Hubble Directly Images Disc Around a Black Hole 76
An anonymous reader sends this excerpt from the HST site:
"A team of scientists has used the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope to observe a quasar accretion disc — a brightly glowing disc of matter that is slowly being sucked into its galaxy's central black hole. Their study makes use of a novel technique that uses gravitational lensing to give an immense boost to the power of the telescope. The incredible precision of the method has allowed astronomers to directly measure the disc's size and plot the temperature across different parts of the disc."
We've come a long way... (Score:4, Insightful)
We've come a long way since we first gazed at the stars and wondered...
Re: (Score:3)
As opposed to what we do now?
Re: (Score:2)
Hubble Space Telescope (Score:5, Insightful)
Blowing your mind since 1990
Best damn use of NASA funds, since the Moon landing.
Re: (Score:1)
Yea, lets just disregard all the scientific advances that have come from NASA.
Re: (Score:2)
Especially Tang. I hate Tang.
Re: (Score:2)
because no single NASA invention has ever helped the 3rd world. Not the water filters, emergency blankets, dehydrated foods, the list goes on.
Maybe you should learn before commenting like an arse.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, maybe you should read the post before commenting. In particular:
Never mind it makes jobs and science byproducts that benefits everyday life.
Re: (Score:2)
actually, maybe *you* need to learn not to feed the trolls.
Re: (Score:2)
Good memory there, I first heard this drivel about HST twenty years ago, when it was launched with the original warped mirror and before the "contact lens" was installed. Yeah, some pundit on the teevee made the predictably pedantic comment, and the very next day my college roommate spit out the "ditto", as a "very earnest and personal opinion", LOL.
Re:Hubble Space Telescope (Score:4, Interesting)
I would say the mars rovers were a better bang for the buck, but hubble is a close second even with all the retrofits.
I still find it a shame that the last shuttle mission wasn't a trip to the hubble to bring it home. just like the shuttle were designed to do.
Re:Hubble Space Telescope (Score:4, Insightful)
I would say the mars rovers were a better bang for the buck, but hubble is a close second even with all the retrofits.
I still find it a shame that the last shuttle mission wasn't a trip to the hubble to bring it home. just like the shuttle were designed to do.
Other than for it to go into a museum, what would be the benefit of spending millions of dollars bringing 20-year-old technology back to earth (rather than letting it spend another 10 years in space)? Sure you can say stuff like "to see what the effects of 20 years in 0-gravity were" but we have other examples.
Re: (Score:2)
I would say put it in a museum to inspire kids to study STEM. Then again, perhaps someone should make a roving Hubble exhibit. Make a life size, non-working replica of the Hubble telescope, select a couple dozen of the most spectacular photos and print them poster-sized. Then go from town to town showing off what Hubble did and promoting exploring space. I'm not sure how much it'd cost to create a look-alike of the exterior of the Hubble, but I'm guessing it would cost much less than the amount it'd cos
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, the LDEF (Long Duration Exposure Facility) [wikipedia.org], among other items.
Re: (Score:2)
The hubble is probably a lot heavier than a typical satellite, and I suspect you'd have to prep it so that it doesn't fall apart when subjected to stress, or damage the shuttle in the process.
Landing weight for any glider is obviously an issue (especially one already covered in ceramic tiles and carrying a pile of lifeless engines). Re-entry weight is another big issue, as well as center-of-gravity/etc. Every pound of mass on the shuttle is just that much more kinetic energy being converted to heat blasti
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Rovers were a mere PR stunt.
Re: (Score:1)
- they used data gathered by an american satellite (the mars global surveyor, probably)
Actually, they might easily have used the Mars Express probe that was made and launched by ESA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Express [wikipedia.org]
Not every satellite orbiting this or other planets was made by the US. Of course, lacking the original sources squabbling about what they might or might not have used is pretty much the definition of pointless.
And by the way, why would working together with NASA be any problem for determining who did what science? Last I heard, most European, Russian, Japanese and American
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I am not complaining about how good NASA's PR department is, I am more complaining about how real technological and scientific innovation are not what interest the public nowadays.
