Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

🚨 SCIENTISTS MAY HAVE FINALLY SOLVED ONE OF THE BIGGEST UNSOLVED PROBLEMS IN BLACK HOLE PHYSICS. For years, astrophysicists have struggled with the “final parsec problem”: even after two supermassive black holes get relatively close, they struggle to shed enough angular momentum to merge within the age of the...

18,359 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat •via X (Twitter)

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

At the heart of our Milky Way lies Sagittarius A*, the supermassive black hole with a mass of about 4.3 million suns. Recent observations from the Event Horizon Telescope have revealed something remarkable: the magnetic fields surrounding it are not the turbulent, disordered chaos scientists once expected, but instead form a strong, coherent spiral structure.These organized, twisted magnetic fields thread through the swirling hot plasma near the event horizon, acting like invisible guides that regulate how matter flows inward. They help control the acceleration and heating of gas, determine the intensity of emitted radiation, and stabilize the chaotic environment just outside the point of no return.This discovery, achieved by imaging polarized light from the accretion disk, shows striking similarities to the magnetic geometry seen around the much larger black hole in M87—despite vast differences in size and activity level. It suggests that powerful, ordered magnetic fields are a universal feature of supermassive black holes, playing a central role in how they feed, influence their surroundings, and potentially launch jets.The findings deepen our understanding of extreme plasma physics under intense gravity, test general relativity in its strongest regime, and highlight the profound interplay between magnetic forces and spacetime itself. Even in our relatively quiet galactic center, these fields reveal a hidden capacity for dynamic, powerful behavior—reminding us that black holes are not just gravitational sinks, but complex engines shaped by electromagnetism on cosmic scales.Future observations promise even sharper views and time-lapse sequences, offering deeper insights into the fundamental processes driving the hearts of galaxies.

Black Hole

30,841 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

In the summer of 2023, I cold emailed Jensen Huang and asked to capture a NeRF of him at SIGGRAPH. He responded in about an hour and said yes. A radiance field is, in the simplest terms, akin to a 3D photograph. A moment in time, so completely reconstructed that you can move through it and see it from angles the original cameras never occupied. NeRFs were the original method. Gaussian splatting, which debuted at that same SIGGRAPH, has since become the dominant form of radiance field. I called my late friend James, who told me we needed to begin practicing immediately. We ran capture after capture for weeks until we consistently got the capture time down to ~30 seconds with one camera. Later, in a hallway at the LA Convention Center during SIGGRAPH, I captured the portrait you're seeing now, a full 360° gaussian splat of Jensen, rendered here as a 2D flythrough. Afterward, I continued the conversation with him and members of his team to make the case for radiance fields as a foundational representation for imaging. To my surprise, they listened. Three years later, NVIDIA has several works, including NuRec, fVDB, 3DGRUT, and gsplat all utilizing radiance fields. The landscape has evolved enough that the reasoning is obvious. Gaussian splatting has begun to ship across some of the world’s largest industries, including autonomous vehicles, AEC, geospatial, media and entertainment, robotics, e-commerce, hospitality. It’s become clear that lifelike 3D is here to stay. And yet I think we will look back and be disappointed by how late we started taking 3D portraits of the people around us, just like how we have sparse 2D photos of our grandparents and great grandparents. We have billions of photographs of the people we know and love, but almost no radiance fields of them. I'll be returning to SIGGRAPH in LA where this was initially captured three years ago, with the landscape looking significantly different. Radiance fields are more under deployed than ever relative to what they can do. I'm excited for the future of imaging, and for 2D to transition into 3D. I have a few things up my sleeve that I think will make that case plainly.

Radiance Fields

18,025 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

So, let me get this straight SpaceWeatherNews . Earth’s magnetic field is weakening right now, and it’s happening faster than expected. When you look back, the record shows the field didn’t always drift slowly either, sometimes it collapsed and re organized and things got beyond chaotic. The Sun isn’t a campfire in the sky like we were taught, it behaves in cycles and it can get violent in ways we’re only starting to understand. Earth reacts electrically and magnetically, like a living system kinda like bieng plugged into the Sun. Ice cores, tree rings, and archaeological layers all show resets happening at the same times around the world. Not once, but repeatedly. It's a clear pattern. We have direct measurements showing Earth’s magnetic field has weakened significantly in just a couple of centuries, with anomalies growing and the poles accelerating in ways that match pre excursion behavior seen in the geological record. We have lava flows that lock in multiple magnetic directions in a single cooling event, proving the field can shift rapidly, not over slow timelines. We have ice cores and tree rings showing abrupt spikes in cosmic radiation markers like carbon 14 and beryllium 10 that appear globally and simultaneously, which only happens when shielding fails or solar input surges. We have sudden climate reversals, where temperatures jump or crash in decades. Something standard models still have a hard time to explain. And we have synchronized layers of environmental fails in human history. We have abandoned settlements, cultural collapses, and reset layers that line up with those same physical events. None of this is speculative on its own. This is not speculation or fake, these are connected, because we have the individual datasets, they have been peer reviewed, and is sitting in plain sight. Forget the aliens for a second because we have some preparing to do.

