Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Well, some of the densest, nearest, most interesting structures are right behind the rest of the Milky Way, which causes up to 30 magnitudes of extinction in visible light, but deeper IR and UV passes through much more easily.

I think a better way to describe the issue is that much of the structure of the cosmos is only visible in non-visible wavelengths, so while calibrated, accurate visuals "like you were in a safe glass bubble" is a good category of astrophotography to continue to refine, it's a tiny slice of what's emitting electromagnetic radiation that's worth visualizing. And if cameras can convert invisible colors into visible ones, that's a blessing of a capability.



Even in the case of the Milky Way blocking the light, we could probably do the math to estimate would an observer would see if they were outside the Milky Way, interpolating from the observed IR/UV and some model of the visible spectra would be be without the local interference. Or is that infeasible in some way?

Certainly some phenomena just don't have much visible light of interest - so shifting the the spectra is inherently necessary in those cases and is thus inherently subjective.


Not necessarily, various objects can look completely different in different wavelengths and it's not really possible to interpolate without taking a picture of each part of the spectrum.

The Milky Way and the entire local group of galaxies are flowing towards the superclusters located directly on the opposite side of the galaxy, and there's huge (thousands of light years) clouds of gas and "dust" (supernova molecular feces) that are like actual, thick, opaque storm clouds that form a donut around the galaxy, so it's impossible to "see" where we're headed except for the the X-rays and mid-infrared that doesn't interact with the huge clouds. And we won't be able to until we can leave the plane of the Milky Way's disk, or we build a telescope that is 2 dozen orders of magnitude more sensitive than anything we have so far.


Can we infer what that visible light would look like unobstructed and with appropriate intensity to activate our eyes' cones?


Not necessarily, various objects can look completely different in different wavelengths and it's not really possible to interpolate without taking a picture of each part of the spectrum.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: