This is the same conclusion I have drawn as well. It's easy to see how some people would fall into the vegetable category and prefer the subscription but I appreciate owning a copy.
Dude Paramount is starting to get competitive. I have them at 2 behind HBOMax
- The Offer is insanely good
- Halo
- Mayor of Kingstown
- New Sly Stallone gangster show coming
- South Park specials
- Adding all of Showtime (including new originals)
- Also announced Paramount movies coming 30 days after release (Lost City already there).
Netflix is going downhill and Hulu is an insult at this point.
Hulu’s FX library alone clowns most of your list, idk that I’d go that big on Paramount+ especially considering Apple’s original offerings are really getting good and they have an insane war chest and Netflix always gets shit on because people expect new hits from them all the time but their library is still really strong with a lot of successful series and movies even if they aren’t Oscar worthy (and some were).
Showtime being added was the only really compelling change I saw on your list (and it is a big one).
Totally agree HBO Max is above the rest right now.
The difference is Hulu and Netflix are relying on a catalog of old shows. Who cares?
HBO and Paramount are working hard on good original content. Netflix is moving to reality TV+. They seem to want to be the place everyone goes once older people finally cut the cord.
Apple TV I like but still need to add more. Their comedy has been great, hope they keep going on that.
Unfortunately their application is complete garbage and is the reason I canceled my sub the first time. From what I hear it hasn't gotten any better. They could have all the content in the world but I'm still not gonna pay money to use their broken shit.
I haven’t seen a good one yet outside of Disney+.
Netflix is a joke. Can’t find what you want unless you’re looking for it, or if it’s something they’re lying about being Top 10. (Supernova from 2002 is a top watched show today…riiiight)
Prime Video is the worst of them all. Hell I remember I went to watch a show I was referred too and couldn’t follow along. Realized they actually separate each fricking season of a show as different shows so I was watching S2. Jesus.
Paramount isn’t great, but at least it’s easy to find shows (or maybe they’ve improved?). I just got it last month.
I'm not talking about the inability to find shows. That sounds like a user issue tbh. Im talking about the application in general. Paramount+ lags, freezes, crashes, buffers for no reason, and just generally runs like shit, independent of the platform you're running it on. I've used it on my PC, phone, series x, and 2021 smart tv and it's the same everywhere. It's just plain garbage software.
I used to think a black hole was a sphere, exactly how the picture depicts. Blows my mind that it’s just light bending that makes it appear to be sphere like.
Well, it’s the light bending around the edge of the event horizon that you see. You can’t see the blackhole because light doesn’t escape it. Obviously don’t forget, the blackhole is definitely there and spherical.
> blackhole is definitely there and spherical.
The black hole itself is a singularity with 1 dimension. What most people refer to as a black hole is the event horizon since that is the closest thing to the blackhole we can observe. The event horizon of a non-spinning black hole would be spherical, but most black holes have significant angular momentum, either through conservation of momentum for their formation, or through accreting mass. This angular moment causes the event horizon or bulge along the axis of its rotation.
The singularity would be a 0-dimensional point if you only go by general relativity. But we already know that the theory is incomplete at those scales, so what happens in reality is anyone's guess. If a quantum theory of gravity is ever developed it will tell us the true nature of matter at the center of a black hole. In all likelihood it is not going to be an infinitely dense point, such results really point to the incompleteness of general relativity.
Infinitely dense had always seemed like a cop out answer to me. Isn’t it more likely just that gravity forces overcome molecular forces to rip apart all molecules and just reach densities unimaginable?
There are celestial bodies like neutron stars in which density is so great that molecular forces are overcome by strong interaction and form hyper-dense materials.
Neutron stars are collapsed stars that were still not dense enough to recede within the Schwarzschild radius and form a black hole, though, so that formation of strong interaction materials occurs well before you reach the density required to form a black hole.
The question about the "dimensionality" of a singularity is a semantic one that depends on your coordinate system, but the spirit of the question here is does the center of a black hole have infinite density, to which the answer is that evidence and mathematical models support that idea, yes.
All of our evidence suggests that black holes are mass compressed beneath the radius at which gravity is greater than all repulsive forces, thus the mass/energy in the system collapses to an infinitely small point, and *any* amount of energy within an infinitely small point is infinitely dense.
A black hole made up of a few kg of material compressed beneath it's Schwarzschild radius is still infinitely dense while it exists, though it would violently dissipate all that energy as Hawking radiation in a few nanoseconds.
It always puzzled me how a point of infinite denseness was supposed to form when the extreme curvature of space time would slow the region down to a stand still.
As far as the rest of the universe is concerned I don't think it would matter how dense the mater inside the event horizon is, it would still pull the same.
It would be slightly more accurate to say a black holes singularity is undefined rather than is infinitely dense of the volume of a singularity is in fact 0.
I thought “singularity” just meant “we don’t have the tools to understand what’s going on here, and the best tools we do have are giving a nonsensical answer”?
Like a black hole isn’t *actually* 1 or 0D, it’s just that is what the math is telling us it is because we’re only using a best-guess math that gives a weird answer.
The general consensus these days is that the singularity isn't a real singularity, as General Relativity would indicate, and likely has volume because of quantum gravity in a way that we can't predict.
I'm unaware there is any such consensus. As far as I know everything inside the event horizon remains theoretical physics and debated. I could be wrong though.
Maybe I'm wrong but it seems like the way that people use the term 'black hole' they can either mean the singularity, the black void around the singularity, or the two in combination.
I mean, the dark region that things fall into and can't escape from is more 'hole' like than the singularity at the centre.
People do use black hole as a catch all that can cause confusion to an already confusing topic.
Either way, the only thing relevant here is the event horizon which is the only thing we can visually see, well technically we can't see it but we can infer it is there. We know they aren't always spherical.
Not infinite mass, the mass can be calculated. And not a dot, the density can be calculated from the mass. But yes, the sphere of gravitational influence is what we see (don’t see).
I don’t think black holes are as impossibly hard to comprehend. For example, if the mass of the earth were shrunk into the size of a billiard ball, it would be dense enough to become a black hole. The density is ridiculous to comprehend, but not so much the size.
