Talk:Event Horizon Telescope/Archive 1

Archive 1

It might not be possible to get a good image from most accretion

Hopefully the images will not be simply spherical but will show accretion occurring at both magnetic poles and disappearing at slightly greater than the Schwarzschild radius. Hopefully some of each polar region can be seen. Maybe there will even be a jet. It might not be possible to get good images from most accretion. Some accretion should follow magnetic field lines and some accretion could take a more direct path in. Most accretion is from the galactic plane and would normally follow the black hole's outer magnetic field lines prior to entering the inner field lines into the black hole's poles, but part of this trajectory would take matter farther away from the black hole. The radiation from particles in the outer field lines would probably significantly obscure radiation from the inner field lines. Ultra relativistic electrons should transport heat extremely well throughout the accreting plasma and plasma far from the black hole could be almost as hot as plasma near the black hole. Perhaps good images are not possible with accreting matter from the galactic plane.

Perhaps only good images are possible with accreting matter coming from above or below the galactic plane directly into the black hole's polar regions. For good images this much rarer type of polar accretion would probably also require that there be no simultaneous equatorial accretion. Whatever is shown will be interesting but we might have to wait for some rarer accretion from the galactic polar regions to get good images of the black hole's poles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.46.17.166 (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Why ship the hard drives?

Is there any justification for shipping the hard drives instead of gathering the data via internet in a central location? Codrin.B (talk) 07:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Just think about this:

• Mearian, Lucas (2015-08-18). "Massive telescope array aims for black hole, gets gusher of data". Computerworld. IDG Communications. Retrieved 2018-11-19. Hard drive capacity is crucial in that the EHT array collects data at 64Gbps. Over a typical five-day data collection campaign, each radio telescope collects 900TB of data. That data is then stored on from 1,000 to 2,000 hard drives, which amounts to about 7 petabytes (PB) of data total over five days, Doeleman said.

That is quite big chunk of data. ––Nikolas Ojala (talk) 08:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

should i mention the NYT report?

New York Times has a story told what happened to the team behind this project(Black Hole Hunters ) , should this article include this one on history section? --183.92.251.244 (talk) 12:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2019

The plural for antenna is antennas in technical science. The latin plural antennae is more commonly used in biology to refer to a bug's antennae. MrNabla (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done Ahiijny (talk) 21:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Please add a contributing organization

Hello, could someone please add us (MIT Haystack Observatory) to the list of institutions? I have created an account but only just today and cannot fix it myself. Thank you! Haystack communications team — Preceding unsigned comment added by MITHaystack (talk • contribs) 17:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done --mikeu ^talk 22:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, sorry, and thank you Mu301; we are not one of the observing telescopes, though, but a "Contributing organization." We should be under that heading rather than a telescope. I am sorry for my lack of expertise in indicating this, and thank you! MITHaystack (talk) 22:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Sagittarius A*

Does anyone know when the project will attempt to capture Sagittarius A* at the center of our Milky Way? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:16, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

"Soon" apparently, according to EHT director Sheperd Doeleman. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:20, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2019

Please add on the name of the black hole. A link has been provided for citation.

On April 10, 2019, the first image of the black hole inside galaxy Messier 87 was published.[2] The black hole was given the name Pōwehi, meaning "embellished dark source of unending creation," in collaboration with renowned Prof. Larry Kimura of the University of Hawaii at Hilo. [1] Jlii (talk) 01:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done NiciVampireHeart 02:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

EHT 'sections' ?

The infobox illustration shows one subnetwork of 5 telescopes joined by yellow lines, with the other telescopes joined by turquoise lines in another subnetwork.

What are these two subnetworks? The article gives no clue, nor does it indicate what the GBT(?) or OAN/Yebes(?) are. So much information, so few links.

I mean, hey, could we describe/link the component telescopes in an article about the combination of telescopes, rather than just mentioning the "Contributing Institutions"? Shenme (talk) 03:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

The green lines are the Event Horizon Telescope and yellow is the Global mm-VLBI Array. See "5. How to build an Earth-sized radio telescope"[2] --~mikeu

This year's EHT observations cancelled due to Mexican drug cartel violence

As described in the Nature article on the EHT announcement, the collaboration schedules observations once a year, in April, when the weather is expected to be good at all the sites. They look at both Sgr A* and M87* each time, and the latter is easier to process (less variability). The announced results are from 2017 data, they still have to process 2018 data.

