How Close Can You Orbit A Black Hole?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 14 พ.ค. 2024
- Black holes are weird. In particular the orbits as you get close don't behave like Keplerian orbits in Newtonian physics, which leads to many misunderstandings about how close you could get to a black hole. Many sci--fi writers make the mistake of presuming that the point of no return is the Event Horizon, when in fact there are limits even further out.
- วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
"if there is enough interest"
As if you ever doubted what the audience would respond with.
ya
Explains how to fly in an unstable orbit around a black hole.
*I'm Scott Manley, fly safe.*
"Do as I say; not as I do."
I'd be interested, if you have the time and energy.
me too this was super interesting never thought about the difference in physics when trying to orbit a black hole
Hah! It's funny you see, because black holes make time and energy behave in strange ways.
Would love the follow-up, too! You do a great job explaining things.
...and if you dont have enough time you could orbit at 3x SR :D
Count me in on the interested parade.
I have an interest in the rotating black hole maths!
I'd start with the Schwarzschild black hole (non rotating) before you move onto the Kerr solution. Like Scott said, it's much harder ;)
"I have an interest in the rotating black hole maths!"
Imagine if you were sitting at a party, and suddenly screamed that...
: D
strange sentence when you really think about it..
+azmanabdula You sir, just made my day. Thanks for that.
Today let's talk about the Ergosphere!
Weston Thomas **pulls out kerr metric*
Schwarz child : black kid
Schwarz Schild: Black shield
can be the same if i need a human shield ;)
Chris aka Schulbus Lmaooo
The correct pronunciation is also quite similar to that of the word “shield” so it should be easy to practice
I always considered this a strangely appropriate name for the event horizon - although totally by chance.
Great video! I learned some things!
Make sure you read the comments so you learn how to pronounce Schwarzchild.
yay! Cody!
It's spelled Schwarz>>>s
It's a black shield, not a black child.
Wow! Hey Cody! Love your videos too man! Sorry TH-cam sucks :(
"MAKE A FOLLOW UP OR ELSE!" - Big Angry Rotating Black Hole
I smiled when I saw the "Tardis like line" :)
same here :D
I laughed out loud with delight. Big DW fan here. =:o}
I almost spit my drink out lol
Same
Made me chuckle.
ITS *NOT* SCHWARZ *CHILD*
ITS SCHWARZ SCHILD
german for black shield
lmao at 1:05 (the next one not understanding its about spelling not pronunciation will be *pointed at*)
Wanted to write exactely that.
That's just being pedantic. He is Scottish, most of the things he pronounces are wrong :P
i dont care about his pronunciation. Its written wrong in his video @ 1:05
The more you know, thanks for the info :D
Oh sorry I didn't see that, not sure if he made the animation though
Do some about a rotating black hole.
black wholes cant rotate. how can it rotate if there is nothing there? even if it could rotate all the trapped stuff would fall out
Things are there in the black hole, that's why the black hole is there. They can not come out. Ever. The matter and energy might still rotate though. And they cannot fall out because it's impossible for anything to leave the black hole.
Out of curiosity, why do you think that all the trapped stuff would fall out? The Earth rotates, but we aren't flung off of its surface, or out from beneath it if you happen to be in a cave/mine, thanks to gravity. I'm genuinely interested in why you think that.
Well, in a nutshell, the fact that black holes are both a point mass (singularity) and yet can also rotate (not to mention evaporate) is exactly the breakdown between the theories of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics that we don't yet understand very well. It's one of the primary motivating forces behind the current (and century-old) quest to find the "Theory of Everything" that would reconcile gravity as described by GR, with Quantum Theory, which generally completely disregards gravity as an approximation.
So... really, the answer to "How can it rotate?" is "We don't know... but we know that they do, so we need to do more research on them." ;)
So while Scott won't be able to answer that question, I'd still love to see a simple, intuitive explanation for how rotation complicates orbits.