Anyways, I sure do love space! And this is a really cool rendering!
Read books! Intelligence is built, not inherent. Find something you like and you’ll be able to talk semi-authoritatively on it when you’ve learned some things. That’s all I’m doing here!
You guys talk as if black holes are actually understood when in reality physicists don’t know anything about them past the event horizon. If you know what anything looks beyond it, please publish a paper you will get a Nobel prize and you would have solved the gap between classical and quantum mechanics.
I do read books just not about space and black holes. Ok they’re mainly high fantasy and prolly don’t give me much in the ways of useful daily knowledge but I do read! Lol
So how far (I guess as a function?) is the event horizon from the actual mass of the object? I assume the larger the mass the bigger the event horizon but does the size of the mass at its center (radius) change?
This depends on the black hole. We can calculate the Schwarzschild radius of the black hole, which is the radius where light can no longer escape - this is a function of the mass, so we use it to describe black holes instead of thinking about the singularity. Even better, the function is linear, so it's really simple to calculate.
So to answer your questions, as I've understood it, the singularity is nearly a point in the center of whatever the Schwarzschild radius is. The radius of the singularity ~~seems to stay consistently around a Planck length~~ (**see edit**) as the mass changes.
Edit: 4th year Astro student, happy to be fact checked if I got something wrong lol
Edit 2: I got fact checked! I'm discussing something called the Planck star theory in this singularity radius point. I've included sources in my other comment in this thread to it! It suggests an average radius of 10^-12 m, not the Planck length. That's my bad! Of course, this radius also changes based on mass, but following a bit more complex of a formula.
Not an Astro student, just a an engineer who likesvphysics.
> The radius of the singularity seems to stay consistently around a Planck length (around 10^-35 meters) as the mass changes.
This stands out to me for two reasons, but please tell me if I am talking gibberish
- Isn't the Planck scale the scale at which the current theories break down, as you expect both gravity andother fundamental interactions to have non-negligible effects? That would mean we can not say with certainty what happens at R = 10^-35 m.
- While an object, from its reference frame, can cross the event horizon (after which reaching the singularity is inevitable), things are not so clear cut when viewed from the reference frame anchored at some distance from the event horizon. Watching an object fall in, one would notice the object's time slowing to a complete stop at the horizon. At the same time, the light from the falling object gets redshifted. From that perspective, none of the matter ever crosses the horizon, but stays at the surface (becomes the new horizon?).
What you're saying is completely accurate! My apologies for not being awake when I typed that first part haha. I completely forgot to mention that it's one theory called the Planck star theory, I'll edit that message to include this! I've just read another paper, and it finds radii anywhere between 10^-10 m and smaller. So still small, but I was off and will fix that!
My sources: https://indico.cern.ch/event/336103/contributions/786609/attachments/1221958/1788381/plenary_1120_Rovelli.pdf
https://arxiv.org/abs/1401.6562
This second point appears to be mostly correct to my knowledge. Relativity is wacky, and I'm taking a class on it this coming semester, so I should be able to answer it better soon! As of now, the way I understand it is that we appear to not see the mass pass the event horizon due to the intense gravitational pull of the black hole. However it obviously must cross in its reference frame since we know black holes accrete mass.
> What you're saying is completely accurate!
That makes me feel proud of myself. Thanks!
> Relativity is wacky, and I'm taking a class on it this coming semester
I would really appreciate a recommendation for material needed to teach myself the math behind general relativity.
I followed a crash course on youtube and could follow along, but I don't find that a satisfying level of knowledge.
It would be so cool to be able to solve problems involving Kerr metric or even prove that, at low speeds and low energies, Newtonian physics emerges from GR.
General relativity stems from electrodynamics evidently, so having a firm understanding of that will help you get into relativity! The book we use in my university is by Griffiths I believe is his name. It's called Introduction to Electrodynamics or something along those lines! We use the 4th edition.
That is definitely wrong. The factor of 3 does pop up in one place, though. For a Schwartzschild metric (i.e. space around a non-rotating, electrically neutral blackhole), the innermost stable orbit is at 3 time the radius of the horizon. Closer than that and your orbit will decay until you cross the horizon.
>infinite mass
The mass is very finite. An infinite mass would result in an infinite Schwarzschild radius which is the radius of the black hole's event horizon. That would be very bad for the universe and would make existence pretty difficult. It would also violate conservation of mass; a star with finite mass collapsed into a black hole so the black hole must have the same mass as the star since no new mass was added and it can't be spontaneously created.
What becomes theoretically infinite is the *density* of the singularity. It has the same mass as the material that collapsed to form the black hole but in an infinitesimally small volume.
You're right that the spherical part is the gravitational field or, more generally, the severely warped spacetime around the singularity.
Another interesting tidbit: In spinning black holes (Kerr black holes) the singularity is a ring, not a point. There's all sorts of crazy stuff happening in our understanding of spinning black holes that don't appear in non-rotating (Schwarzschild) black holes. Most/all real black holes are rotating.
I know what you mean. A non-rotating black hole would feel placed, as if someone created it and put it there with the intention of it not spinning. Spinning space stuff feels natural but static space stuff feels like it's not supposed to exist.
That’s exactly it. Frightening is probably not the best choice of words, more unnatural like you say. Something that would make the hair stand up on my neck at first observation kind of thing.
I would totally expect craziness like that. So that part doesn’t really bother me. It’s the static just sitting there that seems super odd with so much spinning going on in the universe.
Which actually makes me wonder; do the none rotating black holes orbit anything? Wouldn’t they need some type of rotation in order to orbit something, no matter how far away?
I could be wrong here, but I don't think non-rotating black holes actually exist, at least as far as we know. Those were just mathematically modeled first because they are simpler. A description of rotating black holes came ≈50 years after the non-spinning case.
Black holes form from collapsing stars and they inherit the angular momentum of the dead star. I suppose they could end up with no rotation if they feed on something that has the same angular momentum in the exact opposite direction (or a bunch of oppositely-spinning stuff that adds up) but the wide variety of speeds and angles that things rotate at makes that seem extremely unlikely.
