Slashdot Mirror


Earth-Sized Telescope Set To Snap First Picture of a Black Hole (newscientist.com)

An anonymous reader writes from a New Scientist report: This week, we will have our first chance to take a picture of the supermassive black hole at the centre of our galaxy. The image could teach us how black holes work and even how the largest and smallest forces governing the universe fit together. The Event Horizon Telescope is switching on. It consists of eight radio observatories around the world, including telescopes in Spain, the US and Antarctica. And for just four or five nights between 5 and 14 April, if the weather is clear at all of the observatories, they will all turn on at once. Each telescope will point at Sagittarius A, the supermassive black hole at the centre of the Milky Way, and measure every radio wave coming from its direction. Linking together observatories spread across such a huge area and combining their observations to filter out extra light will effectively create a powerful "virtual telescope" almost the size of Earth. These telescopes will together capture sharper and more detailed data than we've ever had from Sagittarius A, which we still know very little about, as well as the larger black hole at the centre of nearby galaxy M87. With the telescopes generating a total of 2 petabytes of data per night -- enough to store the full genomes of some 2 billion people -- astronomers hope to take the first image of the event horizon around a black hole, and the bright matter hurtling around it.

103 comments

  1. first post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    first post

  2. Bugs Bunny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Says, what's up doc?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  3. How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How do telescopes on opposite sides of the globe all see the same sky at once? Sounds unlikely.

    1. Re:How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note their positions in the article. Then look at a globe. Yes, it is likely that two of them will be pretty close to as far apart as they can be and still look at the same spot in space, but they aren't past that point. That's how it makes it earth-sized as well. if you drew a circle around them the circle would practically cover the visible face of the planet from the direction of the black hole but all of them will have line of sight.

    2. Re:How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no need for "at once".

    3. Re:How? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      You only need to see the one object you're observing.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re:How? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Because the Earth is really flat. I knew it.

    5. Re:How? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I can see the sun right now. So can people in America.

      Take a look at the map showing the locations of all the telescopes being used in this experiment. Notice that half of the world is not displayed? That isn't just because some monkey didn't crop the image correctly, it's because only half the world can see the same object at the same time.

      For a practical demonstration note that you can see all locations of telescopes at the same time in this projection.

    6. Re:How? by Zargg · · Score: 1

      Really cool link!

    7. Re: How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dumbass

    8. Re:How? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I know right? I saw someone else show it on here a few months ago. Instant bookmark.

  4. units by ooloorie · · Score: 1, Interesting

    enough to store the full genomes of some 2 billion people

    I have trouble with this "full genome" unit. Can you please express that in "football fields"?

    OK, if you must, let's express that in metric units: it's about 1.6 x 10^-9 moles, or 1.6 nanomoles, of bytes.

    1. Re:units by macxcool · · Score: 1

      I posted before I saw this. I like the nanomoles. Nice touch.

    2. Re:units by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you please express that in "football fields"?

      30,000 stadiums.

    3. Re:units by avgjoe62 · · Score: 1

      American or European stadiums?

      --

      How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?

    4. Re:units by Nidi62 · · Score: 0

      At the very least, if all the data was printed out and bound into books, how many Libraries of Congress it would take up. You know, units Slashdot is familiar with.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    5. Re:units by FuzzMaster · · Score: 3, Funny

      What? I don't know th

      NO CARRIER

    6. Re:units by halfEvilTech · · Score: 1

      If you include the web archive for the LoC - then you are looking at just over 600 TB for 1 LoC unit.

      As of July of last year the LoC has archived about 545 TB of web data, and add about 5 TB a month on top of that. In addition in 2012 the data size of the books and other media was about 15 TB.

      sources -
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      https://blogs.loc.gov/thesigna...

    7. Re:units by PmanAce · · Score: 1

      You can still measure football fields in metric.

      --
      Tired of my customary (Score:1)
    8. Re:units by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      You can still measure football fields in metric.

      Ya, they're called soccer fields. :-)

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    9. Re:units by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      30,000 stadia, you ignoramus.

