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.

59 of 103 comments (clear)

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

    Says, what's up doc?

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

  2. 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 avgjoe62 · · Score: 1

      American or European stadiums?

      --

      How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?

    3. Re:units by FuzzMaster · · Score: 3, Funny

      What? I don't know th

      NO CARRIER

    4. 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...

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

      You can still measure football fields in metric.

      --
      Tired of my customary (Score:1)
    6. 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. . . .
  3. 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 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.

    2. 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.
    3. 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
    4. 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.

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

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

    6. 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

    7. 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.

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

      Sounds like you need to upgrade.

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

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

    10. 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.

    11. 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.

    12. 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?

    13. 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).

    14. 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.

    15. 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
    16. 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
  4. 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.

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

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

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

    Because the Earth is really flat. I knew it.

  7. 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 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.
  8. 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 ememisya · · Score: 1

      Banana for scale.

    2. 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. . . .
  9. Do I have this right? by fredrated · · Score: 1

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

  10. 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.
  11. 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 Deadstick · · Score: 1

      Ever had your DirecTV interrupted by a thunderstorm?

    2. 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.

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

      Thank you, didn't know that

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

      I have Dish, you insensitive clod!

  12. 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
  13. 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.

  14. Sagittarius A* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

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

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. Re:How? by Zargg · · Score: 1

    Really cool link!

  18. Re:Breaking news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's not a perfect imaging system.

  19. 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.

  20. 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

  21. 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.

  22. 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).

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

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