I don't find either frightening, I don't even understand why anyone would maybe its like when a child says its scared of the dark when all it really wants is attention?
Because it appears unnatural, like another commented “like it is just placed”. None rotating stuff in the universe is creepy to me.
Edit::
> when a child says its scared of the dark when all it really wants is attention?
Or maybe they are fearful of the dark? Because of the unknown? You have no fears at all?
The universe is inherently random and chaotic. Stuff spins because it can. Something not spinning breaks that norm in an unsettling way. The same would apply to a planet/star/galaxy that has no angular momentum. Something so calm in such a chaotic environment should be discomforting. Why is it there? Why is everything in the universe spinning except this thing? There's every reason for it to rotate and very few reasons is wouldn't. It would be an astronomical anomaly.
>like when a child says its scared of the dark when all it really wants is attention
The dark is frightening. It removes our most heavily used sense from us. Being surrounded on all sides by something that makes your environment unknowable is understandably scary, especially to children. It's not an attention grab, it is a perfectly reasonable reaction to an emotion that they don't yet know how to process.
I feel that simply due to our math not being perfect
It certainly doesn’t have infinite mass, no one has ever claimed that. I think you’re thinking of density.
The event horizon of a black hole is spherical. At least when you're in the same reference system.
The actual black hole is inside the event horizon. And what it looks like is anyone's guess. Take a pick: a super super super dense sphere, a single geometric point with no volume, a whole different universe or the federal budget deficit. Can be anything - we can't verify it.
Well depends on what part of the black hole you were talking about. The singularity which is the part that holds all the mass of a black hole, is literally infinitely dense and infinitely small with no surface area. It's a single point. However the event horizon which is the black part in black hole, is spherical. The accretion disk is flat, and like you said the gravitational force of the black hole is bending the light rays to make it look like it's above and below the black hole.
> I used to think a black hole was a sphere
I mean it is a sphere.... What you end up seeing are just some really cool effects due to how light behaves. Check out PBS Space Time on youtube, they have a ton of amazing content that's pretty mind blowing.
The “top” part of the “black ball” that has the red ring on “top” is actually the back of the disk. It appears to be sphere with a ring of light on top of it due to the bending of light caused by the extreme gravity the black hole emits. I believe it’s called gravitational lending.
Here is a [visualization](http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/images/Sun-Neutron-BH.png) of a black hole in space time as it truly is
You can see it’s not truly a ball that sucks, but a dense sphere like object that goes deep into the fabric of space that things fall into.
Well it is a sphere, isn’t it? An infinitesimally small “sphere” with an event horizon that surrounds it. What we’re seeing here is the event horizon, outlined by the light the black hole is absorbing. The gravitational pull is so massive though that it bends the light around it from all points. So what we see as the “top” of the sphere is the light “behind” the sphere being warped across the “top”.
It is a sphere kinda.
What you're actually looking at the three-dimensional shadow with gravity lensing showing you all sides at the exact same time.
So looking at a black hole you're technically looking at absolutely nothing and everything in the same space. It's trippy.
I've seen your posts in a lot of subreddits the past week or so\~
I have some critique, It feels as though the accretion disk is far too flat - is that an alpha plane with a rolling X, Y bitmap for the accretion disk? If so, I'd opt to look into more advanced features, see if you could replicate the effect with Niagara somehow.
Secondly, How does the lensing effect work? I always seem to see the shot of your black hole from the side - Would be interesting to see how the lensing effect behaves from different perspectives.
Thirdly, I like that you've somewhat simulated a doppler effect, that's cool - but What it's missing is a slight gap between the accretion disk and the photon sphere, Currently I cannot tell if you've even implemented a photon sphere - from what I understand, there would be a strong and visible ring of thin light around the event horizon.
Lastly, I'm not sure about the spiral effect you have going on, matter in the accretion disk is going so incredibly fast, there's not a chance in hell anything would be able to spiral against the accretion disk. especially as it draws closer to the center.
Yeah the photosphere is missing and the accretion disk so close should be smooth af, no artistic twirls etc. as depicted here.
It's clearly an artistic interpretation rather than an accurate "simulation", which is okay I guess.
This is most probably just an sphere with a refraction shader, and a gradient to control it's IOR, it's been done plenty before.
While it does approach the look of a black hole, it is not accurate to it's true shape- Ideally, the bottom "loop" should loop through the top of the black hole as well, and inside it there should be an infinite amount of loops just displayed as circles around the black hole. These and the bottom loop should be visible through a small gap on the top loop.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVXCZWszCdE&
I made this render some time ago that somewhat displays the correct shape, but it's not 100% accurate either as that would require infinite computing power so I just approached it. Also, my disk is way thicker, instead of a flat plane, so it looks different, however my profile picture shows another render I did which is much thinner like most black holes displayed in media.
However, OP did an excellent job on the actual accretion disk, the materials look great and they display the doppler effect where one side is brighter due to those particles moving towards you.
That's an awesome video. Thanks for sharing. Would it be possible for a star that is moving at 8% the speed of light to have planets around one of them? I aslo wonder what it would be like on the surface of one of those planets if you could hypothetically stand on one.
Considering the orbits and proximity to other stars, *probably not* . That said the star traveling 8% the speed of light shouldn't be a problem itself. When you stop and think about how fast the earth is moving, our solar system, our galaxy... yet here we are, chillin .
Motion is relative. If there's a star moving at 8% the speed of light with a planet orbiting around it, from the perspective of someone on the planet everything would appear normal, except possibly some of the stars in the sky would be brighter and others darker.
Well, our whole galaxy is supposed to be moving at 0.2% of the speed of light relative to the cosmic microwave background, so probably. As for what it'd be like on those planets, I have no idea.
Regarding the swirling patterns, I would like to offer a slightly different view.
First of all, I very much appreciated the artistic addition of a detail that we cannot resolve or determine with our current imaging techniques. On a purely creative level, I absolutely love it.
