Inside Black Hole

[Varrag]

Sure, black holes haven't been directly observed so far, but their effects were. They're still the best theory we can come up with to explain certain phenomena we are regularly seeing.

It is also worth mentioning that a step between neutron star and black hole could exist - a quark star. Whether or nor gravitational contraction ends there, when quark matter prevents further compression, or collapsing massive star goes directly into the black hole is an open question at this point because little is known about the properties of quark matter.

 

[Alatar]

Sure, black holes haven't been directly observed so far, but their effects were.

Exactly.

 

[Avago Earo]

without accretion disk, no jet. the magnetic field induced by the spiralling matter creates it

Ah ok. So it's the interaction of the relative charges of the surrounding orbital matter (+/-) that delivers the magnetic field? I assume the Black Hole itself has no magnetic poles? I would insert I smiley here but that would only be to make me 'sound' clever and I really haven't a clue what I'm going on about as those astute (or not so, probably) among you will be able to tell. I'm to lazy to look up sciency stuff and much prefer to get my bar stool knowledge from a gaming forum

 

[HipToss]

Famous last words : Maximilian! Take us in!
http://www.retrocinema.wetcircuit.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/BlackHole56-800x340.jpg

God I remember the first time I saw that film, blew my mind!

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

Don't worry about the amount of (google) knowledge on these forums. It's all pants. or socks. Smelly socks.

 

[Kondensat]

read this:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0808.2624v1.pdf
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0210426v1.pdf

everyone that still thinks, that black holes dont exist or that we have no clue about them, please feel free do write an own paper, falsifying the given conclusions from actual observations in this paper.
but you should have a good alternative solution for our standard model of particle physics to explain, how you can squeeze 4 million solar masses into an object, maximum 17 light hours in radius

 

[ClymAngus]

Online arguments are never a good idea, however I make bad decisions all the time. So I'm on my way to Sag A* right now to prove that that isn't a black hole, but a really, really dirty clump of socks. I'm half way there and I figure it'll take me another couple hours.

You see I much prefer you when your being humourous. I'm serious when I say your very good at it. Many a true word is spoken in jest sir. So much better than everyone talking round and round in circles. Anyway are we seriously suggesting Frontier model mathmatically accurate gravity wells? That's just madness.

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

Just read an article that suggests that Supermassive Black Holes (like Sag A*) don't eat as much as they like, and that 99% of the stuff around it gets rejected. There was something about understanding Torquay as the key to understanding black holes. Now, if you've ever been to Torquay maybe you can then explain why 99% of people stay away, and then you can understand Black Holes better.

It's all here: http://resonance.is/news/standard-m...ing-monsters-they-were-portrayed-to-be-by-99/

 

[Eros]

Well the blackhole in interstellar is not all that realistic... it is realistically rendered, the advice after all came from a theoretical physicist but then again there are a few things that are artistic licence. Firstly the accretion disk is shown as extending right down to the event horizon... in reality this would not just be white hot, but give you a pretty hard x-ray and gamma bake. In reality the environment around the interstellar black hole would be harsh and hellish. Also the form that disk takes in the movie is to do with the fact that you are looking slightly down onto the disk from the top and see it looped around... if you looked at it dead on the the axis, it would be mostly invisible.

Sag A* would not 'look' like the interstellar blackhole at all. If it did have an active accretion disk, we would have observe it. what we have observed are occasional x-ray flairs due to the odd particle or so falls onto it. If it did have an optical disk like that shown in interstellar, we would have detected it via IR measurements of the galactic centre.

The appearance of the blackholes in game should look pretty much how they are, BUT maybe taking into account light paths that do go directly into it, which of course would be dark. The shader doesn't appear to do this yet.

Still, its not bad, its not perfect, but it is not bad and 'wrong' as so many arm chair scientists want to suggest (not to suggest you are such a person Kondensat) but as a physicist myself, the amount of self appointed experts in the field now people saw interstellar, is pretty funny.... and annoying.

 

[Mysturji]

[citation needed]

Well, I saw a GalNet News item about it this morning, but I wouldn't call it a reliable source

It's just theory anyway! Lighten up. The reason they call it "The Big Bang THEORY" and the "Black Hole THEORY" is...well you get it, right?

Aah! That explains it.
You don't know what the word "theory" means.

 

[Kondensat]

Well the blackhole in interstellar is not all that realistic... it is realistically rendered, the advice after all came from a theoretical physicist but then again there are a few things that are artistic licence. Firstly the accretion disk is shown as extending right down to the event horizon... in reality this would not just be white hot, but give you a pretty hard x-ray and gamma bake. In reality the environment around the interstellar black hole would be harsh and hellish. Also the form that disk takes in the movie is to do with the fact that you are looking slightly down onto the disk from the top and see it looped around... if you looked at it dead on the the axis, it would be mostly invisible.