Unfortunately, there will be no 2019 data. Due to the growing violence near the Mexican LMT, the observatory is currently closed. See also this story. 130.91.118.213 (talk) 15:15, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

How real is the "Pōwehi" nickname?

I get the impression from a quick Google search that this is merely a Hawaiian publicity stunt, not otherwise connected with EHT. The news articles are all Hawaiian. The Hawaiian linguist involved. Larry Kimura is identified by name and location, yet the relevant scientists involved are not identified in any manner, just catchall "scientists". Contrast this with the naming of ʻOumuamua. Kimura also named that one, and the stories about it explicitly mention the discovery team contacted him for naming proposals.

I suggest that the nickname be removed from the lede. Considering that the Governor and Lieutenant Governor officially signed off on the nickname, even declaring April 10, 2019 to be "Pōwehi Day", it certainly deserves something in the article.

Personally, I think they should just call it "Virgo A*".130.91.118.213 (talk) 14:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

There's no official naming convention for black holes. I've not seen anything that suggests they've submitted this proposal to the IAU. The University of Hawaiʻi did issue a press release, hence the local coverage.[3] For objects beyond the solar system the specification[4] is to use an acronym like "M" (for Messier) and a sequence number like "87" with an optional specifier like "*" to construct the provisional designation M87*. After the discovery is independently confirmed that becomes the official name. It's a bit unusual to give proper names like this. See the rather short list of exoplanet names[5] compared to the 4000+ that have been discovered. --mikeu ^talk 00:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Your UH link was especially informative, with the indigenous naming effort explicitly linked to the deputy director of the James Clark Maxwell Telescope (and who is part of the EHT collaboration, as one of the co-authors). And the world press (WP, CNN, Guardian) has picked up on the "Pōwehi" naming story.

But I still feel it doesn't belong in the lede, as it's not a provisional name used by the EHT collaboration. In fact, without EHT endorsement, it belongs late in the article, after the science/history/description parts of the article. The name seems to be part-boosterism and part-anti-TMT-protest slap-in-the-face.

If the name eventually gets traction, then I would withdraw my objection. But right now it feels like WP is engaging in the Hawaii-rah-rah POV by including it in such a prominent part of the article.

Black holes, so far, are currently named according to whatever radiation is most identified with the source. Cygnus X-1, GW150914, etc. The "*" in "Sgr A*" was chosen in analogy with the use of "*" in nuclear physics to indicate an excited higher-energy state. 130.91.118.213 (talk) 13:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

BREAKING: How do you name a black hole? It is actually pretty complicated.

I'd say that settles it. An official statement that the IAU is not yet considering the name suggests we should not give it WP:UNDUE weight. It is also clearly stated that M87* "is the designation." I tend to agree with your concerns and your suggestions that it should be mentioned briefly late in the article. --mikeu ^talk 16:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done I've moved the claim lower in the page. --mikeu ^talk 16:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Could you move it way lower? I mean, it's not a "scientific result". At the moment, it's just a Cultural Reference. Also, the link I gave to the Hawaii Governor/Lieutenant Governor proclaiming "Pōwehi Day" is too precious, and should be mentioned. 130.91.118.213 (talk) 16:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

That's a good point. I'd also like to add the New Scientist article as a ref. I'll make some edits in a short while, if no else gets to it before I get back. --mikeu ^talk 16:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Also, the lede should mention the provisional designation M87*, since that is the name used by the collaboration. The IAU normally takes suggestions from the discoverers. I'm not sure who counts as "discoverers" here, since the existence of the black hole itself has been known for decades, and no one has bothered to name it along the way. Even if the IAU settles on some other official name, like Virgo A* or EHT-1 or whatever, "M87*" will always have semi-official astronomical status. "Pōwehi" just has official Hawaiian status. 130.91.118.213 (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