  5. Perspective, Please! by avgjoe62 · · Score: 1

    Linking together observatories spread across such a huge area...

    It is a symptom of humanity's hubris to believe that an area the size of Earth is considered huge when measuring the massive black hole that sits at the center of our galaxy.

    --

    How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?

    1. Re:Perspective, Please! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The black hold at the center of the galaxy is indeed massive, containing as much mass as millions of suns, but it is not large, even by earth standards. All that mass is concentrated into a singulatiry that would comfortably fit inside the dot at the end of this sentence.

    2. Re:Perspective, Please! by macxcool · · Score: 1

      hubris to believe that an area the size of Earth is considered huge

      I think it would be considered huge compared to other radio telescopes, though.

    3. Re:Perspective, Please! by ScentCone · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It is a symptom of humanity's hubris to believe that an area the size of Earth is considered huge when measuring the massive black hole that sits at the center of our galaxy.

      But what is it a symptom of when somebody complaining about that description completely fails to understand that the description compares the array to the size of a traditional, single observatory or an array located in one area ... and was not a comparison to the intended observational target? It's not "hubris." It's ... what? "Totally missing the point, but not missing the opportunity to sound a bit patronizing anyway?"

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    4. Re:Perspective, Please! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      It's huge because we used to have ~10 km sized baselines or so even when interferometry was used.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    5. Re:Perspective, Please! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The current best-estimate is an angular diameter is approximately 44 million kilometers, in the same ball-park as the distance between the sun and Mercury. So not the size of a sentence-ending period, or the size of the earth, but rather likely larger than the earth itself.

    6. Re:Perspective, Please! by countach · · Score: 1

      You do realise that a black hole of any size is a singularity right? i.e. it is smaller than the earth.

    7. Re:Perspective, Please! by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

      Several million km is bigger than the period in that sentence, at least on my screen.

    8. Re:Perspective, Please! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You do realise that a black hole of any size is a singularity right? i.e. it is smaller than the earth.

      Yes...pedantic perhaps, but I cannot stop myself: That would depend on what exactly you mean by the 'size' of a black hole. I think generally when referring to a black hole's size, people refer to the event horizon - ie the 'black' part of the black hole. Which for Sagittarius A is estimated to be 17 times the radius of the Sun. So, pretty big.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*#Central_black_hole

    9. Re:Perspective, Please! by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      It is a symptom of humanity's hubris to believe that an area the size of Earth is considered huge when measuring the massive black hole that sits at the center of our galaxy.

      It is a symptom of humanity's hubris to believe that the black hole in our galaxy is considered massive.

    10. Re:Perspective, Please! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sounds like you need to upgrade.

    11. Re:Perspective, Please! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is a symptom of your hubris that you invent moral failings in order to have an opportunity to criticize.

    12. Re:Perspective, Please! by OneSmartFellow · · Score: 1

      clearly, I need glasses, cause that 44 million km diameter dot looks very small to me.

    13. Re: Perspective, Please! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're talking about the size of the event horizon, the other person is talking about the assumed size of the singularity inside.

    14. Re: Perspective, Please! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not correct. The singularity is possibly that small, but the only part of the black hole we can observe is the event horizon, and it is quite large.

    15. Re: Perspective, Please! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why not build a couple of telescopes in space? Put them in orbits on opposite sides of the sun. Then you have a nice baseline for interferometry.

    16. Re:Perspective, Please! by countach · · Score: 1

      Even so, the premise of the stupid comment above is that its hubris to consider a telescope the size of the earth as a big telescope. But I can see the sun with no telescope at all, probably even from the centre of the milky way. So the idea that a telescope the size of the earth is not "big" when trying to look at an object that is 17x *BIGGER* than the sun, is kind of idiotic, no? I mean, I don't know all the calculations, but it strikes me as stupid.

    17. Re:Perspective, Please! by avgjoe62 · · Score: 1

      I am really curious about this - if I place a satellite dish in California and one in New York, do I know have a receiver as large as the Untied States?

