Comments by "H. de Jong" (@h.dejong2531) on "How did they actually take this picture? (Very Long Baseline Interferometry)" video.

  1. The shorter the wavelength, the more difficult it gets to do VLBI. For radio astronomy, you can use harddrives to transport the data. The only optical interferometer we've built has two telescopes next to each other so we can combine the light directly: there's no way to record phasing information accurately enough to transport it as data.
    20
  2. We knew where the target was. We know what our galaxy looks like because we've plotted the position and movement of millions of stars. They all orbit the center of the galaxy, so that gave us a general region. VLT observations of that region show a bunch of stars orbiting an invisible object, which gave us the position of the black hole.
    12
  3.  @walkinmn  Very Long Baseline Inteferometry: the technique used to link all these telescopes around the world.
    12
  4. The original image is monochrome. You could use grayscale, but it turns out our eyes are better at seeing details in a colored image than in a grayscale image. The red/orange is a common choice for representing data at longer wavelengths than visible light.
    6
  5. No, that's accurate. We can't see this with the naked eye, Andromeda is too dim for that, but yeah, it is that large.
    5
  6. We have observed this region in IR for 20 years. These observations show stars orbiting an object that's mostly invisible. From those orbits we can calculate how much mass there must be: 4 million solar masses in a tiny amount of space. The only theory that can explain those observations is a black hole.
    5
  7. Spectroscopy requires there to be a spectrum. These images were taken at a single frequency.
    4
  8. This is an average. The originals are the individual observations used to create this average.
    3
  9.  @DK-vx5co  Read my first message again. Not even light can escape once it gets inside the Schwarzschild radius of a black hole. As long as you're outside of that radius, escape is possible.
    3
  10. No. Most of the Milky Way just orbits the black hole.
    3
  11. There's a bunch of stars orbiting the black hole (seen at 1:52).
    3
  12. Radio waves move at the speed of light.
    3
  13. "I don't understand" is not a good reason to call something fake.
    3
  14. Let me guess, you think Earth is flat?
    3
  15. I feel so bad for people who think this is fake.
    3
  16. We have photos of stars orbiting an object that's mostly invisible. From those orbits we can calculate how much mass there must be: 4 million solar masses in a tiny amount of space. The only theory that can explain those observations is a black hole. Now we've imaged that invisible object, and our observations match the theory. That means black holes are real, not theoretical, not imaginary. Welcome to science.
    3
  17. New observation of a different black hole.
    3
  18. It starts out as a sphere. Collisions in the sphere tend to collapse it into a disk. This happens in the formation of planetary systems as well.
    2
  19. As you said, there's a limit to the speed of light. It would take an infinite amount of energy to make light go faster.
    2
  20. it's the EHT team, not ESA. And Mohammad didn't record scientific data.
    2
  21. You need a telescope about 10 km in diameter to see a donut-sized object on the moon in the visible spectrum.
    2
  22. We have photos of stars orbiting an object that's mostly invisible. From those orbits we can calculate how much mass there must be: 4 million solar masses in a tiny amount of space. The only theory that can explain those observations is a black hole. Now we've imaged that invisible object, and our observations match the theory. That means black holes are real, not theoretical, not imaginary. Welcome to science.
    2
  23. The serial number of the moon rovers doesn't emit mm wave radio signals. That's a useless "test".
    2
  24.  @pathfinder7914  To make a useful image, you need contrast. In mm wave radio, the entire moon and everything on it looks the same. Try reading a book in an unlit room. You can't, because there's no contrast. Same principle. What you're doing is a strawman argument: you think up some ridiculous "test", and you think the fact they haven't done this "test" is evidence of anything. It isn't.
    2
  25.  @pathfinder7914  You repeat those numbers a lot as if they mean anything. 1. the number is incorrect: the black hole in our galaxy is 27,000 lightyears away, not 55 million. 2. We have no trouble seeing galaxies 12 billion lightyears away. We have detectors sensitive enough they can count single photons. We just need a large telescope to gather enough photons: at visible light, 2.4 meters and a few days of observation time is enough. The EHT is very large, with more collection area than any telescope we've ever built.
    2
  26. That wouldn't help. The total collection area is what counts, the shape is less important.
    2
  27. Yes.
    2
  28. It starts out as a sphere. Collisions in the sphere tend to collapse it into a disk. This happens in the formation of planetary systems as well.
