This was an analog black hole. These are physical systems that are not black holes but behave in a similar way. An example of an analog black hole is the Sonic black hole.
Same here, man in his know it all arrogance meddling with God's sovereign creation. "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: 'He catches the wise in their craftiness." 1 Corinthians 3:19
@Hewhoremains Black Holes are real. In fact, they've imaged the center black hole in the Milky Way (last year) and some other galaxy (in 2018 I believe).
@@alfwok Nope. There's actual evidence of black holes now. The empty dark center in the middle of the accretion disk of said photographs are the black holes. Religion on the other hand is indeed bullshit and unprovable.
Exactly who are you referring to? It obviously couldn’t possibly be the narrator as a HUGE amount of this vid is completely and utterly false, incorrect and really just a load of shit!! Wtf is a particle made from negative energy?? There’s NO SUCH THING! As in, it’s utterly unknown to science. People have postulated about things one tone day be able to do with negative energy if it ever turns out to be a real, physical phenomenon but it simply isn’t real. It isn’t even plausible! Honestly, the fact you consider a rubbish vid like this the absolute most technical thing you’ve ever seen, I just pity you. This is just a suggestion, but perhaps might be an idea to start broadening your horizons and watching some actual, factually correct documentaries and there’s this fabulous new invention called a public library. One day you should have a look inside and see what goes on in these places. I can absolutely promise you will be SO amazed at the incredible amounts accurate and unerring technical accuracy. Just a thought….
Indeed, as Dj said, this isn’t Hawking’s theory being confirmed observationally. Curiously, it has, in essence been confirmed with several, or at least a few bh analogues. Because Hawking radiation has nothing whatsoever to do with the pathetic explanation espoused in this and far too many similar vids, that Hawking radiation has something to do with particle-antiparticle pairs being created near the horizon and one of said particles being sucked into the bh, that is utterly and COMPLETELY wrong and couldn’t be too much further from the truth and how the phenomenon actually manifests. It’s specifically related to the fact that a bh disallows or disrupts various modes of particles and radiation by virtue of the event horizon. One might say that it _appears_ as if the horizon itself is emitting particles and/or radiation, but it’s nothing of the sort and neither is it due to the aforementioned particle-antiparticle pairs. In reality, it is SO much more complicated and difficult to grasp which is why the article-antiparticle pairs thing came about (I suppose) but it literally has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual, physical process by which the phenomena occurs. For that very reason, it can be seen from sonic bh’s, and some other types of bh analogues.
@@Tokhaar I forgot to mention that this vid is really THAT pathetic that it couldn’t even get this explanation right. I’ve never even heard of this negative energy particle bullshit before this video, because there is no such phenomenon, not that it can’t happen, it’s that it isn’t even plausible! The explanation usually says that a matter-antimatter particle pair is created near the horizon… the one that gets absorbed by the bh doesn’t matter at all if it’s the matter or the antimatter, since they both have positive energy, as the concept of negative energy is just that, a concept and nothing more. Anyway, it’s said that since they were virtual particles, it isn’t until one is absorbed by the bh that the other one becomes a physical particle, not virtual and the bh has to ‘pay’ for that particle’s energy debt to the universe by losing mass itself, hence conservation of energy in the universe is preserved. Really does annoy me so much when ultra shitty vids like this, which are completely ripping off the work of physicists and/or content creators who actually spend the time doing the research and providing 100% correct and accurate information. Too many ppl are used to watching normal tv their whole lives but tv shows cost so much to make that they can afford to employ Them researchers and ppl who actually know what they’re talking about. Then, along come ppl like whoever made this vid, can’t even copy and rip off someone else’s hard work and do it accurately.
if black holes are essentially huge gravitational bodies...and gravity only acts on things with mass...does that mean empty space has mass in order for it to be warped? and since light follows the shape of spacetime, thats why it cannot escape even though it has no mass?
Gravity is only caused by the warping of space-time by mass being suspended in it. Mass doesn't cause gravity by itself. Mass existing in a space-time field causes distortions in space-time that we perceive as gravity.
There is no such thing as gravity as they have not yet found any gravitons.. to actually prove gravity.. Also, gravity doesn't work with quantum mechanics
Gravity doesn’t only affect or act on massive objects - this was shown by Eddington 4 years after the general theory of relativity was published, by the fact that stars appeared to be in the wrong place during a solar eclipse. Gravity affects anything with energy, and as E=mc^2, therefore anything with mass OR energy is subject to gravitational effects.
Sorry, I neglected to answer a very good question you asked, regarding empty space and the warping of spacetime. You asked if it has mass, which allows spacetime to be warped by gravity but you’re actually thinking about the concept in reverse. It’s not that spacetime needs any mass to allow it to be warped, it’s the very bending, warping and curving of spacetime that IS how gravity actually manifests. Gravity is not a force at all, it’s simply the curving of spacetime and we perceive this curvature as gravity. The greater the curvature, the more intense we feel gravity’s effect. A useful way to understand this is the typical rubber sheet style diagram or actual rubber sheet with a bowling ball in the middle of it. If you then throw in a marble or golf ball or similar, you’ll see that just as planets do, the marble will actually begin to ‘orbit’ the bowling ball. One always must be cognisant of the fact that in reality this is happening in three dimensions, not two. As in, gravity doesn’t cause an actual downwards warping of spacetime, it does that but in every direction around the body. We can’t conceive an image of such a thing as to do so would mean we’d need to be able to draw or envision something curving in a fourth spatial dimension. But just as with a spacetime diagram, and it only showing one dimension each of space and time, we have to extrapolate it to 3+1 dimensions, so we have to do likewise when using the rubber sheet analogy to conceptualise how the curving of spacetime is perceived as gravity. Hope that helps mate.
I’ve always wondered why the antimatter particle is the only one that gets absorbed… shouldn’t it be roughly 50/50 in terms of positive and negative energy particles?
@Gerald Woods it didn't, nothing escapes the event horizon unless it has never crossed it. The only way to do that would be traveling faster than light.
The reason you’ve been wondering such a thing is because neither particle gets absorbed. Hawking radiation is SO vastly different from how useless vids such as this explain it. There are no particles whatsoever involved with Hawking radiation. It’s a phenomenon connected to the missing modes of radiation due to the bh disturbing spacetime. I hate the way videos such as this one give a completely and absolutely false explanation of Hawking radiation, to the point that it honestly does nothing at all to help in one’s understanding of how Hawking radiation actually occurs.
@@carloso6292 The space time around a black hole is curved into itself bcoz of the blackholes immense gravity. Irrespective of the speed you travel you still can’t escape the event horizon because there is no direction that points outwards from the blackhole
@@vikyaths6277 if you factor in time dilation it may seem like you're able to achieve an infinite speed without getting out from your perspective but for an outside observer you never went past the speed of light while the speed at which space moves towards the singularity is faster than light. There is no math which suggests spacetime "curls" in such a way that moving faster than light in any direction wouldn't allow you to escape, in fact all theories describing the inside of a blackhole are speculative nonsense
I know they are microscopic and evaporate quickly, though the thought of one going rogue is terrifying. One day we will do something we wish we didn't.
@@nobody6032 Yes Nobody, indeed it IS clickbait at its worst, as nowhere does it state that this was a simulation. The title clearly and explicitly states “Created a BH in Lab… Started Growing”. Please explain to us all how that ISN’T clickbait when no bh was ever created in any lab ever. It was a simulation of a bh, NOT actually creating a bh in a lab, therefore this most definitely is 100% clickbait bullshit. If the title has been something like “… Simulate bh in lab”, that would be entirely accurate and not make ppl think that there was an actual bh, physically created in a lab and posting all these idiotic comments about the earth getting swelled up and nonsense of that sort.
@@aaronperelmuter8433 scientists have actually created black holes over the last few years. They're not the typical black hole one might expect, but they're still considered black holes. And they only last for an instant because maintaining one would be very expensive. This video is probably click bait tho, who knows.
@@thesnapper9421typical bh’s, but they’re still _considered_ a bh, what then actually are they and why aren’t they “typical” bh’s? On that note, how can a bh be anything other than typical, given that they have just 3 attributes, regardless of size? Of course, those bring mass, angular momentum and charge. When you say these bh only last an instant, why is that? Are you saying that actual, physical, gravitational and massive bh’s have been created? How and by what means? Since we’re nowhere near capable of compressing either mass or energy at anything within tens of orders of magnitude, how could anyone possibly have created a physical bh? 🧐 The most powerful accelerator on the planet, the LHC was postulated to have been powerful enough to create tiny bh’s but this was obviously proven to be complete nonsense as nothing of the sort was ever performed, not even close. 😢 Given that new papers are published all the time, it’s absolutely possible I just haven’t come across reports of such an experiment. Given that you said it’s been happening over the last few years, I find this hard to believe, but I’m always open to being proven wrong, as it’s just another opportunity to learn. Please enlighten me. I’m very intrigued. 😱
@@jwdory currency isn't real money either. But we use it.😆 I was j/k. I knew what you meant. But no Sheita of the Bull. I Sheita you not.🤣 UA-cam VR has a blackhole experience. It's awesome.
I absolutely never understood hawking radiation till now. Of course I hardly understand any of it since it's so vitaly different to what we can imagine. But at least you made it visible somehow. Thanks for that.
@@david_cop_a_feel7538 I'm not 100% certain, but I suspect it means that she can almost certainly expect a reply from some insecure, pedantic malcontent on the internet who's thrilled they've been gifted an opportunity to use an obvious typo as an excuse to condescendingly feign confusion, in a vain and transparent attempt to give their fragile ego a little boost against their own intellectual inferiority complex, at the expense of a complete stranger... I can only hope that they would never allow one sorry rando's attempt to tear them down over something so trivial to dampen their obvious enthusiasm for learning new things about our amazing cosmic playground!
@@iamthecondor Seriously? How in any way whatsoever does this vid “accurately portray physics concepts intuitively”?? You said that you never understood Hawking radiation until now, but unfortunately you still have no idea how the phenomenon occurs. And it isn’t your fault at all. Vids like this, which perpetuate a complete and utter fallacy when describing Hawking radiation as anything to do with particle-antiparticle pairs. I don’t think they’re lying as such, just perpetuating this idiotic explanation because SO MANY other videos do likewise, so I’m guessing none of them actually check the facts and/or read any papers about the subject and therefore they don’t even understand the concept themselves. One has to be extremely cautious when watching vids like this and taking what they say as gospel. Hawking radiation is caused by the bh interrupting spacetime in such a way that certain modes of radiation and virtual particles are unable to exist and from a distance, this can seem to appear as if the event horizon is emitting particles (radiation actually, not physical particles. EVER. The radiation is that of a black body and no black body has ever emitted any physical particles, and by that I mean a photon is not a physical particle in the same way a proton or electron, etc are.) or more specifically radiation, black body, thermal radiation. The simple fact is that if the particle-antiparticle explanation was correct, how can it even be plausible that the negative energy particle and ONLY ever that particle is the one which the bh swallows? It’s completely ludicrous to say the least! No video or anything I’ve read has ever had any explanation for exactly how a bh could possibly _choose_ to always, 100% of the time, absorb the negative energy particle but never the positive one. And that’s because none of this particle-antiparticle stuff actually happens. Not even in theory. It’s not your fault in any way at all. I just wish stupid vids such as these wouldn’t be made as they do nothing at all to further one’s understanding of the concept and do very much to obfuscate the truth, to the point of completely disregarding the actual facts and truth.
when a synthetic blackhole explodes you can use those gamma rays as energy, but the energy which is spent making the blackhole explosion should be 50% less than the output to make a working energy generator for free energy.
What exactly is a “synthetic bh”? How can a bh possibly be synthetic? Why would you say that we can use the energy from an exploding bh which is synthetic but not from a real bh? That makes no sense whatsoever. Why would we only be able to use energy from a synthetic bh, whatever that may be?
I wonder if other black holes that just randomly popped up from nowhere are actually other civilizations that figured out how to create a black hole and accidentally made it eat them and their whole planet and it just kept growing
Problem with blackholes is Stability.U Can't Let It Be Small Aleays Because Considering We Can Make Blackholes Only The Size Of Almost An Atom If We Let It Stay It Would Just Explode in no time cuz ofc hawking radiation.But We Can't Let It Stay Or It Will Eat Us Eo Better To Let It Explode and destroy a city or 2
I cannot answer how they're made artificially, but I think I have the idea on how they turn it off. Since Hawking Radiation exists, a small (probably microscopic-sized or lot smaller) black hole created in Lab could've just evaporated when not fed with energy somehow. Basically they wait it out.
