New Interactive Black Hole Simulation Published 107
quaith writes "The New Scientist reports on a simulation just published in the American Journal of Physics that shows how the sky would appear in the vicinity of a black hole — if an observer could actually get near one. Using real positions of around 118,000 stars, the simulation shows how the bending of light, the frequency shift, and the magnification caused by gravitational lensing and aberration in the vicinity of the black hole affect the sky's appearance. The simulation is interactive and allows the user to explore the stellar sky around the black hole. The simulation offers a couple of modes: 'quasi static' or 'freely falling' and the sample videos are quite spectacular. The New Scientist has a writeup, with an embedded video . The original article citation is here (abstract only). The simulation, which runs on Linux or Windows, as well as sample videos, can be downloaded from the University of Stuttgart website."
Re:Why was this done? (Score:1, Insightful)
WTF? I would have thought you weren't being serious, except for your "not being snotty" comment.
A lot of science is already thick with impenetrable equations and difficult papers that, while perhaps containing significant results, are read and understood by, at best, several dozen others who are also in the field.
Sometimes the best way to understand something is with visualization. And visualization can be one of the best ways of getting people interested in a field. There will be students that see this and ask, "why" and "how". And some of those might go on to study physics or cosmology. And perhaps that leads to a big discovery somewhere down the line.
I, personally, found it extremely interesting. I've often wondered about the inner workings of a black hole. But to really understand from the equations means years spent at study of the field. I have a job now so no longer have that kind of time to pursue a subject. Seeing this animation answered some of my questions and gave me things to think about.
Re:Not new (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps, but it's common (and, I would argue, right) to mention work which has gone before, whether or not it was exactly the same. It gives alternative routes of learning about the given subject (which is, after all, the whole point of publishing results in the first place, right?). Sure, if the work isn't immediately applicable, then do it in a footnote or appendix, but unless one is totally unaware of the previously published (or even unpublished) work, it's better to be comprehensive than parochial.
Re:One (missing) part that's apparently not simula (Score:3, Insightful)