On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 08:36:41 -0400, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:>On 4/12/19 12:28 AM, John Larkin wrote: >> On 11 Apr 2019 18:03:37 -0700, Winfield Hill >> <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote: >> >>> John Larkin wrote... >>>> >>>> On Thu, 11 Apr 2019, George Herold wrote: >>>> >>>>> My son shared this video by Vertasium on the black hole pic, >>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUyH3XhpLTo >>>>> >>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_GVbuddri8 >>>> >>>> It's always hard to tell real pictures from animations >>>> and "artists conceptions." There should be a convention >>>> to identify unreal images. >>> >>> These images have been called pictures, i.e., photographs, >>> and I think that's a fair name. They're created from a >>> 200GHz, "telescope" with a diameter of the whole earth. >>> Made from data from multiple simultaneous radio telescope >>> images, in perfect phase synchronization. The more you >>> read about it, the more you'll agree this is a real image. >> >> I meant the other animations of the black hole that are mixed up with >> the actual, very fuzzy radio telescope image. But more generally, the >> silly artists' conceptions that are not always identified. >> >> I've seen versions of that actual image that are zoomed or otherwise >> manipulated to look like movies. >> >> It sure was a ton of extended hype over that one fuzzy image. >> >> > >It's a pretty cool achievement, though. I remember seeing Gerd Binnig's >first pictures of atoms taken with his STM thirty-odd years ago. > >Cheers > >Phil HobbsIt was impressive, but over-hyped, and as noted the image was heavily processed and false colorized. Is the raw image data available anywhere? Instead of spending mucho billions for "boots on the moon", we could launch an array of radio telescopes into space and get some serious resolution. Would the Brown/Boffin type RF long-baseline interferometer work at optical wavelengths? It would have to move a lot of data if it did. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
OT black hole pic.
Started by ●April 11, 2019
Reply by ●April 12, 20192019-04-12
Reply by ●April 12, 20192019-04-12
On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 13:15:38 +1000, Clifford Heath wrote:> Some of the radiation used to make that picture came from the Earth... > 110 million years ago, and bent right around the black hole and back to > us. If we could increase the resolution a lot(*), we could get video of > live dinosaurs!Er, yes. Well, at least live dinosaurs would be worth looking at, unlike this photo, which is basically just exactly as I imagined it would be. It doesn't tell us anything we don't already know. -- This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.
Reply by ●April 12, 20192019-04-12
On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 21:28:14 -0700, John Larkin wrote:> It sure was a ton of extended hype over that one fuzzy image.I expected as much. Every now and again there's a lunar eclipse which is a bit closer than normal and it's really no big deal at all. But you should hear the way it's hyped up by the MSM. I think the last one we had they really excelled themselves: "super wolf blood moon" FFS! I didn't even bother going outside to see it. I don't reckon I missed anything. -- This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.
Reply by ●April 12, 20192019-04-12
On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 08:36:41 -0400, Phil Hobbs wrote:> It's a pretty cool achievement, though. I remember seeing Gerd Binnig's > first pictures of atoms taken with his STM thirty-odd years ago.Now *THAT* was worth waiting for! -- This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.
Reply by ●April 12, 20192019-04-12
On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 08:28:49 -0400, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:>On 4/11/19 11:27 PM, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote: >> On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 18:54:27 -0700 (PDT), George Herold >> <gherold@teachspin.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> It's very cool. I read that there was so much data, they transported >>> it on planes, by wire would have taken too long. >>> We should put a dish on the moon. :^) >> >> This has been used for decades in VLBI. Previously each radio >> telescope recorded the signal and clock sync on tape and the tapes >> were flown to the correlator site, The different tapes were >> synchronized and run through the correlator.So apparently they now use >> disks instead of tapes. >> >> It is surprising that they still use disks, since for at least a >> decade there has been a protocol for transferring very high data rate >> interferometric data. Standard TCP/IP is useless, since the >> transmission window would be filled, before the acknowledge frame >> would be received from intercontinental distances. You might need >> hundreds or thousands parallel TCP/IP tubes to fully utilize the >> available bandwidth (up to 800 Gbit/s on a single DWDM fibre). >> >> >You have to put the data someplace, so why make it more complicated?If you just need to make VLBI images of a single stellar object, transfer the raw signals from all antennas over the e-VLBI network to the central correlator, which produces the image in (near)real-time. The correlator output data size is much smaller than the combined antenna raw data. The advantage of storing all raw data (at individual antennas or at the correlator inputs) is that later on, you can produce non-real-time VLBI images of other stellar objects, as long as they are within the beam width of individual antennas. .