    2
  29. Some humans are curious about the world around them. Others just want to vegetate. If it were up to them, we wouldn't have internal combustion engines, the telephone or the internet.
    2
  30. We have photos of stars orbiting an object that's mostly invisible. From those orbits we can calculate how much mass there must be: 4 million solar masses in a tiny amount of space. The only theory that can explain those observations is a black hole. Now we've imaged that invisible object, and our observations match the theory. That means black holes are real, not theoretical, not imaginary. Welcome to science.
    2
  31. It starts out as a sphere. Collisions tend to cancel out momentum in most directions, so over time the cloud becomes a disk.
    2
  32.  @doctorsexo420  Don't bother, it's a troll.
    2
  33. Your blind assumption that the scientists who worked on this didn't know what they're doing is not supported by facts. They spent a lot of time making sure their algorithms were not influenced by assumptions.
    2
  34. Not really. We've done it for low-frequency radio (1 GHz), but interferometry gets harder for shorter wavelengths: your timing requirement gets tighter, and the distance between telescopes must be known to about 1 wavelength.
    2
  35. The Andromeda Galaxy appears 3 million times wider in our sky than this black hole. It's larger than the Moon. It's easy to get high-quality images from objects that large.
    2
  36. It had to wait for the Earth to rotate to bring its targets into view. Arecibo had a receiver that could be moved around, this gave them a bit more freedom.
    2
  37.  @christianorsa  Yes, that's right.
    2
  38. No.
    2
  39. The resolution of this EHT image is 1000 times better than what the JWST will achieve. That's the advantage of having a telescope the size of Earth. What JWST will see is comparable to that timelapse of stars orbiting the black hole.
    2
  40. When you have a cloud of material that contracts, it starts rotating. any velocity vector perpendicular to that rotation tends to be cancelled out by collisions, and all matter ends up orbiting in the same plane.
    2
  41. When you have a cloud of material that contracts, it starts rotating. any velocity vector perpendicular to that rotation tends to be cancelled out by collisions, and all matter ends up orbiting in the same plane.
    2
  42. it starts out as a sphere. Collisions between objects tend to cancel out 'vertical' movement, leaving only the 'horizontal' component, and everything ends up orbiting in the same direction.
    2
  43. Once it passes a threshold (the Schwarzschild radius), it can't escape. The light we're seeing comes from matter that is orbiting the black hole a bit farther out.
    2
  44. Yep, that's the same technology.
    2
  45. Planets aren't very bright in radio wavelenghts. And the black hole is the size of Mercury's orbit, i.e. a lot larger than most planets.
    2
  46. That doesn't observe at the right wavelength (260 GHz).
    2
  47.  @promerops  All the parts of the EHT have to observe at the same wavelength, otherwise you can't do interferometry. Meerkat observes at up to 1.7 GHz.
    2
  48. Yes, we could add telescopes on other planets. This complicates the setup, but is theoretically doable.
    2
  49. Accreting matter starts out as a sphere. But collisions between particles tend to cancel out the 'vertical' part of the velocity vector, so you end up with a disk. We've only been able to image the 2 largest and nearest black holes, Sgr A* and M87*. We don't have enough resolution to see others.
    2
  50. We know what the Milky Way looks like, because we've measured the position of a billion stars. Plot those, and the familiar shape shows up. Before that, radio telescopes plotted the position of hydrogen clouds, that gave us our first image of the Milky Way. We don't need to go outside the galaxy to have a pretty good idea of what it looks like. The center of the galaxy is obscured to visible light by dust clouds, but dust is more transparent at longer wavelengths. IR telescopes have no problem seeing the center of the galaxy, nor do radio telescopes.
    2
  51. We could place a telescope on the moon. And there have been proposals to build a telescope in a crater on the moon, similar to Arecibo.
    2
  52. Yes.
    2
  53. People said that about relativity. Understanding relativity turned out to be crucial to making GPS work, 70 years later. Fundamental research tends to help out other fields.
    2
  54. This black hole is about 1000 times smaller than the smallest detail even the GTC can see.
    2
  55. Yes.
    2
  56. When you have a cloud of material that contracts, it starts rotating. any velocity vector perpendicular to that rotation tends to be cancelled out by collisions, and all matter ends up orbiting in the same plane.
    2
  57. This object is a thousand times smaller than we can see with the best optical telescopes, and you're moaning about resolution?
    2
  58. The big deal is this is the first time we've been able to capture an image of it.
    2
  59. Wrong.
    1
  60. yes.