      --

      How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?

    18. Re:Perspective, Please! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is a symptom of the unmedicated Space Nutter to misunderstand ... pretty much everything.

    19. Re:Perspective, Please! by HumanWiki · · Score: 1

      Linking together observatories spread across such a huge area...

      It is a symptom of humanity's hubris to believe that an area the size of Earth is considered huge when measuring the massive black hole that sits at the center of our galaxy.

      You sound like Clark from Good Will Hunting, spouting off seemingly highbrow garbage in an attempt to sound intelligent but ultimately just coming off as a douche. There is nothing hubris about the passage and you completely misunderstood and misinterpreted the same by trying to belittle it (and all of us in the process).

    20. Re:Perspective, Please! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You only get the *brightness* of two small receivers.
      But you get the *sharpness* of an absurdly large receiver.

    21. Re: Perspective, Please! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      You don't even need the heliocentric orbit, just getting stuff to the Moon would be a fifty-fold improvement in our current capability. Or simply somewhere in the cislunar space.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    22. Re: Perspective, Please! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      That's assuming that it makes sense to talk of the "inside" seeing as it is so detached from our space-time that we "see" it "before" it shrunk (will shrink?) like that.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    23. Re:Perspective, Please! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can get the resolution of a receiver as large as the US, but the source still has to be bright enough to be seen by the individual dishes. The signals from the various dishes need to be combined via interferometry.

    24. Re:Perspective, Please! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The same reason we can see Pluto with our telescopes but we didn't know its shape until we got a space-craft within a few hundred thousand miles. I can also see a flashlight in pitch black from miles away, but doesn't mean I can make out the flashlight from that distance, only that it's a bright light source.

    25. Re:Perspective, Please! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is a symptom of humanity's hubris to believe that the black hole in our galaxy is considered massive.

      Maybe not massive when compared to other black ones, but certainly when compared to your average white one... not to mention the tiny asian ones.

  6. Breaking news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I got my hands on a preview image of the black hole!

    http://www.solidbackgrounds.com/images/2560x1440/2560x1440-black-solid-color-background.jpg

    Enjoy!

    1. Re:Breaking news! by PPH · · Score: 1

      That's not perfectly black. It's got a bunch of blue pixels randomly distributed across it.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:Breaking news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's not a perfect imaging system.

  7. 2 Billion Genomes?? by macxcool · · Score: 4, Insightful

    enough to store the full genomes of some 2 billion people

    There's a useless comparison. Unless you're doing a lot of genome storage I'd think that you'd have no idea what that means.

    1. Re:2 Billion Genomes?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Especially since 99.9-something percent of those genomes are going to be identical each other. You could run some awesome de-dupe compression on that.

    2. Re:2 Billion Genomes?? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      At least I can understand a unit like libraries of congress*, but what the hell does a genome look like?

      *Note I have never been to the library of congress, only seen pictures so don't use those shitty units either.

    3. Re: 2 Billion Genomes?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now we don't have to worry about disasters like asteroids, plagues or wars. We can just back up an entire continent into the cloud.

    4. Re:2 Billion Genomes?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, most of the pixels will be black...

  8. It's Sagittarius A* (saggitarius-a-star) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The correct name is Sagittarius A* (saggitarius-a-star): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A* . Sagittarius A is the name of the whole group of objects there.

  9. You can't see a black hole by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 3, Informative

    You can't, of course, "see" a black hole, even with radio waves: a black hole is by definition what you can't see.(*)

    What they are looking to image is the radio emissions from material falling into the black hole. You can't see the black hole itself.
    --
    *footnote: Black holes do emit Hawking radiation, which in principle is detectable. But the peculiar property of Hawking radiation is that the smaller the black hole the more Hawking radiation. Only exceptionally tiny black holes emit enough to possibly detect-- a black hole ten micro meters across will emit just about the same amount of Hawking radiation as the microwave background.

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    1. Re:You can't see a black hole by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

      Well then by the same logic you can't really see matter either. All you see is reflected photons.