Reply by ●April 12, 20192019-04-12
On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 17:07:54 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> wrote:>On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 08:36:41 -0400, Phil Hobbs wrote: > >> It's a pretty cool achievement, though. I remember seeing Gerd Binnig's >> first pictures of atoms taken with his STM thirty-odd years ago. > >Now *THAT* was worth waiting for!Field ion microscopes showed dots for individual atoms too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_ion_microscope This is a tomographic atom probe, which I helped to launch. https://www.atomprobe.com/ -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc picosecond timing precision measurement jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
Reply by ●April 12, 20192019-04-12
On 4/12/19 1:00 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote:> On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 13:15:38 +1000, Clifford Heath wrote: > >> Some of the radiation used to make that picture came from the Earth... >> 110 million years ago, and bent right around the black hole and back to >> us. If we could increase the resolution a lot(*), we could get video of >> live dinosaurs! > > Er, yes. Well, at least live dinosaurs would be worth looking at, unlike > this photo, which is basically just exactly as I imagined it would be. It > doesn't tell us anything we don't already know. > > > >It doesn't tell us anything we didn't _predict_. Not the same animal. Cheers Phil Hobbs -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 http://electrooptical.net http://hobbs-eo.com
Reply by ●April 12, 20192019-04-12
On 4/12/19 2:23 PM, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:> On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 08:28:49 -0400, Phil Hobbs > <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote: > >> On 4/11/19 11:27 PM, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote: >>> On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 18:54:27 -0700 (PDT), George Herold >>> <gherold@teachspin.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> It's very cool. I read that there was so much data, they transported >>>> it on planes, by wire would have taken too long. >>>> We should put a dish on the moon. :^) >>> >>> This has been used for decades in VLBI. Previously each radio >>> telescope recorded the signal and clock sync on tape and the tapes >>> were flown to the correlator site, The different tapes were >>> synchronized and run through the correlator.So apparently they now use >>> disks instead of tapes. >>> >>> It is surprising that they still use disks, since for at least a >>> decade there has been a protocol for transferring very high data rate >>> interferometric data. Standard TCP/IP is useless, since the >>> transmission window would be filled, before the acknowledge frame >>> would be received from intercontinental distances. You might need >>> hundreds or thousands parallel TCP/IP tubes to fully utilize the >>> available bandwidth (up to 800 Gbit/s on a single DWDM fibre). >>> >>> >> You have to put the data someplace, so why make it more complicated? > > If you just need to make VLBI images of a single stellar object, > transfer the raw signals from all antennas over the e-VLBI network to > the central correlator, which produces the image in (near)real-time. > The correlator output data size is much smaller than the combined > antenna raw data. > > The advantage of storing all raw data (at individual antennas or at > the correlator inputs) is that later on, you can produce > non-real-time VLBI images of other stellar objects, as long as they > are within the beam width of individual antennas. > .. >It can't be done in real time because you have to wait for the Earth to move to fill in all the spatial frequencies. Cheers Phil Hobbs -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 http://electrooptical.net http://hobbs-eo.com
Reply by ●April 12, 20192019-04-12
On 4/12/19 10:46 AM, John Larkin wrote:> On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 08:36:41 -0400, Phil Hobbs > <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote: > >> On 4/12/19 12:28 AM, John Larkin wrote: >>> On 11 Apr 2019 18:03:37 -0700, Winfield Hill >>> <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote: >>> >>>> John Larkin wrote... >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, 11 Apr 2019, George Herold wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> My son shared this video by Vertasium on the black hole pic, >>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUyH3XhpLTo >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_GVbuddri8 >>>>> >>>>> It's always hard to tell real pictures from animations >>>>> and "artists conceptions." There should be a convention >>>>> to identify unreal images. >>>> >>>> These images have been called pictures, i.e., photographs, >>>> and I think that's a fair name. They're created from a >>>> 200GHz, "telescope" with a diameter of the whole earth. >>>> Made from data from multiple simultaneous radio telescope >>>> images, in perfect phase synchronization. The more you >>>> read about it, the more you'll agree this is a real image. >>> >>> I meant the other animations of the black hole that are mixed up with >>> the actual, very fuzzy radio telescope image. But more generally, the >>> silly artists' conceptions that are not always identified. >>> >>> I've seen versions of that actual image that are zoomed or otherwise >>> manipulated to look like movies. >>> >>> It sure was a ton of extended hype over that one fuzzy image. >>> >>> >> >> It's a pretty cool achievement, though. I remember seeing Gerd Binnig's >> first pictures of atoms taken with his STM thirty-odd years ago. >> >> Cheers >> >> Phil Hobbs > > It was impressive, but over-hyped, and as noted the image was heavily > processed and false colorized. Is the raw image data available > anywhere? > > Instead of spending mucho billions for "boots on the moon", we could > launch an array of radio telescopes into space and get some serious > resolution. > > Would the Brown/Boffin type RF long-baseline interferometer work at > optical wavelengths? It would have to move a lot of data if it did.The Hanbury Brown/Twiss technique probably doesn't have the SNR to do something like that, and anyway it gives you the autocorrelation of the scene, not the scene itself. The Michelson stellar interferometer idea could be used, with sufficiently accurate position information. You can't go too far with the sparse-aperture trick because you lose a lot of SNR. Cheers Phil Hobbs -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 http://electrooptical.net http://hobbs-eo.com
Reply by ●April 12, 20192019-04-12
Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> wrote in news:q8qg78$i3p$1@dont-email.me:> > Er, yes. Well, at least live dinosaurs would be worth looking at, > unlike this photo, which is basically just exactly as I imagined > it would be. It doesn't tell us anything we don't already know.Not true at all. We theorized it up until now. There is a difference. Even the more recent (in the last decade) observations of stars at the center of our galaxy pretty much proving the theory, it was still not a certainty. So, NOW, we KNOW it. Before, we did not, and there were many folks conjuring up alternates, whom we can now mute.
