Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

EmergeHolographic OP t1_j5gu3p4 wrote

Credit: NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center

>A new model is bringing scientists a step closer to understanding the kinds of light signals produced when two supermassive black holes, which are millions to billions of times the mass of the Sun, spiral toward a collision. For the first time, a new computer simulation that fully incorporates the physical effects of Einstein's general theory of relativity shows that gas in such systems will glow predominantly in ultraviolet and X-ray light.

>Just about every galaxy the size of our own Milky Way or larger contains a monster black hole at its center. Observations show galaxy mergers occur frequently in the universe, but so far no one has seen a merger of these giant black holes.

>Scientists have detected merging stellar-mass black holes -- which range from around three to several dozen solar masses -- using the National Science Foundation's Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO). Gravitational waves are space-time ripples traveling at the speed of light. They are created when massive orbiting objects like black holes and neutron stars spiral together and merge.

>Supermassive mergers will be much more difficult to find than their stellar-mass cousins. One reason ground-based observatories can't detect gravitational waves from these events is because Earth itself is too noisy, shaking from seismic vibrations and gravitational changes from atmospheric disturbances. The detectors must be in space, like the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA) led by ESA (the European Space Agency) and planned for launch in the 2030s.

>But supermassive binaries nearing collision may have one thing stellar-mass binaries lack -- a gas-rich environment. Scientists suspect the supernova explosion that creates a stellar black hole also blows away most of the surrounding gas. The black hole consumes what little remains so quickly there isn't much left to glow when the merger happens.

>Supermassive binaries, on the other hand, result from galaxy mergers. Each supersized black hole brings along an entourage of gas and dust clouds, stars and planets. Scientists think a galaxy collision propels much of this material toward the central black holes, which consume it on a time scale similar to that needed for the binary to merge. As the black holes near, magnetic and gravitational forces heat the remaining gas, producing light astronomers should be able to see.

>The new simulation shows three orbits of a pair of supermassive black holes only 40 orbits from merging. The models reveal the light emitted at this stage of the process may be dominated by UV light with some high-energy X-rays, similar to what's seen in any galaxy with a well-fed supermassive black hole.

>Three regions of light-emitting gas glow as the black holes merge, all connected by streams of hot gas: a large ring encircling the entire system, called the circumbinary disk, and two smaller ones around each black hole, called mini disks. All these objects emit predominantly UV light. When gas flows into a mini disk at a high rate, the disk's UV light interacts with each black hole's corona, a region of high-energy subatomic particles above and below the disk. This interaction produces X-rays. When the accretion rate is lower, UV light dims relative to the X-rays.

>Based on the simulation, the researchers expect X-rays emitted by a near-merger will be brighter and more variable than X-rays seen from single supermassive black holes. The pace of the changes links to both the orbital speed of gas located at the inner edge of the circumbinary disk as well as that of the merging black holes.

>The simulation ran on the National Center for Supercomputing Applications' Blue Waters supercomputer at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Modeling three orbits of the system took 46 days on 9,600 computing cores.

Read more: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2018/new-simulation-sheds-light-on-spiraling-supermassive-black-holes

5

KidKilobyte t1_j5h4cwf wrote

This is not a stereoscopic gif. I’m pretty good at seeing these both crossed and uncrossed varieties. This is just the same image with the middle image reversed. Is anyone getting a good stereo effect from this, it seems unlikely this complex image would work out to just be reversed to create a 3d effect.

Edit. I thought about some more and think the images are perhaps rotated 90 degrees from proper orientation for 3d. Given the skinny nature of the images, perhaps they could be redone with a crossed image on top and an uncrossed image below. It would also seem likely the original would portray the orbit horizontally.

Edit 2. Back to thinking this is just the same image but reversed in middle. Original article shows image horizontally, but only one. Perhaps OP thought this would somehow create 3d.

81

Fsharpmaj7 t1_j5hkau7 wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#1,444,268)

This is exactly what I’m seeing. It makes sense, in a very intuitional way….but it’s hard to focus.

Edit: I seemed to achieved it. Cross until you see 5, not three. The middle get the 3D quality

1

AstroSaiyan_ t1_j5i7tf7 wrote

Why is the bottom black hole always going through the other one and the top seems to always wrap around the bottom one?

10

EmergeHolographic OP t1_j5i80ah wrote

Replying to KidKilobyte (#1,442,946)

You are correct that this is reversed/mirrored in the center. I have 3 panels so that both cross-eye and uncross-eye are visible at one time. There should be 4 panels total when crossed correctly, two opaque in the middle and two "see through" panels in the periphery on either side. It is tricky to see for sure.

The reasons why I mirror these have to do with symmetry of lensing, where the same image appears on opposite sides of the lens with black holes, as well as the mirroring effect with strong gravitational lensing, where galaxies can be seen as mirrored smears, sometimes multiple times.