In fact, as I understand it, a fast-spinning black hole's event horizon, at least for an object (or photon) moving in the direction of its spin, actually does have a smaller event horizon, implying that indeed, if you were trapped just inside a Schwarzschild (non-rotating, non-charged) black hole's event horizon, and it suddenly (somehow, probably via magic) "spooled up", you could indeed find yourself outside the event horizon, and escape. It's just not really very likely.
it has mass, therefore there is matter there, therefore it can have momentum, both linear and angular, therefor it can rotate
still, even at 5x SR...it'd be creepy as hell to look out your window into a complete void, the maw of this celestial monster...
the thought of it makes me shudder a bit
At nearly every moment your eyes pick up photons. Staring into a black hole would be an unprecedented experience. You aren't seeing normal darkness we are accustomed to, you would be seeing absolute darkness, the true definition of black. In other words, the reason why I said you are staring into the black hole and not at it, you are not seeing *anything*.
Which is still different from being blind. I suspect the difference between none and nearly none (dark room, no light sources other than blackbody radiation) would be unnoticable.
Most likely, but I like to think of it in a spoooooky way.
NoStereo For me, the spooky part is thinking about the fact that it's a black hole, even though you're in little danger (It requires a lot of energy to break the 3 radii limit)
Oh, don't worry. Scott's calculation is purely theoretical: at 5x SR you'd very likely still be in the accretion disk, which means you'd still be *superdead*. We're talking temperatures as high, if not higher, as those of stellar *cores*.
Of course, it mostly depends on the mass of the black hole you're orbiting, but... You get the gist.
I think the name you were looking for is SchwarzSchild , not SchwarzChild...
Yup, spelled Schwarzschild and pronounced roughly like "shvarts-shillt"
Such a fitting name for the one who discovered black holes to.
I see your Shwartz Child is as big as mine!
Sorry, just had to
Amazing coincidence that he, of all people, should discover a radius with a name EXACTLY like his!
Completely off topic; Knowing German is great because you can see a ton of people's last names and be like "Heh, I know what your last name means in a slightly different language."
Nooo this video is too short.Get your brain unblown right now mister.
Still has more information in it then a two hour documentary on the History Channel, Discovery or Nat Geo though. And it's without the dramatic music, ten people saying the same thing and no units of measurement like football fields for size, swimming pools as volume, a random american building for height and an elephant on a penny for pressure.
Magna Fox "once it is blown, it can't be unblown" - Sheldon Cooper
But are they talking about an African or Asian elephant, and how much pressure is that on a euro coin, since I'm not from the UK.
YEAH SCIENCE
I am very interested in an episode about rotating black holes
@@billfarrar7967 r/ihadastroke
@@charadremur7354 wha'd he say?
I have a question. If two singularities spiraled inwards towards collision, like the events LIGO is built to detect, is a trajectory possible that could bring you inside the event horizon and back out through the legrange point? It seems the event horizons would both expand in every direction as the singularities approached each other, except a legrange point between. There must be some point before the event horizons coalesced with a bubble in between, where there is a corridor in between.
Hmm I man wouldn't you be ripped apart if I'm in between 2 orbiting blackholes like this ● 😐 ● then the gravities would just rip you apart i think
@@butwhy7138 It depends on the mass of the black hole. Two stellar mass black holes are very tiny, they'd probably rip you apart with tidal forces. Two supermassive black holes would be gentle, the tidal force is extremely low.
Once you enter the event horizon, regardless of angle or external forces you now have to reach speeds greater than the speed of light to escape
@@carlinfuller-nettleton8445 You could reach twice the speed of light relativistically, that's the point.
@@SpecialEDy there's no such thing as relative speed, and you can't move faster than light.
Please continue! I love relativity hypotheses, and discussions about black holes. This stuff fascinates me so.
Black hole follow-up please!!
That was very informative - thank you. I'd really love a video doing the same thing for rotating black holes.
Gotta say, this video was really interesting and i'd like to hear more about this! You're one of the people that can explain those things really well and you made me even more interested in black holes :)
I could listen to you explaining about black holes for hours. This stuff is infinitely interesting to me! Thank you, Scott!