    1
  61. Wrong. This image is based on data, not fantasy.
    1
  62. That's a load of nonsense.
    1
  63. it's a hole in the sense that anything that falls into it never comes back out. A black hole is matter compressed to infinity.
    1
  64. Not really, It's 20,000 lightyears away.
    1
  65. by synchronizing the instrument to an atomic clock.
    1
  66. No. The Aether was disproven a century ago, and we have plenty of evidence that shows light is influenced by gravity.
    1
  67. The telescopes work in mm wavelengths, the image is basically a grayscale brightness map. So we can assign any color we want.
    1
  68. We can easily find the center of our galaxy because everything orbits around it. Plot a few orbits and the center can be found. The Event Horizon Telescope has a resolution 1000 times better than the best optical telescopes. Planets like Pluto don't emit mm wavelength radio, so there's no point aiming this telescope at Pluto.
    1
  69. It appears smaller to the naked eye: you only see the brightest part of the galaxy. A long-exposure photo will show the actual size.
    1
  70. The resolution of this image is 1000 times higher than what JWST can achieve.
    1
  71.  @roadnottaken2780  Yes, you're correct. Unfortunately we haven't been able to build such a telescope array for visible or IR wavelengths yet: the shorter the wavelength, the more difficult it becomes to do this.
    1
  72. if the donut were bright in mm wavelenghts, yes.
    1
  73. Yeah, that's an artefact of history. we saw a bright source of radio emissions, didn't know what it was, it got a provisional label.
    1
  74. We know what the Milky Way looks like, because we've measured the position of a billion stars. Plot those, and the familiar shape shows up. Before that, radio telescopes plotted the position of hydrogen clouds, that gave us our first image of the Milky Way.
    1
  75. Not from this, no.
    1
  76. Yes, once you're inside the schwarzschild radius, there's no way to escape, no matter how much energy you put into it.
    1
  77. That's because an object approaching a black hole has a speed vector that's usually not lined up entirely with the black hole. So when the object gets closer, it accelerates toward the black hole, but the vector perpendicular to that line still exists and the object misses the black hole, entering an orbit instead of smashing into it.
    1
  78. no. Our sun is orbiting that black hole.
    1
  79.  @jamebond007slayer  Black holes have mass. The one at Sgr A* is about 4 million times the mass of the sun. It's a bit more complicated. The galaxy rotates around its center of mass. Most of the mass in the galaxy is concentrated around that black hole, so it's not just the black hole keeping our sun in orbit, it's the combined mass of everything near the center.
    1
  80. Yes. It's too dim to see that with the naked eye, though.
    1
  81. it starts out as a sphere. Collisions between objects tend to cancel out 'vertical' movement, leaving only the 'horizontal' component, and everything ends up orbiting in the same direction.
    1
  82. That angular size this video talks about: 60 microarcseconds. That's 1000 times smaller than what our best telescopes can resolve: i.e. 1 pixel of a JWST image. So Sag A* is far too small to be seen by visible-light or IR telescopes.
    1
  83. There's no physics that supports a torus-shaped object with a mass of 4 million times the sun.
    1
  84. That was a picture of a different black hole, in the M87 galaxy.
    1
  85. Have you even watched the video? In IR, we can see stars orbiting something, so we know where it is. The theory that describes black holes tells us how large they are. If we pointed JWST at this location, the black hole would cover 1/1000 of 1 pixel, so it's too small to see with any single telescope. We had to build a network of telescopes that spans the globe to make this image.
    1
  86. ​ @dudeimstoned5141  Black holes are an inevitable result of physical laws we know apply elsewhere. Just using those laws, we can create model that describes how a black hole behaves. This theory also makes predictions we have tested and verified. We can observe stars near Sagittarius A* orbit an invisible object.
    1
  87. We have photos of stars orbiting an object that's mostly invisible. From those orbits we can calculate how much mass there must be: 4 million solar masses in a tiny amount of space. The only theory that can explain those observations is a black hole. Now we've imaged that invisible object, and our observations match the theory. That means black holes are real, not theoretical, not imaginary. Welcome to science.
    1
  88. it starts out as a sphere. Collisions between objects tend to cancel out 'vertical' movement, leaving only the 'horizontal' component, and everything ends up orbiting in the same direction.
    1
  89. Once matter gets inside the Schwarzschild radius, it can't escape. Some of the matter in the accretion disk doesn't end up spiralling in, it gets fired out in a jet.
