Black holes are weird because they are essentially macroscopic particles with only one variable, mass (ignoring angular momentum, charge and other details for the moment). But they scale very strangely.
For instance, its interesting to see what a black hole is like that emits precisely 100W of radiation. Or that is as big as a apple, or weighs as much as a apple. Or one that lives exactly 100 years, or that is as dense as water (as black holes have the odd property of getting less 'dense' as their mass grows). Its very unintuitive, and just punching values into the calculator illustrates it perfectly.
I bring this up because the illustration (a town sized black hole sitting over New York) is a very specific configuration, and it doesn't really illustrate how oddly these objects scale.
temperature is analogous to surface gravity which gets weaker at the event horizon as the black hole grows.
temperature is not expectation of a kinetic energy distribution of micro constituents. you don't measure a black holes temperature with a thermometer because you can't get information out of a black hole
Isn't it thought that a black hole's mass is concentrated in the center in a miniscule volume, such that the mass is not distributed throughout the "volume" contained by the event horizon? I'm not understanding what density means for a black hole when it isn't known what's between the singularity and event horizon.
I think from the outside, it doesn't matter whether the mass is uniformly distributed throughout the volume or concentrated at the centre - you would feel the same force of gravity. (I'd be interested to hear if there is an experiment you could do just measuring gravity to differentiate between the two!)
In Sweden, they actually have a permanent model of the solar system in the scale of 1 to 20 millions. The sun is the size of the Globen arena in Sweden capital Stockholm. Models of the outer planets are somewhere in the north of Sweden!
This is an interesting perspective considering that this north of Sweden is not really very north and is much closer to Stockholm than say Malmö is to Stockholm.
Nothing happens, it's a relative size demonstration. Earth is the grape, the sun an elephant etc. Black hole with 4m solar mass is just a large sphere. Good video, but there is no simulation.
This video is informative but so strangely "ugly" somehow, like it looks like 1997 Stargate SGI cg or something, I can't put my finger on it. Was this all created by one person or a whole company?
He has a video on his channel where he explains that he’s making these videos alone after having started to learn Blender a few years ago. And that’s why he has so few videos.
I definitely see what you mean: it’d look bad from a big production, but it looks unbelievable to me from one person. I can’t quite comprehend it really.
Eh. This magnum opus of an animation was created by one lone 3D artist in 2009!!! and it's not only a work of utter art, it looks better than 99% of videos on YT today.
I think YouTubers are conditioned to think it's impossible for one person to execute anything impressive because they're otherwise drowning in a sea of shit tier videos.
That feels a little uncharitable, you’re completely ignoring the time involved, and fact this creator learned Blender just before starting to create these videos.
I don’t know about you, but these videos definitely fall into the impressive category for me. Looking at his publish history, he’s producing one of these videos every few months. Works like the one you link too usually take years for a single person to create.
Comparing someone’s passion art project to someone’s educational videos using CGI, is like complaining that every diagram in a physics text book isn’t a work of art on par with the Mona Lisa.
I am NOT suggesting this guys stop making things since it's just him and he's new, and likely to improve, I'm just calling out what I see.
But I AM caning calling out millions of Youtube generations ago seem to live in a bubble of mediocrity and have no idea what a single person can create, let alone over 15 years ago per my example.
This is totally different tech and a totally different video.
It’s pretty easy to create photorealistic work in blender when you have high resolution textures and photogrammetry of what you’re reproducing, I’d challenge you to find similar textures of planets or every building in New York City.
The video authors focus seems to be mostly on the shaders and volumetrics used for the large scale “simulations” not on making insanely high fidelity assets for the speaker or etc.
It’s also worth noting that the most jenky thing by far in this video is the animations/facial simulations which are not even consistently solved in billion dollar productions yet, let alone one guy
The video seems to fall ever so slightly within the uncanny valley. The quality of renders and animation, especially the motion capture and facial animations, is far beyond anything I’ve come to expect from individual creators.
But it does seem to have landed just within the far edge of the uncanny valley. Often good enough that you don’t really notice, but occasional moments where it feels very odd and distracting.
It does also look like he’s had to make some compromises on render quality. There’s render noise appearing and disappearing at times, which is usually an indication that not enough rays were used during ray tracing, resulting in some pixels have very odd colour values. I can only assume that just the result to having to trade off between render time and render quality, especially as it seems he’s putting in quite a lot of effort to make sure the render and simulations are physically accurate. A very computational expensive thing to do, especially when trying to render crazyness like black holes that warp and distort space time.
https://www.vttoth.com/CMS/physics-notes/311-hawking-radiati...
Black holes are weird because they are essentially macroscopic particles with only one variable, mass (ignoring angular momentum, charge and other details for the moment). But they scale very strangely.
For instance, its interesting to see what a black hole is like that emits precisely 100W of radiation. Or that is as big as a apple, or weighs as much as a apple. Or one that lives exactly 100 years, or that is as dense as water (as black holes have the odd property of getting less 'dense' as their mass grows). Its very unintuitive, and just punching values into the calculator illustrates it perfectly.
I bring this up because the illustration (a town sized black hole sitting over New York) is a very specific configuration, and it doesn't really illustrate how oddly these objects scale.