If particle-antiparticle pairs had ANYTHING to do with Hawking radiation, your question would be completely valid. But since the phenomenon doesn’t, and pathetic vids like this perpetuate the fallacy, ppl such as yourself ask excellent questions but never receive an answer. 😢 You will NEVER receive an answer t your question because it just isn’t possible for a bh to somehow _choose/select_ not ever the negative energy particle. By what means, could it even be plausible this would occur? 🤔 None! Hawking radiation is actually due to the bh disrupting spacetime such that certain modes of radiation and virtual particles are unable to exist and from a distance, this might appear as if the event horizon was emitting radiation. 😳 Also, and this might have been mentioned in the vid, the fact that Hawking radiation is thermal in nature, like that of blackbody radiation, confirms that only radiation is ever seen to be emitted, NEVER particles as blackbody radiation is pure EM radiation. No blackbody ever emits physical particles, such as protons or electrons, etc. And neither do bh’s. 😱
@Aaron Perelmuter You have a life outside YT, yet decide to spread your knowledge on a platform know to be toxic, distrustful and overall shitty? You can do better bro
I don't actually know how these physics principles work, but if the creation of the particles is at random, then there is exactly 50 50 chance of a negative particle being sucked into the black hole as a positive particle. This makes the net energy gained by the black hole zero. Could anyone explain what happens exactly?
This would be the same as a human reaching a point of emotional neutrality, where the choice of where and how the emotion is used is up to the user and not just unconscious whims of ego
I thought we didn't know what happens when something approaches the event horizon. How did they know in the experiment that the electrons are moving similar to how matter behaves near the event horizon?
Since when has anyone not known what happens when something approaches an event horizon? 🤔 It’s a regular, normal(ish) region of spacetime and all the normal rules of physics apply, so where do you find an issue with knowing what’s happening in such a region? To try and answer your question, there weren’t any electrons mentioned in this pathetic vid but if there was, what exactly do you mean by “electrons are moving similar to how matter behaves”? Electrons ARE matter, so quite obviously, they must behave identically to how matter behaves because electrons are matter. 😱😱 How else could they behave? Or was that some kinda weird trick question?🤔
@@aaronperelmuter8433 ok well I thought we didn't know, I'm not really a physicist but rather a physician so that's my fault. I thought they're all just assumptions/theories. Re the electrons moving like matter.. please read my complete statement.. it includes "how matter behaves near the event horizon" Referring to the way they did the experiment as explained in around 6:20. I know electrons are matter. We all learned that in elementary school right? 😊
@@bryanpaulramirez8281 Indeed, most of us learned about electrons and such in school but unfortunately this video is about as accurate regarding Hawking radiation as a young child at school is about pretty much anything to do with qm. This video is absolutely incorrect and like far too many others, perpetuates this stupid fallacy regarding Hawking radiation. It’s simply an awful and completely unsubstantiated plagiarism of other videos which also present Hawking radiation in a similar manner. But the author of this video is so incompetent he couldn’t even copy other vids correctly. For example, there is no such thing as negative energy, let alone a particle which is made from?/consists of?/contains? negative energy. I phrase it that way because the idea of negative energy isn’t even plausible, let alone possible. I’ve no idea what the negative energy in this vid is supposed to represent but it’s not anything to do with reality. Science fiction titles sometimes mention negative energy but there is absolutely zero evidence, even indirect evidence of such a phenomenon. And that’s just the start of how pathetic this video really is. There is just SO much which is either a lie, misinformation or flat out wrong, not sure which, probably all three. One last tidbit, Hawking radiation doesn’t even have anything to do with particles. Period. Maybe that’s why it’s called radiation, because radiation is specifically and ONLY photons, as in light or any frequency of em radiation. No bh will EVER emit any particles. Ever. That’s because Hawking radiation is thermal, the same as blackbody radiation and no blackbody has ever or will ever emit/radiate any matter particles, such as electrons, neutrons, protons, etc. Just em radiation which consist of photons and only photons. Anyway, it’s a little complex to explain completely in a youtube comment but getting back to your movement near an event horizon, the reason we can and do know what happens near and even inside the horizon is because there is nothing special about an event horizon, physically speaking. In fact, if a bh were large enough, one wouldn’t notice anything unusual or special happening when crossing the horizon. Nothing unusual happens because an event horizon isn’t a physical object, it’s simply a location. It isn’t demarcated by anything and with sufficiently massive bh’s, such as the supermassive ones at the centre of most galaxies, the tidal effects are so minimal that there will be no effect whatsoever when crossing the horizon…
we do not know what happens at the event horizon. this was not a real black hole. they approximated a metaphor for a black hole. this video is clickbait
@@katiebarber407 Yes the video is definitely clickbait and complete bullshit but that doesn’t mean we don’t know what happens at and near an eh. Since the eh is a regular, normal part of space, the same as any other region of space, so there is nothing special about an eh. It isn’t as if matter or energy or anything else takes on some special configuration or has some special properties when at or near the eh which would leave us wondering what happens in such a region. 😂🤣 It also doesn’t matter that this was a simulation because we can simulate what happens at an eh quite satisfactorily and with sufficient accuracy that we can say we do indeed know what happens at an eh.
@@dgk693 like we allow ourselves to live in a system where basic rights and necessities (food and shelter) require labour to achieve them in order to acquire glorified toilet paper.
If particle-antiparticle pairs had ANYTHING to do with Hawking radiation, your question would be completely valid. But since the phenomenon doesn’t, and pathetic vids like this perpetuate the fallacy, ppl such as yourself ask excellent questions but never receive an answer. 😢 You will NEVER receive an answer t your question because it just isn’t possible for a bh to somehow _choose/select_ not ever the negative energy particle. By what means, could it even be plausible this would occur? 🤔 None! Hawking radiation is actually due to the bh disrupting spacetime such that certain modes of radiation and virtual particles are unable to exist and from a distance, this might appear as if the event horizon was emitting radiation. 😳 Also, and this might have been mentioned in the vid, the fact that Hawking radiation is thermal in nature, like that of blackbody radiation, confirms that only radiation is ever seen to be emitted, NEVER particles as blackbody radiation is pure EM radiation. No blackbody ever emits physical particles, such as protons or electrons, etc. And neither do bh’s. 😱
@@aaronperelmuter8433 I don't understand your point of view can you explain me in simple words? By the way your knowledge is so awesome you have a vast knowledge on Blackholes and Gravity. Your each and every comment makes me important to read and understand but can you teach me your stuff reguarding Hawking Radiation and Spacetime wrapping and how does it works? And as you said why electrons do not spin around nuclei and if they spin why would atom destroy?
Wow, thanks so much for the very kind words. As the cliche says, flattery will get you everywhere. 👍 What are you referring to regarding not understanding my point of view? Please let me know exactly what it is I said that you’re unsure of and I’ll do my best to explain it to you. Regarding the actual, correct explanation of the Hawking radiation phenomenon, most importantly, being as close as non-mathematician, lay-physicists can, it’s something like this; keep in mind I’m pretty sure I still don’t understand the exact process myself as it’s always been one of the more obtuse and difficult to grasp concepts I’ve ever come across in my 30ish years of being devoutly interested in, and devouring many books about the whole astrophysics/qm/relativity/cosmology/etc. fields. My admittedly limited understanding of the process is that it can in a manner of speaking, be thought of as somewhat analogous to the way in which the Casimir effect manifests. That happens because between the two metal plates, there are missing modes of the virtual particles whose wave function is too large to physically fit between the plates. Therefore, if there is a dearth of virtual particles and their associated modes between the plates, it results in a ‘low pressure’ region, and outside the plates, since all modes of virtual particles can exist, this results in a ‘high pressure’ and the resultant force which moves the plates closer together. With Hawking radiation, the bh is doing a similar thing as the plates, in that it disrupts the spacetime around/near the bh such that some modes of radiation aren’t able to exist, in somewhat of a similar manner to the virtual particles just mentioned above. Apparently this leads to a situation in which it appears as if the bh is emitting radiation. But never, ever does it emit particles, as per what this vid asserts. This is absolutely ridiculous as the radiation is known to be thermalised, meaning that it’s purely thermal in nature, as in, blackbody radiation. And blackbody radiation is only ever radiation, never matter of any description. So any explanations that mention anything at all to do with either matter-antimatter or positive-negative energy particles is completely false and not only that but completely implausible. A good explanation of the Hawking radiation phenomenon to check out is from the people over at the PBS Spacetime channel. The host, Professor O’Dowd is just awesome. He’s such a fabulous teacher, absolutely knows his stuff and he’s Aussie too (my patriotism is showing now ;-). Actually, just about every single episode of Spacetime is highly recommended viewing. You should definitely check em out. Please lemme know if you have any other questions or if I’ve not explained something clearly.
@@aaronperelmuter8433 I'm not convinced that Hawking Radiation is even a thing. If I was a particle physicist, I'd certainly like a "way" to get rid of one of the nastier threats to the Standard Model. GR has always been the "bogyman" to them and remains so. It can't be re-normalized, quantized, or otherwise dismissed as a fundamental force, when, in fact it is THE fundamental force. The other forces inhabit the framework that Spacetime provides for them.
Why if the two particles are created positive and negative do we only count the negative particle, on average shouldn't the positive particle rebuild the black hole?
@@theastrophile8I’m glad that’s how it was intended. But yeah 5 dots typically is seen as passive aggressive or sarcastic. Funny enough length of dot chain is a studied phenomena 🤣🤣🤣 language is so interesting
If Hawking radiation is correct then primordial black holes shouldn't exist since they are to small to contain such radiation for the last fourteen billion plus years.
Forgot to say, Hawking radiation is correct but your understanding of it is severely lacking. Just as this vid is completely incorrect and doesn’t present any factual evidence. Hawking radiation has nothing whatsoever to do with particles of any kind at all. Pathetic vids such as this one perpetrate complete nonsense and don’t bother doing any research to see if what they’re plagiarising is actually correct or even accurate. This vid is a pathetic excuse for a waste of all of our time.
My GF's black hole only absorbs negative energy. The result of EVER reaching the event horizon results in headaches, sudden remembering of things i said wrong years earlier and just plain old misery. I've learned to completely avoid any contact with this area, since she saves it for other unknown entities.
The black hole is a levitating magnet in between two repelling magnets. The Magnetic attraction is constant around the two repelling magnets attracting thing nearby and Hawking radiation is the repelling force of magnetism.
dude, you can literally walk outside and get crushed by a car or whatever. life is full of risks the thing with science is that you actually meassure levels of risk for your experiments
No it isn’t! This video is absolutely full of shit! Hawking radiation has NOTHING whatsoever to do with particles of any description and the morons who wrote the script couldn’t even plagiarise correctly the content they stole from others who actually spend the time to research the topic and present factual, accurate information. This video is absolutely incorrect and just perpetuating a stupid and ignorant explanation of Hawking radiation that has NOTHING to do with reality and how Hawking radiation actually occurs.