Yes please rotating black holes. And charged ones if you're already at it. I want MOAR KNOWLEDGE! ;D
It's not Schwarzs child it's Schwarz schild!
Panzerkampfwagen : "You say tomato, I say tomahto"
It's also called the Eastern front, not the Russian front.
@@martijn9568 It'S aCtUaLLy CaLleD tHe OSTFRONT
love these science videos - you have a knack for explaining complex issues in easy to understand ways.
Hey Scott, i enjoyed this episode, but it is mind-blowing!! But you also shed some light on the different concepts of black holes, thanks.
I would love a video on rotating black holes also black holes with a non zero electric charge.
Nooooo, I'm still trying to get the Kerr Metric inside my head.
Scott Manley
its just so exciting thinking about! Lets imagine a solar mass black hole made entierly of electrons.
hold up! if it's made from electrons, it's not a black hole. Black holes aren't really made from anything, the laws of physics sort of just break and you get this super dense region of space-time curvature
Andrew Steel You can make a black hole out of anything, even light itself (called a kugelblitz) if einsteins theories hold up that is. So you could make a black hole out of only electrons, what would a black hole like that look and behave like?
My point is that once it is a black hole, they cease to be electrons, they're just a blob of highly degenerate matter. You couldn't tell a black hole that used to be a big blob of electrons apart from a black hole that used to be neutrons or quarks or donuts
"Tardislike".
...
Well done Sir.
Also, yes please, we do want a followup :)
Neat video Scott! Always enjoyed your content, right back from when a friend first told me to lookup your Interstellar series in KSP.
amazing.. love the in-depth explanations you give. glad to have watched this!
Great job making a seemingly boring physics lesson enjoyable! i love your content scott. Keep teaching the current generation.
Would love to see a follow up on this. Also, I'd be interested to know about the tidal forces of a black hole.
A follow up would be amazing, all your videos like this are really good thx:)
Videos like these are why I stay subbed. I would personally be interested in more of these educational type videos, the "Stuff ksp doesn't teach you" series is fascinating.
thanks for this video Scott. I am utterly fascinated by singularities.
+Hostile Phantasm but this video is all about staying away from them.
Would love to see that follow up video on rotating black holes :)
I love this stuff so much. Thanks for the informative video, Scott.
Definitely making some popcorn for that follow up. Great topic, as always!
Do a follow up! Also explain how massless particles like photons are influenced by gravity.
All things are effective by gravity. But that is because gravity is not so much a force that pulls on all things as it actually a curvature in space time. So even that which has no rest mass like photons are effect.
On top of that photons actually do have mass even if they do not have rest mass. You know that famed formula E=mc²? Well tell you that anything with energy also have mass. And you can the the specific mass of a photon by rearranging the formula to m=E/c². As long as you know how much energy the photon contains. That why you can actually have photons push on spacecraft and use things like solar sails. Even if light pressure is very tiny.
Cythil
Nice concise explanation! thanks.
ares106
Yeah I tried to keep it short and simple. :)
*****
Well it has no rest mass. That is to say if you had a photon that was in rest. Not moving. Then it would have no mass. But photons always move at the speed of light (even if they "slowed down" or even "Trapped" in a medium. There technically still bouncing around at the speed of light)
Considering anything that has energy also has mass so to do photons have mass and so to do photons have momentum.
This is also why a lot of people in physics are now moving away from using many of these terms as it confuse the discussion.
Now the formula you give is for the Energy-Momentum relation and E=pc can be used for getting the momentum for massless particles (particles that have no rest mass to be more precise.) But it does not tell you anything about the relationship with mass and energy.
(Also a little side note. Speed of light is a sort of bad term for what the this cosmic speed limit is about. It is not that is light that gives this speed. But it can be better be seen as the highest speed in which events can unfold. Anything that lacks rest mass therefore moves at this speed. Light just happens to be what we come in to contact the most that is limited to this speed. But gravity to is also limited to this speed.)
Light moves in a straight line; gravity bends straight lines.
If you do actually do a follow up video on rotating black holes, perhaps you can put the "Ergosphere" in layman's terms for not just me, but all of us!