Jason Wilde

46,873 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

The Milky Way and Andromeda are currently separated by about 2.5 million light-years. Drawn together by gravity, Andromeda approaches us at roughly 110 km/s. Though this speed is immense, the vast cosmic distances mean the process will unfold slowly over billions of years. Recent studies using data from Hubble and Gaia suggest the long-predicted merger is not certain: there's roughly a 50% chance the galaxies will collide and merge within the next 10 billion years, with only a small probability of it beginning in the classic ~4–5 billion-year timeframe. As the galaxies interpenetrate, powerful gravitational tides would eject enormous streams of stars, gas, and dust—forming glowing tidal tails that trail across space like celestial ribbons. New star formation would flare in compressed gas clouds, lighting up the chaos with brilliant nebulae. Despite the dramatic term "collision," individual stars are so sparsely distributed that direct crashes would be exceedingly rare. Instead, gravity would gently reshuffle orbits: some systems flung to the outskirts, others spiraling toward a shared center. At the hearts of both galaxies lie supermassive black holes—ours at ~4 million solar masses, Andromeda's far larger. Over eons, they would inspiral and coalesce in a cataclysmic union, unleashing ripples of gravitational waves across the cosmos. In the end, the spirals we know would dissolve into a single, grand elliptical galaxy—a transformed beacon in the Local Group, born from one of the universe's most patient spectacles. 🎥 skywolf400

Dreams N Science

365,992 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

Here we go again… Christopher C. Cuomo’s comments in this video regarding Kamala Harris, where he demeaningly referred to her as “Black female Jesus” and condescendingly referred to Black people as “you people,” reflect a pattern of racist rhetoric by the former anchor fired by CNN. He previously made a claim about being “Black on the inside” and even equated the term “Fredo” with the N-word. His reckless banter showcases a disturbing ignorance of the weight that racial language carries in America. His attempt to diminish the significance of Black leadership by mocking Harris as though her rise to become the vice president and nomination for president are superficial phenomenoms, rather than the result of hard-earned success in a country built on systemic racial inequities, is unacceptable. His thoughtless comments perpetuate harmful stereotypes about Black leaders, dehumanize their achievements, and trivialize the faith and support the Black community places in its representatives. For Cuomo to reduce Kamala Harris’ historic role to a caricature demonstrates his continued lack of respect for the Black community and its struggles. It is this kind of casual racism, cloaked in so-called political commentary, that fans the flames of division and undermines the progress we are fighting for. We cannot allow prominent voices to diminish the significance of Black leadership, nor can we stay silent when racially insensitive rhetoric is used to belittle our community. Chris Cuomo needs to recognize the damage his words cause and issue a public apology, not only to Kamala Harris but to the Black community as a whole. There is no room for this kind of racism—overt or subtle—in public discourse. By the way Christopher C. Cuomo, Jesus was BLACK, so we don’t have to create a Black one like you all created a ficticious white one.

Bishop Talbert Swan

43,791 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

‡ Yet Another Dubious Stewards Decision There is a long-standing complaint relating to stewards decisions that is shared by virtually all horseplayers: they should be more consistent in their decision making. Such complaints are legitimate, and consistency should always be a goal, not only in the officiating of horse racing. But it seems to me that the problem illustrated by the DQ in Del Mar's 11th race on Saturday is, in some ways, even more frustrating. I am referring to what seems to be a far too common inability of stewards to watch replays carefully, and thoughtfully process what has been seen. While I credit Del Mar for having edited together all three views of the incident in the embedded clip, it would have been better if they had (also) slowed down the drone view, which, as is so often the case, appears to be the definitive view. I have extracted the salient drone view portion and zoomed in on the action, so that readers might more easily see the crucial incident that the stewards apparently failed to take into account. The dubious decision to DQ the winner (#3 red and white silks) was made on the basis that nearing the wire, it drifted out, and caused the eventual fourth-place finisher (#5 pink silks) to steady, possibly costing that one a better placing. But I would argue that a careful, and reasonably thoughtful viewing of the drone shot, clearly shows something different. Just before the incident referred to by the stewards, the #5 horse (pink silks) and #9 (yellow silks) made contact, and it was that contact which initially caused the former to steady. The winner did subsequently drift out, but that was incidental, and did not, at least on its own, cost the #5 a placing. In fact, that the two even came so close was arguably a direct result of the #5 briefly losing its hind-end as a result of the bumping with the #9 horse. Had it not been for that initial contact, causing the #5 to angle in towards the eventual winner, there almost certainly would not have been any meaningful loss of momentum. Parsing it even more finely, it appears, again from the drone shot, that the #9 was not at fault, and it was, ironically, the "victim" in the questionable eyes of the stewards (#5), which angled in and lost its hind-end as a result of that earlier contact. Given that the rider of #5 had understandably steadied more sharply after the initial, far more dangerous incident, the most important momentum loss had already occurred before the rider again steadied slightly, due to the winner drifting out. In summary, there were clearly two incidents which contributed to a loss of momentum on the part of the #5 horse. Equally clearly, it was the initial incident, not even mentioned by the stewards, that caused the greater loss of momentum. In my view, the incident that the stewards used to rationalize the DQ was trivial, relatively speaking, and given the broader context, there should not have been any change in the order of finish.

