Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bad Dog Cafe' started by scrimmer, Apr 10, 2019.
Maybe Davy Jones....or Mike Nesmith....
well, no it was posing. after you took the picture, it moved!
I still dont get how dishes that pickup waves
are converted to photos.
No cameras here.
Space has a north and south?
I dated a woman in college who lived outside of a development named "AppleWood". Each street name was either Applesomething or SomethingWood, and the main drag was AppleWood Way. I cannot imagine giving directions through there.
Although, Akron OH has a few famous intersections; Sand Run Parkway and Sand Run Road, and Firestone Parkway and Firestone Boulevard. Sure, get lost, all a friend, and they say "turn onto Sand Run". Uhhhh....
You can almost see it saying "Cheese!"
...just a relative reference for looking at the image - North is at the top of the display, south at the bottom. In other words, one thing the paper addresses is why, from the earth vantage point does an image of a black hole have a light surround that is brighter on the bottom (south) side and darker at the top (north) side...
Please post a link to the original paper. I’m on vacation without my laptop but can probably download it in the business center. I use long flights to catch up on reading outside the field I work in. Thanks in advance.
Other than wavelength (frequency) there is no difference between radio wave and visible light.
It is all electromagnetic radiation.
The colors in the photo just represent different wavelengths and intensities.
Have you ever seen weather radar? Same type of thing is going on.
We are just biased to think that visible light is something special.
"My God ... it's made of stars."
Radio frequency radiation cannot escape a Black Hole, nothing inbound can. And it's not the "strength" of the gravity. It is the well created in space-time that literally (yes, literally) bends all futures (i.e. The flow of the world line that we experience) into the well, so there IS no other direction or flow of time and space except into the black hole once you reach the event horizon boundary. There is a bunch of really funky stuff that happens at the event horizon related to time dialation that just makes my brain hurt, one of the real physicists around here can explain all that.
Hawking Radiation is the effect of imaginary particle pairs snapping into existence with one on the outside and one on the inside of the event horizon (paraphrasing horribly in layman's terms). Takes a REALLY long time for that to completely deplete the black hole - but there's nothing actually traveling in space from within the event horizon to outside it.
Uriah, this explanation is greatly simplified but it should give you the idea. What we see as a photograph is a two dimensional visible light representation of reality. Your portrait isn’t you but it is a pretty good representation. A film camera records light reflected off of you on film which is projected on paper, developed, and printed as an image. A semiconductor chip is used in place of film in a digital camera but the underlying principle is the same. Light reflected off of you falls on a chip. The coordinate location of the pixel is recorded and assembled into an image by a computer. The digital image of the black hole shadow is too big to fit on a chip. The location in the sky where the radio wave from behind the black hole originated from is recorded. The data is then assembled into an image in much the same way your portrait was assembled. There is a lot of math behind the process because much of the information used to create the image results from interference between photons, but basic digital imaging principles still apply. I hope this clarifies more than confuses things. My specialty is laser microscopes which do not directly produce an image. The way data recording intensity, position, and time is assembled into images has a lot in common with the black hole image. I apologize for typos and unconnected or incomplete thoughts. I’m on vacation writing this on my iPhone from my balcony overlooking the Pacific.
Please post the link to the original paper. Thanks in advance.
the links to the papers were originally included as part of the article quoted by the OP; however in the meantime, they were moved, but I found them again here:
the quote i lifted was from the paper: "First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results. V. Physical Origin of the Asymmetric Ring"
Asymmetric - that caught my attention - but then I remembered that our view from earth wouldn't necessarily be right on axis...
The whole thing is just silly OH we found a Black Hole do they not watch TV between 5:00 & 6:00PM?
Helps ..now I got to cogitate it. Tks
Meh... I've seen blacker holes.
I appreciate your description of how the images are captured based on pixels, but to clarify one bit
It is not that the image is too big to capture on one sensor, very much the opposite. The issue is that from a math and optics perspective, resolution is a function of aperture (sorry about that description). To explain what that means:
Resolution for the purposes of this discussion is essentially the smallest feature you can make out in an image or through a telescope. Aperture is just the distance from one side of your telescope lens to the other side (i.e. diameter). The bigger the aperture of your telescope, the smaller the detail you can make out - or in terms of astronomy, the more distant object you can see in detail (because things far away get really, really small to our eyes).
What these telescopes are doing is using a method called "interferometry". What that does, is take telescopes that are really far away from each other, and make them work like one telescope. By doing so, they make the functional Aperture waaay bigger - in this case, the size of the Earth. So, going by our formula above that means that they can see things that are really, really small relative to the telescopes or, saying it a different way, things that are really, really (really really!!!) far away.
It's just amazing.