−3

EmergeHolographic OP t1_j5i9k79 wrote

Replying to ijordison (#1,445,914)

Your two panels here are the same image side by side (whereas the cut out center panel was mirrored). This gives an illusion of depth because of the position that your eyes are relative to the rest of your surroundings, on top of some visual artifacting created from copying or exporting as a gif. For my gif you should only see 4 panels total while crossed, including periphery. It is pretty tricky to see

edit: To clarify I recommend thinking of this GIF as data visualization in a stereoscopic medium, where the depth illusion is created by reflected symmetry, and not the usual parallax stereograph, where two pictures are taken of the same object from slightly different angles. Stereographs usually use parallax, but not always, sorry for the confusion!

−14

sersun t1_j5io8ec wrote

If you are having trouble seeing the 3D effect, just relax all three of your eyes until the images blend together.

289

Decronym t1_j5iuj1s wrote

Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:

|Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |ESA|European Space Agency| |LIGO|Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory| |LISA|Laser Interferometer Space Antenna|

^(3 acronyms in this thread; )^(the most compressed thread commented on today)^( has 22 acronyms.)
^([Thread #8467 for this sub, first seen 23rd Jan 2023, 08:35]) ^[FAQ] ^([Full list]) ^[Contact] ^([Source code])

3

littleprof123 t1_j5iv6ls wrote

No matter which two images I overlap, my eyes can't hold focus or see depth in this. I tried your other posts too, with no luck. I can usually see stereoscopic images in seconds, could I be doing something wrong? It feels like the images are just too different.

15

EmergeHolographic OP t1_j5iw1n7 wrote

Replying to 5Beans6 (#1,448,309)

It's more that there generally isn't a well fitting word for what I'm doing. "Stereoscopic" is the closest, though; "noting or pertaining to three-dimensional vision or any of various processes and devices for giving the illusion of depth from two-dimensional images or reproductions, as of a photograph or motion picture."

It accurately conveys the medium, viewing method and the intended subject, which is the symmetry. As long as I get those things across

−8

thezenfisherman t1_j5ix0tn wrote

I cannot believe someone used extreme computer power for a 5 second gif...

0

stainless5 t1_j5j1f46 wrote

Replying to littleprof123 (#1,448,571)

It's because their faking stereoscopic images by mirroring the image, the only problem here is the original images are a straight on view so there's nothing for your eyes to compare left to right.

Nothing lines up except the holes in the centre and since there straight up and down you get no 3D.

8

EmergeHolographic OP t1_j5j3jqw wrote

Replying to stainless5 (#1,448,869)

The intention is to emphasize symmetry through stereoscopic depth. By "fake" I believe you mean it's not depth from parallax, which is true, but that isn't the point as lensing of this sort has recursive reflective symmetry which is the intended source of depth instead of parallax

2

mynameismy111 t1_j5je6ap wrote

House opening theme playing while watching this

Teardrop on the fire Fearless on my breath

Nine night of matter Black flowers blossom Fearless on my breath Black flowers blossom Fearless on my breath

Teardrop on the fire Fearless on my breath

Water is my eye Most faithful mirror Fearless on my breath Teardrop on the fire of a confession Fearless on my breath Most faithful mirror Fearless on my breath

source: https://www.lyricsondemand.com/tvthemes/houselyrics.html

0

GrapefruitOk2057 t1_j5keowc wrote

This needs to be viewed in another dimension. The 5th I think...

Aquariuuussssssss.....

8

IM2Q2BSTR8 t1_j5kpinq wrote

In frames four to seven you can see Mike from Monsters Inc.

1

sambull t1_j5kq8em wrote

pretty cool had to use my phone and get super close and squinty

2

Durable_me t1_j5kshwi wrote

thats stereoscopic view for a 3-eyed alien I suppose?

3

Powerthrucontrol t1_j5l7pdh wrote

If you know how to read a magic eye, crossing your vision creates a more compelling view.

2

underslunghero t1_j5n2953 wrote

How do I simultaneously vote for "this is cool" and "totally misleading title"

5

[deleted] t1_j5o33b8 wrote

How do you know they’re binary? Are you assuming their gender? Why do they have to be black holes?? Why not African American holes? Stereoscopic or stereotypical ?? Oh yea, and fuck white people too.

Did I do good reddit

1

[deleted] t1_j5o6frz wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#1,465,253)

Lol I’m not reading past what was shown in the notification header because you’re spouting drivel, this entire platform is used by the chinless and your immediate Cinderella response is clearly indicative of that fact. Cinderella cuz you know, the shoe fit. Lmao

1

jlredding_91 t1_j5r6hgi wrote

Look, man…I really don’t care if these “black” holes are binary, non-binary, or whatever. But to post this kind of video without a NSFW tag is not cool.

1