One more flare happened since then, in 2022, but because of instrumental limitations, it was caught only at a prestage (M. J. Valtonen et al. 2023; M. J. Valtonen 2024). At the same time, more flares were discovered in historical photographic plate studies so that only eight of the expected 26 flares remain unconfirmed (R. Hudec et al. 2013). All the unconfirmed ones are due to lack of known photographs at the expected epochs.
I understand that patterns and confirmations often come from data captured years ago and reanalyzed. That’s how some comets are discovered.
What I don’t get is how you can say we are publishing the first picture and then post a picture that was published three years ago.
It looks like HN has now changed the title from the “all editors should be fired” exhibit list to something more reasonable, but the linked article is still titled, “Scientists capture first image of two black holes in orbit.”
which editors should be fired? You mean the scientific journal editors?
As to the image, "The image shows two bright points, each representing a jet of high-energy particles emitted by one of the black holes.
The black holes themselves remain invisible, but the image provides clear visual evidence of their position, motion, and dual existence. "
My best guess is that it took a few years to interpret the data. Frankly, I don't get the math. The numbers are so big! But I feel pretty small when considering this... and, of course, soon we'll hear of even more of these systems.
Do you think that gravitational lens effects will be studied when "the stars are aligned" for other studies?
maybe this:
One more flare happened since then, in 2022, but because of instrumental limitations, it was caught only at a prestage (M. J. Valtonen et al. 2023; M. J. Valtonen 2024). At the same time, more flares were discovered in historical photographic plate studies so that only eight of the expected 26 flares remain unconfirmed (R. Hudec et al. 2013). All the unconfirmed ones are due to lack of known photographs at the expected epochs.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ae057e
I understand that patterns and confirmations often come from data captured years ago and reanalyzed. That’s how some comets are discovered.
What I don’t get is how you can say we are publishing the first picture and then post a picture that was published three years ago.
It looks like HN has now changed the title from the “all editors should be fired” exhibit list to something more reasonable, but the linked article is still titled, “Scientists capture first image of two black holes in orbit.”
which editors should be fired? You mean the scientific journal editors?
As to the image, "The image shows two bright points, each representing a jet of high-energy particles emitted by one of the black holes. The black holes themselves remain invisible, but the image provides clear visual evidence of their position, motion, and dual existence. "
My best guess is that it took a few years to interpret the data. Frankly, I don't get the math. The numbers are so big! But I feel pretty small when considering this... and, of course, soon we'll hear of even more of these systems.
Do you think that gravitational lens effects will be studied when "the stars are aligned" for other studies?