Tinky

10,997 Aufrufe • vor 17 Tagen

When a spacecraft leaves Earth, it doesn’t just fire its engines and head straight to its destination. In many missions, especially those going beyond low Earth orbit, there’s a more subtle and elegant strategy at play, one that uses gravity itself as part of the navigation system. This is often called a gravity assist, or a slingshot maneuver. But in the case of missions like #Artemis II, what’s being used is a closely related idea known as a free-return trajectory. At first glance, it might sound simple: the spacecraft goes to the Moon, loops around it, and comes back. But the physics behind it is anything but simple. Instead of relying on continuous propulsion, the spacecraft follows a carefully calculated path through the gravitational field of the Earth–Moon system. It is launched with just the right speed and direction so that, as it approaches the Moon, the Moon’s gravity bends its trajectory. The spacecraft is effectively flung around the Moon, redirected onto a path that naturally brings it back toward Earth. No major engine burn is needed for the return. Small trajectory corrections may still be required, but gravity does the heavy lifting. That’s the key. This kind of trajectory is not just efficient, it’s also safe. If something goes wrong with the spacecraft’s engines or onboard systems, gravity itself ensures the return. It’s an inherent backup plan, built into the trajectory from the very beginning. The same fundamental idea appears in gravity assists used across the Solar System. When a spacecraft flies past a planet, it can gain or lose speed by exchanging momentum with that planet. From the spacecraft’s point of view, it’s as if it has been accelerated without using fuel. In reality, it has borrowed a tiny amount of orbital energy from the planet itself. That’s how missions like Voyager reached the outer planets, and how probes continue to explore regions far beyond what their onboard fuel alone would allow. But there’s an important distinction. An interplanetary gravity assist is typically used to change speed and direction, often increasing the spacecraft’s energy. A free-return trajectory, like the one used in Artemis II, is designed for something more specific: a path that naturally loops back to Earth without requiring additional propulsion. It’s less about gaining energy, and more about shaping a trajectory that guarantees a return. To understand why this works, it helps to stop thinking in straight lines. In space, motion follows curves defined by gravity. The spacecraft is constantly falling, first toward Earth, then toward the Moon, and then back toward Earth again. What looks like a loop is really a continuous free fall through a changing gravitational landscape. This way of navigating space reveals something deeper. We tend to think of engines as the drivers of motion, but once a spacecraft is on its way, gravity does most of the work. The art of spaceflight is not just about thrust. It’s about knowing when not to use it. #GoodLuck #Artemis NASA Artemis

Erika 

234,886 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

🚨 What If Your Entire Life… Is Just Code? In 2003, philosopher Nick Bostrom published a paper with a question so unsettling that it still echoes through science and philosophy today: What if our entire universe is actually a computer simulation? At first it sounds like science fiction. But the idea is surprisingly logical when you think about the direction technology is heading. Look at how far we have already come. Just a few decades ago, computers could barely display simple graphics. Today, video games create entire worlds filled with cities, forests, weather, and characters that react to our actions. Virtual reality can make our brains feel as if we are standing somewhere else entirely. Now imagine technology thousands—or even millions—of years in the future. A civilization that advanced might possess computers powerful enough to simulate entire planets… entire histories… even entire universes. Inside those simulations could exist conscious beings who believe their world is real. Beings just like us. Bostrom suggested something called “ancestor simulations.” The idea is simple but chilling. Advanced civilizations might run simulations of their past to study history or understand how their species evolved. These simulations would contain billions of simulated people living normal lives, completely unaware that their reality is artificial. If a single advanced civilization created thousands or millions of such simulations, then the number of simulated minds would become vastly greater than the number of real biological minds. And this leads to a disturbing possibility. Statistically speaking, a randomly existing mind would be far more likely to be inside a simulation than in the original reality. In other words… the odds might not be in our favor. Think about your daily life for a moment. The sky above you, the ground beneath your feet, every star in the night sky, every memory you have ever experienced—what if all of it is simply information being processed somewhere else? What if reality itself is being rendered like a giant cosmic video game? Some scientists have even wondered whether strange features of the universe could hint at something deeper. Why do the laws of physics follow precise mathematical rules? Why does the universe appear almost perfectly tuned for life? And why does space and time seem to have limits at the smallest measurable scales? To some thinkers, these questions sound eerily similar to the rules of a programmed system. Of course, none of this proves we live inside a simulation. Many scientists remain skeptical, arguing that simulating an entire universe would require unimaginable amounts of energy and computing power. Others point out that the idea may be impossible to test. But the mystery remains. If advanced civilizations somewhere in the cosmos eventually develop the ability to simulate conscious beings—and if they choose to run these simulations—then billions or trillions of simulated worlds could exist. And in a universe filled with simulations, the most unsettling question of all appears: How do we know ours is the original one? Right now, you are reading these words, feeling the world around you, believing this moment is real. But somewhere, far beyond our understanding, there might be a machine quietly running the code of an entire universe… including you.

Astronomy Vibes

12,290 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten