3 ms·

Just in case anyone is fooled: the pictures are fake, they are not what Hubble saw. Hubble didn't see that picture. It's just some artist doing his thing. Might

by hsn915 4y ago

Just in case anyone is fooled: the pictures are fake, they are not what Hubble saw. Hubble didn't see that picture. It's just some artist doing his thing. Might as well have been generated by one of the new AIs like MidJourney. What Hubble actually saw was some ultraviolet data that appears to be of such an event.

NhanH 4y ago
They are illustrations, and clearly label as such. At no point they are called “photos of the event”, so I am not sure why they should be called fake.
blowski 4y ago
The first words underneath the picture say: > This sequence of artist's illustrations…
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
luxoramonrising 4y ago
Where can one see color mapped versions of that UV data?
- hsn915 4y ago
  You probably can't. If such a thing existed, they wouldn't make up some artist-made illustration. They probably detected the event by plugging in some mathematical equations based on general relativity. I'd imagine it has something to do with pattern of how pulse changes over time.
mrtksn 4y ago
Hubble can't see data, it obviously captured some light which was analysed and the scientists believe the source is black hole twisting a captured star. Then someone visualised the process that illustrates the event and that's what the pictures are. Think of it as the investigators reconstructing a crime scene based on the bullet holes and blood found on the scene and a reporter re-enacting what happened based on investigation report.
- ioalexander 4y ago
  /super speed
- taneq 4y ago
  What? Hubble is (among other things) a visible-light telescope. From the wiki page: > Hubble's orbit outside the distortion of Earth's atmosphere allows it to capture extremely high-resolution images with substantially lower background light than ground-based telescopes. It has recorded some of the most detailed visible light images, allowing a deep view into space. Unless you want to play semantics about whether a camera “sees” or not, it’s clearly capturing images.
  - mrtksn 4y ago
    Did I say something else?
  - biorach 4y ago
    It has a camera plus several other instruments. In this case it seems that the camera could not be used. The article is discussing the interpretation of the spectroscopy data. > Hubble can't photograph the AT2022dsb tidal event's mayhem up close... > This energetic collision was close enough to Earth and bright enough for the Hubble astronomers to do ultraviolet spectroscopy over a longer than normal period of time.
  - kjs3 4y ago
    You might want to read the actual article instead of running off to wikipedia because Someone Is Wrong On The Internet. Pay particular attention to the part where they go into detail that the discovery was 1) done with a spectrometer, not a camera and 2) it's UV, not visible light. Might temper that knee-jerk some.

by hsn915 4y ago

NhanH 4y ago

They are illustrations, and clearly label as such. At no point they are called “photos of the event”, so I am not sure why they should be called fake.

blowski 4y ago

The first words underneath the picture say: > This sequence of artist's illustrations…

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

luxoramonrising 4y ago

Where can one see color mapped versions of that UV data?

hsn915 4y ago
You probably can't. If such a thing existed, they wouldn't make up some artist-made illustration. They probably detected the event by plugging in some mathematical equations based on general relativity. I'd imagine it has something to do with pattern of how pulse changes over time.

mrtksn 4y ago

Hubble can't see data, it obviously captured some light which was analysed and the scientists believe the source is black hole twisting a captured star. Then someone visualised the process that illustrates the event and that's what the pictures are. Think of it as the investigators reconstructing a crime scene based on the bullet holes and blood found on the scene and a reporter re-enacting what happened based on investigation report.

ioalexander 4y ago
/super speed
taneq 4y ago
What? Hubble is (among other things) a visible-light telescope. From the wiki page: > Hubble's orbit outside the distortion of Earth's atmosphere allows it to capture extremely high-resolution images with substantially lower background light than ground-based telescopes. It has recorded some of the most detailed visible light images, allowing a deep view into space. Unless you want to play semantics about whether a camera “sees” or not, it’s clearly capturing images.
- mrtksn 4y ago
  Did I say something else?
- biorach 4y ago
  It has a camera plus several other instruments. In this case it seems that the camera could not be used. The article is discussing the interpretation of the spectroscopy data. > Hubble can't photograph the AT2022dsb tidal event's mayhem up close... > This energetic collision was close enough to Earth and bright enough for the Hubble astronomers to do ultraviolet spectroscopy over a longer than normal period of time.
- kjs3 4y ago
  You might want to read the actual article instead of running off to wikipedia because Someone Is Wrong On The Internet. Pay particular attention to the part where they go into detail that the discovery was 1) done with a spectrometer, not a camera and 2) it's UV, not visible light. Might temper that knee-jerk some.