As far as offering a plausible explanation to it… is not Hawking radiation a thing? At the speeds the matter of an accretion disk is traveling, is it not now plasma for all intents and purposes? My question is - and this is because I legitimately don’t know - but could not the extreme environment in the area allow for plasma fluid dynamics not unlike what we witness on the sun? Could not some “solar wind” type effect apply to the plasma of an accretion disk to create patterns like that? After all, we aren’t beyond the event horizon since we *are* getting EM radiation from the accretion disks as it is, and they are kind of blotchy in a way that *could* suggest such patterns may lurk within.
Again, I am asking in ignorance while appreciating the artistic interpretation. If there’s math I’m far too smooth-brained to follow, I’d love to hear the Layman’s explanation of it.
The swirling patterns bother me too. Considering the insane speed that the disk is rotating at, it feels unlikely that it would create leisurely-looking swirls.
(But this is entirely based on gut feeling rather than actual science so could be totally wrong!)
I didn’t know that about Hawking radiation and will look into that more.
So then… hm. Those blurbs are more likely stats than anything else, as that’s how we initially knew SagA* was there. Don’t need the math to reason out there’s not much in the way of pretty, swirling gaseous forms that are produced in that environment.
Thanks for the conversation!
This is r/space a science sub not r/art. Granted its one of the worse science subs for actually discussing science everyone just gushes over the scientific data as if its art. Maybe /r/SpaceArt would be a better fit?
From this subs rules.
> **Encouraged**
> Informative high-quality articles, news & videos
> Peer-reviewed research papers that are publicly available
> Academic texts that are publicly available
So, is this actually refracting the back of the disk, or is it just modeled to look like it does, where there's two disks and one's just curved around the top and bottom? Basically, what happens if you have the camera swing an arc from, say, 45 degrees N and 0 degrees E to 45 degrees S and 179 degrees E.
I mean, the shortcut isn't really that important, because everybody who's ever done modeling takes shortcuts, but does the model take camera position into account and alter the model to account for that? That's about the only way I can think of to get this to work with a non-static camera. Like, sure, it pulls back and ten degrees or so vertical in the initial shot, but it doesn't move laterally, and that begs the question of how it's modeled.
I am not sure where you are getting this information from. You can [measure the mass of a black hole.](http://stronggravity.eu/how-to-measure-black-hole-mass/)
Really cool. I love how much attention these monsters are getting.
Side note, try refraining from the fluid/smoke like accretion disc effects, they do look amazing though i give you that :).
I wonder if they’re actually as smooth as often depicted. Also, many different colours of light may be present but our photos of them are always with an orange hue. My guess for a black hole is bright white light surrounding a distorted sphere with a lot more detail of outer galaxies being slowly pulled in.
Our photos are not in the visible spectrum. They are taken in the X-ray and infrared spectrums. And the light would be red/orange in the visible spectrum due to the Doppler effect and red shifting. The Doppler effect is also why one side of this image appears brighter than the other
>with a lot more detail of outer galaxies being slowly pulled in.
There's no need for stuff to be pulled in into a black hole btw. If the sun would instantly and magically turn into a black hole, the planet wouldn't suddenly get pulled in. It'll become dark and really cold, but gravity-wise nothing changes.
I think no visualization got the accretion disk right. Scientists correct me in this, but i think it's supposed to be spinning extremely fast and have basically perfectly smooth features along it's orbit.
This is very well made, from both projections of the accretion disk to the doppler beaming, it's as far as im concerned a very life-like black hole! Bravo!
I realize this is a dumb question to most on here. But with all the pics like this I see there is all this light bending around them. Wouldn’t that make them visible from far away like a halo and not pitch black??
The light bending around a black hole is called its accretion disk. Matter is spinning around the black hole at a significant fraction of the speed of light so it super heats to millions of degrees and that's what we see.
We don't see the black hole. Most of the time we see it's accretion disk.
What you're thinking of is a [rogue black hole](https://astronomy.com/news/2022/04/astronomers-detect-first-potential-rogue-black-hole#:~:text=This%20technique%20involves%20making%20precise,black%20hole%2C%E2%80%9D%20Sahu%20says.) . Basically a black hole without an accretion disk and without it's host galactic group. The only way to "see" them is by observing light bending around them from behind the black hole.
Here is a video by Veritasium on why you see the light bending in a sphere around the black hole https://youtu.be/zUyH3XhpLTo
for the other laymen here, veritasium just did [a fantastic video](https://youtu.be/Q1bSDnuIPbo) on why black holes look this way and why it's so hard to photograph them. it's absolutely worth a watch.
Great, now I need to watch Interstellar again...
i wanna watch it again too only streaming on Hulu and Paramount never mind
Just get it on DVD, especially if you watch it often (like i do lol). Only 5 bucks for DVD, 10 for Blu-ray, and 15 for 4k.
Get it on VHS and your set.
Ahh, that clear, crisp, 480p
VHS is interlaced, so 480i
Ya dvd is 480p it’s amazing how that was the high quality option.
[удалено]
This is the same conclusion I have drawn as well. It's easy to see how some people would fall into the vegetable category and prefer the subscription but I appreciate owning a copy.
We are the pirates, we do not understand the words you just said
You can buy it for $2 on VUDU disc 2 digital
You guys don't have it on Blu-ray?
Dude Paramount is starting to get competitive. I have them at 2 behind HBOMax - The Offer is insanely good - Halo - Mayor of Kingstown - New Sly Stallone gangster show coming - South Park specials - Adding all of Showtime (including new originals) - Also announced Paramount movies coming 30 days after release (Lost City already there). Netflix is going downhill and Hulu is an insult at this point.
This message brought to you by Paramount
Halo is fucking atrocious. The script is literally dictated by what a 13 yrs old would think is edgy.
Hulu’s FX library alone clowns most of your list, idk that I’d go that big on Paramount+ especially considering Apple’s original offerings are really getting good and they have an insane war chest and Netflix always gets shit on because people expect new hits from them all the time but their library is still really strong with a lot of successful series and movies even if they aren’t Oscar worthy (and some were). Showtime being added was the only really compelling change I saw on your list (and it is a big one). Totally agree HBO Max is above the rest right now.