The German experiment I am talking about was a device in the ESA mission to Ma
Re: (Score:2)
I would say the mars rovers were a better bang for the buck
I would say the amount and variety of information we've obtained from Hubble absolutely dwarfs the limited exploration of the Mars rovers. The Deep Field [wikipedia.org] picture alone is more interesting than anything the rovers did.
Brilliant (Score:5, Insightful)
Using stars between us and the black hole as a lens to magnify the viewing target? That seems like the astronomer's equivalent of a ninja move. Brilliant.
We're sure getting a lot of use out of Hubble. Weren't we planning on decommissioning it at some point in time? I'm glad we didn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Using stars between us and the black hole as a lens to magnify the viewing target? That seems like the astronomer's equivalent of a ninja move. Brilliant.
We're sure getting a lot of use out of Hubble. Weren't we planning on decommissioning it at some point in time? I'm glad we didn't.
This is why studying Math is such a great idea. It can lead to a Phascination with Physics (because Physics is Phun! =)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Brilliant (Score:4, Informative)
Alas, we have no way to conduct servicing missions to maintain HST. Sooner or later, it will have to be decommissioned.
Re:Brilliant (Score:4, Informative)
Well, the effect has been known since 1979. It's just that everything lines up very rarely, it's amazingly effective when it works but you can't exactly move the lens so you only get to focus on what's exactly behind it. We are going to need bigger and better telescopes to solve the general case.
Albert Einstein, bad-ass (Score:4, Insightful)
And to think he figured this stuff out around 100 years ago...
Re:Albert Einstein, bad-ass (Score:4, Insightful)
And to think he figured this stuff out around 100 years ago...
About 8 years ago I was using the Deep Field View [hubblesite.org] for my desktop wallpaper - there's a lot of gravitational lensing going on in there, if you look carefully. Ol' Albert was a pretty sharp one, a little sad he didn't live to see these sorts of images - I'm certain he'd be so stoked that he'd pump his fist and shout, "Yesssss!"
In the spirit of science I'll toast to his memory with a pint when I gets home tonight.
Re: (Score:2)
In the spirit of science I'll toast to his memory with a pint when I gets home tonight.
That's as good a reason as any, and better than most. I may have to do likewise ;)
Re: (Score:2)
About 8 years ago I was using the Deep Field View
My brain instantly parsed that as a potential goatse pun & link.
Hubble: White Elephant MY ASS! (Score:5, Insightful)
Giving the finger to naysayers, budget cutters and luddite schmucks for 20+ years (and going). Not to mention some absolutely MIND-BLOWING interstellar photography.
Definitely not bad for a girl with glasses.
Re: (Score:2)
A girl? How does a telescope have a gender? If it did, shouldn't it be male, since its namesake Edwin Hubble, was male?
Re: (Score:1)
Could this be done from the ground? (Score:3)
I'm all for Hubble and am very happy they did the "risky" last servicing mission but I was just wondering, could this be done from the ground?
With ground based scopes around 10m in diameter the light capacity (except on a cloudy day!) would far surpass the Hubble. Do the "artificial" star techniques not work well enough!? Or maybe the dwell time is too long? Or maybe these images are in a part of the spectrum that doesn't go through the atmosphere?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Could this be done from the ground? (Score:5, Informative)
You're right in all of your suppositions. (Except for cloudy day--It's the cloudy nights you have to watch out for :)
Today's 10m class and tomorrow's 30m class telescopes can do a lot of what Hubble has done, especially when you factor in advanced AO systems like the one that was recently installed on Gemini South (one 50W laser split into 5 beams for correction over a large field). Anything on the ground is cheaper than in space.
Hubble, JWST, Chandra, and the others can see wavelengths that are absorbed by the atmosphere, no matter how high you are.
And integration time is a huge factor. The Ultra Deep Field image was over 1.1 million seconds of exposure. It's just not practical to do exposures like that from the ground.
Re: (Score:2)
The Ultra Deep Field image was over 1.1 million seconds of exposure. It's just not practical to do exposures like that from the ground.
The 1.1 million seconds is interesting. As soon as I saw the number I wanted to figure out how many days that was. Turns out it is ~12.73 days. That time frame really made me think that whomever was controlling the scheduling kicked off this long picture very early Monday morning, at the start of their work week, and then waited till the following Friday, before heading home for the start of the weekend, to end the exposure.