How did they remove the thermodynamics from the equalization of resistance? Thermal energy is outward force of pressure, known as weight contained in mass. As mass vibrates in forward maximum momentum velocity, in resistance, through space as space, it occupies space and exchanges heat and resistance transference. This transference causes heat waves of exchanging resistance and thermodynamics. Mass NEUTRALIZES resistance within it, as outward force of pressure known as weight. Mass is equalization to resistance. All mass is thermodynamics cycling circulation patterns holding mass together in equalization to cold resistance throughout space as space. Stars replenish thermodynamics in mass. Mass cannot exceed resistance repelling it. Mass cannot exist without cold resistance throughout space as space itself. Resistance is the propellant and repellant of thermodynamics. Black holes are bubbles void of thermodynamics, due to the repulsion of thermal energy singularity frequencies towards the weakest point of resistance. The massive river of plasma circling the bubble is neutralized resistance, making it the weakest point of resistance. The bubble void of thermodynamics, would repel all thermodynamics to the plasma flow. The event horizon would be a force field of pure resistance against thermodynamics. Its poles would jettison away any thermodynamics that cross the field of repulsion. Resistance is the cold, stationary fabric of space itself. Entanglement is mass. Unidirectional unification of flow is both positive and negative. Clockwise and counterclockwise. Magnets prove hypothesis. Both negative and positive. Unidirectional flow is heat. All mass is heat. Heat waves shimmering on the horizon. Atoms exchanging resistance and heat as we transition through space as space, point to point interactions, between thermal energy and cold resistance, repelling heat outward as shock waves of heat. No electrons. Heat waves. Elements contain different degrees of thermodynamics and their heat exchanging energy causes bigger heat waves of exchanging points of interactions. These interactions are the decay, or aging process. Heat is transferring constantly through mass and space. Resistance is equal to the mass. Conservation of maximum momentum velocity, in resistance. No magic. Physics 101. Magnetic fields repelling thermal energy outward as a force field holding mass together. Quantization works the same way. Magnets show the unification unidirectional flow cycling through mass as space. Resistance doesn't accumulate. Thermodynamics does. But thermodynamics is limited to the equalization of resistance. Mass NEUTRALIZES resistance within it. Making mass the weakest point of resistance. We vibrate towards the weakest point of resistance which is earth. The greater the mass, the weaker the resistance between, proximity mass. Thermodynamics is repelled towards the weakest point of resistance. Occupational space. Plasma river circling. Unidirectional flow is both clockwise and counterclockwise. The resistance is constant in mass and is always disrupted by thermal energy. Storms restore equalization. In atmospheres and space. Proximity mass repelling thermal energy outward, towards the weakest point of resistance, which is the greater mass, of neutralized resistance. It disrupts cycling circulation patterns of proximity mass trajectories. The smaller mass repelling its outermost core towards the whirlwind of plasma of weaker resistance. Mass trajectories are repelled towards the weakest point of resistance always. Only thermodynamics curves, bends, and moves. It is the disrupter and creator. Resistance is the catalyst. Equalization is constant. Conservation of maximum momentum velocity, in resistance. Gravity doesn't exist. Electrons don't exist. Heat is in mass in equalization of resistance as space itself. Weight is the outward force of pressure known as weight contained in mass. Resistance repels it outward. Air in a balloon. As resistance within and without. The balloon eventually cools in resistance to thermodynamics inside and the balloons pressure reduces from the resistance outside. Heat expansion. Cold contraction. As mass reduces expansion increases in distance. Conservation of maximum momentum velocity, in resistance. Theoretically?
This is a fancy explanation for how the simulation is being run. Entanglement is a fancy word used to describe how experiencing this reality is projected to beings that couldn’t experience it otherwise. Like gelatinous blobs on a cave floor in a far off solar system that can’t experience this reality as we do so it’s shared with them in this way.
@@willlinke2849 lmao I love this conclusion, I had an acid trip that unveiled the secrets of the world to me as I died over and over and over again. Then I got over it 😂😂
No it doesn’t! That is about as stupid as this video is. This video is COMPLETELY WRONG, as is the concept that our universe is a bh. In any dimension, higher or lower.
Continuing on from MG's comment, even if they did manage to create one, it'd evaporate very quickly due to it being extremely small and by small I mean it having next to no mass.
Why wouldn’t there be an equal amount of negatively charged particles appearing on the “outside” of the event horizon? Would this antimatter not negate any matter appearing on the outside of the event horizon?
Crazy theory: If black holes are universes, then that would explain the 'big bang'. Two stars colliding can = a black hole. This would mean that the supernova created from two sun destroying each other would be replicated within the now newly created black hole. Think about that for a moment. The gravity in a black hole is so extreme that it traps even light inside of it. Surely it would also trap energy and matter from that supernova. Well, in a smaller universe that would reside in a black hole, less matter would be able to create the same relative size of our universe. So the big bang could be explained by the colliding of two stars turning into a black hole, and the matter that remained within the blackhole was that universe's own big bang. The only real issue in this would be that technically, external gravity from outside the blackhole might potentially be able to modify the gravity of all objects within it. In the same instance, if that blackhole were to absorb more matter or another blackhole, it would then appear in that new galaxy. In ours, we haven't seen things like that, except we possibly have. In this theory, it would mean that the environment of the new universe would have different laws from our own. The atoms we can see and acknowledge as the building blocks of OUR universe would be technically much large in the universe of a black hole. But let's look at something interesting. Atoms have a nucleus with electrons that rotate around it. Solar systems have stars with planets that rotate around it. Galaxies have Supermassive blackholes with solar systems that rotate around it. In this theory, it is very possible that other 'dimensions' are merely leveled by entering a new black hole, or exiting the one we reside in, and that these new 'dimensions' would hold entirely different laws of physics. Maybe our quantum realm is merely the external of our black hole, and that these particles that are created and destroyed are ones from the external universe our black hole resides in. It could also technically explain quantum entanglement, as all the matter would reside within a single black hole, a technical single mass that resides in a place in space. I could go on and on, but the theory *most likely* isn't even close to being correct. I just think if the black hole universe theory was actually correct, it could explain literally everything about why our universe is the way it is. Like, even parts of our own universe breaks the universal laws, which could only truly be explained by an external factor playing a role. Aka, the influence of an external universe(quantum realm). We always see the quantum realm as getting smaller and smaller, but if you think about it, the further from the center of a blackhole you get, wouldn't it technically get thinner and thinner? Anyway, I'ma end the theory rant now. Idc if the theory is wrong or right, it's just fun to craft them.
What doesn't fit is that it is just as likely to have the + absorbed as it is the - absorbed. The mechanism doesn't show any preferences. Many unstated assumptions here that do not fit.
What still confuses me is, what actually happens to the negative part of the energy pair. Doesn't it have to stay around until it annihilated with its positive counterpart? I'm not sure I get how a black hole can evaporate into nothing, leaving the negative energy nowhere to be found, unless the negative energy is allowed to annihilate with some energy within the black hole instead of its positive counterpart.
The theory of Hawking radiation raises another unanswered question: If a pair of positive & negative energy particles forms at the event horizon, what ensures that it is the NEGATIVE particle to fall into the event horizon, freeing the positive particle, and not vice-versa? Suppose it is always the negative particle that falls into the black hole: the mass of the black hole is reduced by the same amount as the mass of the positive particle which is free. It's like taking a piece of the black hole from the surface and lifting it up into space, which needs the same amount energy (equivalent to that lifted mass). Now, where does that energy come from?
This video is absolute bullshit, completely incorrect and perpetuating a complete nonsense lie about the process of Hawking radiation. Hawking radiation has nothing whatsoever to do with any kind of particles, and there is no such thing as negative energy, let alone particles which contain negative energy. This vid is so pathetic they couldn’t even plagiarise their content correctly, because they most certainly didn’t do ANY research of even care about presenting factual evidence. The theory of Hawking radiation is perfectly sound but rest assured it’s nothing like how this pathetic vid has described it.
ER bridges don’t, and never have been said to, lead or end up at a white hole. The only way for an ER bridge to be made is between two entangled black holes. And that part of the reason why they’re not traversable since there’s a black hole at each end - how is one ever supposed to get out of the wormhole if there’s another black hole at the end of it, from which, as we all know, nothing can ever escape?
@Hewhoremains Well, that’s your problem right there. Since when has anything to do with relativity or qm ever made the slightest bit of sense? Particles are waves; things contract as they go faster; entanglement; energy is not continuous, you can only add or subtract it in very specific quanta. Not one of those has anything whatsoever to do with logic or making sense.😱
@Hewhoremains I think BHs are just space time frozen solid, unable to stretch and bend. Spacetime is fluid, black holes are frozen in time like an ice cube.
For some reason people don't know that Einstein said that singularities are not possible. In the 1939 journal "Annals of Mathematics" he wrote "the essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the Schwarzchild singularities (Schwarzchild was the first to raise the issue of GR predicting singularities) do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters whose particles move along circular paths it does seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that more general cases will have analogous results. The Schwarzchild singularities do not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light." Einstein was referring to the phenomenon of dilation (sometimes called gamma or y). This is illustrated in a common relativity graph with velocity (from stationary to the speed of light) on the horizontal line and dilation on the vertical line. The graph shows the squared nature of the phenomenon, dilation increases at an exponential rate the closer you get to the speed of light. Mass that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside/stationary/Earthbound observer. General relativity does not predict singularities when you factor in dilation. Einstein is known to have repeatedly spoken about this, nobody believed in black holes when he was alive for this reason. According to Einstein's math, the mass at the center of our own galaxy must be dilated, in other words that mass is all around us. This is the original explanation on why we can't see light from the galactic center.
No it isn’t! The reason we can’t see anything from anywhere even close to the centre of our galaxy is due to the huge quantities of dust and gas completely obstructing our view. It’s absolutely that simple. Furthermore, what Einstein was referring to wasn’t actually singularities as such, rather bh’s in general. He and many of his time couldn’t conceive of a physical phenomenon powerful enough to compress such a huge quantity of mass into such an incredibly small volume that a bh would be created. Mass can’t be dilated, as you put it. Time can but not mass. As massive objects approach the speed of light their mass physically increases but it doesn’t dilate in any way. Just as lengths contract, such that a spaceship travelling 99.999% lightspeed woud have its length contracted by several orders of magnitude. There’s an excellent video explaining exactly this concept made by the geniuses over at PBS Spacetime. Professor Matt O’Dowd is the host and he knows his stuff! Check it out, I think you’ll like it.
@@aaronperelmuter8433 Relativistic changes are all from the vantage point of an outside/stationary/Earthbound observer. According to Einstein if a ship left the Earth, no matter how fast it goes everything would be normal on the ship. Mass does not physically increase. The greatest mystery in science is the abnormally high rotation rates of stars in spiral galaxies (the reason for the theory of dark matter). It was recently discovered that low mass galaxies (like NGC 1052-DF2) have normal star rotation rates. This is what relativity would predict because there is an insufficient quantity of mass at the center to achieve relativistic velocities. This is virtual proof that dilation/gamma/y is the governing phenomenon in galactic centers, there can be no other realistic explanation for this fact.
@@shawns0762 Actually, stars don’t have anything even approaching relativistic velocities. Moreover, it’s not the central mass or lack thereof which causes the angular velocity discrepancies you mention, it’s the total mass which is inadequate to explain said velocities. Fritz Zwiki, who first noticed/discovered the mass/velocity deficiencies saw this in the Coma cluster. As in cluster of galaxies. The dark matter is postulated to surround galaxies in a massive halo, nothing to do with being in the centre. Because, if the mass was all concentrated in the centre, the velocity of stars in the outer regions of a galaxy would be dropping off, rather than staying essentially the same as objects much nearer the central region. Regarding the mass increase, this is one effect that isn’t due to differences in the way observers view something. Because mass can only be weighed or determined locally, those at a distance don’t even notice any change as there is no visible, nor other difference which a distant observer can observe or perceive to indicate that the mass has increased. This is exactly why no massive object (anything with mass, not something which is large) can ever get to the speed of light, since it’s mass is constantly increasing the closer to c it gets, therefore an ever increasing amount of energy is needed to accelerate said object, and this increases asymptotically with velocities approaching c. The reason the mass increases is because e=mc^2 and as velocity approaches c, obviously whatever is moving at said velocity has a great deal of energy which is required to obtain such a velocity, and therefore has a huge mass also. I do agree with your comment about all seeming normal on the ship. Great to chat with someone who actually knows what they’re talking about mate.😱👍😃
@@aaronperelmuter8433 With a name like Perelmuter you must be smart too. In the "Annals of Mathematics" Einstein spoke about dilation occurring in regions that would have less mass than that which would exist at the center of a galaxy, therefore it's safe to say that according to Einstein's math, the mass at the center of our own galaxy must be dilated. The shape of a galaxy is common in nature. 99.8% of the mass in our solar system is in the sun. 99.9% of the mass in an atom is in the nucleus. If these norms are true for galaxies than we can infer that there is 100's of trillion of solar masses at the center of common spiral galaxies. There is no way to know this through observation, the interference alone, dilation alone or gravitational lensing alone would make that virtually impossible. If we attribute a radius to these numbers than we can calculate that relativistic velocities exist in these regions, the same way we could calculate the surface velocity of the sun if we doubled it's mass.
@@shawns0762 2 points: 1) I’m still not understanding how mass can dilate. That doesn’t actually make sense because to dilate is to increase in size, not just an arbitrary numerical quantity. So, a thing can dilate, like a pupil does, it expands. When time does, for example, spending 1hr in a strong gravitational field will seem normal but once out of said field, we’d find that (depending on strength), say, 1 day or 1 week had passed for those back home. But for mass to dilate doesn’t make sense as mass has no defined size. Because densities vary, the same mass could need the volume of earth to accomodate or could need the size of about a tennis ball for a bh with the same mass as earth. Or a star going from the stupidly huge size they are down to about 10km radius for an average neutron star. Re: relativistic velocities, exactly what are you meaning by relativistic? As I said, stars in orbit about their galaxy don’t come close to relativistic velocities. Relativistic velocities are those approaching c, or more accurately, those where the theory of relativity stars to make it effects much more obviously seen/measured/felt/etc. Stars in orbit about their galaxy rarely exceed 1000km/s, even in galaxies with ultra massive bh at their centre, 10s of billions of solar mass. The sun is orbiting at 230km/s. Quite obviously, even in the upper ranges, these are barely even 1% the speed of light, so definitely not relativistic velocity at all. That’s why I’m curious as to what you actually mean by relativistic velocity and mass dilation? Please understand, I’m not saying you’re wrong, just trying to figure out exactly what you mean as you seem to be using these terms in a different way from their commonly accepted definitions.
