1. There are three bright blobs on the image; I assume they are the same object, behind the BH. What are they/is it? They said the image was averaged; so presumably whatever the blobs are wasn't moving?
2. Is it correct that the rest of the ring, ignoring the three blobs, is the far side of the accretion disk? Why can't I see this side of the accretion disk?
3. According to the article, at least one submillimeter telescope was important. But submillimeter is infrared, isn't it? I thought infrared was blocked by dust, and if there's one thing there's a lot of at the centre of the galaxy, it's dust?
[Edit] Questions 1 and two were prompted by this remark in the article:
"The new view captures light bent by the powerful gravity of the black hole"
The only "light" I can see is a ring with blobs in it; that's why I suppose the ring in the image is not the accretion disk, at least, not as viewed from the pole. Most other commenters here assume (or know) that it is the accretion disk, and we are looking at a pole.
But if that is indeed the accretion disk, then that isn't light that's been bent by the gravity of the black hole.
Perhaps the explanation is that many other commenters haven't actually read the article, possibly because they already know the story.
> 3. According to the article, at least one submillimeter telescope was important. But submillimeter is infrared, isn't it? I thought infrared was blocked by dust, and if there's one thing there's a lot of at the centre of the galaxy, it's dust?
It's the opposite actually! Infrared light is able to go through dust.
> Another reason [to look at the universe in the infrared] is because stars and planets form in clouds of gas and dust, and this dust obscures our view. Infrared light penetrates these clouds and allows us to see inside.
If "doppler boost" is regions that are moving towards us, then they presumably aren't swirling around the BH at near-light speed?
Is the ring of light the accretion disk or not? If it is the accretion disk, why is some of it moving towards us?
And why does it seem that the ring of light is oriented perpendicular to our line-of-sight? Is that really coincidence? Don't most accretion disks rotate on roughly the axis of the host galaxy's rotation? If we're looking directly at one of the poles of the BH, shouldn't we see some sort of beam pointing right at us?
I have a few ignorant questions:
1. There are three bright blobs on the image; I assume they are the same object, behind the BH. What are they/is it? They said the image was averaged; so presumably whatever the blobs are wasn't moving?
2. Is it correct that the rest of the ring, ignoring the three blobs, is the far side of the accretion disk? Why can't I see this side of the accretion disk?
3. According to the article, at least one submillimeter telescope was important. But submillimeter is infrared, isn't it? I thought infrared was blocked by dust, and if there's one thing there's a lot of at the centre of the galaxy, it's dust?
[Edit] Questions 1 and two were prompted by this remark in the article:
The only "light" I can see is a ring with blobs in it; that's why I suppose the ring in the image is not the accretion disk, at least, not as viewed from the pole. Most other commenters here assume (or know) that it is the accretion disk, and we are looking at a pole.But if that is indeed the accretion disk, then that isn't light that's been bent by the gravity of the black hole.
Perhaps the explanation is that many other commenters haven't actually read the article, possibly because they already know the story.