Sag A* would not 'look' like the interstellar blackhole at all. If it did have an active accretion disk, we would have observe it. what we have observed are occasional x-ray flairs due to the odd particle or so falls onto it. If it did have an optical disk like that shown in interstellar, we would have detected it via IR measurements of the galactic centre.

The appearance of the blackholes in game should look pretty much how they are, BUT maybe taking into account light paths that do go directly into it, which of course would be dark. The shader doesn't appear to do this yet.

Still, its not bad, its not perfect, but it is not bad and 'wrong' as so many arm chair scientists want to suggest (not to suggest you are such a person Kondensat) but as a physicist myself, the amount of self appointed experts in the field now people saw interstellar, is pretty funny.... and annoying.

well.....the gravitational shear at the event horizon of a SMBH is much smaller compared with a stellar black hole, nevertheless yes......a quasar is violent and emits millions of solar luminosities if there is enough matter in the accretion disc. but our SMBH is not violent. its starving. so as every SMBH is different, it could have every possible luminosity.....

coming back to our milky way SMBH, it is a very constant radio source. and.....it also has jets! it is very very dim, because the amount of matter is so low it gets to eat (the accretion disk seems to be very tiny and stable), but it is present. Jets only occur with an accretion disk
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1310.0146v1.pdf

and it emits x-rays also:


and only i used a picture of interstellar does not mean, that i have no clue

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

well.....the gravitational shear at the event horizon of a SMBH is much smaller compared with a stellar black hole, nevertheless yes......a quasar is violent and emits millions of solar luminosities if there is enough matter in the accretion disc. but our SMBH is not violent. its starving. so as every SMBH is different, it could have every possible luminosity.....

coming back to our milky way SMBH, it is a very constant radio source. and.....it also has jets! it is very very dim, because the amount of matter is so low it gets to eat (the accretion disk seems to be very tiny and stable), but it is present. Jets only occur with an accretion disk
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1310.0146v1.pdf

The link I presented in a previous (albeit unserious) post suggests that the torque and coriolis effect caused by the spinning of our supermassive black hole organises the matter around it so that only a tiny proportion ever reaches the event horizon. It may then have a large accretion disk, but not eat any due to stable but complex orbital mechanics.

(Does that sound right?)

I.e. it's heating up the gas surrounding it so much it's like spinning a rope over your head - it never comes to land.

 

[Kondensat]

The link I presented in a previous (albeit unserious) post suggests that the torque and coriolis effect caused by the spinning of our supermassive black hole organises the matter around it so that only a tiny proportion ever reaches the event horizon. It may then have a large accretion disk, but not eat any due to stable but complex orbital mechanics.

(Does that sound right?)

I.e. it's heating up the gas surrounding it so much it's like spinning a rope over your head - it never comes to land.

of course matter falls into the black hole. otherwise it could not grow.
but it needs a certain level of fluctuations and disturbances in the accretion disk and thus density for strong enough magnetic fields to slow single particles down to finally de-orbit.
simulations showed, that blobs of matter will then de-orbit and disappear in the BH

 

[Pilot in red shirt]

I can't remember ... are you Bob or Alice?

Alice! Lenny always throw Alice in the black hole. I guess it is reference to Alice in Wonderland.

Actually it's a reference to worked examples of Special/General Relativity where Alice gets on the spaceship and Bob stays at home and when Alice gets back she's younger than Bob etc. I think the 3rd person is usually Charles or Chuck. Person A = Alice, B = Bob, C = Chuck and so on. If your example ever needs Zoltan it's probably got a bit complicated!
.

 

[Varrag]

Black hole in Interstellar is not very realistic. Physicist who worked on it later said that he was rather disappointed to see that the director and his fx team changed so much that it's barely recognizable. In short, they thought that the accurate presentation would be too confusing for viewers (?) so they "hollywoodized" it.

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

Black hole in Interstellar is not very realistic. Physicist who worked on it later said that he was rather disappointed to see that the director and his fx team changed so much that it's barely recognizable. In short, they thought that the accurate presentation would be too confusing for viewers (?) so they "hollywoodized" it.

I remember reading about that. The re-ran the simulation, reduced the spin (Gargantua was supposed to be spinning very fast to fit in with the storyline) and buffed the appearance. It's better than, say, Disney's Black Hole though.

 

[Kondensat]

Black hole in Interstellar is not very realistic. Physicist who worked on it later said that he was rather disappointed to see that the director and his fx team changed so much that it's barely recognizable. In short, they thought that the accurate presentation would be too confusing for viewers (?) so they "hollywoodized" it.

its still the best visualization i know of.
the original simulation was this btw:

 

[Drelthar]

I'm not actually too fussed about realism with black holes, who cares, just make them look awesome

 

[Firebeard]

This has to be the most intellectual internet argument I have ever read. I would like a little more "pizazz" to a black hole but wouldn't dare assume i know anything near enough.

I wonder if professor Hawking ever played elite...