No, there are no negative energy particles. This is incorrect. Hawking pairs both have positive energy and the mass loss from Hawking radiation still can occur because of the energy required for the formation of the escaped particle.
Except that isn't how Hawking Radiation works. The virtual particle pair explanation is known to be inaccurate, but is propagated because it is easier for people to grasp than the more accurate explanation (which is something like the extreme warping of space time causes wave patterns to not properly cancel, resulting in the creation of radiation some distance from the event horizon).
@@BainesMkII Finally! Someone who actually knows how pathetic these kind of vids are. And it’s not that this kind of explanation is inaccurate, they’re completely and utterly false and incorrect. I mean, that’s beside the fact that Hawking radiation doesn’t even have anything to do with particles whatsoever. Hawking radiation is thermal in nature, like that of a black body and no black body has ever radiated any physical particles (as in protons or electrons, etc.), only photons. But I’m sure you already know all of this.
If the anti particle is the one that escapes then the particle that doesn't escape is going to add to the blackhole, so on average there should be no change to the black holes mass.
Hawking admitted that he 'simplified' that explanation because he didn't think the public would understand what was really happening. Hawking Radiation is not emitted because one particle falls into the black hole and the other does not. Rather, the black hole's gravity makes some frequencies unable to exist. That energy becomes the photons emitted in a region around the event horizon, which is Hawking Radiation.
What do you mean created out of nowhere? God created all things. If you noticed the negative particle went toward the black hole the darkness where the positive stayed in the light that's exactly how it's supposed to be
Black holes are entirely negative energy. The negative side of a particle (negative virtual particle) is absorbed and the positive side of the particle is released. I recall dark energy being essentially the opposite of gravity. Instead of a pulling force, it exerts a pushing force. My question is, are these negative virtual particles the same concept/idea as that of dark energy. Since black holes are so dense and it takes so long to dissipate, the negative particles couldnt move for a very long time. These particles attracting oppositetly charged particles will just be what we know as gravity (obviously). So on so forth, what we think is dark energy surrounding the observable universe is causing the universe to expand at nearly twice the speed of light. Can this energy just be attracting the light almost similar to a black hole? Light cannot escape a black hole. Kind of the same idea.
Matter gets pulled to the surtace of the black hole. It's not a portal (so far as we know), just fuckheavy. We don't know what happens on/in the hole itself, since you can't observe the damn thing.
@@viscera_atrocity Of course it can; when matter and antimatter collide the matter is completely and utterly destroyed, turning into radiation. And just as in a bh, the matter is destroyed as we no longer have any access to it, nor do we know it’s constitution, so once inside the event horizon, as far as we’re concerned, it most definitely is destroyed as there’s no possible process or explanation as to how the matter can be located, or even just accounted for, thus it is destroyed. The same can be said of matter-antimatter annihilation.
@@aaronperelmuter8433 >turning into radiation yeah that's what changing forms is. matter = energy, for the most part. likewise, once it passes event horizon, matter still exists, we just dont have access to it. "as far as we're concerned", or not, the mass didn't go anywhere. and as the video we're on states, over time, energy of the black hole decreases, while the energy of the universe (sans black hole) increases, and the net amount of energy in the universe as a whole stays the same. mass-energy equivalency and principle of mass conservation, come on.
Such a fascinating topic and nice atmosphere/visuals in the video. I only wish the information was anything other than 5-6 sentences reconstructed 30 times and ultimately referring to eachother without really saying much at all or explaining anything. Sounds like an essay assignment "fit as many scientific terms as possible in one paper"
This is just a quick thought, roughly 4 min. into the video. quick summary is the Black Hole absorbing the neg particle loses energy while the rest of the universe gains energy. my question is could Hawking Radiation be one of the factors behind the expansion of the universe itself.
No, not in any way whatsoever as the pathetic particle-antiparticle explanation this and so many other vids perpetuate is completely and utterly false! Moreover, the universe has been expanding since well before it was even possible for the first bh to exist. Also, radiation of any kind, and of any intensity can’t cause spacetime to increase in size, for the actual universe itself, to increase in size. Radiation exists within spacetime but there is no known or even postulated way in which it could even plausibly cause the universe to expand, and therefore somehow actually CREATE more spacetime. Excellent question mate!
Has anyone theorized that the EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE is a result of the breakdown of all energy into radiation. We know that photons will impart motion. All of the granular aspects of that should be used to compute how much motion IS being imparted on the UNiverse and its structures by decay products such as radiation. The initial FTL performance of the BB could possibly be related to those pressures exceeding the bounds of restraints. Photons should be thought of as a fluid.
That’s the biggest question that we have ever had about black holes. Some theories suggest they actually have entire universes within them, some theories suggest that there are “white holes” on the other end that spit out the matter it consumes in our universe into another. Who knows? Would be great to see the answers!
I didn't get it. Black holes output energy? More than they suck in through whatever mass they consume? If so, does that mean that the Universe has a heating source? And the cold death could be less probable?
If the negative mass particle enters into the black hole, why can't the positive mass particle enter the black hole and leave the negative mass particle on the outside, countering the phenomenon?
What if the black homes do not evaporate completely but after certain amount of radiation it just finds the right balance , saying if negative virtual particles keep getting sucked inside the black hole theoretically speaking that should slow down exponentially. And once that state of balance is reached the event horizon what was visible disappears.. and a primordial black hole / a dormant black hole is formed
From what if read and understand that is actually backwards of how this works. Hawking radiation actually gets stronger as the black hole gets smaller. So the smaller the BH the faster it will evaporate due to hawking radiation. Not exactly sure why or how this happens, just what I have read and understood over the years.
He explained the case of a negative particle which enters in the black hole but keep silencious concerning the opposite case (a positive particle entering the black hole). The two phenomena should have the same probability and they should cancel themselves.
Above all that, can someone explain why it is always the negative energy particle that falls into the black hole and never the positive energy particle?? It seems to me that if nothing requires the energy moving into the black hole to be the negative energy particle, then the radiation produced would basically annihilate itself both internally and externally just by the process. While yes, the original pairs would be separated by the event horizon, there would still be particle and anti-particles that were orphaned, for a lack of a better word, by the event horizon, that could come together and annihilate each other.
But what happens when the negative energy particle flies off into space and the positive energy particle drops into a black hole? Unless there's a reason why the quantum world prefers a black hole only accepts negative energy which i doubt, then shouldn't the reverse happen on average 50% of the time? Therefore the black hole never loses mass and exists forever. I'm sure physicists have thought about this but I would like to know the answer. This only works if a black hole prefers negative energy particles. I'm sure that can't be the case. So I'm confused.
There is the idea that the optimal path for a virtual particle to escape the event horizon is orthogonal to a tangential line to its surface, there is only one orientation virtual particles can assume since they fly off in opposite directions at 180 degrees!! So, there would only be a very small percentage of all virtual particles that are oriented that way!! The rest of the particles are not orthogonal and follow curves back down into the horizon!! The smaller the horizon the more orthogonal paths are available and more virtual particles become Hawking radiation!!
That makes no sense at all. Do you actually mean perpendicular? Orthogonal is not a direction, and moreover, there’s nothing to say that any virtual particles must move apart at 180degrees. That also makes no sense as from where are they supposed to get SO much energy and velocity to move in the way you describe? Furthermore, virtual particles almost never, ever can be found to move away from each other in exactly opposing directions. Apart from that, this vid is completely inaccurate and perpetuating misinformation. Hawking radiation has nothing whatsoever to do with virtual particles of any kind, let alone the bullshit negative energy ones this vid proclaims. There’s no such thing as negative energy, not just that it isn’t possible, it isn’t even slightly plausible.
Why is it that the negative energy or antimatter gets absorbed by the black hole and the positive energy/matter remains to increase the overall energy/mass of the universe? Why never the opposite?
This was an analog black hole.
These are physical systems that are not black holes but behave in a similar way. An example of an analog black hole is the Sonic black hole.
Bruh my monkey brain saw black hole created in a lab n thought we was gonna get sucked up into a new universe or sum lmaoooo
It’s been fun, folks.
Has it? It seems to be a series of of tragedies and disappointments.
Not been my idea of fun
Same here, man in his know it all arrogance meddling with God's sovereign creation. "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: 'He catches the wise in their craftiness." 1 Corinthians 3:19
😂👍 that's right but don't sweat it the Lord will be back to get us soon Hallelujah
I'm fascinated by the inconceivable *WILL* to live, how LIFE *always* finds a way in spite of man's (and satan's) diabolical efforts to destroy it.
Black holes are the most fascinating objects in the universe. I wonder what happens right at the singularity.
@Hewhoremains Black Holes are real. In fact, they've imaged the center black hole in the Milky Way (last year) and some other galaxy (in 2018 I believe).
Same, it's so interesting
@@alfwok Nope. There's actual evidence of black holes now. The empty dark center in the middle of the accretion disk of said photographs are the black holes. Religion on the other hand is indeed bullshit and unprovable.
The creation of another universe
I wonder the same... the most brilliant minds on earth have yet to figure that out.
Dude, I've never seen anyon get so technical and still be able to provide such an understandable presentation.
Off topic,but does anyone also feel like black holes are like huge planet with so much gravity and other factors? And the EH is like rings of Saturn?
@@nasifshadmanchowdhury5023 nope
Annoying radio voice though... its just me but i camt get over it
Exactly who are you referring to? It obviously couldn’t possibly be the narrator as a HUGE amount of this vid is completely and utterly false, incorrect and really just a load of shit!! Wtf is a particle made from negative energy?? There’s NO SUCH THING! As in, it’s utterly unknown to science. People have postulated about things one tone day be able to do with negative energy if it ever turns out to be a real, physical phenomenon but it simply isn’t real. It isn’t even plausible!
Honestly, the fact you consider a rubbish vid like this the absolute most technical thing you’ve ever seen, I just pity you. This is just a suggestion, but perhaps might be an idea to start broadening your horizons and watching some actual, factually correct documentaries and there’s this fabulous new invention called a public library. One day you should have a look inside and see what goes on in these places. I can absolutely promise you will be SO amazed at the incredible amounts accurate and unerring technical accuracy.
Just a thought….
lol technical this video is not.
It’s a shame Hawking didn’t live to see his theory come to fruition…
This isn't that
Indeed, as Dj said, this isn’t Hawking’s theory being confirmed observationally. Curiously, it has, in essence been confirmed with several, or at least a few bh analogues. Because Hawking radiation has nothing whatsoever to do with the pathetic explanation espoused in this and far too many similar vids, that Hawking radiation has something to do with particle-antiparticle pairs being created near the horizon and one of said particles being sucked into the bh, that is utterly and COMPLETELY wrong and couldn’t be too much further from the truth and how the phenomenon actually manifests. It’s specifically related to the fact that a bh disallows or disrupts various modes of particles and radiation by virtue of the event horizon. One might say that it _appears_ as if the horizon itself is emitting particles and/or radiation, but it’s nothing of the sort and neither is it due to the aforementioned particle-antiparticle pairs.
In reality, it is SO much more complicated and difficult to grasp which is why the article-antiparticle pairs thing came about (I suppose) but it literally has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual, physical process by which the phenomena occurs. For that very reason, it can be seen from sonic bh’s, and some other types of bh analogues.
Ha! Thanks for this comment, I was wondering why the bh was absorbing more negative particles than positive particles
@@Tokhaar I forgot to mention that this vid is really THAT pathetic that it couldn’t even get this explanation right. I’ve never even heard of this negative energy particle bullshit before this video, because there is no such phenomenon, not that it can’t happen, it’s that it isn’t even plausible! The explanation usually says that a matter-antimatter particle pair is created near the horizon… the one that gets absorbed by the bh doesn’t matter at all if it’s the matter or the antimatter, since they both have positive energy, as the concept of negative energy is just that, a concept and nothing more. Anyway, it’s said that since they were virtual particles, it isn’t until one is absorbed by the bh that the other one becomes a physical particle, not virtual and the bh has to ‘pay’ for that particle’s energy debt to the universe by losing mass itself, hence conservation of energy in the universe is preserved.