    1
  90. We know what the Milky Way looks like, because we've measured the position and movement vector of a billion stars. Plot those, and the familiar shape shows up. Before that, radio telescopes plotted the position and movement vector of hydrogen clouds, that gave us our first image of the Milky Way. It doesn't matter which way the axis of rotation of the black hole is pointed: it is visible in any direction.
    1
  91. We have photos of stars orbiting an object that's mostly invisible. From those orbits we can calculate how much mass there must be: 4 million solar masses in a tiny amount of space. The only theory that can explain those observations is a black hole. Now we've imaged that invisible object, and our observations match the theory. That means black holes are real, not theoretical, not imaginary. Welcome to science.
    1
  92. 3 years ago, this team published images of another black hole. About half of this video was made back then.
    1
  93. That's one of the puzzles this image has thrown up: the rotation axis of the accretion disk isn't what we expected.
    1
  94. No, unfortunately.
    1
  95. Physics. Work though the equations, and this is the shape that shows up.
    1
  96. We have lots of evidence that says they do and no evidence they don't.
    1
  97. We can see it from any direction.
    1
  98. We know what the Milky Way looks like, because we've measured the position of a billion stars. Plot those, and the familiar shape shows up. Before that, radio telescopes plotted the position of hydrogen clouds, that gave us our first image of the Milky Way. We don't need to go outside the galaxy to have a pretty good idea of what it looks like.
    1
  99. It starts out as a sphere. Collisions in the sphere tend to collapse it into a disk.
    1
  100. They merge into one.
    1
  101. The resolution of this image is about 1000 times higher than what JWST can do. That's the advantage of linking telescopes all over the world.
    1
  102. We have photos of stars orbiting an object that's mostly invisible. From those orbits we can calculate how much mass there must be: 4 million solar masses in a tiny amount of space. The only theory that can explain those observations is a black hole. Now we've imaged that invisible object, and our observations match the theory. That means black holes are real, not theoretical, not imaginary. Welcome to science.
    1
  103. The resolution of this EHT image is 1000 times better than what the JWST will achieve. That's the advantage of having a telescope the size of Earth. What JWST will see is comparable to that timelapse of stars orbiting the black hole.
    1
  104. We have photos of stars orbiting an object that's mostly invisible. From those orbits we can calculate how much mass there must be: 4 million solar masses in a tiny amount of space. The only theory that can explain those observations is a black hole. Now we've imaged that invisible object, and our observations match the theory. That means black holes are real, not theoretical, not imaginary. Welcome to science.
    1
  105. No. The hallmark of a scientific theory is that it makes predictions we can test. If black holes exist, they have to behave according to a mathematical model. So we observe black holes to see if their behavior matches the predictions. And you know what? It does. We have observed this region in IR for 20 years. These observations show stars orbiting an object that's mostly invisible. From those orbits we can calculate how much mass there must be: 4 million solar masses in a tiny amount of space. This matches the predictions for a black hole. Now we've imaged that invisible object, and our observations again match the predictions. That means black holes are real, not theoretical, not imaginary. Welcome to science.
    1
  106. it's a different target.
    1
  107. Your calculation is off. A research report issued by Michael Courtney and Amy Courtney in 2012 provided Coriolis corrections for 168-grain Barnes TTSX bullets launched from a .30-06 Sprg at 2,800 fps due west at a latitude of 45 degrees north. At 500 yards the bullet struck 1/2 inch low. At 1,000 they found deflection was between 3 to 4 inches.
    1
  108. if this is CGI, then so are the photos you take with your phone.
    1
  109. The resolution of this image is about 1000 times higher than what JWST can achieve. That's the advantage of linking radio telescopes all over the world.
    1
  110. We suspect that's the case.
    1
  111.  @bensemusx  There is a center of mass in every galaxy. That's what the galaxy rotates around. The black hole is usually pretty close to that.
    1
  112. We've seen light warping around heavy objects like galaxies: it can form an Einstein ring if the conditions are right.
    1
  113.  @trap4089  I was just summarizing the answer. As it stands, the Rashmi theory is not a theory in the scientific sense. It does not offer a mathematical framework that describes how the universe works, it does not offer testable predictions. The theory contradicts things like the speed of light. We have lots of evidence that supports our current understanding of the speed of light, and Rashmi offers no explanation for that evidence. So scientists aren't taking this idea seriously. Hawking has never said that black holes don't exist in the sense you're meaning. In 2014, Hawking wrote a paper that proposes that black holes work slightly differently than what we were thinking at the time. Instead of destroying matter completely, it just traps it. Hawking's model still has a singularity where matter is compressed to infinity. The EHT observation does not contradict this theory.