The flurry of edits and moving things around makes it difficult to edit without save conflicts. I've added the New Scientist ref to both the M87* and Pōwehi statements with an embedded quote. A representative of IAU is quoted saying that M87* is the "designation" and there is no provisional qualification of that statement. He also says that there is no IAU working group considering the "proposed" name Pōwehi. The quote is attributed to Lars Lindberg Christensen of the IAU who was responsible for communicating the reclassification of Pluto as a dwarf planet. That was an impressive responsibility and I think we should regard him as an expert on astronomical nomenclature. I propose that we use the language "designation" for M87* and describe Pōwehi as a proposed name, as the source does. M87* should be prominent in the lede with Pōwehi farther down in the article until the EHT collaboration claims responsibility for the proposal. The group is large and it is not clear that the recommendation of one partner is accepted by the others. --mikeu ^talk 19:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2019

{{Edit semi-protected}}

The ERC is one of the main funders of the EHT, as listed in reference [20], yet does not appear in the list of this article. Since smaller funders are included, it would be fair to include it as well. Also, the name of Heino Falcke, who first envisioned the experiment, should be mentioned somewhere. 24.242.67.202 (talk) 04:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

In addition to Falcke, Michael Kramer and Luciano Rezzolla could/should also be mentioned. As per an article by the ERC, Falcke, Kramer, and Rezzolla were the "three lead scientists" of a key component of the project.

I added the sentence. We could also add that Falcke is the EHT Science Council chair, but I am slightly concerned about giving too much weight to one individual of a worldwide collaboration. 128.62.49.68 (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2019

{{Edit semi-protected}} The University of Arizona is one of the participating institutions in the EHT and should be included in the list. See

References

That's been done. --mikeu ^talk 21:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Best to focus the text on the most interesting things

The first imaging of the shadow of a black hole is incredibly interesting, important, and notable so the article should focus on that. Short-lived social-media bickering due to controversies that the team is not directly involved in are less interesting, so discussion of them should be kept to a minimum. Therefore, it is best that paragraphs that deal with the latter be kept minimal. OtterAM (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

2.5 times smaller??

[The event horizon of MH87* is] roughly 2.5 times smaller than the shadow that it casts….

What does "2.5 times smaller" mean? Could somebody with more expertise in this subject than I rephrase this to make more sense, such as "the shadow is 2.5 times the size of the event horizon" (if this is what "2.5 times smaller" is supposed to mean)? Phlar (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Let's stick with the caption in the 1st image of the black hole article: "the shadow is about 2.6 times the diameter of the event horizon.". --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 13:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I noticed that, and decided not to do anything about it. It is such a common expression that it is pointless to point out that it doesn't make any sense to say "N times smaller". Does anyone ever say "1 time smaller" or "1/2 time smaller"? But we have to give up, the battle has been lost. "N times smaller", when N > 1, means "1/N as large". TomS TDotO (talk) 14:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Undue weight?

Although it is nice that media has switched from anointing only white male scientists as lone heroes with their hype about Katie Bouman, it seems to me that Wikipedia is not obliged to follow suit and give WP:Undue Weight to her contribution. Abductive (reasoning) 00:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. The article even states "Doctoral dissertation work by Katie Bouman, an American computer scientist, was instrumental in the development of this strategy.[18]", whereas ref [18] does not highlight Bouman's work as more "instrumental" than any other member of CLEAN. Her Phd dissertation and her papers are always cited together with plenty others. The sentence should be removed; self-promotion is not allowed on Wikipedia. 208.54.86.249 (talk) 02:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

"Doctoral dissertation work by Katie Bouman, an American computer scientist, was instrumental in the development of this strategy.[18]"

This was a stupid sentence. A ton of people were involved, (as she herself mentions); and this standalone sentence makes out as if she was the essential figurehead by which all of this rested upon. You can see the mythology surrounding her grow by the tweet. Perhaps a mention of the tug-of-war over her contributions *may* merit a subsection (or not, it's fickle in the grand scheme of the achievement); but mentioning her like this as if she was an oversized figure is dishonest to her, the team, Wikipedia, and the readership. Brosefzai (talk) 05:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Just relax; the train has left the station; she didn't write the article, so the charge of self-promotion is baseless: "One of the insights Katie brought to our imaging group is that there are natural images,"