Did you already comb the Ergosphere wikipedia page?
What a well made video, perfectly explained with super interesting information that is usually glossed over about black holes.
They are almost mythical to me. It's hard to comprehend and to get it in my head that these things are out there in huge numbers.
Scott, big fan of your physics videos. I took an orbital mechanics course in college and would love to see the follow up on rotating black holes. Thanks!
i wonder is there a maximum size that a black hole can be? Like a point where it no longer is a black hole or fails to maintain itself.
+John J the entire universe could be a black hole, we could be living in one.
Scott Manley that's deep man
There isn't a known limit to how big one can be. There is a supermassive one at the centre of our galaxy which is about 4.5 million times the mass of our sun. A black hole doesn't need to "maintain itself". It isn't like a star that needs to carry on fusing lighter elements into heavier ones in order to produce energy and stop themselves from collapsing under their own gravity. A black hole will just continue to either gain mass if it "swallows" up other stars, gas, dust etc. or may eventually evaporate due to Hawking Radiation.
+Scott Manley I like to think that we live in one of those huge energy beam (can't remember what they are called D:) comming from a enourmus black hole.
John J to my knowledge there have been no upper limits determined. Take for example the supermassive black holes at the center of galaxies, which are typically as much as tens of millions of solar masses. Usually when a black hole begins to take in more matter than it can handle, it "burps" it back out on its poles in extremely potent beams of energy
I would be interested. I would also be interested in a video explaining quark stars.
Black holes are amazing to learn about. I hope you do more of these!
I love your videos man it's always great to listen to another fellow geek nerdgasm over science stuff especially one who is so knowledgeable :) keep it up also some more KSP tutorials for ssto's would be great. liked and subscribed
I would love to see a followup video explaining the rotation thing. That doesn't really make sense to me so I'd love to understand it.
yeah, please also about charged black holes.
Please do a video elaborating on the N-Body problem and state if it really has been solved or not, I see so many people saying it has but I feel they are just getting it mixed up with special cases or simplified 2 Body systems.
+Chris Gough there are solutions for some start conditions, but no General solution exists. To solve them we need to step the equations slowly forwards in time.
Scott Manley thank you! I still think you'd do a very good job of explaining the problem though and I feel it would make for a great video. veritasium style.
The best way to solve the N-body problem for an arbitrarily large/complex system seems to be be to build a universe (either real or virtual - the distinction is debatable anyway) and let it run the problem for you.
That seems to be the approach God is taking, anyway. =:o}
Would definitely love to see more about blackholes. I just learned so much new information.
Absolutely fascinating and well-explained. Thanks!
I'm interested in the followup.
Please tell us more about black holes!
The are black and they succ
Sure, I'd love to see one about rotating black holes, done in this style and level of intuitive detail. I knew everything in this video, but this helped crystallize it much more clearly in my mind. Thanks!
We want more! :D Black holes are awesome (and scary, but mostly awesome)... I was thinking about this not long time ago, great video :)
What's about tidal forces on such distances?
If there is a black hole in KSP, would they try to put a flag on it?
If the Kerbal has enough stupidity and bravery :D
Jeb could do it.
Jeb would go for a stroll, plant a flag, take a surface sample and bring it back home. R&D would then spend months analyzing the sample and years trying to figure out how Jeb managed to bring it back at all.
Months? Due to time dilation, it would be centuries. Fortunately Kerbals never die.
raymond gabriel
kerbals never die? how have i killed more than my fair share? let's just say kerbals never die of old age. :P
please do more like this.. just finished phys 1 and I like going over the topics in a social manner
One helluva comeback for the channel, great work Mr.Manley
Comeback? Where did I go?
There has been a boost in awesome is what I meant :D [you sound like you're having more fun lately, and imho it is reflected as better videos] nwm love what you are doing!
Do teh follow up!
We require more information to grow our definitely human brains.
I'm totally interested, man.
Please do a follow-up video Scott Manley. I've already learned more about black holes in this one video than in many years of researching black holes.
fascinating and weird at the same time - and beautifully presented as always!