Really does annoy me so much when ultra shitty vids like this, which are completely ripping off the work of physicists and/or content creators who actually spend the time doing the research and providing 100% correct and accurate information. Too many ppl are used to watching normal tv their whole lives but tv shows cost so much to make that they can afford to employ Them researchers and ppl who actually know what they’re talking about. Then, along come ppl like whoever made this vid, can’t even copy and rip off someone else’s hard work and do it accurately.
Off topic,but does anyone also feel like black holes are like huge planet with so much gravity and other factors? And the EH is like rings of Saturn?
if black holes are essentially huge gravitational bodies...and gravity only acts on things with mass...does that mean empty space has mass in order for it to be warped? and since light follows the shape of spacetime, thats why it cannot escape even though it has no mass?
Gravity is only caused by the warping of space-time by mass being suspended in it.
Mass doesn't cause gravity by itself.
Mass existing in a space-time field causes distortions in space-time that we perceive as gravity.
There is no such thing as gravity as they have not yet found any gravitons.. to actually prove gravity..
Also, gravity doesn't work with quantum mechanics
Gravity doesn’t only affect or act on massive objects - this was shown by Eddington 4 years after the general theory of relativity was published, by the fact that stars appeared to be in the wrong place during a solar eclipse. Gravity affects anything with energy, and as E=mc^2, therefore anything with mass OR energy is subject to gravitational effects.
There is no such thing as empty space. Any point in space has billions of intersecting light rays passing through it.
Sorry, I neglected to answer a very good question you asked, regarding empty space and the warping of spacetime.
You asked if it has mass, which allows spacetime to be warped by gravity but you’re actually thinking about the concept in reverse. It’s not that spacetime needs any mass to allow it to be warped, it’s the very bending, warping and curving of spacetime that IS how gravity actually manifests. Gravity is not a force at all, it’s simply the curving of spacetime and we perceive this curvature as gravity. The greater the curvature, the more intense we feel gravity’s effect.
A useful way to understand this is the typical rubber sheet style diagram or actual rubber sheet with a bowling ball in the middle of it. If you then throw in a marble or golf ball or similar, you’ll see that just as planets do, the marble will actually begin to ‘orbit’ the bowling ball. One always must be cognisant of the fact that in reality this is happening in three dimensions, not two. As in, gravity doesn’t cause an actual downwards warping of spacetime, it does that but in every direction around the body. We can’t conceive an image of such a thing as to do so would mean we’d need to be able to draw or envision something curving in a fourth spatial dimension.
But just as with a spacetime diagram, and it only showing one dimension each of space and time, we have to extrapolate it to 3+1 dimensions, so we have to do likewise when using the rubber sheet analogy to conceptualise how the curving of spacetime is perceived as gravity.
Hope that helps mate.
I read "growing" instead of "glowing" and was terrified
I’ve always wondered why the antimatter particle is the only one that gets absorbed… shouldn’t it be roughly 50/50 in terms of positive and negative energy particles?
I'm guessing the opposite properties of negative energy makes it more likely to be drawn in, otherwise it's entirely a product of probability
@Gerald Woods it didn't, nothing escapes the event horizon unless it has never crossed it. The only way to do that would be traveling faster than light.
The reason you’ve been wondering such a thing is because neither particle gets absorbed. Hawking radiation is SO vastly different from how useless vids such as this explain it. There are no particles whatsoever involved with Hawking radiation. It’s a phenomenon connected to the missing modes of radiation due to the bh disturbing spacetime.
I hate the way videos such as this one give a completely and absolutely false explanation of Hawking radiation, to the point that it honestly does nothing at all to help in one’s understanding of how Hawking radiation actually occurs.
@@carloso6292 The space time around a black hole is curved into itself bcoz of the blackholes immense gravity. Irrespective of the speed you travel you still can’t escape the event horizon because there is no direction that points outwards from the blackhole
@@vikyaths6277 if you factor in time dilation it may seem like you're able to achieve an infinite speed without getting out from your perspective but for an outside observer you never went past the speed of light while the speed at which space moves towards the singularity is faster than light.
There is no math which suggests spacetime "curls" in such a way that moving faster than light in any direction wouldn't allow you to escape, in fact all theories describing the inside of a blackhole are speculative nonsense
I know they are microscopic and evaporate quickly, though the thought of one going rogue is terrifying.
One day we will do something we wish we didn't.
They didn't make a real black hole. It was clickbait...
@@camerondale6529 it's not clickbait. It clearly says in a computer simulation ya nimrod
@@nobody6032 Yes Nobody, indeed it IS clickbait at its worst, as nowhere does it state that this was a simulation. The title clearly and explicitly states “Created a BH in Lab… Started Growing”. Please explain to us all how that ISN’T clickbait when no bh was ever created in any lab ever. It was a simulation of a bh, NOT actually creating a bh in a lab, therefore this most definitely is 100% clickbait bullshit. If the title has been something like “… Simulate bh in lab”, that would be entirely accurate and not make ppl think that there was an actual bh, physically created in a lab and posting all these idiotic comments about the earth getting swelled up and nonsense of that sort.
@@aaronperelmuter8433 scientists have actually created black holes over the last few years. They're not the typical black hole one might expect, but they're still considered black holes. And they only last for an instant because maintaining one would be very expensive. This video is probably click bait tho, who knows.
@@thesnapper9421typical bh’s, but they’re still _considered_ a bh, what then actually are they and why aren’t they “typical” bh’s? On that note, how can a bh be anything other than typical, given that they have just 3 attributes, regardless of size? Of course, those bring mass, angular momentum and charge.
When you say these bh only last an instant, why is that? Are you saying that actual, physical, gravitational and massive bh’s have been created? How and by what means? Since we’re nowhere near capable of compressing either mass or energy at anything within tens of orders of magnitude, how could anyone possibly have created a physical bh? 🧐 The most powerful accelerator on the planet, the LHC was postulated to have been powerful enough to create tiny bh’s but this was obviously proven to be complete nonsense as nothing of the sort was ever performed, not even close. 😢
Given that new papers are published all the time, it’s absolutely possible I just haven’t come across reports of such an experiment. Given that you said it’s been happening over the last few years, I find this hard to believe, but I’m always open to being proven wrong, as it’s just another opportunity to learn. Please enlighten me. I’m very intrigued. 😱
You can enter a blackhole starting from the event horizon in VR.
It's awesome
@@jwdory Bitcoin money?
@@jwdory currency isn't real money either. But we use it.😆
I was j/k. I knew what you meant.
But no Sheita of the Bull. I Sheita you not.🤣
UA-cam VR has a blackhole experience. It's awesome.
Sources please?
The Earth is bathed in the brilliant blue glow of the gullibility particle.
And it took us in it, and we are still in
That's exactly right.
Whoever at UA-cam made the update where iPhones vibrate whenever a new key point comes up is the bane of my existence.
I absolutely never understood hawking radiation till now. Of course I hardly understand any of it since it's so vitaly different to what we can imagine. But at least you made it visible somehow. Thanks for that.
Give ScienceClic English's video on this. They're really good at accurately portraying physics concepts intuitively
What does you mad it mean?
@@david_cop_a_feel7538 typy error, I meant made
@@david_cop_a_feel7538 I'm not 100% certain, but I suspect it means that she can almost certainly expect a reply from some insecure, pedantic malcontent on the internet who's thrilled they've been gifted an opportunity to use an obvious typo as an excuse to condescendingly feign confusion, in a vain and transparent attempt to give their fragile ego a little boost against their own intellectual inferiority complex, at the expense of a complete stranger...
I can only hope that they would never allow one sorry rando's attempt to tear them down over something so trivial to dampen their obvious enthusiasm for learning new things about our amazing cosmic playground!
@@iamthecondor Seriously? How in any way whatsoever does this vid “accurately portray physics concepts intuitively”?? You said that you never understood Hawking radiation until now, but unfortunately you still have no idea how the phenomenon occurs. And it isn’t your fault at all. Vids like this, which perpetuate a complete and utter fallacy when describing Hawking radiation as anything to do with particle-antiparticle pairs. I don’t think they’re lying as such, just perpetuating this idiotic explanation because SO MANY other videos do likewise, so I’m guessing none of them actually check the facts and/or read any papers about the subject and therefore they don’t even understand the concept themselves.
One has to be extremely cautious when watching vids like this and taking what they say as gospel. Hawking radiation is caused by the bh interrupting spacetime in such a way that certain modes of radiation and virtual particles are unable to exist and from a distance, this can seem to appear as if the event horizon is emitting particles (radiation actually, not physical particles. EVER. The radiation is that of a black body and no black body has ever emitted any physical particles, and by that I mean a photon is not a physical particle in the same way a proton or electron, etc are.) or more specifically radiation, black body, thermal radiation.
The simple fact is that if the particle-antiparticle explanation was correct, how can it even be plausible that the negative energy particle and ONLY ever that particle is the one which the bh swallows? It’s completely ludicrous to say the least! No video or anything I’ve read has ever had any explanation for exactly how a bh could possibly _choose_ to always, 100% of the time, absorb the negative energy particle but never the positive one. And that’s because none of this particle-antiparticle stuff actually happens. Not even in theory.
It’s not your fault in any way at all. I just wish stupid vids such as these wouldn’t be made as they do nothing at all to further one’s understanding of the concept and do very much to obfuscate the truth, to the point of completely disregarding the actual facts and truth.
when a synthetic blackhole explodes you can use those gamma rays as energy, but the energy which is spent making the blackhole explosion should be 50% less than the output to make a working energy generator for free energy.
What exactly is a “synthetic bh”? How can a bh possibly be synthetic? Why would you say that we can use the energy from an exploding bh which is synthetic but not from a real bh? That makes no sense whatsoever. Why would we only be able to use energy from a synthetic bh, whatever that may be?
I wonder if other black holes that just randomly popped up from nowhere are actually other civilizations that figured out how to create a black hole and accidentally made it eat them and their whole planet and it just kept growing
Problem with blackholes is Stability.U Can't Let It Be Small Aleays Because Considering We Can Make Blackholes Only The Size Of Almost An Atom If We Let It Stay It Would Just Explode in no time cuz ofc hawking radiation.But We Can't Let It Stay Or It Will Eat Us Eo Better To Let It Explode and destroy a city or 2
That would be awesome and terrifying
How can you turn a black hole off and what happens if you do ?
What happens if you turn one on or create one ?
I cannot answer how they're made artificially, but I think I have the idea on how they turn it off. Since Hawking Radiation exists, a small (probably microscopic-sized or lot smaller) black hole created in Lab could've just evaporated when not fed with energy somehow. Basically they wait it out.
@@facua1551 Sounds pretty dangerous. Hopefully no one reproduce it and feed it till its big enough to can't be stopped.
@@facua1551 bro... 🤣🤣🤣
@@facua1551 Better hope the janitor doesn't knock its containment unit over on night shift.
@@marcd2743 i doubt it. I'm pretty sure the entire equipment is bulky and is a size of atleast a bedroom
but why always the negative particl (anti particl) sucked by the black hole ???
why not sometimes this one and sometimes that one???
Because it's only that one that they seeked and it found them not the other way around.
If particle-antiparticle pairs had ANYTHING to do with Hawking radiation, your question would be completely valid. But since the phenomenon doesn’t, and pathetic vids like this perpetuate the fallacy, ppl such as yourself ask excellent questions but never receive an answer. 😢
You will NEVER receive an answer t your question because it just isn’t possible for a bh to somehow _choose/select_ not ever the negative energy particle. By what means, could it even be plausible this would occur? 🤔 None!
Hawking radiation is actually due to the bh disrupting spacetime such that certain modes of radiation and virtual particles are unable to exist and from a distance, this might appear as if the event horizon was emitting radiation. 😳 Also, and this might have been mentioned in the vid, the fact that Hawking radiation is thermal in nature, like that of blackbody radiation, confirms that only radiation is ever seen to be emitted, NEVER particles as blackbody radiation is pure EM radiation. No blackbody ever emits physical particles, such as protons or electrons, etc. And neither do bh’s. 😱
@Aaron Perelmuter Jesus Christ dude, get a life outside the YT comment section
@@sandwich3495 I have, how do you think I know how wrong this video is?
@Aaron Perelmuter You have a life outside YT, yet decide to spread your knowledge on a platform know to be toxic, distrustful and overall shitty? You can do better bro
Happy Birthday to professor and doctor Hawking. RIP
Hes stupid
I don't actually know how these physics principles work, but if the creation of the particles is at random, then there is exactly 50 50 chance of a negative particle being sucked into the black hole as a positive particle. This makes the net energy gained by the black hole zero. Could anyone explain what happens exactly?