The CLEAN (algorithm) is pretty clear: Use two maps; take the (dirty) image and deconvolve it with a Gaussian to build a map of point sources (the clean image). What Bouman did was to remind her team that there is natural structure to the image (there is data in the dirty image). So the other teams also bootstrapped the image, and kept producing the same result in the face of perturbing algorithms. That is her insight into the sea of data. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 07:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Already the NYT is discussing this in an article "How Katie Bouman Accidentally Became the Face of the Black Hole Project". I'm paywalled out, can somebody give us the gist? Abductive (reasoning) 13:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Here's the 3rd paragraph after introducing the topic: "Public figures from Washington to Hollywood learned her name. And some advocates, familiar with how history can write over the contributions of women, quickly moved to make sure she received the recognition she deserved. In their eagerness to celebrate her, however, many nonscientists on social media overstated her role in what was a group effort by hundreds of people, creating an exaggerated impression as the photo was shared and reshared." --mikeu ^talk 16:34, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

The NYT quotes her and others (mostly women), all emphasizing the collaborative nature of the project, and that about 20% of the participants are women. And Bouman has turned off her cell-phone, and will be starting as assistant professor at CalTech. And ironically, her algorithm is not the one that produced the main image. It also notes she gave a TED talk on behalf of the project.

I have no opinion as to how much of KB to put in the article. To resolve the "undue weight" issue, one might simply refer to the relevant paper without naming names in the body of the article, and put "KB et al" in the footnote. If the viral photo is free, it could be included with a caption like "Project scientist KB upon first seeing first image" or something. The TED talk could be an External Link. 130.91.118.213 (talk) 16:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Bouman states “However, the spotlight should be on the team and no individual person. Focusing on one person like this helps no one, including me.” (she had to shut off her phone due to excessive requests for comment) Another team member, Sara Issaoun, warned against a "lone-wolf success" narative. --mikeu ^talk 16:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Rather predictably, the women-hating trolls started nominating someone else (male) as "the" real image "hero", getting it all wrong, as pointed out by their alternative choice. I assume the less said, the better. 130.91.118.213 (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I wrote the "stupid sentence" about the "doctoral dissertation" but it was to replace an inaccurate sentence in an earlier version of the article. As far as I gather from Paper IV [6], Bouman's doctoral thesis described the method of "blind imaging," which is separate from the CHIRP algorithm she developed for image reconstruction from a Fourier transform. Given that there were four independent teams doing image reconstruction, it is unknown (or at least the group is not saying) who was the first person to see the image.

By the way, there seems to be no evidence of self promotion in this article, just evidence of people writing inaccurate things based on social media. Dr. Bouman herself must be a brilliant and revolutionary computer scientist to have been hired as Caltech faculty (which occurred before she got all the media attention). OtterAM (talk) 18:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I just made an edit to decrease the length of this section. I think this could still be improved upon, but there's a bit of difficulty in giving credit in this article. I think that Bouman is worth mentioning especially because she has become well known. However, it looks like there are also at least three people in imaging who had similar roles to hers in the project. On the other hand, there were a huge number of people who had different roles at all stages, from conceptualization the EHT, to taking the data, to processing the data, to theoretical interpretation, all of whom were essential. So, it seems hard to write something that gives all members their fair share of credit without ruining the article. OtterAM (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I would say that Bouman must be mentioned, but with the proper context, and maybe even including the New York Times analysis since it a reputable secondary source. In other word, properly weighted. Heaviside glow (talk) 19:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I re-inserted the reference to CHIRP and Bouman after it was taken out by a different editor, because it is notable at the moment for how much media attention it is getting. I think it would be good to take a closer look at this in the future, once the media attention has died down to make sure things are as correct as possible. OtterAM (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

FYI: the inevitable Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katie Bouman. --mikeu ^talk 20:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Result –> speedy keep. OtterAM (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I found a ref which backs up the reporting of the Bouman narrative: "it is the unconvolved point-source model that is compared with the data to assess goodness of fit" — But what the reporters captured was thoughts "in the air" between researchers. What one researcher was saying to the reporter is their personal understanding of the science behind the image processing, and the 2.2.1 reference backs up the narrative. Now to further reconstruct the reporting, we need the following: "Who said what to which reporter?", sourced with timestamps. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 17:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

References

How this "direct image of a black hole" is a "direct" image of a "black hole".

