Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> wrote in news:q8qgla$i3p$3@dont-email.me:> On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 08:36:41 -0400, Phil Hobbs wrote: > >> It's a pretty cool achievement, though. I remember seeing Gerd >> Binnig's first pictures of atoms taken with his STM thirty-odd >> years ago. > > Now *THAT* was worth waiting for! >Not long after in epitaxy, IBM started "writing" with atoms on their chips. Which they then used these types of microscopy to examine.
OT black hole pic.
Started by ●April 11, 2019
Reply by ●April 12, 20192019-04-12
Reply by ●April 12, 20192019-04-12
On 12/04/19 18:00, Cursitor Doom wrote:> On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 13:15:38 +1000, Clifford Heath wrote: > >> Some of the radiation used to make that picture came from the Earth... >> 110 million years ago, and bent right around the black hole and back to >> us. If we could increase the resolution a lot(*), we could get video of >> live dinosaurs! > > Er, yes. Well, at least live dinosaurs would be worth looking at, unlike > this photo, which is basically just exactly as I imagined it would be. It > doesn't tell us anything we don't already know.That indicates you comprehend neither the scientific method nor why experiments are done. That's a /remarkable/ blind spot in someone that posts on a scientific/engineering board. But somehow it doesn't surprise me. :(
Reply by ●April 12, 20192019-04-12
On 4/12/19 4:08 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:> Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> wrote in > news:q8qgla$i3p$3@dont-email.me: > >> On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 08:36:41 -0400, Phil Hobbs wrote: >> >>> It's a pretty cool achievement, though. I remember seeing Gerd >>> Binnig's first pictures of atoms taken with his STM thirty-odd >>> years ago. >> >> Now *THAT* was worth waiting for! >> > Not long after in epitaxy, IBM started "writing" with atoms on their > chips. > > Which they then used these types of microscopy to examine. >BITD making an IBM logo in some novel fashion was a good way to get a nice bonus. Making chips that way is ridiculously uneconomic, from that day to this. Cheers Phil Hobbs -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 http://electrooptical.net http://hobbs-eo.com
Reply by ●April 12, 20192019-04-12
Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote in news:PsadnaT9IIUypSzBnZ2dnUU7-KGdnZ2d@supernews.com:> On 4/12/19 4:08 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org > wrote: >> Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> wrote in >> news:q8qgla$i3p$3@dont-email.me: >> >>> 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! >>> >> Not long after in epitaxy, IBM started "writing" with atoms on >> their >> chips. >> >> Which they then used these types of microscopy to examine. >> > > BITD making an IBM logo in some novel fashion was a good way to > get a nice bonus. Making chips that way is ridiculously > uneconomic, from that day to this. > > Cheers > > Phil Hobbs >It was a mere one off to show the capacity of the technology at the time. A bigger advance was liquid photolithography, which is what has us now below 22nm feature sizes. We are now at 14nm and 7nm even. Wow! We do some pretty fancy pulling pushing and shoving of electrons around on little pieces of finely structured earth.
Reply by ●April 12, 20192019-04-12
On Saturday, April 13, 2019 at 12:46:30 AM UTC+10, 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. > > It was impressive, but over-hyped,"Over-hyped" is a subjective judgement, and John Larkin doesn't know much about physics or science, making his judgement in this particular area even more fallible than usual.> and as noted the image was heavily processed and false colorized.If you are looking at a radio-frequency image, it's difficult to imagine what true-colorised would be. The image was colour-coded to display more information than you could put into a shades of grey image. And if the data hadn't been heavily processed there wouldn't have been any kind of image to see.> Is the raw image data available anywhere?Probably, but there is a great deal of it - you'd probably have to negotiate an expensive deal if you wanted to copy it onto your own computer system (which probably hasn't got the capacity to store all of it).> 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.Other posters have suggested that this is exactly what's going on - there has even been some discussion of the volume of data invlvoed. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by ●April 13, 20192019-04-13
On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 17:00:24 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> 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.Einstein was right even when he thought he was wrong. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
Reply by ●April 13, 20192019-04-13
On Saturday, April 13, 2019 at 3:09:48 PM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:> On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 17:00:24 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom > <curd@notformail.com> 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. > > Einstein was right even when he thought he was wrong.Einstein was once right when he though he was wrong. It might be unwise to generalise - even if you aren't John Larkin. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by ●April 13, 20192019-04-13
On 12/04/19 15:46, John Larkin wrote:> It was impressive, but over-hyped, and as noted the image was heavily > processed and false colorized.Does any animal (on this planet) have the ability to see images at 1.2mm?> Is the raw image data available > anywhere?8 telescopes, 350TB/day/telescope. They used "over 1000" hard discs. They couldn't use bog-standard 8TB discs, since at that altitude the air is too thin to allow the head to "fly". Hence they used helium-filled discs. Everything about this is impressive. https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/04/12/heliumfilled_disk_drives_stored_black_hole_data/
Reply by ●April 13, 20192019-04-13
On 12/04/2019 15:46, 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?They are almost always false coloured to allow you to see the necessary dynamic range on print media. My only objection to the media presentation is that it makes little sense to supply 5k pixel artwork for an image that has at most 1000 independent individual pixels in it. The thermal CLUT they have used looks to me like one of the ones that preserves intensity so convert to greyscale will give you a monochrome version (traditionally this was done when big colour monitors were horrendously expensive and only used when the greyscale image was already the best you could possibly make from the data). I would rather like to see what they get if they zoom out somewhat - say by a factor of 10.> > 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.The papers propose doing exactly that to increase the number of targets where this technique could image the accretion disk.> > 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.Yes. But it is a nightmare to make it stay on the fringes. Already been done at MRAO Cambridge using the old munitions bunkers as thermally stable delay lines for the phase compensators COAST - the telescope that sings (as its servos chase the white light fringe). http://www.mrao.cam.ac.uk/outreach/radio-telescopes/coast/ Snag is that in the optical you need a lot of beam splitters and it will only work on very bright sources. It took genius level experimental technique to get anything useful at all through UK skies! Much more sensible locations at altitude now have built optical interferometers using radio astronomy techniques at (near) optical wavelengths - ISTR they are just near IR in practice. Magdalens ridge observatory is one such http://www.mro.nmt.edu/ Doing it at mm wavelengths and on VLBI baselines was the obvious next step but it really is an astonishing achievement to make it work so well. SgrA* could have more detail when they get a handle on it. -- Regards, Martin Brown
Reply by ●April 13, 20192019-04-13
On 12/04/2019 18:06, Cursitor Doom wrote:> 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.A lunar eclipse can be very impressive and would have been terrifying to the ancients if they didn't know what was going on. You can get anything from pale orange to blood red colour in total lunar eclipse. Last one visible from the UK required getting up at 3am to see it. -- Regards, Martin Brown
