from the libraries used to compose the "map". It would be equally scientifically correct if you used a blue color or white, since it was a completely arbitrary choice. I know it defeats from the "picture" story, but just was too much overlooking for my taste. I want to see how "creative" the new release will be.
        4y ago
devoutsalsa 4y ago
Fuzzy donut… I’m laughing. I thought it was super cool, in a super heated has kind of way.
- wumpus 4y ago
  I like calling it the "angry orange bagel".
doliveira 4y ago
Considering the image was seen by half of mankind, I'd say PR wasn't an issue.