Black holes can't be seen because light can't escape them. If I understand correctly what was shown are the effects of the black hole in the surroundings - no the black hole itself - through analysis of data collected from non-visible radio emissions which is re-interpreted as visible light for an image, which doesnt look as a "direct image", and of course the data isn't complete in the sense that it shows every particle of the surroundings. How is this the first "direct" image and formerly created black hole images inferred through its interaction with other matter and with electromagnetic radiation, such as visible light aren't. Both are incomplete and indirect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.195.142.157 (talk) 20:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

It depends what you mean by "direct" and "image" and "of". But the EHT collaboration is usually careful to refer to the "shadow" of M87*. (I have no opinion how fussy or precise WP should be here.)

As it is, this is the first time anyone has collected photons from telescopes pointed "directly" at a black hole, in such a way that one has a good idea of the intensity of the photon beams aimed towards Earth to a resolvable degree. The inner boundary of the ring is about 2.5 times the Schwarzschild radius, for example, so any photons within that ring can only escape if aimed with extreme precision. Because of this, I'm perfectly happy with this being called a direct image of the black hole.

Of course, scientists use false-color images for everything. For example, right now the given false-color image is monochrome, a dichromatic image will be attempted next, although it is merely expected to be more precise. It would probably be good to include greater clarity regarding the technical nature of the image. 130.91.118.213 (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

"Because of this, I'm perfectly happy with this being called a direct image of the black hole."

I'm not at all happy with using that terminology. The photons in question are being emitted by 'hot' protons that are in the process of accreting to the black hole; they did not come from it, they were never inside it.

As far as I know, they are not a 'beam' that is 'aimed' at the earth; from what I have read, we are looking at the BH from the top or bottom, and the circle of 'light' is the inner part of the accretion disk.

The only way one could imagine making a 'direct image' of a black hole would be by imaging the Penrose-Hawking radiation, which you could just about say was being emitted by the BH. But the P-H radiation is very weak; it consists of all kinds of particles, not just photons; and it has no wavelength. P-H radiation would only be bright enough to be observable as the BH was expiring through P-H evaporation, but that is something that happens very far in the future - no cosmic black hole has had time evaporate away, and humans (and the Solar System) will be long gone before that happens.

I really think that Wikipedia should report this experiment in a sober and factual way. We should not say that the BH has been imaged; it isn't possible to image a black hole. MrDemeanour (talk) 14:26, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

It’s not Wikipedia’s job to decide if we should call it direct or not. We should look at what reliable sources say and if they call it a direct image then we also call it a direct image. Trialpears (talk) 16:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Really? A black hole is a mathematical object, that is defined in terms that make it impossible to image it. You seem to be demanding that Wikipedia's 'reliable source' policy overrides mathematical truth. WP:RS is all very well when there is a scintilla of doubt about a subject; but surely it can't be used to defend the view that 2+2=5.

I know it's policy; that's why I haven't tried to fix the problem, and instead came here to discuss it. But simply trotting out "We should look at what reliable sources say" as if it was some kind of magic mantra that fixes all problems is a bit stultifying. After all, this is the Talk page; you might at least try to address my objection. MrDemeanour (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

The ambiguity isn't whether the photons are emitted from the black hole, which everybody agrees on isn't the case. My understanding is that the ambiguity is about what is meant by "directly". The reliable sources claiming that it's a direct image, at least from my understanding, refer to the telescope being pointed directly at the black hole in contrast to other methods of identifying black holes such as observing the orbits of stars around it. In these cases the telescope isn't directly pointed at the black hole, rather it's observing nearby stars making this the first "direct image" of a black hole. Since this is a reasonable way to consider the image direct and it's the stance of multiple reliable sources then that is the way we should report on it. I hope this helps in understanding my position on the subject, which my previous non substantive comment didn't.Trialpears (talk) 19:26, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for elaborating.

I believe the observing equipment was indeed pointing directly at the black hole; it's just that the image is not of the black hole.

I also believe, for what it's worth, that the radiation that was imaged, was not from 'nearby stars'. It was emitted by a stream ionized hydrogen (protons) orbiting the BH at a very close distance. I'd love to see some more detailed scientific discussion of this; for example, I don't know what is expected to happen when protons orbit a large BH at a distance of just 2.5 Schwarzchild radiuses. What speed are they going at? Is that some kind of synchrotron radiation? Is it correct that there are more protons orbiting even closer to the BH, outside the event horizon, but still too close for their radiation to escape?

