Note that you can’t see the black hole in this image (an optical HST image). The black hole was identified through microlensing of the object labeled “source”, followed by subsequent astrometric observations. The black hole is the lens, which is not seen in these images because it’s too faint.

Nature has always been about making money, not about publishing research.

And don’t feed it after midnight!

Confirmed.

In the best case, the detection is at the 2.4 sigma confidence level (less than the usual 3 for reasonable confidence and will below the 5 required for strong confidence), and if previously suspected issues with the instrument are true, the detection could disappear completely.

I do not have a strong confidence in this result. (But at least they didn’t publish it in Nature, in which case you would absolutely know it’s wrong…)

When’s he going to text me?!

You have to ask yourself the question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?

Boo!

Behold how moisture glistens on my epidermis!

I expected “infinity plus one percent”.

Looks delicious!

We like to put the tomato over a smear of basil pesto.

You just had to open your ellipsis…

Even a fool, if he keeps silent, is considered wise.

“Who rescued who?”

At the same time, they are also incredibly fragile. The wrong words at the wrong time can have an affect on them for a lifetime.

Glad to find I’m not the only one this tweaked.

Wow, look at that red wing of the Ly-alpha absorption!

I’m a lumberjack and I’m okay, I sleep all night and I work all day!

This guy reads.

If you’re going to post APOD, please include the explanation paragraph and attributions.