Slashdot Mirror
Virtual Telescope Zooms In On Milky Way Black Hole
FiReaNGeL writes "An international team has obtained the closest views ever of what is believed to be a super-massive black hole at the center of the Milky Way galaxy. The astronomers used radio dishes in Hawaii, Arizona and California to create a virtual telescope more than 2,800 miles across that is capable of seeing details more than 1,000 times finer than the Hubble Space Telescope. The target of the observations was the source known as Sagittarius A* ("A-star"), long thought to mark the position of a black hole whose mass is 4 million times greater than the sun. Though Sagittarius A* was discovered 30 years ago, the new observations for the first time have an angular resolution, or ability to observe small details, that is matched to the size of the event horizon."
The milky way is our galaxy.
Also, 2 different brands of chocolate bar.
Deleted
Can we stop saying "virtual telescopes" and start using the proper grown up terms? Interferometry and Aperture Synthesis aren't hard to understand. It's a pet peeve of mine, and slashdotters should be of a level of intelligence that they can understand this stuff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_interferometer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aperture_synthesis
Yes you get the same angular resolution as a much larger telescope (one as big as the distance between the telescopes), which is why you do it. However it's important to note that you you don't increase the amount of radiation you're collecting - it's still just the sum of the telescopes you're using.
I'll try to put it simply. Let's use optical telescopes as a familiar example. (In practice optical interferometry is much harder than radio astronomy, but I digress). The larger the diameter of the mirror (or lens) the more light we collect, and the smaller an object we can look at with reasonable detail (There is a physical relationship between the diameter of the telescope and the smallest thing you can resolve with it). We could space multiple telescopes a good distance apart and increase how small a piece of the sky we can look at in detail. The detail we could now resolve depends on the distance between the telescopes. However we're still only collecting as much light in total as the sum of the light collected by each scope. So even though we can look at a much smaller part of the sky, we won't be able to brighten up the image as much as if we had the larger telescope. It's still worth doing and it still yields discoveries, but it's not the same as having a massive telescope.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Here is the actual negative surrounded by brackets:
[ ]
A unique way to learn a language: http://languageloom.com
Nope. Gravitic force gets weaker the further you get from the mass exerting it.
NO CARRIER
They both have angular resolution. The radio telescope in question still has 1000 times the angular resolution of Hubble.
What, exactly, is your peeve here?
There is an accretion disk around the event horizon, where things (dust, gas) are orbiting around at nearly the speed of light. As these things rub together, and as new stuff gets added, there is lots of energy to be detected far away - especially in jets of very hot matter out of the poles.
The event horizon itself, for a black hole of this size, is not detectable. (Very small black holes should glow with Hawking radiation.)
If you had an array of Hubble sized telescopes in space and could put them whatever distance you'd like from each other, what sort of results could you get?
That is basically the Space Interferometry Mission (SIM), which alas has had funding troubles recently. The component telescopes are not the size of the Hubble, but the idea is exactly as you suggest. One thing you could do with this is detect Earth sized planets in a solar system like ours out to a reasonable distance.
By definition, the event horizon is the area surrounding a black hole inside which the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light, therefore you can't see anything beyond it. You're probably thinking of the accretion disk.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
Right here folks: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/blackhole-view-0903.html
Here, actually.
thought that was ( * )
Technically I think the gravitational field would be more accurately represented as:
( o )
but the gravity can also distort the frame of reference
rewriting history since 2109