I expect this kind of stuff to emerge in popular science periodicals quite soon. I wonder if WP should wait until there are WP:RS that are actually reliable, before propagating hype. The MSM (i.e. the WP:RS) are completely dominated by the present hype from the research team. I don't think the science reporters for mainstream newspapers and TV channels are interested in reporting this kind of thing properly; they regurgitate the press-release, and then file in to collect their paycheck.

I'm tired and unwell, but I'll try to see if I can find sources that don't depend directly on PR issued by the team. There must be research reports from earlier in the programme, explaining what they were hoping to see (although that would be WP:OR). (I kinda hoped that someone from the team would pop up here and explain - there's more than 200 of them, some of them must be wikipedians, or at least there must be some that are interested in the WP article on the project they've been working on for a decade)

Thanks again for elaborating. I'll butt out now, until such time as I can contribute something useful. MrDemeanour (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Request for removing of a "black hole image" of an Event Horizon Telescope from Wiki page

We do not use youtube and quora to second guess the work of internationally renowned scientists. See also WP:NOR. GMGtalk 15:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

This image must not be published by Wikipedia while the EHT's team don't show us exact algorithms they used for reconstruction of it. An EHT's image is biased and probably due to aberration error. Simulation of gravitation lens inside accretion disk https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-9f25b9f6b3cc85121faf316a3cd38e1a Spherical aberration in an optical telescope https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-1bdbb362446b48d94593ba1d8ff24c20 Above frames are from this video, without almost nothing image processing except color balance. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFmFpuST67M Why Wikipedia disseminates information that has not been confirmed by external scientists, but only from an Event Horizon Team,which are an interested party in disguise their error? https://www.quora.com/Why-cant-the-image-they-present-to-you-as-an-image-of-a-black-hole-be-a-black-hole-image-at-all-and-how-should-an-image-of-a-black-hole-look-for-us-as-external-observers This contribution amounts to a demand to censor. I see that it is getting posted to multiple pages. Does it make sense to hat this? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 11:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC) Makes sense to me. XOR'easter (talk) 15:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Sphere-shaped "shadow"

Would anyone object to the caption saying 'sphere-shaped "shadow" of the black hole'? My reason is that if one rotates the composite image one sees a 3-D "shadow". In other words, one can see around the projection, which changes size and shape as one rotates the composite image. Try rotating the image on your screen to see what I mean. (Rotate the image out of the perpendicular plane of projection; first look at the image flat on the screen. Then rotate your screen by rotating the keyboard, still keeping the image upright. You will see that the projection is not flat, but rather a 3-dimensional sphere encompassing the black hole that one can see "around".) --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs)

The 2-dimensional analog of this effect is described in Flatland#Plot when the Sphere moves in the 3rd dimension perpendicular to the plane of Squares and Circles who inhabit Flatland. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 19:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Request for prevention of distortion by omission

Although the probability of finding enough to have been assessed/considered as the evidence/proof in a experiment of statistical physics is very important in the encyclopedic primary published academic literature as we can see this, Artem.G repetatively is doing vandalism using red herring and then rationalizes irrelevant conclusion/missing the point for vandalism against citing encyclopedic primary published academic literature. Administrator, as soon as practicable, please take action against the user on noticeboard, lest such vandalism be repeated time and again. Artem.G's Vandalism 1[7]; Artem.G's Vandalism 2[8]; Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society's status of encyclopedic primary published academic literature (https://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=%2B"Monthly+Notices+of+the+Royal+Astronomical+Society")

wonderful, now I'm the vandal. Enserting a whole paragrapg to an article about Event Horizon Telescope about sigmas saying just (in other words, 99.9999999013412% chances of showing/getting the same result) more than 5 σ, the probability of finding enough to have been assessed/considered as the evidence/proof in a experiment of statistical physics. with a reference to some high-school textbook is just wrong. You can wikilink Standard deviation, but why should this whole unrelated stuff be here? You don't add anything about how it was measured by this telescope, or what it was, but just describes what 6sigma means. Artem.G (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

