io9 
Enter your username and password.
-
posts about #gavinpolhemus more → Physicists Create Extremely Accurate Simulation of Entering a Black Hole
San Francisco, 2:48 AM
Mon Nov 30
10 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors: tips@io9.com
Editor-in-Chief:
Annalee Newitz | Email
News Editor:
Charlie Jane Anders | Email
Associate Editor:
Meredith Woerner | Email
Assistant Editor:
Lauren Davis | Email
Weekend Editor:
Graeme McMillan | Email
Contributors:
Joshua Glenn
Stephen Goldmeier | Email
Ed Grabianowski | Email
Austin Grossman
Paul Hogan | Email
Lauren Davis | Email
Chris Hsiang | Email
Lynn Peril | Email
Ann VanderMeer
Alasdair Wilkins | Email
Graphic Designer:
Stephanie Fox | Email
Interns:
Tim Barribeau | Email
Julia Carusillo | Email
Alex Eichler | Email
Cyriaque Lamar | Email
Caitlin Petrakovitz | Email
Mary Ratliff | Email
Josh Snyder | Email
| posts about #gavinpolhemus more → |
Physicists Create Extremely Accurate Simulation of Entering a Black Hole |
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
04/28/09
Maybe it's just because the narrators all sound like college radio DJs...
04/27/09
04/27/09
It does include two movies, but not this one.
04/27/09
"AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH...!!!!! shit."
04/27/09
Compared to what? Other simulations, almost certainly, but not to any real observations or data since, as far as I know, no one has ever fallen into a black hole and survived to report his/her findings, except for the crew of the Palomino.
Sometimes I feel shame for being a physicist. It used to be the case that people in my profession would report their results based on actual data. These days, however, pretty much anything goes.
Sure, spend time, money, and effort developing computational models of black holes. Just remember that Einstein's field equations may not, and most likely do not, apply near the singularity, because of quantum effects.
Oh, have a computational model of string theory? Awesome. Just remember that string theory has absolutely NO empirical predictions that can be observed in the next, oh, I don't know, 100 years or so.
I used to be a theoretical particle physicist. I used to do research on cosmological models. I even came up with a model for why there is more matter than antimatter in the universe (the so-called baryogenesis problem). Then I woke up, smelled last year's coffee, and realized that theoretical particle physics and cosmology have become a game of pure mathematics, with little or no actual input from mother nature.
04/27/09
And then I realized why I shed that persona in the first place, and that you're absolutely correct. I wound up leaving the hard sciences altogether specifically because of the overarching focus on mathematical models and computational analysis as opposed to theoretical postulation and experimental observation and analysis. It was depressing when I was studying, it was depressing when I graduated, and then I went on to something else. Not to say the applied mathematics isn't elegant in its own right, but the de-emphasis of theory and observation was kind of...off-putting to a young grad like me. I concur. Well said.
04/27/09
04/27/09
04/27/09
04/28/09
Seriously, Cave of Time had 63 endings. There were books at the end that had 15.
Lame.
04/27/09
04/27/09
The Black hole? We tried it a long time ago, thought it might be interesting but kinda got sidetracked by more explainable scientific annomolies, perhaps it's time we went back?
On a serious note if light can't escape and slows down, time would also slow down - meaning the last moments of your life could last an eternity. Painfull and possibly incredibly boring.
04/27/09
04/27/09
04/27/09
04/27/09
04/27/09
04/27/09
Rice.
04/27/09