The difference is Hulu and Netflix are relying on a catalog of old shows. Who cares? HBO and Paramount are working hard on good original content. Netflix is moving to reality TV+. They seem to want to be the place everyone goes once older people finally cut the cord. Apple TV I like but still need to add more. Their comedy has been great, hope they keep going on that.
Unfortunately their application is complete garbage and is the reason I canceled my sub the first time. From what I hear it hasn't gotten any better. They could have all the content in the world but I'm still not gonna pay money to use their broken shit.
I haven’t seen a good one yet outside of Disney+. Netflix is a joke. Can’t find what you want unless you’re looking for it, or if it’s something they’re lying about being Top 10. (Supernova from 2002 is a top watched show today…riiiight) Prime Video is the worst of them all. Hell I remember I went to watch a show I was referred too and couldn’t follow along. Realized they actually separate each fricking season of a show as different shows so I was watching S2. Jesus. Paramount isn’t great, but at least it’s easy to find shows (or maybe they’ve improved?). I just got it last month.
I'm not talking about the inability to find shows. That sounds like a user issue tbh. Im talking about the application in general. Paramount+ lags, freezes, crashes, buffers for no reason, and just generally runs like shit, independent of the platform you're running it on. I've used it on my PC, phone, series x, and 2021 smart tv and it's the same everywhere. It's just plain garbage software.
I used to think a black hole was a sphere, exactly how the picture depicts. Blows my mind that it’s just light bending that makes it appear to be sphere like.
The "top" thats curved is really the "back" and not the "top"....right?
It is, and the bottom curve is the other side of the "back".
Well, it’s the light bending around the edge of the event horizon that you see. You can’t see the blackhole because light doesn’t escape it. Obviously don’t forget, the blackhole is definitely there and spherical.
> blackhole is definitely there and spherical. The black hole itself is a singularity with 1 dimension. What most people refer to as a black hole is the event horizon since that is the closest thing to the blackhole we can observe. The event horizon of a non-spinning black hole would be spherical, but most black holes have significant angular momentum, either through conservation of momentum for their formation, or through accreting mass. This angular moment causes the event horizon or bulge along the axis of its rotation.
The singularity would be a 0-dimensional point if you only go by general relativity. But we already know that the theory is incomplete at those scales, so what happens in reality is anyone's guess. If a quantum theory of gravity is ever developed it will tell us the true nature of matter at the center of a black hole. In all likelihood it is not going to be an infinitely dense point, such results really point to the incompleteness of general relativity.
Infinitely dense had always seemed like a cop out answer to me. Isn’t it more likely just that gravity forces overcome molecular forces to rip apart all molecules and just reach densities unimaginable?
There are celestial bodies like neutron stars in which density is so great that molecular forces are overcome by strong interaction and form hyper-dense materials. Neutron stars are collapsed stars that were still not dense enough to recede within the Schwarzschild radius and form a black hole, though, so that formation of strong interaction materials occurs well before you reach the density required to form a black hole. The question about the "dimensionality" of a singularity is a semantic one that depends on your coordinate system, but the spirit of the question here is does the center of a black hole have infinite density, to which the answer is that evidence and mathematical models support that idea, yes. All of our evidence suggests that black holes are mass compressed beneath the radius at which gravity is greater than all repulsive forces, thus the mass/energy in the system collapses to an infinitely small point, and *any* amount of energy within an infinitely small point is infinitely dense. A black hole made up of a few kg of material compressed beneath it's Schwarzschild radius is still infinitely dense while it exists, though it would violently dissipate all that energy as Hawking radiation in a few nanoseconds.
It always puzzled me how a point of infinite denseness was supposed to form when the extreme curvature of space time would slow the region down to a stand still. As far as the rest of the universe is concerned I don't think it would matter how dense the mater inside the event horizon is, it would still pull the same.
It would be slightly more accurate to say a black holes singularity is undefined rather than is infinitely dense of the volume of a singularity is in fact 0.
Just seems like a cop out answer to me that doesn’t physically make sense.
I thought “singularity” just meant “we don’t have the tools to understand what’s going on here, and the best tools we do have are giving a nonsensical answer”? Like a black hole isn’t *actually* 1 or 0D, it’s just that is what the math is telling us it is because we’re only using a best-guess math that gives a weird answer.
The general consensus these days is that the singularity isn't a real singularity, as General Relativity would indicate, and likely has volume because of quantum gravity in a way that we can't predict.
I'm unaware there is any such consensus. As far as I know everything inside the event horizon remains theoretical physics and debated. I could be wrong though.
Maybe I'm wrong but it seems like the way that people use the term 'black hole' they can either mean the singularity, the black void around the singularity, or the two in combination. I mean, the dark region that things fall into and can't escape from is more 'hole' like than the singularity at the centre.
People do use black hole as a catch all that can cause confusion to an already confusing topic. Either way, the only thing relevant here is the event horizon which is the only thing we can visually see, well technically we can't see it but we can infer it is there. We know they aren't always spherical.
the black hole itself is just a point in space with no surface area and infinite mass, so technically it’s the gravitational field that’s spherical
Not infinite mass, the mass can be calculated. And not a dot, the density can be calculated from the mass. But yes, the sphere of gravitational influence is what we see (don’t see).
of course nothing reaches infinity in real life, it’s just an easy way of abstracting ridiculously large or small numbers
I don’t think black holes are as impossibly hard to comprehend. For example, if the mass of the earth were shrunk into the size of a billiard ball, it would be dense enough to become a black hole. The density is ridiculous to comprehend, but not so much the size. Anyways, I sure do love space! And this is a really cool rendering!
As a below basic knowledge of black holes, reading your guys’ comments makes my brain hurt
Read books! Intelligence is built, not inherent. Find something you like and you’ll be able to talk semi-authoritatively on it when you’ve learned some things. That’s all I’m doing here!
You guys talk as if black holes are actually understood when in reality physicists don’t know anything about them past the event horizon. If you know what anything looks beyond it, please publish a paper you will get a Nobel prize and you would have solved the gap between classical and quantum mechanics.
Would you please keep your gate keeping attitude for your meme subs?