<MYP Physics Years 4 & 5: A concept-based approach> is “general science information” from encyclopedic primary published academic literature. cf. Oxford University Press Status of encyclopedic primary published academic literature (https://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=%2B"Oxford+University+Press") If you argue general science information from encyclopedic primary published academic literature is “just” wrong, it’s a circular reasoning. You should present burden of proof for that argument. And wikilink standard deviation is non-relevant to your blanking deletion. If your intention was that, you should have been not deleted but added that part link and should have been talked it to me. But you didn’t, and that topic doesn’t support irrelevant conclusion for your blanking deletion. And “why should this whole unrelated stuff be here?” is your begging the question based on circular reasoning just before for the rejection of general science information from encyclopedic primary published academic literature. It is already the same as above refuted. And because it is not true that I don't add anything about how it was measured by this telescope as you can see and just like you said “in other words, 99.9999999013412% chances of showing/getting the same result more than 5 σ, the probability of finding enough to have been assessed/considered as the evidence/proof in a experiment of statistical physics”, and it is also not true that I don't add anything about what it was as you can see “Clockwise rotating black hole was observed in the 6σ region”, your last sentence for deletion is totally straw man. (talk) 20:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not arguing with the source or with you, I'm saying that this reference says nothing about EHT. And just putting a bunch of wikilinks to red herring and circular reasoning doesn't make you right. But I have no desire to argue with you if your intention is just simply put unrelated stuff, so be it, I just hope that somebody would rewrite it later. MYP Physics is a textbook that says nothing about EHT, that's the point. And reference about 6-sigma should be in the article about statistical significance, not here. But as I said, I have no desire to argue, so do not expect any more comments from me. I hope administrators would step in and bring some policies here. Artem.G (talk) 20:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

You’re just arguing that “general science information” from “encyclopedic primary published academic literature” is “just” wrong, but you, while now changing your point randomly, gave no reason without your proof by assertion and argument from personal incredulity and I can just hear sophistical ipse dixit for deletion. When on earth will you present us burden of proof for your deletion? See, Oxford University Press is not your circular reasoning case, please confer the status of encyclopedic primary published academic literature(https://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=%2B"Oxford+University+Press"). I’m not any editor of Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, so I don’t have any conflict of interest in that and when you’re doing circular reasoning I have already presented encyclopedic primary published academic literature status which is neutral third party burden of proof. And the general science information from encyclopedic primary published academic literature is for objective Admissibility of Evidence of that observation which closely relevant to it. Rather, it is “totally” compatible with just like what you said “add anything about how it was measured by this telescope”. See also Pentaquark Article 2015 LHCb results part(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentaquark#2015_LHCb_results), the article also told the observation “… had individual statistical significances of 9 σ and 12 σ, respectively, and a combined significance of 15 σ – enough to claim a formal discovery”. I did nothing wrong in my contribution to Event Horizon Telescope article but I just disclose the general science information details of the former and latter part from encyclopedic primary published academic literature. You did “not(?)” argued for your deletion with your circular reasoning for rejection of general science information” from encyclopedic primary published academic literature without any burden of proof and irrelevant conclusion for your blanking deletion using topic wikilink standard deviation and attacking straw man as if I didn't add anything about how it was measured by this telescope, or what it was despite what I have “already” added anything about how it was measured by this telescope or what it was, as you can see and just like you said, and your begging the question of “why should this whole unrelated stuff be here?” “until” your vandalism without a single word. And now you even present us no reason without proof by assertion and argument from personal incredulity for “mere rejection of general science information” from “encyclopedic primary published academic literature and is it all that I can just hear sophistical ipse dixit for your deletion? Isn’t it your “arguing for vandalism of that blanking deletion” would-be bad influence? If my contribution to this article disclosing the general science information details for objective Admissibility of Evidence of that observation from neutral third party burden of proof without any conflict of interest were wrong, Pentaquark Article 2015 LHCb results part(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentaquark#2015_LHCb_results) will be also wrong. But I don’t think so. Because if I argue like that, it will also become tu quoque fallacy and may spoil academic community. It’s just the extended expression of realistic hope that I careful not to do sophistry following common/juncture points of academic community as far as I know. Please do not distort it for your groundless vandalism. (talk) 05:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