    2. Re:You can't see a black hole by swillden · · Score: 2

      Well then by the same logic you can't really see matter either. All you see is reflected photons.

      Or emitted photons.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    3. Re:You can't see a black hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm. That's odd. I was eating a doughnut this morning and it had a hole in it. No shit, I tell you. I saw it with my own eyes.

      You wanna run that by me again about why I can't see a black hole in space?

    4. Re:You can't see a black hole by sconeu · · Score: 1
      Sure you can. I have the negatives of the photo right here!

      ---- BEGIN NEGATIVE ----

      ---- END NEGATIVE ----

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    5. Re:You can't see a black hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I came to slashdot looking for a pedantic asshole to insult....and here you are!

      I am going to assume you already know that the word "see" is ambiguous in English, and that the OP's use of the word makes perfect sense given the qualifier that he clearly gave. Because if I don't assume this, I have to assume that you are a fucking moron.

      Since I am assuming you already know that you are splitting semantic hairs, I am left with the singular conclusion that you are consciously choosing to be an asshole, just to make yourself feel better at other's expense.

      Sort of like what I just did with this post. How do you like it?

    6. Re:You can't see a black hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like I pissed you off pretty good, huh?

      What do you think my goal was in the first place?

      Looks like I win.

      LOL!!

  10. At the same time [re:How?] by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 4, Informative

    There is no need for "at once".

    Yes there is. You're thinking of parallax, but what they are doing is interferometry, so they will be comparing the phase of radio signals received on opposite sides of the globe. That has to be done simultaneously.

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    1. Re:At the same time [re:How?] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One would think, but it turns out there are ways to smear it out over time. Check out this TED talk, which has some interesting stuff about how they can do this over time, even with interferometry.

    2. Re:At the same time [re:How?] by ememisya · · Score: 1

      Banana for scale.

    3. Re:At the same time [re:How?] by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      There is no need for "at once".

      Yes there is. You're thinking of parallax, but what they are doing is interferometry, so they will be comparing the phase of radio signals received on opposite sides of the globe. That has to be done simultaneously.

      And, I imagine, a good use for NTP (or the like).

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    4. Re:At the same time [re:How?] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What they're really doing is pirating movies. This is just the cover story.

    5. Re:At the same time [re:How?] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't each telescope timestamp the data? The exact time someone hits the power button shouldn't matter so long as they are all 'on' during a given time period, right?

  11. Clear skies not needed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Radio telescopes don't need clear skies. Radio frequencies go right through clouds,

    1. Re: Clear skies not needed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some radio frequencies go through clouds. If you're working in the high sub-millimeter microwave bands, the amount of water vapor in the air makes a difference. Some bands are almost completely radio-opaque all of the time.

    2. Re:Clear skies not needed! by fisted · · Score: 1

      What frequency goes through the milky way? Because that's where they have to look, for something black no less.

    3. Re: Clear skies not needed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if that were true your satellite tv wouldn't fade out in a heavy rain storm.

  12. Do I have this right? by fredrated · · Score: 1

    We are about to look at something you can't see?

    1. Re:Do I have this right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they'll hit "invert" in photoshop afterwards just for you. or use film. are you a retard of some sort?

  13. A little surprised about "clear weather" by wisebabo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So, why do RADIO telescopes need to be concerned about the weather? I mean they look in the radio part of the spectrum and I would assume at the frequencies that aren't that affected by water vapor (or atmospheric gasses). So turbulence in the atmosphere wouldn't affect their performance (other than perhaps shaking the dish).

    Is it because they are referring to electrical storms (lightning)? Or perhaps they are referring to "space" weather like solar flares and the ionosphere? (But I've never heard of those being an impediment to radio astronomy).

    Anyway, just asking

    1. Re:A little surprised about "clear weather" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Water absorbs microwaves. It's why people have to clean snow off their DISH or DIRECTV antennas. It's how microwave ovens work.

    2. Re:A little surprised about "clear weather" by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      Ever had your DirecTV interrupted by a thunderstorm?

