Besides that a huge team has published repeated work that a small group criticize in one notice that we will see how it fares, the larger problem is that there are more data to explain by than the 2017 observations.
The EHT team have corresponding images of M87* with another ring size (42 uas vs 49 uas for Sag A*) as well as have correspondence between polarization structures and between them and the rings.
On polarization, the paper seems to think the data is less useful but does not say anything on the polarization structures and their ring fit: “The EHT public data have reduced time resolution and loss of bandwidth and polarization characteristics owing to the averaging and combining of multiple channels.”
I bet in a not so distant future, futher analysis will reveal that both the ring images are algorithmical artifacts
Unlikely since the EHT group has made similar images from two different black holes, with their radius consistent with expectations, and further extracted polarization images. Add the independent image construction in the new paper, and artifacts becomes "astronomically" unlikely.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram