I am aware that this is going to sound improbable, but bear with me. I'm a member of a private czech discussion board that's been running for 20+ years, and there's a physicist who I don't even...
I am aware that this is going to sound improbable, but bear with me.
I'm a member of a private czech discussion board that's been running for 20+ years, and there's a physicist who I don't even know anything about apart from seeing his work and repeatedly reading his (short) rants about artificially denoised and sharpened astrophotography.
And one of the projects that he's been working on for I think at least three years now is blackhole visualization of a very similar type that is in the Nasa video. He's been gradually sharing progress pics and short videos and posting briefly about repeatedly checking that the physics actually check out.
Well, the point of all that is that according to him the 360° visualization linked in this post, despite being endorsed by NASA, is not actually very accurate. It lacks redshift (gravitational and dopplerian), which may be on purpose to make it look clearer, and it lacks beaming, which apparently is simply incorrect. Apparently these problems are relatively common, with some of the earlier physics visualizations of black holes that came out years ago supposedly containing the same bugs that his physics simulation had at one point and later corrected.
I do realize that there is no way to verify any of this if you're not an astrophysicist yourself, so do whatever you want with it. I just thought it was interesting.
Kip Thorne worked as the scientific consultant and an executive producer on the film, so it's not too surprising they kept it reasonably accurate. That movie did a lot to change how black holes...
Kip Thorne worked as the scientific consultant and an executive producer on the film, so it's not too surprising they kept it reasonably accurate.
That movie did a lot to change how black holes are shown in film and television. Just compare the black holes from the 2009 Star Trek movie and Star Trek: Discovery's "Anomaly" in season 4.
I am aware that this is going to sound improbable, but bear with me.
I'm a member of a private czech discussion board that's been running for 20+ years, and there's a physicist who I don't even know anything about apart from seeing his work and repeatedly reading his (short) rants about artificially denoised and sharpened astrophotography.
And one of the projects that he's been working on for I think at least three years now is blackhole visualization of a very similar type that is in the Nasa video. He's been gradually sharing progress pics and short videos and posting briefly about repeatedly checking that the physics actually check out.
Well, the point of all that is that according to him the 360° visualization linked in this post, despite being endorsed by NASA, is not actually very accurate. It lacks redshift (gravitational and dopplerian), which may be on purpose to make it look clearer, and it lacks beaming, which apparently is simply incorrect. Apparently these problems are relatively common, with some of the earlier physics visualizations of black holes that came out years ago supposedly containing the same bugs that his physics simulation had at one point and later corrected.
This is one of the outputs of his program that he claims is physically correct.
I do realize that there is no way to verify any of this if you're not an astrophysicist yourself, so do whatever you want with it. I just thought it was interesting.
Well this is very cool. Seems interstellar wasn't too far off.
Kip Thorne worked as the scientific consultant and an executive producer on the film, so it's not too surprising they kept it reasonably accurate.
That movie did a lot to change how black holes are shown in film and television. Just compare the black holes from the 2009 Star Trek movie and Star Trek: Discovery's "Anomaly" in season 4.
Veritasium delves deeply into black holes, exploring the implications of Einstein's field equations:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6akmv1bsz1M