It’s called zero point energy, a state of equilibrium
This would be the same as a human reaching a point of emotional neutrality, where the choice of where and how the emotion is used is up to the user and not just unconscious whims of ego
"Hey! 😳 Maybe none of this is a smart idea "REGARDLESS!"
I thought we didn't know what happens when something approaches the event horizon. How did they know in the experiment that the electrons are moving similar to how matter behaves near the event horizon?
Since when has anyone not known what happens when something approaches an event horizon? 🤔 It’s a regular, normal(ish) region of spacetime and all the normal rules of physics apply, so where do you find an issue with knowing what’s happening in such a region?
To try and answer your question, there weren’t any electrons mentioned in this pathetic vid but if there was, what exactly do you mean by “electrons are moving similar to how matter behaves”? Electrons ARE matter, so quite obviously, they must behave identically to how matter behaves because electrons are matter. 😱😱 How else could they behave? Or was that some kinda weird trick question?🤔
@@aaronperelmuter8433 ok well I thought we didn't know, I'm not really a physicist but rather a physician so that's my fault. I thought they're all just assumptions/theories. Re the electrons moving like matter.. please read my complete statement.. it includes "how matter behaves near the event horizon" Referring to the way they did the experiment as explained in around 6:20. I know electrons are matter. We all learned that in elementary school right? 😊
@@bryanpaulramirez8281 Indeed, most of us learned about electrons and such in school but unfortunately this video is about as accurate regarding Hawking radiation as a young child at school is about pretty much anything to do with qm.
This video is absolutely incorrect and like far too many others, perpetuates this stupid fallacy regarding Hawking radiation. It’s simply an awful and completely unsubstantiated plagiarism of other videos which also present Hawking radiation in a similar manner. But the author of this video is so incompetent he couldn’t even copy other vids correctly.
For example, there is no such thing as negative energy, let alone a particle which is made from?/consists of?/contains? negative energy. I phrase it that way because the idea of negative energy isn’t even plausible, let alone possible. I’ve no idea what the negative energy in this vid is supposed to represent but it’s not anything to do with reality. Science fiction titles sometimes mention negative energy but there is absolutely zero evidence, even indirect evidence of such a phenomenon. And that’s just the start of how pathetic this video really is. There is just SO much which is either a lie, misinformation or flat out wrong, not sure which, probably all three.
One last tidbit, Hawking radiation doesn’t even have anything to do with particles. Period. Maybe that’s why it’s called radiation, because radiation is specifically and ONLY photons, as in light or any frequency of em radiation. No bh will EVER emit any particles. Ever. That’s because Hawking radiation is thermal, the same as blackbody radiation and no blackbody has ever or will ever emit/radiate any matter particles, such as electrons, neutrons, protons, etc. Just em radiation which consist of photons and only photons.
Anyway, it’s a little complex to explain completely in a youtube comment but getting back to your movement near an event horizon, the reason we can and do know what happens near and even inside the horizon is because there is nothing special about an event horizon, physically speaking. In fact, if a bh were large enough, one wouldn’t notice anything unusual or special happening when crossing the horizon. Nothing unusual happens because an event horizon isn’t a physical object, it’s simply a location. It isn’t demarcated by anything and with sufficiently massive bh’s, such as the supermassive ones at the centre of most galaxies, the tidal effects are so minimal that there will be no effect whatsoever when crossing the horizon…
we do not know what happens at the event horizon. this was not a real black hole. they approximated a metaphor for a black hole. this video is clickbait
@@katiebarber407 Yes the video is definitely clickbait and complete bullshit but that doesn’t mean we don’t know what happens at and near an eh. Since the eh is a regular, normal part of space, the same as any other region of space, so there is nothing special about an eh. It isn’t as if matter or energy or anything else takes on some special configuration or has some special properties when at or near the eh which would leave us wondering what happens in such a region.
😂🤣
It also doesn’t matter that this was a simulation because we can simulate what happens at an eh quite satisfactorily and with sufficient accuracy that we can say we do indeed know what happens at an eh.
Damn, we had a good run.
Indeed
Why are we allowing these people to play with our existence?
@@dgk693 like we allow ourselves to live in a system where basic rights and necessities (food and shelter) require labour to achieve them in order to acquire glorified toilet paper.
What happens if the positive mass/energy virtual particle falls past the event horizon instead?
Bec ua-cam.com/video/lVgRckBICwI/v-deo.htmlm57s
If particle-antiparticle pairs had ANYTHING to do with Hawking radiation, your question would be completely valid. But since the phenomenon doesn’t, and pathetic vids like this perpetuate the fallacy, ppl such as yourself ask excellent questions but never receive an answer. 😢
You will NEVER receive an answer t your question because it just isn’t possible for a bh to somehow _choose/select_ not ever the negative energy particle. By what means, could it even be plausible this would occur? 🤔 None!
Hawking radiation is actually due to the bh disrupting spacetime such that certain modes of radiation and virtual particles are unable to exist and from a distance, this might appear as if the event horizon was emitting radiation. 😳 Also, and this might have been mentioned in the vid, the fact that Hawking radiation is thermal in nature, like that of blackbody radiation, confirms that only radiation is ever seen to be emitted, NEVER particles as blackbody radiation is pure EM radiation. No blackbody ever emits physical particles, such as protons or electrons, etc. And neither do bh’s. 😱
@@aaronperelmuter8433 I don't understand your point of view can you explain me in simple words? By the way your knowledge is so awesome you have a vast knowledge on Blackholes and Gravity. Your each and every comment makes me important to read and understand but can you teach me your stuff reguarding Hawking Radiation and Spacetime wrapping and how does it works? And as you said why electrons do not spin around nuclei and if they spin why would atom destroy?
Wow, thanks so much for the very kind words. As the cliche says, flattery will get you everywhere. 👍
What are you referring to regarding not understanding my point of view? Please let me know exactly what it is I said that you’re unsure of and I’ll do my best to explain it to you.
Regarding the actual, correct explanation of the Hawking radiation phenomenon, most importantly, being as close as non-mathematician, lay-physicists can, it’s something like this; keep in mind I’m pretty sure I still don’t understand the exact process myself as it’s always been one of the more obtuse and difficult to grasp concepts I’ve ever come across in my 30ish years of being devoutly interested in, and devouring many books about the whole astrophysics/qm/relativity/cosmology/etc. fields.
My admittedly limited understanding of the process is that it can in a manner of speaking, be thought of as somewhat analogous to the way in which the Casimir effect manifests. That happens because between the two metal plates, there are missing modes of the virtual particles whose wave function is too large to physically fit between the plates. Therefore, if there is a dearth of virtual particles and their associated modes between the plates, it results in a ‘low pressure’ region, and outside the plates, since all modes of virtual particles can exist, this results in a ‘high pressure’ and the resultant force which moves the plates closer together.
With Hawking radiation, the bh is doing a similar thing as the plates, in that it disrupts the spacetime around/near the bh such that some modes of radiation aren’t able to exist, in somewhat of a similar manner to the virtual particles just mentioned above. Apparently this leads to a situation in which it appears as if the bh is emitting radiation. But never, ever does it emit particles, as per what this vid asserts. This is absolutely ridiculous as the radiation is known to be thermalised, meaning that it’s purely thermal in nature, as in, blackbody radiation. And blackbody radiation is only ever radiation, never matter of any description. So any explanations that mention anything at all to do with either matter-antimatter or positive-negative energy particles is completely false and not only that but completely implausible.
A good explanation of the Hawking radiation phenomenon to check out is from the people over at the PBS Spacetime channel. The host, Professor O’Dowd is just awesome. He’s such a fabulous teacher, absolutely knows his stuff and he’s Aussie too (my patriotism is showing now ;-). Actually, just about every single episode of Spacetime is highly recommended viewing. You should definitely check em out.
Please lemme know if you have any other questions or if I’ve not explained something clearly.
@@aaronperelmuter8433 I'm not convinced that Hawking Radiation is even a thing. If I was a particle physicist, I'd certainly like a "way" to get rid of one of the nastier threats to the Standard Model. GR has always been the "bogyman" to them and remains so. It can't be re-normalized, quantized, or otherwise dismissed as a fundamental force, when, in fact it is THE fundamental force. The other forces inhabit the framework that Spacetime provides for them.
Why if the two particles are created positive and negative do we only count the negative particle, on average shouldn't the positive particle rebuild the black hole?
Again, it's great to know about such a discovery.....
what's with all the dots? makes your comment seem sarcastic
@@williamowens2063 Those dots show how this channel continues to post amazing videos. :)
@@theastrophile8I’m glad that’s how it was intended. But yeah 5 dots typically is seen as passive aggressive or sarcastic. Funny enough length of dot chain is a studied phenomena 🤣🤣🤣 language is so interesting
If Hawking radiation is correct then primordial black holes shouldn't exist since they are to small to contain such radiation for the last fourteen billion plus years.
And they don’t exist - has anyone found even the slightest hint of evidence to show that they do?
Forgot to say, Hawking radiation is correct but your understanding of it is severely lacking. Just as this vid is completely incorrect and doesn’t present any factual evidence. Hawking radiation has nothing whatsoever to do with particles of any kind at all. Pathetic vids such as this one perpetrate complete nonsense and don’t bother doing any research to see if what they’re plagiarising is actually correct or even accurate. This vid is a pathetic excuse for a waste of all of our time.
Nice timing, on the anniversary of Hawking's bday. Rest in peace legend 💝
They simulated the effects of a black hole. But they didn’t created one.
Is this a good idea? What if it starts eating into the machinery and spreads?
Exactly, messing around with one of the galaxy most mysterious anomaly, what could go wrong... most likely death.. if lucky.
It's not a real black hole.
Dude it's not a natural black hole. Even a black hole of atom's size can swallow the whole Earth.
@@amulya_asmi Not sure I find an unnatural black hole any more appealing.
That is scary. Iam genuinely afraid
It's a shame this is just click bait, Scientists can't create black holes in labs lol, they can make analogues that simulates a black hole.
very smol ones the size of a electron or sum have been created by mashing protons together at around the speed of light
Clickbait title, they created an analog for an event horizon, not a black hole.
I live for these kinds of videos being posted.
It's all fun and games until the solar system doesn't exist anymore💀
Wouldn’t a black hole have an equal chance of absorbing as many positive energy particles as it does with the negative energy particles?
My GF's black hole only absorbs negative energy. The result of EVER reaching the event horizon results in headaches, sudden remembering of things i said wrong years earlier and just plain old misery. I've learned to completely avoid any contact with this area, since she saves it for other unknown entities.
@@mahkuntizitchy2083 maybe leave her😂
Wtf are you talking?
The black hole is a levitating magnet in between two repelling magnets. The Magnetic attraction is constant around the two repelling magnets attracting thing nearby and Hawking radiation is the repelling force of magnetism.
One morning I'll wake up to only half of my city. Thank you geniuses.
Do you live in Geneva? XD
dude, you can literally walk outside and get crushed by a car or whatever. life is full of risks
the thing with science is that you actually meassure levels of risk for your experiments
this channel is heavily underrated... 🤧
It will grow
Saraswati is wavelength frequency bandwidth
No it isn’t! This video is absolutely full of shit! Hawking radiation has NOTHING whatsoever to do with particles of any description and the morons who wrote the script couldn’t even plagiarise correctly the content they stole from others who actually spend the time to research the topic and present factual, accurate information.
This video is absolutely incorrect and just perpetuating a stupid and ignorant explanation of Hawking radiation that has NOTHING to do with reality and how Hawking radiation actually occurs.