Hey, I'm interested, do the follow up :)
You got his name wrong!!
His name was Karl Schwarz*S*child, which means black shield in German!!
But great video anyway^^
Just Thank you for high quality content. As the others, I eagerly await a follow up. An explanation "for dummies" of quasars next time, maybe?
Holy cow I was literally wondering that yesterday and then I see this video. And I watch you quite often.
Does this mean if we had a black hole in our solar system, we could potentially use it for some really badass gravity assists?
We would also all die rather quickly, so it kinda balances out.
Nope, if we had a black hole in our solar system that imply that we still evolved to that point.
Marcus Tullius Cicero but... but... just imagine those gravity assists!
If the sun turned into a black hole all the orbits outside the sun's former location would remain the same. Indeed, we usually treat planets/stars as point sources of gravity anyway. However, you could get a lot closer due to no longer having that "burning up" problem...
Actually I suppose we could turn Jupiter into a black hole and that would be pretty convenient as an entry/exit point for starships arriving or leaving the Solar System.
Of course problem is the more badass the assist, the more orbital energy and momentum you're taking away from the body. If many starships regularly accelerate to near relativistic speeds off a black hole Jupiter (I guess it could work as a way to start up ramjets) maybe it might get to the point where we actually alter the orbit of now black hole Jupiter and that can't be good.
Yes, follow up. DO IT NOW!!!! THE INTERNET HATH COMMANDETH SO.
Please do a follow up! I love this.
I remember one of your 360 videos was filmed in the Fruitvale area. I hope you aren't affected by the fire, it's tragic to see this happen in our community. Great video as always too! Keep them coming!!!!
+Will Kay I have friends of friend on facebook who were there. I see the burned out warehouse every morning now.
I would love a followup
video on rotating black holes.....
NOW!!!!!!!
Scott the video is amazing an the follow up on rotating black holes would be amazing like so scott can see
finally somebody who wants to start talking about rotating black holes on youtube?
I've seen so many videos about black holes and they all end with "but rotating black holes are different, goodbye"
What about gravitational shear? Would the difference be enough to rip things apart?
depends on the size = mass of the BH - distance from singularity
For stellar black holes, yes. Those can rip you apart well outside the event horizon.
Rule of thumb: the bigger the black hole, the smoother the gravitational shear.
There's still a way to minimize that by making objects flat and sit parallel to the surface; the shear occurs between the parts appearing at varied orbital altitude; keep everything to exactly the same orbit and the shear will be minimal.
It depends but once you're inside the event horizon you'll inevitably reach a point where it happens. That's because the singularity at the center is pretty much a point. So if you want a cool death make sure you pick a large enough black hole so you get past the event horizon before being spaghettified.
Also arent black holes always rotating? Some kindof mass which somehow moved collapsed space-time and so the mass got pulled together and centripedal-force making it rotating very very fast!? Or am I wrong? Got this from a german scientist called harald lesch which made lots and lots of astronomical tv-shows
Yep, always rotating, but the math for that is more complicated.
Scott Manley
Iam sure it is ;) Thank you sir
No offense to scott, but Lesch is professor of theoretical astrophysics at quite a big university. I'd say you're checking sources the wrong way around :)
AnDay5zlebt thats not the point iam asking. Just thought its misleading to say "rotating black holes". Because they all do. Like everything does somehow. I was only a bit curious
I have a book by Kip Thorne that went into some non-mathematical detail about rotating black holes. It is called "Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein's Outrageous Legacy". It is a good read, if you are the curious type.
Awesome video! Keep doing stuff like this.
PLEASE do a follow-up video. That was very, very interesting and i'd love to learn more
How were you orbiting the black hole on space engine?
Right click and drag.
Scott Manley Really? You manged to do it so smoothly.
Ov and I bound the rotation control to a joystick
Scott Manley Ah, never thought that was possible.
Scott Manley You can also right click and drag with the "spacecraft mode" for a smooth movement.