If I'm wrong, I will apologise, but I don't think so. As I don't want to make any edit wars, and you still putting a lot of puff here, I'll ping @EdJohnston: who previously ban you for OR and edit wars. I wouldn't edit this article until administrator intervention, and I think it's not me who is blatant in this talk. You don't want to discuss facts, you want to discuss a person (me) and want to make me sound like a moron. It's not the best way to collaborative editing. So, EdJohnston, please react and tell who's right. Artem.G (talk) 06:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I did not any ad hominem in this Event Horizon Telescope article at all while doing the invaluable contribution but just disclosed, like Pentaquark Article 2015 LHCb results part (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentaquark#2015_LHCb_results), "the general science information" "details" of that observation from "encyclopedic primary published academic literature" for objective Admissibility of Evidence which is neutral third party burden of proof without any conflict of interest, and then presented proper and correct argument against your groundless repetative vandalism of blanking deletion. Moreover, You eventually attack straw man again as if I did “not” presented proper and correct argument against your vandalism “without any” neutral third party burden of proof. In this case, I can only say you that vandalism is "not" the best way to academic practice. That's all. Taking action about my request for prevention of distortion is for administrators of this article to decide. (talk) 06:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done (as to the immediate edit request) - this page is not protected and does not require an administrator to update. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I have now blocked the IP editor for continuing to add original research and novel synthesis to physics articles. This is the same pattern as reported in the AN3 complaint in December, 2020. EdJohnston (talk) 15:26, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Telescopes

The participating telescopes are incomplete. It should be mentioned when which telescopes participated. The Greenland Telescope, Northern Extended Millimeter Array, and ARO 12m Radio Telescope are not even mentioned in the infobox (I don't see how to add that). Hobbema (talk) 14:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring

Hey, ThurnerRupert, you repeatedly put a sentence into the lead without any reliable source for that claim. In 2022, the resolution is so good that one could see the bubbles in beer foam in New York, while sitting in Munich, 6500 km away. That is original research, so please provide a reference or remove it.

Another question is your addition of a youtube video in German as a source. And though you are right that genzel won the nobel prize for detecting sagitarius a*, not referencing him because he speaks german is a little off i think? there is tools to translate this stuff on the fly., there are already three refs there, and this one is simply not needed. See WP:CITEKILL, and see WP:NOYT about youtube as a source. Artem.G (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Artem.G, can you please point to relevant rules why a video from an official youtube channel of german broadcaster ZDF, featuring Anton Zensus, chairman of the collaboration board of the EHT, and nobel price winner Reinhard Genzel for detecting sagitarious a* should not be considered notable and credible in an article about the event horizon telescope (EHT) after it took a photo of sagitarious a*? --ThurnerRupert (talk) 12:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

As I wrote, there are already three refs there, and this one is simply not needed. There is no need to gather as many sources as possible, that's simply not helpful. What fact is not covered by existing refs and why is video in German the best source to verify it? Artem.G (talk) 13:10, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

"the resolution is so that one could see the bubbles in beer foam 6500 km away" is in the video, to explain the quality of EHT, and how they reached this resolution. --ThurnerRupert (talk) 03:21, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

If this is a quote, it should be in "quotes" with attribution, smth like Prof X compared the resolution with, and I think that lead is not a good place for this metaphor. I wouldn't revert you further, but please format this quote so it wouldn't look like OR. Artem.G (talk) 07:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

good points, artem.g. i found a couple of references: https://www.eso.org/public/images/eso2208-eht-mwe/#:~:text=M87*%2C%20which%20lies%2055%20million,same%20size%20in%20the%20sky comparing 1000 times more massive black hole in M87 to sagitarius a*, looking the same because of the different distance. as well printing plutos orbit into the image to give an idea of the diameter. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dr20f19czeE&t=481s press conference about the detectoin of M87 in 2019. https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkpn7g/this-is-the-first-ever-image-of-the-supermassive-black-hole-at-our-galaxys-center vice article about 2022 press conference, with the citation “To give you an idea, EHT can see three million times sharper than the human eye, so when you are sitting in a Munich beer garden for example, one could see the bubbles in the glass of beer in New York.” by radio astronomer thomas krichbaum. harald lesch cites it out of the press conference, to make zensus and genzel discuss what they did to reach this precision, e.g. that IRAM telescopes was there, and especially ALMA telescope was the game changer. and to discuss how the precision is good to get an image, as well to compare it to genzels work to proof the black hole is there, where he needed less precision to see the movement. i will give it another try. the guys at the press conferences use such comparisons more in the beginning to kind of break the ice a little what it means. --ThurnerRupert (talk) 06:48, 31 January 2023 (UTC)