How did they remove the thermodynamics from the equalization of resistance? Thermal energy is outward force of pressure, known as weight contained in mass. As mass vibrates in forward maximum momentum velocity, in resistance, through space as space, it occupies space and exchanges heat and resistance transference. This transference causes heat waves of exchanging resistance and thermodynamics. Mass NEUTRALIZES resistance within it, as outward force of pressure known as weight. Mass is equalization to resistance. All mass is thermodynamics cycling circulation patterns holding mass together in equalization to cold resistance throughout space as space. Stars replenish thermodynamics in mass. Mass cannot exceed resistance repelling it. Mass cannot exist without cold resistance throughout space as space itself. Resistance is the propellant and repellant of thermodynamics. Black holes are bubbles void of thermodynamics, due to the repulsion of thermal energy singularity frequencies towards the weakest point of resistance. The massive river of plasma circling the bubble is neutralized resistance, making it the weakest point of resistance. The bubble void of thermodynamics, would repel all thermodynamics to the plasma flow. The event horizon would be a force field of pure resistance against thermodynamics. Its poles would jettison away any thermodynamics that cross the field of repulsion. Resistance is the cold, stationary fabric of space itself. Entanglement is mass. Unidirectional unification of flow is both positive and negative. Clockwise and counterclockwise. Magnets prove hypothesis. Both negative and positive. Unidirectional flow is heat. All mass is heat. Heat waves shimmering on the horizon. Atoms exchanging resistance and heat as we transition through space as space, point to point interactions, between thermal energy and cold resistance, repelling heat outward as shock waves of heat. No electrons. Heat waves. Elements contain different degrees of thermodynamics and their heat exchanging energy causes bigger heat waves of exchanging points of interactions. These interactions are the decay, or aging process. Heat is transferring constantly through mass and space. Resistance is equal to the mass. Conservation of maximum momentum velocity, in resistance. No magic. Physics 101. Magnetic fields repelling thermal energy outward as a force field holding mass together. Quantization works the same way. Magnets show the unification unidirectional flow cycling through mass as space. Resistance doesn't accumulate. Thermodynamics does. But thermodynamics is limited to the equalization of resistance. Mass NEUTRALIZES resistance within it. Making mass the weakest point of resistance. We vibrate towards the weakest point of resistance which is earth. The greater the mass, the weaker the resistance between, proximity mass. Thermodynamics is repelled towards the weakest point of resistance. Occupational space. Plasma river circling. Unidirectional flow is both clockwise and counterclockwise. The resistance is constant in mass and is always disrupted by thermal energy. Storms restore equalization. In atmospheres and space. Proximity mass repelling thermal energy outward, towards the weakest point of resistance, which is the greater mass, of neutralized resistance. It disrupts cycling circulation patterns of proximity mass trajectories. The smaller mass repelling its outermost core towards the whirlwind of plasma of weaker resistance. Mass trajectories are repelled towards the weakest point of resistance always. Only thermodynamics curves, bends, and moves. It is the disrupter and creator. Resistance is the catalyst. Equalization is constant. Conservation of maximum momentum velocity, in resistance. Gravity doesn't exist. Electrons don't exist. Heat is in mass in equalization of resistance as space itself. Weight is the outward force of pressure known as weight contained in mass. Resistance repels it outward. Air in a balloon. As resistance within and without. The balloon eventually cools in resistance to thermodynamics inside and the balloons pressure reduces from the resistance outside. Heat expansion. Cold contraction. As mass reduces expansion increases in distance. Conservation of maximum momentum velocity, in resistance. Theoretically?
This is a fancy explanation for how the simulation is being run. Entanglement is a fancy word used to describe how experiencing this reality is projected to beings that couldn’t experience it otherwise. Like gelatinous blobs on a cave floor in a far off solar system that can’t experience this reality as we do so it’s shared with them in this way.
Metaphysics is not science. You move further from truth every time you choose to mix them together.
What Guarm said.
I’d like what you smokin mate!
@@capricornus993 it was the end of a mushroom trip a few years back lol 😂 seemed to fit haha 😂
@@willlinke2849 lmao I love this conclusion, I had an acid trip that unveiled the secrets of the world to me as I died over and over and over again. Then I got over it 😂😂
this gives so much more sense to the theory that our universe is a black-hole in a higher dimension universe
No it doesn’t! That is about as stupid as this video is. This video is COMPLETELY WRONG, as is the concept that our universe is a bh. In any dimension, higher or lower.
Maybe you should have defined negative energy.
How long does the black hole exist?
Is creating a black hole not risky? What if it starts absorbing everything around it and grows uncontrollably?
If you listen to the video starting around 5:56, they didn't actually create a black hole, just a sort of mock up.
@@michaelgomez3044 Thanks.
Continuing on from MG's comment, even if they did manage to create one, it'd evaporate very quickly due to it being extremely small and by small I mean it having next to no mass.
@@michaelgomez3044 weird click baiters
@@timelyseeker Yep
Why wouldn’t there be an equal amount of negatively charged particles appearing on the “outside” of the event horizon? Would this antimatter not negate any matter appearing on the outside of the event horizon?
I got 50% of what you said.
No
@@aaronperelmuter8433 sorry I got 100% of what you said😂
Wouldn't this be major news if it were true? I don't think it is possible yet to create a black hole in a lab
It's a huge clickbait.
The title is a lie.
Crazy theory: If black holes are universes, then that would explain the 'big bang'. Two stars colliding can = a black hole. This would mean that the supernova created from two sun destroying each other would be replicated within the now newly created black hole. Think about that for a moment. The gravity in a black hole is so extreme that it traps even light inside of it. Surely it would also trap energy and matter from that supernova. Well, in a smaller universe that would reside in a black hole, less matter would be able to create the same relative size of our universe. So the big bang could be explained by the colliding of two stars turning into a black hole, and the matter that remained within the blackhole was that universe's own big bang. The only real issue in this would be that technically, external gravity from outside the blackhole might potentially be able to modify the gravity of all objects within it. In the same instance, if that blackhole were to absorb more matter or another blackhole, it would then appear in that new galaxy. In ours, we haven't seen things like that, except we possibly have.
In this theory, it would mean that the environment of the new universe would have different laws from our own. The atoms we can see and acknowledge as the building blocks of OUR universe would be technically much large in the universe of a black hole. But let's look at something interesting. Atoms have a nucleus with electrons that rotate around it. Solar systems have stars with planets that rotate around it. Galaxies have Supermassive blackholes with solar systems that rotate around it.
In this theory, it is very possible that other 'dimensions' are merely leveled by entering a new black hole, or exiting the one we reside in, and that these new 'dimensions' would hold entirely different laws of physics. Maybe our quantum realm is merely the external of our black hole, and that these particles that are created and destroyed are ones from the external universe our black hole resides in. It could also technically explain quantum entanglement, as all the matter would reside within a single black hole, a technical single mass that resides in a place in space.
I could go on and on, but the theory *most likely* isn't even close to being correct. I just think if the black hole universe theory was actually correct, it could explain literally everything about why our universe is the way it is. Like, even parts of our own universe breaks the universal laws, which could only truly be explained by an external factor playing a role. Aka, the influence of an external universe(quantum realm). We always see the quantum realm as getting smaller and smaller, but if you think about it, the further from the center of a blackhole you get, wouldn't it technically get thinner and thinner?
Anyway, I'ma end the theory rant now. Idc if the theory is wrong or right, it's just fun to craft them.
Stay calm... no black hole here.
Some content beyond the obvious thumbnail click bait.
Jesus how do people figure this stuff out?
How does light travel so far and not burn out?
Its coes the vaum and the dark energie in the universe
@@amunra1743 I know the dark matter energy is the answer but trying to find a geometric path. Thanks
Why would there be anything to “burn out” as you put it? Light isn’t burning to begin with, so there’s nothing to burn out.
@@aaronperelmuter8433
Inflation shifts the wavelength of light
What doesn't fit is that it is just as likely to have the + absorbed as it is the - absorbed. The mechanism doesn't show any preferences. Many unstated assumptions here that do not fit.
How does the mini black not suck up a bunch of stuff surrounding it?
This can't possibly be a good thing.... I am praying for humanity daily
It is a good thing, it’s the next step towards figuring out quantum gravity and understanding the entirety of the universe’s fundamental laws.
What still confuses me is, what actually happens to the negative part of the energy pair. Doesn't it have to stay around until it annihilated with its positive counterpart? I'm not sure I get how a black hole can evaporate into nothing, leaving the negative energy nowhere to be found, unless the negative energy is allowed to annihilate with some energy within the black hole instead of its positive counterpart.
So we’re just casually creating suns and black holes on earth now
The theory of Hawking radiation raises another unanswered question: If a pair of positive & negative energy particles forms at the event horizon, what ensures that it is the NEGATIVE particle to fall into the event horizon, freeing the positive particle, and not vice-versa? Suppose it is always the negative particle that falls into the black hole: the mass of the black hole is reduced by the same amount as the mass of the positive particle which is free. It's like taking a piece of the black hole from the surface and lifting it up into space, which needs the same amount energy (equivalent to that lifted mass). Now, where does that energy come from?
This video is absolute bullshit, completely incorrect and perpetuating a complete nonsense lie about the process of Hawking radiation. Hawking radiation has nothing whatsoever to do with any kind of particles, and there is no such thing as negative energy, let alone particles which contain negative energy.
This vid is so pathetic they couldn’t even plagiarise their content correctly, because they most certainly didn’t do ANY research of even care about presenting factual evidence. The theory of Hawking radiation is perfectly sound but rest assured it’s nothing like how this pathetic vid has described it.
I think black holes are wormholes hence the Einstein-Rosen bridge that either leads to a white hole in our universe or to a entirely different one
That's what he said.
I also like yellow sideway holes lol
ER bridges don’t, and never have been said to, lead or end up at a white hole. The only way for an ER bridge to be made is between two entangled black holes. And that part of the reason why they’re not traversable since there’s a black hole at each end - how is one ever supposed to get out of the wormhole if there’s another black hole at the end of it, from which, as we all know, nothing can ever escape?
@Hewhoremains Well, that’s your problem right there. Since when has anything to do with relativity or qm ever made the slightest bit of sense? Particles are waves; things contract as they go faster; entanglement; energy is not continuous, you can only add or subtract it in very specific quanta. Not one of those has anything whatsoever to do with logic or making sense.😱
@Hewhoremains I think BHs are just space time frozen solid, unable to stretch and bend. Spacetime is fluid, black holes are frozen in time like an ice cube.
For some reason people don't know that Einstein said that singularities are not possible. In the 1939 journal "Annals of Mathematics" he wrote "the essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the Schwarzchild singularities (Schwarzchild was the first to raise the issue of GR predicting singularities) do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters whose particles move along circular paths it does seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that more general cases will have analogous results. The Schwarzchild singularities do not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light."
Einstein was referring to the phenomenon of dilation (sometimes called gamma or y). This is illustrated in a common relativity graph with velocity (from stationary to the speed of light) on the horizontal line and dilation on the vertical line. The graph shows the squared nature of the phenomenon, dilation increases at an exponential rate the closer you get to the speed of light. Mass that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside/stationary/Earthbound observer. General relativity does not predict singularities when you factor in dilation. Einstein is known to have repeatedly spoken about this, nobody believed in black holes when he was alive for this reason.
According to Einstein's math, the mass at the center of our own galaxy must be dilated, in other words that mass is all around us. This is the original explanation on why we can't see light from the galactic center.
No it isn’t! The reason we can’t see anything from anywhere even close to the centre of our galaxy is due to the huge quantities of dust and gas completely obstructing our view. It’s absolutely that simple.
Furthermore, what Einstein was referring to wasn’t actually singularities as such, rather bh’s in general. He and many of his time couldn’t conceive of a physical phenomenon powerful enough to compress such a huge quantity of mass into such an incredibly small volume that a bh would be created.
Mass can’t be dilated, as you put it. Time can but not mass. As massive objects approach the speed of light their mass physically increases but it doesn’t dilate in any way. Just as lengths contract, such that a spaceship travelling 99.999% lightspeed woud have its length contracted by several orders of magnitude. There’s an excellent video explaining exactly this concept made by the geniuses over at PBS Spacetime. Professor Matt O’Dowd is the host and he knows his stuff! Check it out, I think you’ll like it.
@@aaronperelmuter8433 Relativistic changes are all from the vantage point of an outside/stationary/Earthbound observer. According to Einstein if a ship left the Earth, no matter how fast it goes everything would be normal on the ship. Mass does not physically increase.
The greatest mystery in science is the abnormally high rotation rates of stars in spiral galaxies (the reason for the theory of dark matter). It was recently discovered that low mass galaxies (like NGC 1052-DF2) have normal star rotation rates. This is what relativity would predict because there is an insufficient quantity of mass at the center to achieve relativistic velocities. This is virtual proof that dilation/gamma/y is the governing phenomenon in galactic centers, there can be no other realistic explanation for this fact.
@@shawns0762 Actually, stars don’t have anything even approaching relativistic velocities. Moreover, it’s not the central mass or lack thereof which causes the angular velocity discrepancies you mention, it’s the total mass which is inadequate to explain said velocities. Fritz Zwiki, who first noticed/discovered the mass/velocity deficiencies saw this in the Coma cluster. As in cluster of galaxies. The dark matter is postulated to surround galaxies in a massive halo, nothing to do with being in the centre. Because, if the mass was all concentrated in the centre, the velocity of stars in the outer regions of a galaxy would be dropping off, rather than staying essentially the same as objects much nearer the central region.
