Animating Black holes and Singularities - Comments

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on the animation of black holes and singularities, specifically addressing the accuracy of the animations in relation to General Relativity (GR). Participants clarify that the animations are a combination of approximations and qualitative analogies to GR. The use of a distance cubed factor is highlighted as a crucial element for simulating precession in orbits, which enhances the visual representation of gravitational effects. The conversation emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between general definitions and specific cases in the context of elastic and inelastic collisions.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of General Relativity (GR)
  • Familiarity with gravitational forces and their effects
  • Knowledge of orbital mechanics and precession
  • Basic concepts of elastic and inelastic collisions
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the mathematical foundations of General Relativity
  • Explore the concept of gravitational precession in orbital mechanics
  • Study the differences between elastic and inelastic collisions in physics
  • Investigate simulation techniques for visualizing complex gravitational phenomena
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, astrophysicists, animators of scientific concepts, and anyone interested in the visualization of black holes and gravitational effects.

edguy99
Gold Member
Messages
449
Reaction score
28
edguy99 submitted a new PF Insights post

https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/animating-black-holes-singularities-infinite-force-gravity/

https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/graviytanimation-80x80.png

https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/animating-black-holes-singularities-infinite-force-gravity/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Greg Bernhardt
Astronomy news on Phys.org
I don't know if you meant your statements about elastic collisions and inelastic collisions to be just special cases that you are using or if you think that they are correct general definitions, but just to be clear, as general definitions, your statements are both wrong so if you intend them to be a special case, you should probably edit to state that.
 
is the black hole really exist?
 
Sorry if you covered this in a previous post which I missed, but I am a little confused about the nature of these animations : are they simulating an approximation of GR, or a different system which displays qualitative analogies with GR ?
Either is interesting, but i would be helpful if you could clarify this point, and if it is an approximation of GR, maybe explain a bit more about how your equations relate to those of GR or where the approximation is expected to be valid.
Thanks
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Ben Niehoff
Pacifique said:
is the black hole really exist?
You bet they do. We see stuff fall into them and we can detect their gravity pull on other objects.
 
In response to the question by wabbit, "are they simulating an approximation of GR, or an analogy with GR?"

Good question, I would say a combination.

WRT use of the distance cubed factor to produce precession, this is an approximation. But it sure works well, enabling orbits with a precession rate as fast as their orbit rate. It is required to give the animation the curve into the center. If you don't use the cubed factor, you end up with an ellipse. As to how it relates to GR, I am guessing an accurate GR equation would have a cubed factor, maybe a forth and so on, each of which would have a smaller effect.

WRT to inertia between emitting and absorbing bodies, this to me is a qualitative analogy with GR.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 73 ·
3
Replies
73
Views
13K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
9K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K