I've been working business hours for just long enough this seemed like it must be
Re:Could this be done from the ground? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Since Hubble was launched, advances in adaptic optics have made it possible to capture images of similar quality from the ground. However, there is a trade-off. The nature of adaptive optics means that they are very good for imaging small regions of the sky. This is great if you want to examine a specific object with pinpoint accuracy. However, adaptive optics isn't good if you want to survey large areas of the sky - a space-based telescope such as Hubble is still the best choice for that kind of work. So i
Funny Interference Pattern (Score:3, Interesting)
Looking at that image, the two main features look like symmetric interference patterns, fairly simple ones. Why not do the Fourier (or other) analysis to recompose the original light signals?
Re: (Score:2)
Looking at that image, the two main features look like symmetric interference patterns, fairly simple ones. Why not do the Fourier (or other) analysis to recompose the original light signals?
You might be right, but I think it is possible those are jets being emitted from the black hole... they say they were able to measure the temp across parts of it, the hottest parts blasting out of it could be those bright points on the image. It would be quite interesting if that was ever confirmed.
http://www.space.com/5285-powerful-black-hole-jet-explained.html [space.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Even if it's the jets, the image of the jets looks like a fairly simple diffraction pattern in the image. Why not process the pattern into the original signal, whatever it is?
Re: (Score:2)
If my understanding of the article is correct, that is what they did.
Re: (Score:2)
But if they did, the image wouldn't be a symmetrical interference pattern. The original source light before interference would appear in the image.
Re: (Score:2)
The image in the article looks like one'd expect a disk to look like through a lens. That means that it is a raw image (or a reconstruction of what a raw image is like) from the study, not the resulting render of the disk.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, that's what I'm saying: a the light of a disc's image interfering with itself in a lens.
What I'm asking is why they don't recompose the image of the disc to show us? I'm not nearly as interested in the light after gravity has lensed it, even if that's the technique this project used to get the disc. The point of the effort is the image of the disc.
Re: (Score:2)
Total noob question from me: that image has a white blob in the middle. If it's a black hold with a disc around it, why isn't the middle black?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Other uses for space telescopes (Score:2)
Quoth TFA:
These observations show a level of precision equivalent to spotting individual grains of sand on the surface of the Moon.
Hubble probably wasn't designed for this sort of thing, but imagine a space telescope that's designed for observing objects inside our solar system. It'd be like putting the moon under a microscope, or exploring Mars and getting detailed survey results without the time and expense of sending a probe there. Is it possible? Is it being planned?
Re: (Score:3)
Not by traditional means, at least. Essentially, the resolving power of any telescope is limited and the only way to increase it is to use larger lenses. Looks like some articles disagree on the exact size needed for certain features, but google f
Re: (Score:2)
Quoth TFA:
These observations show a level of precision equivalent to spotting individual grains of sand on the surface of the Moon.
Hubble probably wasn't designed for this sort of thing, but imagine a space telescope that's designed for observing objects inside our solar system. It'd be like putting the moon under a microscope, or exploring Mars and getting detailed survey results without the time and expense of sending a probe there. Is it possible? Is it being planned?
Gravitational lensing uses very heavy objects (stars, black holes, galaxies, galaxy clusters) to magnify objects on the other side.
We don't happen to have any of those between us and Mars, so it won't work. And, I'm just a little too foggy for the accuracy vs. precision discussion at the moment, but even if they managed to magnify these things so extraordinarily as to look at grains of sand on the moon, I doubt they really know if they're looking at coarse sand, fine sand, or small pebbles. After all, how
Goatse in Five... (Score:2)
Four...
Three...
Precisely measure using gravitational lensing?!? (Score:2)
I appreciate the power of gravitational lensing, but to presume that you have anything resembling an accurate measurement when using it, unless they mean precisely, within an order of magnitude, or two.
Video of image capturing process (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Very informative. Do you happen to know how fast the changes are in real time?
Bert
Disc images? (Score:2)
It's cool when you can ... (Score:2)
call an object 100 billion kilometers across 'small'.
Increasing mass and warping space. (Score:1)