    1
  114. Does the donut have any contrast to the background, in mm wavelengths?
    1
  115. They are pictures of the accretion disk.
    1
  116. Because we want to learn more about how the universe works.
    1
  117. We have photos of stars orbiting an object that's mostly invisible. From those orbits we can calculate how much mass there must be: 4 million solar masses in a tiny amount of space. The only theory that can explain those observations is a black hole. Now we've imaged that invisible object, and our observations match the theory. That means black holes are real, not theoretical, not imaginary. Welcome to science.
    1
  118.  @nojustaveryverytallboi3657  There's a simple equation for calculating orbits. Its variables are the mass of the two objects and the distance between them. In this case we have the distance, and the mass of the orbiting star, so we can calculate the mass of the object it is orbiting. So yes, the fact that the stars are moving in a pattern does indicate there's a massive unseen object inside the star's orbit.
    1
  119. A bowl of water is small: all of the water in the bowl is affected equally by the Moon's gravity. An ocean is large enough to show the effect (as tides).
    1
  120. This black hole is about 1/1000 the size of the smallest feature JWST can see.
    1
  121. It starts out as a sphere. Collisions in the sphere tend to collapse it into a disk. This happens in the formation of planetary systems as well.
    1
  122. Sag A* is a more difficult target: there's more stuff in the way than with the M87 black hole.
    1
  123.  @samcena3942  I haven't seen a detailed report yet, but I'm guessing longer observations improve the signal/noise ratio.
    1
  124. What's easier: seeing a star 1000 lightyears away, or seeing microbes on Mars?
    1
  125. Yes.
    1
  126.  @syaiqunnizartrisnasaputra8424  Yes.
    1
  127. No stars between us and the black hole. The EHT team has been very up front about this being an image based on radio observations. Taht our galaxy is in motion is irrelevant. Photons from the black hole are sent out in all directions, so it's inevitable some will end up on our planet.
    1
  128. We can, if the doughnut stands out from its surroundings in mm wavelengths.
    1
  129. The measurements are very sensitive. Once they're converted to digital data, they're just like any other data: unaffected by radiation, as long as you don't store the harddisk inside a nuclear reactor.
    1
  130. We don't need to be outside the Mikly Way to create an accurate picture of what it looks like. We know what the Milky Way looks like, because we've measured the position of a billion stars. Plot those, and the familiar shape shows up. Before that, radio telescopes plotted the position of hydrogen clouds, that gave us our first image of the Milky Way.
    1
  131.  @emanuelward7938  The 1946 photo was taken by a V-2 rocket.
    1
  132. It's not a single object. It's loose atoms.
    1
  133. Yes, in theory. But it's much harder to synchronize optical observations than radio: you have to get the timing correct to within less than 1/10 wavelength, and she shorter the wavelength gets, the more accurate your timing must be. The only optical telescope that uses this technique has 2 telescopes sitting right next to each other, and even then it's difficult.
    1
  134. This is 25,000 lightyears away. It would take millions of years to get close.
    1
  135. Yes. It appears smaller to the naked eye: you only see the brightest part of the galaxy. A long-exposure photo will show the actual size.
    1
  136. It starts out as a sphere, but collisions between objects tend to flatten it: all velocity vectors are averaged out.
    1
  137. We don't know yet what the bright spots are. One of them is probably light coming towards us, the others are a surprise - and we have something new to study.
    1
  138. No. This is a tiny object, about 1000 times smaller than the resolution of JWST.
    1
  139. False. Light travels perfectly well though a void.
    1
  140. ollisions between particles orbiting the black hole tend to collapse everything into a disk.
    1
  141. We've started doing that a few years ago (LIGO is a gravitational wave detector). The resolution is pretty low though.
    1
  142. it's correct though.
    1
  143. You;re probably seen the middle section before, that was made a few years ago when the first black hole image was published.
    1
  144. They're spherical just like planet Earth.
    1
  145. Materials don't orbit a void.
    1
  146. It starts out as a sphere. Collisions in the sphere tend to collapse it into a disk.
    1
  147. it's too small. The resolution of the EHT image is about 1000 times better than what JWST can achieve.
