Jump to content

SkySurveyBanner.jpg.21855908fce40597655603b6c9af720d.jpg

Black Hole - TV BROADCAST

Lincoln

Recommended Posts

661-pete

661-pete

Posted
Posted

Watched it on BBC2 - I thought it was very good, although quite advanced: it ventured further into the maths than is usual for Horizon, and parts of it were too difficult for me!

Fascinating archive clips of a very young-looking Sir Patrick, and also of (equally youthful) Hermann Bondi (whom I knew personally).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Macavity

Macavity

Posted
Posted

Very good program - Even watched it again, while "concentrating". ;)

Some rarely(?) exposed ideas (and a great waterfall analogy!) e.g. what is within the event horizon of a black hole - The possibility of traversing the latter, the inner event horizon, the singularity etc. :)

Although generally incomprehensible, I think it good that the Maths makes a token appearence. I think sometimes the (wider) lay public think that theorists just "pull these ideas out of space". Or perhaps, in a sense, they do... :icon_eek:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Jones

George Jones

Posted
Posted
Very good program - Even watched it again, while "concentrating". :icon_eek:

Sounds great. I hope that eventually this will make its way to google video or something similar, so that people Like me) outside the UK will be able to watch it.

Although generally incomprehensible, I think it good that the Maths makes a token appearence.

I wouldn't say that the maths behind black hole are generally incomprehensible, just somewhat advanced and abstract. In fact, a lot can be said using just first-year university physics and calculus. For the simplest (non-spinning) black holes, this includes the shapes and types of orbits and trajectories for people and photons, and what people see and feel in and around black holes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Macavity

Macavity

Posted
Posted
I wouldn't say that the maths behind black hole are generally incomprehensible, just somewhat advanced and abstract. In fact, a lot can be said using just first-year university physics and calculus. For the simplest (non-spinning) black holes, this includes the shapes and types of orbits and trajectories for people and photons, and what people see and feel in and around black holes.
:) Well, a little glib, perhaps, but certainly with no desire to play down others' abilities. Perhaps I am a being overly modest re. my own past as a particle physicist... :D

I'm sure you're right, re. 1st year physics courses, and am now a tad better informed re. the current LEVEL of undergrad courses. Doubtless MUCH has advanced, since the early 70s... :)

I think it always a balance for both the professional an amateur sceintist (astronomers): To both aknowledge the compexity of such things, yet convince others that some of this is not beyond them... with a little application and determination. :(

Aside: Perhaps I do indulge in a few white lies re. the prerequisites to understand physics. I sense I have struggled in vain to seduce a variety of folks therein: A mother who RESENTED all "science talk", around the house (An lineage of like-thinking [oppressed] mothers had ensured that!). A Dad who earnestly tried to understand, but was "denied" a University place by dint of a war, or required to "go out to work" etc. Not to mention a whole host of self-made-men (my so-called friends? LOL) who feel they "don't need no steenkin' degrees", or that all scientists are geeks, nerds etc. etc. ;)

ALL HAIL HORIZON. :icon_eek:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
acey

acey

Posted
Posted

I only caught the end of it, having given up on Horizon a long time ago, and was very pleasantly surprised - it seemed like the kind of program they used to make many years ago (i.e. aimed at people who actually want to learn something). Wasn't crazy on the way they had everyone sitting in moody shadow, but would like to have seen the rest of the prog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Jones

George Jones

Posted
Posted

I have now watched the entire programme. Eventually, I might make a series of comments, but, for now, just one.

An hour-long programme on black holes, and (unless I missed something) no mention of either Penrose or Hawking!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Astro_Baby

Astro_Baby

Posted
Posted

I must be out of step on this one - I found it dull, lots of close ups of beards and nasal hair. Didn't tell me anything I didn't already know from stuff I have read ages back.

And super disappointing because with an HD TV and an HD broadcast I thought it might look better than close ups of peoples facial hair and something that looks like fag smoke swirling around in a dim room.

Its all been done before - and done better I thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve922

Steve922

Posted
Posted

I wasn't too impressed either. A lot of cinematic stuff for effect and much speculative stuff presented as fact. No mention of the fact that no information comes out of these things to back up the speculation.

Still - well worth a watch; I think aimed more at the general public than the scientifically interested.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites
661-pete

661-pete

Posted
Posted

Exactly. We are looking here at a popular science programme in the mass media, not a degree-course lecture in astrophysics. Of course it's got to popularise and the division between popularising and patronizing is quite fine. I think it achieved something.

And the hirsuteness of the scientists interviewed is really no concern of mine :rolleyes:! It's a shame if other viewers find this off-putting. It's also a shame that so few women get involved in this field of study...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Astro_Baby

Astro_Baby

Posted
Posted
It's also a shame that so few women get involved in this field of study...

Well look at the men - is it any wonder :rolleyes:

Seriously though there have been a fair few women who were foremost in phsyics but they generally get little recognition. Everyones heard opf Bohr, Fermi, Rutherford - how many people have heard of Lise Meitner whose insights (ahead of people like Bohr) led to atomic weapons.

Thats probably another reason why women steer clear of it - and of course some of us dont like the competitive nature of science - I am thinking of Rosalind Franklin - almost completely forgotten by people now yet it was her work that allowed Crick and Watson to discover the structure of DNA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
661-pete

661-pete

Posted
Posted

I assure you, Mel, I most certainly have heard of Lise Meitner! And of Marie Curie, and of Chien-Shiung Wu. But alas! in the field of physics and other pure science the list soon dries up.

At least in the field of astronomy, we have Caroline Herschel, and Henrietta Leavitt, and Jocelyn Bell, and Carolyn Shoemaker... and no doubt many others ... but still the men outnumber the women by many. And it's not all beards...:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.