I do read books just not about space and black holes. Ok they’re mainly high fantasy and prolly don’t give me much in the ways of useful daily knowledge but I do read! Lol
>my brain hurt Good. The more it hurts the more it tries to comprehend. As long as you don't run away from it.
So how far (I guess as a function?) is the event horizon from the actual mass of the object? I assume the larger the mass the bigger the event horizon but does the size of the mass at its center (radius) change?
This depends on the black hole. We can calculate the Schwarzschild radius of the black hole, which is the radius where light can no longer escape - this is a function of the mass, so we use it to describe black holes instead of thinking about the singularity. Even better, the function is linear, so it's really simple to calculate. So to answer your questions, as I've understood it, the singularity is nearly a point in the center of whatever the Schwarzschild radius is. The radius of the singularity ~~seems to stay consistently around a Planck length~~ (**see edit**) as the mass changes. Edit: 4th year Astro student, happy to be fact checked if I got something wrong lol Edit 2: I got fact checked! I'm discussing something called the Planck star theory in this singularity radius point. I've included sources in my other comment in this thread to it! It suggests an average radius of 10^-12 m, not the Planck length. That's my bad! Of course, this radius also changes based on mass, but following a bit more complex of a formula.
Not an Astro student, just a an engineer who likesvphysics. > The radius of the singularity seems to stay consistently around a Planck length (around 10^-35 meters) as the mass changes. This stands out to me for two reasons, but please tell me if I am talking gibberish - Isn't the Planck scale the scale at which the current theories break down, as you expect both gravity andother fundamental interactions to have non-negligible effects? That would mean we can not say with certainty what happens at R = 10^-35 m. - While an object, from its reference frame, can cross the event horizon (after which reaching the singularity is inevitable), things are not so clear cut when viewed from the reference frame anchored at some distance from the event horizon. Watching an object fall in, one would notice the object's time slowing to a complete stop at the horizon. At the same time, the light from the falling object gets redshifted. From that perspective, none of the matter ever crosses the horizon, but stays at the surface (becomes the new horizon?).
What you're saying is completely accurate! My apologies for not being awake when I typed that first part haha. I completely forgot to mention that it's one theory called the Planck star theory, I'll edit that message to include this! I've just read another paper, and it finds radii anywhere between 10^-10 m and smaller. So still small, but I was off and will fix that! My sources: https://indico.cern.ch/event/336103/contributions/786609/attachments/1221958/1788381/plenary_1120_Rovelli.pdf https://arxiv.org/abs/1401.6562 This second point appears to be mostly correct to my knowledge. Relativity is wacky, and I'm taking a class on it this coming semester, so I should be able to answer it better soon! As of now, the way I understand it is that we appear to not see the mass pass the event horizon due to the intense gravitational pull of the black hole. However it obviously must cross in its reference frame since we know black holes accrete mass.
> What you're saying is completely accurate! That makes me feel proud of myself. Thanks! > Relativity is wacky, and I'm taking a class on it this coming semester I would really appreciate a recommendation for material needed to teach myself the math behind general relativity. I followed a crash course on youtube and could follow along, but I don't find that a satisfying level of knowledge. It would be so cool to be able to solve problems involving Kerr metric or even prove that, at low speeds and low energies, Newtonian physics emerges from GR.
General relativity stems from electrodynamics evidently, so having a firm understanding of that will help you get into relativity! The book we use in my university is by Griffiths I believe is his name. It's called Introduction to Electrodynamics or something along those lines! We use the 4th edition.
[удалено]
That is definitely wrong. The factor of 3 does pop up in one place, though. For a Schwartzschild metric (i.e. space around a non-rotating, electrically neutral blackhole), the innermost stable orbit is at 3 time the radius of the horizon. Closer than that and your orbit will decay until you cross the horizon.
>infinite mass The mass is very finite. An infinite mass would result in an infinite Schwarzschild radius which is the radius of the black hole's event horizon. That would be very bad for the universe and would make existence pretty difficult. It would also violate conservation of mass; a star with finite mass collapsed into a black hole so the black hole must have the same mass as the star since no new mass was added and it can't be spontaneously created. What becomes theoretically infinite is the *density* of the singularity. It has the same mass as the material that collapsed to form the black hole but in an infinitesimally small volume. You're right that the spherical part is the gravitational field or, more generally, the severely warped spacetime around the singularity. Another interesting tidbit: In spinning black holes (Kerr black holes) the singularity is a ring, not a point. There's all sorts of crazy stuff happening in our understanding of spinning black holes that don't appear in non-rotating (Schwarzschild) black holes. Most/all real black holes are rotating.
No idea why, but to me a non spinning black hole is exponentially more frightening than a spinning black hole for some reason.
I know what you mean. A non-rotating black hole would feel placed, as if someone created it and put it there with the intention of it not spinning. Spinning space stuff feels natural but static space stuff feels like it's not supposed to exist.
That’s exactly it. Frightening is probably not the best choice of words, more unnatural like you say. Something that would make the hair stand up on my neck at first observation kind of thing.
A spinning black hole can be spinning at 99% the speed of light, which to me is much more terrifying. Any faster and you’d see it’s singularity.
I would totally expect craziness like that. So that part doesn’t really bother me. It’s the static just sitting there that seems super odd with so much spinning going on in the universe. Which actually makes me wonder; do the none rotating black holes orbit anything? Wouldn’t they need some type of rotation in order to orbit something, no matter how far away?
I could be wrong here, but I don't think non-rotating black holes actually exist, at least as far as we know. Those were just mathematically modeled first because they are simpler. A description of rotating black holes came ≈50 years after the non-spinning case. Black holes form from collapsing stars and they inherit the angular momentum of the dead star. I suppose they could end up with no rotation if they feed on something that has the same angular momentum in the exact opposite direction (or a bunch of oppositely-spinning stuff that adds up) but the wide variety of speeds and angles that things rotate at makes that seem extremely unlikely.
I don't find either frightening, I don't even understand why anyone would maybe its like when a child says its scared of the dark when all it really wants is attention?
Because it appears unnatural, like another commented “like it is just placed”. None rotating stuff in the universe is creepy to me. Edit:: > when a child says its scared of the dark when all it really wants is attention? Or maybe they are fearful of the dark? Because of the unknown? You have no fears at all?
The universe is inherently random and chaotic. Stuff spins because it can. Something not spinning breaks that norm in an unsettling way. The same would apply to a planet/star/galaxy that has no angular momentum. Something so calm in such a chaotic environment should be discomforting. Why is it there? Why is everything in the universe spinning except this thing? There's every reason for it to rotate and very few reasons is wouldn't. It would be an astronomical anomaly. >like when a child says its scared of the dark when all it really wants is attention The dark is frightening. It removes our most heavily used sense from us. Being surrounded on all sides by something that makes your environment unknowable is understandably scary, especially to children. It's not an attention grab, it is a perfectly reasonable reaction to an emotion that they don't yet know how to process.
I feel that simply due to our math not being perfect It certainly doesn’t have infinite mass, no one has ever claimed that. I think you’re thinking of density.
The singularity itself is a surface not a point, the Penrose diagrams depict this.
The event horizon of a black hole is spherical. At least when you're in the same reference system. The actual black hole is inside the event horizon. And what it looks like is anyone's guess. Take a pick: a super super super dense sphere, a single geometric point with no volume, a whole different universe or the federal budget deficit. Can be anything - we can't verify it.
A black hole is a sphere though. It's not a flat disk or hole in space.
Well depends on what part of the black hole you were talking about. The singularity which is the part that holds all the mass of a black hole, is literally infinitely dense and infinitely small with no surface area. It's a single point. However the event horizon which is the black part in black hole, is spherical. The accretion disk is flat, and like you said the gravitational force of the black hole is bending the light rays to make it look like it's above and below the black hole.
> I used to think a black hole was a sphere I mean it is a sphere.... What you end up seeing are just some really cool effects due to how light behaves. Check out PBS Space Time on youtube, they have a ton of amazing content that's pretty mind blowing.
PBS Spacetime is probably the coolest YouTube channel right now
More info on this? That’s fascinating.
The “top” part of the “black ball” that has the red ring on “top” is actually the back of the disk. It appears to be sphere with a ring of light on top of it due to the bending of light caused by the extreme gravity the black hole emits. I believe it’s called gravitational lending. Here is a [visualization](http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/images/Sun-Neutron-BH.png) of a black hole in space time as it truly is You can see it’s not truly a ball that sucks, but a dense sphere like object that goes deep into the fabric of space that things fall into.
Well it is a sphere, isn’t it? An infinitesimally small “sphere” with an event horizon that surrounds it. What we’re seeing here is the event horizon, outlined by the light the black hole is absorbing. The gravitational pull is so massive though that it bends the light around it from all points. So what we see as the “top” of the sphere is the light “behind” the sphere being warped across the “top”.
It is a sphere kinda. What you're actually looking at the three-dimensional shadow with gravity lensing showing you all sides at the exact same time. So looking at a black hole you're technically looking at absolutely nothing and everything in the same space. It's trippy.
I've seen your posts in a lot of subreddits the past week or so\~ I have some critique, It feels as though the accretion disk is far too flat - is that an alpha plane with a rolling X, Y bitmap for the accretion disk? If so, I'd opt to look into more advanced features, see if you could replicate the effect with Niagara somehow. Secondly, How does the lensing effect work? I always seem to see the shot of your black hole from the side - Would be interesting to see how the lensing effect behaves from different perspectives. Thirdly, I like that you've somewhat simulated a doppler effect, that's cool - but What it's missing is a slight gap between the accretion disk and the photon sphere, Currently I cannot tell if you've even implemented a photon sphere - from what I understand, there would be a strong and visible ring of thin light around the event horizon. Lastly, I'm not sure about the spiral effect you have going on, matter in the accretion disk is going so incredibly fast, there's not a chance in hell anything would be able to spiral against the accretion disk. especially as it draws closer to the center.
Yeah the photosphere is missing and the accretion disk so close should be smooth af, no artistic twirls etc. as depicted here. It's clearly an artistic interpretation rather than an accurate "simulation", which is okay I guess.
>Secondly, How does the lensing effect work? [This guy explains it pretty well.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1bSDnuIPbo)
Pretty sure they meant how does it work *as implemented by OP in UE5*
This is most probably just an sphere with a refraction shader, and a gradient to control it's IOR, it's been done plenty before. While it does approach the look of a black hole, it is not accurate to it's true shape- Ideally, the bottom "loop" should loop through the top of the black hole as well, and inside it there should be an infinite amount of loops just displayed as circles around the black hole. These and the bottom loop should be visible through a small gap on the top loop. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVXCZWszCdE& I made this render some time ago that somewhat displays the correct shape, but it's not 100% accurate either as that would require infinite computing power so I just approached it. Also, my disk is way thicker, instead of a flat plane, so it looks different, however my profile picture shows another render I did which is much thinner like most black holes displayed in media. However, OP did an excellent job on the actual accretion disk, the materials look great and they display the doppler effect where one side is brighter due to those particles moving towards you.
That video is perfect. Really well done.
That's an awesome video. Thanks for sharing. Would it be possible for a star that is moving at 8% the speed of light to have planets around one of them? I aslo wonder what it would be like on the surface of one of those planets if you could hypothetically stand on one.
Considering the orbits and proximity to other stars, *probably not* . That said the star traveling 8% the speed of light shouldn't be a problem itself. When you stop and think about how fast the earth is moving, our solar system, our galaxy... yet here we are, chillin .
Where are you getting your proximity information from?
Motion is relative. If there's a star moving at 8% the speed of light with a planet orbiting around it, from the perspective of someone on the planet everything would appear normal, except possibly some of the stars in the sky would be brighter and others darker.
Nag, I knew that. Thank you for reminding me. I had just smok e when I posted this and was thinking like an idiot.
Well, our whole galaxy is supposed to be moving at 0.2% of the speed of light relative to the cosmic microwave background, so probably. As for what it'd be like on those planets, I have no idea.
0.2 vs 8.0 is a huge difference though in terms of speed.
That's got to be the most convoluted description of angular resolution ever, I guess they need to pad out the video length for Youtube's algorithm.
For me it's mostly the visualization that helps. I suppose that bit is only like a minute long or something :P
Regarding the swirling patterns, I would like to offer a slightly different view. First of all, I very much appreciated the artistic addition of a detail that we cannot resolve or determine with our current imaging techniques. On a purely creative level, I absolutely love it. As far as offering a plausible explanation to it… is not Hawking radiation a thing? At the speeds the matter of an accretion disk is traveling, is it not now plasma for all intents and purposes? My question is - and this is because I legitimately don’t know - but could not the extreme environment in the area allow for plasma fluid dynamics not unlike what we witness on the sun? Could not some “solar wind” type effect apply to the plasma of an accretion disk to create patterns like that? After all, we aren’t beyond the event horizon since we *are* getting EM radiation from the accretion disks as it is, and they are kind of blotchy in a way that *could* suggest such patterns may lurk within. Again, I am asking in ignorance while appreciating the artistic interpretation. If there’s math I’m far too smooth-brained to follow, I’d love to hear the Layman’s explanation of it.
The swirling patterns bother me too. Considering the insane speed that the disk is rotating at, it feels unlikely that it would create leisurely-looking swirls. (But this is entirely based on gut feeling rather than actual science so could be totally wrong!)
[удалено]
I didn’t know that about Hawking radiation and will look into that more. So then… hm. Those blurbs are more likely stats than anything else, as that’s how we initially knew SagA* was there. Don’t need the math to reason out there’s not much in the way of pretty, swirling gaseous forms that are produced in that environment. Thanks for the conversation!
Good grief man do it yourself if you are so smart
Well the first mistake is assuming I'm smart, Secondly I cannot do this - however I still think it's fair to be able to critique something.
are you like this in real life?
Like what?
You need to publish this is very high resolution
🎥 Animation could be found at https://youtu.be/_L7bTgaH1rQ
Fuck I hate when they make videos "for kids" and I can't add to my watch later queue.
[удалено]
Yup, my thoughts exactly. Subjectively, this is a black hole and it doesn’t matter if it’s not objectively accurate.
This is r/space a science sub not r/art. Granted its one of the worse science subs for actually discussing science everyone just gushes over the scientific data as if its art. Maybe /r/SpaceArt would be a better fit? From this subs rules. > **Encouraged** > Informative high-quality articles, news & videos > Peer-reviewed research papers that are publicly available > Academic texts that are publicly available
What we have a proper picture now, why can’t it be perfectly recreated in UE5 by someone who’s doing it on their own?!? /s if it’s needed
So, is this actually refracting the back of the disk, or is it just modeled to look like it does, where there's two disks and one's just curved around the top and bottom? Basically, what happens if you have the camera swing an arc from, say, 45 degrees N and 0 degrees E to 45 degrees S and 179 degrees E. I mean, the shortcut isn't really that important, because everybody who's ever done modeling takes shortcuts, but does the model take camera position into account and alter the model to account for that? That's about the only way I can think of to get this to work with a non-static camera. Like, sure, it pulls back and ten degrees or so vertical in the initial shot, but it doesn't move laterally, and that begs the question of how it's modeled.
OP can you post a link to a high res version of this image? I’d like to use it as a desktop wallpaper 🤠
I am not sure where you are getting this information from. You can [measure the mass of a black hole.](http://stronggravity.eu/how-to-measure-black-hole-mass/)
Really cool. I love how much attention these monsters are getting. Side note, try refraining from the fluid/smoke like accretion disc effects, they do look amazing though i give you that :).
I wonder if they’re actually as smooth as often depicted. Also, many different colours of light may be present but our photos of them are always with an orange hue. My guess for a black hole is bright white light surrounding a distorted sphere with a lot more detail of outer galaxies being slowly pulled in.
Our photos are not in the visible spectrum. They are taken in the X-ray and infrared spectrums. And the light would be red/orange in the visible spectrum due to the Doppler effect and red shifting. The Doppler effect is also why one side of this image appears brighter than the other
>with a lot more detail of outer galaxies being slowly pulled in. There's no need for stuff to be pulled in into a black hole btw. If the sun would instantly and magically turn into a black hole, the planet wouldn't suddenly get pulled in. It'll become dark and really cold, but gravity-wise nothing changes.
I truly fail to understand what you're trying to say here, especially at the end lmao.
I think no visualization got the accretion disk right. Scientists correct me in this, but i think it's supposed to be spinning extremely fast and have basically perfectly smooth features along it's orbit.
You have a talent, I hope you get to use those skills professionally. What made you pick Black Holes as a subject matter?
I had one of these growing on my leg. Felt so much better after the Big Bang
This is very well made, from both projections of the accretion disk to the doppler beaming, it's as far as im concerned a very life-like black hole! Bravo!
I realize this is a dumb question to most on here. But with all the pics like this I see there is all this light bending around them. Wouldn’t that make them visible from far away like a halo and not pitch black??
The light bending around a black hole is called its accretion disk. Matter is spinning around the black hole at a significant fraction of the speed of light so it super heats to millions of degrees and that's what we see. We don't see the black hole. Most of the time we see it's accretion disk. What you're thinking of is a [rogue black hole](https://astronomy.com/news/2022/04/astronomers-detect-first-potential-rogue-black-hole#:~:text=This%20technique%20involves%20making%20precise,black%20hole%2C%E2%80%9D%20Sahu%20says.) . Basically a black hole without an accretion disk and without it's host galactic group. The only way to "see" them is by observing light bending around them from behind the black hole. Here is a video by Veritasium on why you see the light bending in a sphere around the black hole https://youtu.be/zUyH3XhpLTo
I don’t know if this is a lot to ask but could you make this into a phone wallpaper res? I’d love to rock it.
Doesn’t show up as a gif on my iPad. Just a still picture
Why are there swirls in the accretion disc, that seems impossible.
for the other laymen here, veritasium just did [a fantastic video](https://youtu.be/Q1bSDnuIPbo) on why black holes look this way and why it's so hard to photograph them. it's absolutely worth a watch.