    3. Re: A little surprised about "clear weather" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      They're observing at 230-450 GHz. Water vapor in the air severely attenuates microwaves that high in frequency.

    4. Re:A little surprised about "clear weather" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " It's how microwave ovens work."

      No, it isn't. Everything else "absorbs" microwaves as well, *THAT*'s how it works. Your food is more than just water, and you can burn stuff (ie, much higher than the boiling point of water).

      It has nothing to do with anything special about water, and even less about any "resonance" nonsense.

      It's an induction oven, it heats by Joule effect, just like any induction oven. This is why you can buy 915MHz "microwave ovens" too. And you'll have to explain why houseflies survive in the microwave, they can fly between the wavelengths and are too small to act as effective antennas at such a low frequency...

    5. Re:A little surprised about "clear weather" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's an induction oven, it heats by Joule effect, just like any induction oven.

      Actually, you're both wrong. A microwave oven heats by dielectric effect. Water consists of bipolar molecules, and those align with the EM field inside the oven. That field is a standing but oscillating wave, causing the molecules to constantly try to realign with it. This causes molecule vibration, which causes temperature rise.

      And houseflies (or roaches) survive by staying near the metal sides where the field amplitude is near zero. Trap them near a field maximum, and they will not survive...

    6. Re: A little surprised about "clear weather" by wisebabo · · Score: 1

      Thank you, didn't know that

    7. Re: A little surprised about "clear weather" by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

      I have Dish, you insensitive clod!

  14. Re:units - 2PB by petes_PoV · · Score: 2

    I have trouble with this "full genome" unit.

    Then you should have just read the preceding bit that tells you it is 2 petabytes - if that is any more meaningful to you

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
  15. Sagittarius A* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's Sagittarius A*, pronounced Sagittarius A-star.

  16. Re:units - 2PB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ^ sarcasm impaired, or simply autistic

  17. Pshah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously photoshopped, LOL.

  18. This is slashdot by Solandri · · Score: 1

    You don't have to dumb it down and say "virtual telescope". Call it what it is - an interferometer and make it a link so people who don't know the term can read about it and educate themselves.

  19. 2 Petabytes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So that is where all the SSDs were sold. The reason for the price hikes is revealed.

  20. The metric system is the tool of the devil by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

    My car gets forty rods to the hogshead and that's the way I likes it.

  21. Re: Exactly! by Videospike · · Score: 1

    "Well, the thing about a black hole - its main distinguishing feature - is it's black. And the thing about space, the colour of space, your basic space colour, is black. So how are you supposed to see them?" - Holly, System AI, Jupiter Mining Corp. vessel Red Dwarf

  22. The The Black Hole Is Found In by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...Uranus. Naturally!

  23. You don't see the light when it's dark by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

    Well then by the same logic you can't really see matter either. All you see is reflected photons.

    Well, sure. But you see the photons reflected or emitted by the matter. On the other hand, you can't see photons reflected or emitted by a black hole, because black holes do not reflect or emit photons.

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    1. Re: You don't see the light when it's dark by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

      Well sure. It all depends on how you define "seeing" I suppose.

    2. Re: You don't see the light when it's dark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well sure. It all depends on how you define "seeing" I suppose.

      Not quite. It mostly depends on how pedantic you decide to be.

  24. Not quite a useless comparison... by blibbo · · Score: 1

    ... At least I now know one person's genome information is 1TB

    ...which is genuinely interesting to me (though not relevant to the topic at hand).

    1. Re: Not quite a useless comparison... by blibbo · · Score: 1

      Wait, I messed that up. 2x10^15 divided by 2x10^9 is 1x10^6. That's 1 megabyte each. Still surprising!

    2. Re: Not quite a useless comparison... by blibbo · · Score: 1

      A bit more googling tells me storing exactly one genome will use hundreds of megabytes getting up around O(gigabyte). But if we're doing a bunch of people and compressing for the mere change per individual it goes down to O(megabyte).

  25. Picture of a Black Hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is that an oxymoron?