Regarding the mass increase, this is one effect that isn’t due to differences in the way observers view something. Because mass can only be weighed or determined locally, those at a distance don’t even notice any change as there is no visible, nor other difference which a distant observer can observe or perceive to indicate that the mass has increased. This is exactly why no massive object (anything with mass, not something which is large) can ever get to the speed of light, since it’s mass is constantly increasing the closer to c it gets, therefore an ever increasing amount of energy is needed to accelerate said object, and this increases asymptotically with velocities approaching c. The reason the mass increases is because e=mc^2 and as velocity approaches c, obviously whatever is moving at said velocity has a great deal of energy which is required to obtain such a velocity, and therefore has a huge mass also.
I do agree with your comment about all seeming normal on the ship. Great to chat with someone who actually knows what they’re talking about mate.😱👍😃
@@aaronperelmuter8433 With a name like Perelmuter you must be smart too. In the "Annals of Mathematics" Einstein spoke about dilation occurring in regions that would have less mass than that which would exist at the center of a galaxy, therefore it's safe to say that according to Einstein's math, the mass at the center of our own galaxy must be dilated.
The shape of a galaxy is common in nature. 99.8% of the mass in our solar system is in the sun. 99.9% of the mass in an atom is in the nucleus. If these norms are true for galaxies than we can infer that there is 100's of trillion of solar masses at the center of common spiral galaxies. There is no way to know this through observation, the interference alone, dilation alone or gravitational lensing alone would make that virtually impossible. If we attribute a radius to these numbers than we can calculate that relativistic velocities exist in these regions, the same way we could calculate the surface velocity of the sun if we doubled it's mass.
@@shawns0762 2 points: 1) I’m still not understanding how mass can dilate. That doesn’t actually make sense because to dilate is to increase in size, not just an arbitrary numerical quantity. So, a thing can dilate, like a pupil does, it expands. When time does, for example, spending 1hr in a strong gravitational field will seem normal but once out of said field, we’d find that (depending on strength), say, 1 day or 1 week had passed for those back home. But for mass to dilate doesn’t make sense as mass has no defined size. Because densities vary, the same mass could need the volume of earth to accomodate or could need the size of about a tennis ball for a bh with the same mass as earth. Or a star going from the stupidly huge size they are down to about 10km radius for an average neutron star.
Re: relativistic velocities, exactly what are you meaning by relativistic? As I said, stars in orbit about their galaxy don’t come close to relativistic velocities. Relativistic velocities are those approaching c, or more accurately, those where the theory of relativity stars to make it effects much more obviously seen/measured/felt/etc. Stars in orbit about their galaxy rarely exceed 1000km/s, even in galaxies with ultra massive bh at their centre, 10s of billions of solar mass. The sun is orbiting at 230km/s. Quite obviously, even in the upper ranges, these are barely even 1% the speed of light, so definitely not relativistic velocity at all. That’s why I’m curious as to what you actually mean by relativistic velocity and mass dilation? Please understand, I’m not saying you’re wrong, just trying to figure out exactly what you mean as you seem to be using these terms in a different way from their commonly accepted definitions.
i swear humans are gonna be the first species to earn a darwin award
No, there are no negative energy particles. This is incorrect. Hawking pairs both have positive energy and the mass loss from Hawking radiation still can occur because of the energy required for the formation of the escaped particle.
Great information as always thanks . Wonderful explanation about Hawking Radiation . Worthy addition to the Sunday discovery series .🙂
Except that isn't how Hawking Radiation works. The virtual particle pair explanation is known to be inaccurate, but is propagated because it is easier for people to grasp than the more accurate explanation (which is something like the extreme warping of space time causes wave patterns to not properly cancel, resulting in the creation of radiation some distance from the event horizon).
@@BainesMkII Finally! Someone who actually knows how pathetic these kind of vids are. And it’s not that this kind of explanation is inaccurate, they’re completely and utterly false and incorrect. I mean, that’s beside the fact that Hawking radiation doesn’t even have anything to do with particles whatsoever. Hawking radiation is thermal in nature, like that of a black body and no black body has ever radiated any physical particles (as in protons or electrons, etc.), only photons. But I’m sure you already know all of this.
If the anti particle is the one that escapes then the particle that doesn't escape is going to add to the blackhole, so on average there should be no change to the black holes mass.
Very well explained. And HBD to Professor Stephen Hawking ✨🌌
Blessed to share my birthday with such a genius 🙏😎
Hawking admitted that he 'simplified' that explanation because he didn't think the public would understand what was really happening. Hawking Radiation is not emitted because one particle falls into the black hole and the other does not. Rather, the black hole's gravity makes some frequencies unable to exist. That energy becomes the photons emitted in a region around the event horizon, which is Hawking Radiation.
What do you mean created out of nowhere? God created all things. If you noticed the negative particle went toward the black hole the darkness where the positive stayed in the light that's exactly how it's supposed to be
I don't know about other things but you are definitely created by God..
Gosh what a beauty.. U r stunning ❤
Black holes are entirely negative energy. The negative side of a particle (negative virtual particle) is absorbed and the positive side of the particle is released. I recall dark energy being essentially the opposite of gravity. Instead of a pulling force, it exerts a pushing force. My question is, are these negative virtual particles the same concept/idea as that of dark energy. Since black holes are so dense and it takes so long to dissipate, the negative particles couldnt move for a very long time. These particles attracting oppositetly charged particles will just be what we know as gravity (obviously). So on so forth, what we think is dark energy surrounding the observable universe is causing the universe to expand at nearly twice the speed of light. Can this energy just be attracting the light almost similar to a black hole? Light cannot escape a black hole. Kind of the same idea.
THANK GOD they created an artificial event horizon instead of potentially destroying the entire world
i know its 1 yr later but it still hasnt grown yet!!!! 🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉
E = mc^2: because energy has mass; what evaporates? Negative energy partical: not in the standard model.
Does the black holes destroy matter or does it move matter we never really figured that out did we
Matter gets pulled to the surtace of the black hole. It's not a portal (so far as we know), just fuckheavy. We don't know what happens on/in the hole itself, since you can't observe the damn thing.
Yes, all matter which falls into a bh is destroyed.
@@aaronperelmuter8433 Matter cannot be destroyed, only change form.
@@viscera_atrocity Of course it can; when matter and antimatter collide the matter is completely and utterly destroyed, turning into radiation. And just as in a bh, the matter is destroyed as we no longer have any access to it, nor do we know it’s constitution, so once inside the event horizon, as far as we’re concerned, it most definitely is destroyed as there’s no possible process or explanation as to how the matter can be located, or even just accounted for, thus it is destroyed. The same can be said of matter-antimatter annihilation.
@@aaronperelmuter8433 >turning into radiation
yeah that's what changing forms is. matter = energy, for the most part. likewise, once it passes event horizon, matter still exists, we just dont have access to it. "as far as we're concerned", or not, the mass didn't go anywhere. and as the video we're on states, over time, energy of the black hole decreases, while the energy of the universe (sans black hole) increases, and the net amount of energy in the universe as a whole stays the same.
mass-energy equivalency and principle of mass conservation, come on.
Amazing video bro If you can't go near them to study them, make em.. somebody
What an awesome picture of our Universe! >.o
Such a fascinating topic and nice atmosphere/visuals in the video. I only wish the information was anything other than 5-6 sentences reconstructed 30 times and ultimately referring to eachother without really saying much at all or explaining anything. Sounds like an essay assignment "fit as many scientific terms as possible in one paper"
So they really didn't show anything. Hmm 🤔
in the paper they do not talk about Hawking radiation but about the Unruh effect, can you just assume their equivalence?
This is just a quick thought, roughly 4 min. into the video. quick summary is the Black Hole absorbing the neg particle loses energy while the rest of the universe gains energy. my question is could Hawking Radiation be one of the factors behind the expansion of the universe itself.
No, not in any way whatsoever as the pathetic particle-antiparticle explanation this and so many other vids perpetuate is completely and utterly false! Moreover, the universe has been expanding since well before it was even possible for the first bh to exist. Also, radiation of any kind, and of any intensity can’t cause spacetime to increase in size, for the actual universe itself, to increase in size. Radiation exists within spacetime but there is no known or even postulated way in which it could even plausibly cause the universe to expand, and therefore somehow actually CREATE more spacetime.
Excellent question mate!
Ok? How does this help better humanity?
Growing!?!? Oh glowing. Whew
We are in a dream, make it your best one.
(,adding comment: We only know what is told,read ,and we actually can relate to.)
Great comment :)
@@CrystalNova_HI3 great sarcasm
Has anyone theorized that the EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE is a result of the breakdown of all energy into radiation.
We know that photons will impart motion. All of the granular aspects of that should be used to compute how much motion IS being imparted on the UNiverse and its structures by decay products such as radiation.
The initial FTL performance of the BB could possibly be related to those pressures exceeding the bounds of restraints. Photons should be thought of as a fluid.
Great video bro keep it up 🤗🤗😀😀👍👍
What happens to the matter that falls in?
That’s the biggest question that we have ever had about black holes. Some theories suggest they actually have entire universes within them, some theories suggest that there are “white holes” on the other end that spit out the matter it consumes in our universe into another. Who knows? Would be great to see the answers!
I didn't get it.
Black holes output energy? More than they suck in through whatever mass they consume?
If so, does that mean that the Universe has a heating source? And the cold death could be less probable?
If you created a black hole wouldn't it start to devour you and the earth and never stop expanding
If the negative mass particle enters into the black hole, why can't the positive mass particle enter the black hole and leave the negative mass particle on the outside, countering the phenomenon?
What if the black homes do not evaporate completely but after certain amount of radiation it just finds the right balance , saying if negative virtual particles keep getting sucked inside the black hole theoretically speaking that should slow down exponentially. And once that state of balance is reached the event horizon what was visible disappears.. and a primordial black hole / a dormant black hole is formed
From what if read and understand that is actually backwards of how this works. Hawking radiation actually gets stronger as the black hole gets smaller. So the smaller the BH the faster it will evaporate due to hawking radiation. Not exactly sure why or how this happens, just what I have read and understood over the years.
Well that will be the end for Earth
He explained the case of a negative particle which enters in the black hole but keep silencious concerning the opposite case (a positive particle entering the black hole). The two phenomena should have the same probability and they should cancel themselves.
Wow, I'd love to understand what this guy is talking about ! Love videos like these though
Above all that, can someone explain why it is always the negative energy particle that falls into the black hole and never the positive energy particle?? It seems to me that if nothing requires the energy moving into the black hole to be the negative energy particle, then the radiation produced would basically annihilate itself both internally and externally just by the process. While yes, the original pairs would be separated by the event horizon, there would still be particle and anti-particles that were orphaned, for a lack of a better word, by the event horizon, that could come together and annihilate each other.
But what happens when the negative energy particle flies off into space and the positive energy particle drops into a black hole? Unless there's a reason why the quantum world prefers a black hole only accepts negative energy which i doubt, then shouldn't the reverse happen on average 50% of the time? Therefore the black hole never loses mass and exists forever. I'm sure physicists have thought about this but I would like to know the answer. This only works if a black hole prefers negative energy particles. I'm sure that can't be the case. So I'm confused.
So is there a point, as the black hole shirnks that it would emit visable light?
Of all of the videos on hawking radiation this one hurt my brain the least
What is the slow music that is playing throughout the narration?
I love watching things that I have no idea what are they talking about.
Only time before we're all sucked into the forever void woth planet earth. We're screwed..!!
Two black holes colliding is a snake eating its own tail.
There is the idea that the optimal path for a virtual particle to escape the event horizon is orthogonal to a tangential line to its surface, there is only one orientation virtual particles can assume since they fly off in opposite directions at 180 degrees!! So, there would only be a very small percentage of all virtual particles that are oriented that way!! The rest of the particles are not orthogonal and follow curves back down into the horizon!! The smaller the horizon the more orthogonal paths are available and more virtual particles become Hawking radiation!!
That makes no sense at all. Do you actually mean perpendicular? Orthogonal is not a direction, and moreover, there’s nothing to say that any virtual particles must move apart at 180degrees. That also makes no sense as from where are they supposed to get SO much energy and velocity to move in the way you describe?
Furthermore, virtual particles almost never, ever can be found to move away from each other in exactly opposing directions. Apart from that, this vid is completely inaccurate and perpetuating misinformation. Hawking radiation has nothing whatsoever to do with virtual particles of any kind, let alone the bullshit negative energy ones this vid proclaims. There’s no such thing as negative energy, not just that it isn’t possible, it isn’t even slightly plausible.
Why is it that the negative energy or antimatter gets absorbed by the black hole and the positive energy/matter remains to increase the overall energy/mass of the universe? Why never the opposite?
"can not EXcape???" come on, guys...