    1
  148. Collisions between particles orbiting the black hole tend to collapse everything into a disk.
    1
  149. Yes.
    1
  150. No. The resolution of this image is 1000 times better than what JWST can achieve.
    1
  151. We don't need to be outside the Mikly Way to create an accurate picture of what it looks like. We've measured the position of a billion stars. Plot those, and the familiar shape shows up. Before that, radio telescopes plotted the position of hydrogen clouds, that gave us our first image of the Milky Way. So: not speculation, but hard data.
    1
  152. Yes.
    1
  153. There have been some experiments with the Russian Spektr-R space-based radio telescope. The fact that the distance between it and a groundbased telescope keeps changing makes this more difficult to do.
    1
  154. We have photos of stars orbiting an object that's mostly invisible. From those orbits we can calculate how much mass there must be: 4 million solar masses in a tiny amount of space. The only theory that can explain those observations is a black hole. Now we've imaged that invisible object, and our observations match the theory. That means black holes are real, not theoretical, not imaginary. Welcome to science.
    1
  155. Part of this video was made 3 years ago when the first black hole photo was published by this same team.
    1
  156. Incorrect. Black holes don't exert an infinite force on the objects around them. Just like Earth can stay in orbit around the Sun for billlions of years, stars can orbit a black hole indefinitely.
    1
  157. By aiming the telescopes, duh.
    1
  158.  @tylerharrison8588  Yes. All telescopes do this. Even for amateur telescopes you can get a motorized mount that will keep your target in sight.
    1
  159. Planets don't emit much mm wave radio, so we wouldn't see much.
    1
  160.  @mkpinganYT  Radio waves, actually.
    1
  161. The original image is in radio wavelengths. It contains brightness information only, so you could show it as a black and white image. Red seems to work better than B&W for our eyes, so that's what we commonly use.
    1
  162.    only in the sense that they are longer wavelengths than visible red light. From Wikipedia: "IR is generally understood to encompass wavelengths from around 1 millimeter (300 GHz) to the nominal red edge of the visible spectrum, around 700 nanometers". This excludes radio. The EHT works at 260 GHz.
    1
  163. Radar antennae predate both. The first radio telescopes were repurposed radar antennae.
    1
  164. We do, with much higher resolution than this image.
    1
  165. We've done some tests with such a satellite: Spektr-R. There are 2 issues to solve: 1. antenna size, and 2. transmitting huge amounts of data over such long distances.
    1
  166. Are you sure that that's not just the CCD saturating?
    1
  167. No.
    1
  168. Black holes are firmly part of science, not pseudoscience. They are an inevitable result of physical laws we know apply elsewhere. The theory that describes black holes makes predictions we have tested and verified. We can observe stars near Sagittarius A* orbit an invisible object. etc.
    1
  169. Jesus voluntarily gave himself up to be killed. That was the only way to pay the price for all our sins.
    1
  170.  @abdelhadi8533  He was both. Jesus was divine, and human. God is holy, and no human on his own is good enough to approach Him. Our sins prevent that. Jesus paid the price for our sins and made it possible for us to approach Him. And after He paid the price, He showed His divinity by conquering death.
    1
  171. No. We could increase the resolution by placing the antennas farther apart. Put one on the Moon, for example.
    1
  172. Yes.
    1
  173. I feel so bad for people who think this is fake.
    1
  174. Yes. Transferring the data will be a problem, and you have to deal with the changing position of this telescope relative to the ones on Earth.
    1
  175. No, they're measurements.
    1
  176. We have lots of evidence that says there is a black hole, and no evidence there isn't.
    1
  177. Everything in physics is "just a theory". That doesn't make it unreliable.
    1
  178. Photos are maps of the brightness of each pixel. That's exactly what this image is too: a map of the brightness of areas of space. The original data was in mm wavelength, but that doesn't change anything.
    1
  179.  @williardbillmore5713  Why is black and white "more honest" than red? They used red because it's easier to see variations in contrast when the image is in color than when it's in grayscale.
    1
  180. More expensive for the amount of data they had to collect.
    1
  181. The resolution of the image shown here is 1000 times higher than what JWST or Hubble can achieve.
    1
  182. The resolution of the image shown here is 1000 times higher than what JWST or Hubble can achieve.
    1
  183. You're assuming they never bothered to check their work. That's quite unlikely.
    1