Animating Black holes and Singularities - Comments

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the animation of black holes and singularities, specifically focusing on the nature of these animations in relation to General Relativity (GR). Participants explore whether the animations represent approximations of GR or analogies that capture qualitative aspects of the theory.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the accuracy of definitions related to elastic and inelastic collisions, suggesting that they may not be correct general definitions.
  • There are inquiries about the existence of black holes, with differing opinions on the evidence supporting their existence.
  • One participant seeks clarification on whether the animations are simulating an approximation of GR or a different system that shows qualitative analogies with GR.
  • A response indicates that the animations are a combination of both an approximation of GR and qualitative analogies, mentioning the use of a distance cubed factor to produce precession in orbits.
  • Another participant notes that omitting the cubed factor results in elliptical orbits, implying a significant role of this factor in the animation's accuracy.
  • There is a mention of inertia between emitting and absorbing bodies being a qualitative analogy with GR, but the specifics of this relationship are not fully explored.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the definitions of collisions and the existence of black holes. The nature of the animations in relation to GR remains a topic of exploration without a clear consensus.

Contextual Notes

Some statements about the nature of the animations depend on assumptions about the definitions of physical concepts and the relationship to GR, which are not fully resolved in the discussion.

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
4K
  • · 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
3K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
10K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K