Planet formation captured in photo

The clearest ever image of planets forming around an infant star has been taken by the Alma radio telescope.

In a vast disc of dust and gas, dark rings are clearly visible: gaps in the cloud, swept clear by brand new planets in orbit.

The sun-like star at the centre, HL Tau, is less than a million years old and is 450 light years from Earth in the constellation Taurus.

The image was made possible by Alma’s new high-resolution capabilities.

more…

A star with rings like Saturn. Nice photo, keep in mind it’s a radio image, not optical. This is way better than the Beta Pictoris photos.

Nice Atacama Large Millimetre Array.

Not really a photo.

But nice.

dv said:

Not really a photo.

But nice.

Why is it not really a photo? It is a captured image of electromagnetic radiation, pretty much like every other photo out there.

dv said:

Not really a photo.

But nice.

Is too

Carmen_Sandiego said:

dv said:

Not really a photo.

But nice.

Why is it not really a photo? It is a captured image of electromagnetic radiation, pretty much like every other photo out there.

Yes if we’re happy to talk of infrared photography, then we shouldn’t have any problems with radio photography.

Cbf arguing about it… if there’s no photosensitive plate or more rarely film, I wouldn’t consider something a photograph. This is an image put together from data recorded probably over several days.

But your viewpoint, that any image based on EMR is a photo is not unreasonable.

dv said:

Cbf arguing about it… if there’s no photosensitive plate or more rarely film, I wouldn’t consider something a photograph. This is an image put together from data recorded probably over several days.

But your viewpoint, that any image based on EMR is a photo is not unreasonable.

Humans wouldn’t see it like the image captured though, aren’t most astronomical photos visible light or not captured over extended time periods the human eye wouldn’t see

Cymek said:

dv said:

Cbf arguing about it… if there’s no photosensitive plate or more rarely film, I wouldn’t consider something a photograph. This is an image put together from data recorded probably over several days.

But your viewpoint, that any image based on EMR is a photo is not unreasonable.

Humans wouldn’t see it like the image captured though, aren’t most astronomical photos visible light or not captured over extended time periods the human eye wouldn’t see

Ever heard of infra-red and Ultra-Violet photography?

Carmen_Sandiego said:

Cymek said:

dv said:

Cbf arguing about it… if there’s no photosensitive plate or more rarely film, I wouldn’t consider something a photograph. This is an image put together from data recorded probably over several days.

But your viewpoint, that any image based on EMR is a photo is not unreasonable.

Humans wouldn’t see it like the image captured though, aren’t most astronomical photos visible light or not captured over extended time periods the human eye wouldn’t see

Ever heard of infra-red and Ultra-Violet photography?

Yes, but aren’t they also captured over an extended time frame

What I am trying to say is would humans see most astronomical photos they way they are in photos or would they be a lot more bland. Planets I imagine yes, but nebulas, galaxies,etc?

extended times yes. the eye is not sensitive to colour at low light levels. we just see grey. astro photos, or imaging is done at a range of frequencies. x-ray down to HF.

Carmen_Sandiego said:

Cymek said:

dv said:

Cbf arguing about it… if there’s no photosensitive plate or more rarely film, I wouldn’t consider something a photograph. This is an image put together from data recorded probably over several days.

But your viewpoint, that any image based on EMR is a photo is not unreasonable.

Humans wouldn’t see it like the image captured though, aren’t most astronomical photos visible light or not captured over extended time periods the human eye wouldn’t see

Ever heard of infra-red and Ultra-Violet photography?

dv’s point, I think, is more about how a photo is traditionally captured, as opposed what spectrum of light the photons exist in.

Personally I see merits with both POVs and I’m not sure there is a technically right, or wrong, answer.

Reasonable rejoinders, all. I’ll stick to my preference and have no objection to yours. It’s not important and I regret mentioning it.

use the term imaging instead of photographing.

Cymek said:

What I am trying to say is would humans see most astronomical photos they way they are in photos or would they be a lot more bland. Planets I imagine yes, but nebulas, galaxies,etc?

No but the point I made pertained to the capture technology, not to do with what humans would see.

digital photography extends beyond human visual sensing doesn’t it

up and down the frequency spectrum

ChrispenEvan said:

use the term imaging instead of photographing.

Aye, I personally would call it an image.

CrazyNeutrino said:

digital photography extends beyond human visual sensing doesn’t it

up and down the frequency spectrum

Sure does, indeed we discussed infrared photography quite early in the piece.

For comparison: the picture of the world that you get on Google Earth has definitely been created from recorded visible light, but I’d never call it a photograph. It is a composite image.

For comparison: the picture of the world that you get on Google Earth has definitely been created from recorded visible light, but I’d never call it a photograph. It is a composite image.

Cymek said:

Carmen_Sandiego said:

Cymek said:

Humans wouldn’t see it like the image captured though, aren’t most astronomical photos visible light or not captured over extended time periods the human eye wouldn’t see

Ever heard of infra-red and Ultra-Violet photography?

Yes, but aren’t they also captured over an extended time frame

They can be, if required. And “Normal” photographs can also be captured over an extended period of time. I can point my camera at a dark hillside at night and have it take a 3 minute shot and it will collect enough light to make an image of trees and rocks that are too dim to be seen by the human eye, and that is a photograph.

I wonder what mass is required before a tipping point is reached in accretion and you can see it occuring in a time frame humans can relate to. I wonder if it would occur in hours, minutes or even second

But here I am still talking about something I already said is not important and that I regret mentioning.

This is an amazing picture and I marvel at what people can do these days and I thank CrazyNeutrino for bringing it to our attention.

dv said:

This is an amazing picture and I marvel at what people can do these days and I thank CrazyNeutrino for bringing it to our attention.

Indeed. Lest we get sidetracked by semantics.

I can see radial striations similar to those we see in Saturn’s rings.

Carmen_Sandiego said:

dv said:

This is an amazing picture and I marvel at what people can do these days and I thank CrazyNeutrino for bringing it to our attention.

Indeed. Lest we get sidetracked by semantics.

Yes. Sorry.

we wouldn’t have the interest in science that we do if we weren’t interested in sidetracks.

;-)

Must be very satisfying to see a real life image confirming the computer simulations so convincingly.

ChrispenEvan said:

we wouldn’t have the interest in science that we do if we weren’t interested in sidetracks.

;-)

If you look up sidetrack in the dictionary its has a link to this place

dv said:

But here I am still talking about something I already said is not important and that I regret mentioning.

This is an amazing picture and I marvel at what people can do these days and I thank CrazyNeutrino for bringing it to our attention.

Astronomy is awesome

Astronomers are awesome

I’m a novice

Cymek said:

Yes, but aren’t they also captured over an extended time frame

Certainly! Some of those time frames can be quite extended. With modern digital imaging equipment and techniques it’s a lot easier to do ultra-long exposures than it was in the early days of astro-photography. Back then, glass photographic plates would be carefully taken from telescope cameras at the end of the viewing period each night and stored in a cool dark place during the day. It must’ve been nerve-wracking creating those images: one stuff-up in aligning the telescope (and the plate) could ruin months of work.