I still don't understand how anything can actually pass the EH and enter the black hole since time dilation goes to infinity at the EH. Wouldn't the Universe end before that could happen? Wouldn't the inward falling observer simply see the black hole evaporate via hawking radiation beneath it before it could enter?
Also wouldn't the Hawking radiation itself also be time dilated just as much as the falling observer? Is it that hawking radiation actually happens really fast, but the time dilation at the EH just makes it slow? So if you get near to it you start to see more and more of it until you burn up in a kind of firewall... this is so confusing, lol.
Some try to explain this by saying that from an outside observers point of view it takes an infinite time for something to fall in, but at the same time it takes a finite time for the observer falling in to fall in from it's point of view. However isn't this a contradiction? How can something fall in and not fall in at the same time from different points of views? Those are two completely different timelines.
Special relativity means both points of view are correct. Global Positioning Systems must correct for both Special & General Relativity as the GPS satellites are both further out from the gravity well of Earth and travelling at a significant speed compared to ground based objects. We do not think there is any "lost" or "missing" time, both ground & satellite timelines are correct from their own viewpoints and it is us in low-energy/low-speed/low-gravity Newtonian-physics mindset which have a problem accepting this. Hawking's latest suggestion was that black holes as traditionally understood with a central singularity might not exist for the very reason that you raised, namely that further in-falling matter would take an infinite time to travel from the event horizon to the central point. Hence this has never yet occurred since the Big Bang and nor will it ever before the heat death of the universe (perhaps 10^100 years). Yet clearly black holes do exist, and can accumulate more matter and enlarge. So Hawking's suggestion is that black holes might be objects very nearly, but never quite reaching, infinite curvature at the event horizon (so very very dark grey rather than absolutely black) and all additional matter sits at the event horizon itself. Hawking radiation then causes the black hole to evaporate, and while this is progressively slower for larger black holes, even supermassive galaxy sized black holes would evaporate over sufficient time of perhaps 10^100 years. However slow that is, it is always sooner than the infinity for matter to ever reach a central point. Our real problem is at such extremes as near the event horizon our current understanding of physics is insufficient and existing equations break down, with neither Special/General Relativity nor Quantum Mechanics working with variables seeming to approach infinite density of matter occupying infinitely small spaces. A combined theory incorporating Quantum Gravity would help, but a Theory Of Everything has been elusive, and might not even be possible (or at least impossible to prove). As Hawking has said "Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate theory, that can be formulated as a finite number of principles. I used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind." So until then hope it really is not "42" :-)
bi1iruben the clocks between those on Earth and those on GPS satellites are not in contradiction. It all adds up if you take all the effects of Special Relativity into consideration - time dilation, Lorentz contraction and so on. These situations make complete sense to me. I don't even have a problem with the breaking of simultaneity that happens in SR.
However in the case of falling into a black hole where the falling observer sees itself passing the EH at some point in its future, while an outside observer sees the black hole evaporate before the falling in observer passes the EH are two things that completely contradict each other. They cannot both be right at the same time, because from one perspective an event happens, while from another it doesn't. That's a problem.
There is still a point in time for that outside observer, after which they could not possibly rescue the infalling victim even with a light-like trajectory for the rescue ship.
You may never see the infalling victim cross the event horizon, but events don't happen only when you see them, and I've always thought it silly to say 'they haven't fallen in yet' in that situation.
Wouldn't a Black Hole's space-time distortion work the same way as the satellites, just bigger?
The falling observer never notices a time dilation, except that what's behind them happens faster, so they will experience the Event Horizon in what amounts to Real Time. But an outside observer would see the falling observer slow down as they approached the Event Horizon, and eventually reach a virtual stop.
Hawking Radiation does take away mass from the Black Hole , but the Black Hole is simultaneously absorbing additional mass from outside sources. So the larger the Black Hole, the more mass it absorbs relative to the mass it losses; therefore, a sufficiently massive Black Hole should take on more mass than it losses, and therefore wouldn't evaporate. The current models suggest that a Black Hole with roughly the same mass as the Moon would be sufficient to maintain equilibrium between the gain and loss of mass.
The thing did fall into the blackhole, you just haven't got that information yet; if you get close enough, you'll eventually see it; except because of the extreme gravity of the blackhole, you can never get close enough fast enough, that information is always getting away from you.
That was a good one Scott!
We probably all mostly know that black holes are no longer "just theoretical" and there are a lot of observations that need something like a blackhole to account for them. Might be very cool if you did a video where you talk about what aspects of the "theory" about black holes are almost assured by now (either as a result of empirical evidence or theoretical coherence) and how much is still "unknown," i.e., what surprises these things might hold for us.
I was particularly intrigued to learn that there is one theory that black holes are "wombs" for new universes?
I saw a ton of featurettes and interviews as well as the science of interstellar. I would love a follow up eventually. Thanks for the great video.
Why do I watch these kinds of videos? My brain hurts...
yea lets do a follow up.
Excellent video! Yes, please, show us the orbital solutions for a rotating black hole!
Best explanation of a black hole so far. It all makes sense.
You know you're freakin' awesomely intelligent when you can come up with an equation while getting shelled by German fire o,0.
Yakabow I couldn't do what Schwarzchild did.
He wasn't shelled by the Germans. His name is Schwarzschild, dude... he was serving WITH the Germans, getting shelled by Russians.
Yeah pretty sure the Russians would kill him outright just from his last name.
Karl Schwarzschild, de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Schwarzschild, was german-born, physicist, astronomer, served at the east-front and the west-front, fell ill with Pemphigus vulgaris, de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pemphigus_vulgaris; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pemphigus_vulgaris; emedicine.medscape.com/article/1064187-overview, returned as invalid in March 1916, and died 2 month later. Get your facts straight. During war time his duty was to help the german artillery troops with ballistic equations, which then shelled the russian troops and/or the french and english ones. Also not all russians ever are or ever were nationalists, racists or anti-semites.
Why? Are you implying all russian are nationalist and anti-semite pigs? Pls stop infering this kind of racism and stereotypism. It has no place on a channel promoting scientific debate and progress.
Sorry if you explained it later in the video but I have to ask this before I forget:
If you're just above the event horizon and point the laser exactly 90° away from the black hole, would the light slow down? Since it will be influenced by the gravity of the black hole it should be, right?
+Schlickfitten no, light wouldn't slow down because light can only move at the speed of light. It would however lose energy and get redshifted.
Scott Manley
Ahh. Okay that makes sense. Thank you for your reply.
Scott Manley
but light can go at different speeds can't it
I mean, to find a refractive index, one method is dividing the speed of light in vacuum by the speed of light in the medium so doesn't light travel at different speeds?
That's a different scenario
+why shouldn't horses fly? It's still speed of light, the answer is in your question ;)
Please do a follow up ! This was amazing !
Yes...please do a follow-up on rotating black holes. Thank you!
may the schwartz be with you
It was extremely upsetting to learn of Schwarzschild's fate: damn this god forsaken civilization, and it's propensity to annihilate its own.
I guess we are done worrying about over-population now?
Great video, would love to hear more on rotating black holes🌀
that was an excellent video Scott
Any thoughts about whether black holes have the same haircut than you Scott, or if they have lots of very soft 2D hair?
Black holes have no hair ;)
excuse me, but Stephen Hawking begs to differ:
journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.231301
*****
That's news to me, thank you! It looks like the paper was published in June; it's been a while since I've read up on black holes.
Holy cow, I don't Even remotely understand what this paper is about.
Holy fuck I didn't make it past the first sentence.
His name was Karl Schwarz*s*child. Pronounced "Schwartzshilled" ;)
"Schvartzshilt" more like, but yes.
I'd love to see a follow-up on rotating black holes, and if you'd be willing, charged black holes as well!
I love these informative mini videos.
I'm always happy to hear more about how physics works around black holes, even if I don't understand most of it.
pls do rotating black hole video this was great. Love all your stuff Scott esp KSP thank you!
Very interested to hear you explain the spinning black holes!
Yes, please do rotating black holes. Would love to hear you break down the ergosphere for us.