Some theorize that the Planck density is a hard limit for blackhole singularities and they may rebound once the Planck density is reached. We haven't observed any yet due to time dilation around the blackhole.
Could it be black hols in reality do not exist for billions and billions of years, and it only look like it because of time dilation? Because of the amount of mass all processes happens very slowly in our reality?
Most underrated channel on UA-cam! The intriguing topics and passion this person brings should give him millions of views and subs. UA-cam algorithm and policies are completely broken!
It’s stunning that even stuffing the observable universe and all of it’s matter into a cubic meter will not suffice and be no where near the Planck density
The US doesn't tend to use Imperial Units when we're talking about physics. Any physics class or text book, even at beginning/high school levels, will use the metric system. I'm American, and in my day-to-day life, I absolutely use feet over meters, but describing density in lbs/ft^3 is totally foreign to me. I would use kg/m^3 every time.
For calculations sure. But I work construction, and I can understand both the weight and volume measurements better. For his early ones, like water, silver, osmium, planets, etc. I have dealt with cubic feet/yards of concrete, lifted cast iron engine blocks, a 5 gallon bucket of water, etc. and then have a comparison I can relate to. I agree that for everything much larger and smaller imperial units are pointless. All the people that argue “metric is better in every case” are making pretty bad assumptions about what measurements are for IMO. Metric is better for two things: scalability and consistency. But imperial is incredibly practical for every day measurements and estimates. Measures for cooking and baking are incredibly fast and easy to visualize as opposed to weights like in most metric countries. And then people argue “but your imperial measures are defined by metric” I mean sure, but that doesn’t do anything but play into metric’s advantage for continuity between areas. It doesn’t remove imperial’s distinct advantages in practical measures. Sorry for the rant 😂 People’s refusal to consider us “backwards imperial users” as having a reason other than tradition to use our measurements has always annoyed me…
@@connorjones1485 You said: But imperial is incredibly practical for every day measurements and estimates. Measures for cooking and baking are incredibly fast and easy to visualize as opposed to weights like in most metric countries It's not true. If your day to day units are metric, the calculations are extremely easy, since 1 liter (1000 cm3) of water weighs 1 kilogram (1000 grams) and is a cube with a side of 10 cm (0.1m) Remind me how many gallons fit in a cubic foot and how many cubic inches? And why are we talking about three different basic units of, in this case, volume? Sorry, four units, I left out fluid ounces, also used in day to day life. I could live with all this mess, but at what cost?
@@connorjones1485Imperial’s practicality for everyday measurements is a matter of perspective and practice. Someone who was raised in using the metric system for those same measurements would carry them out with the same ease. On the other hand, as you correctly say, trying to use imperial for larger and smaller scales is simply impractical and, past a certain point, meaningless.
@@naedanger123 that’s true to a point, but not completely. We have different units of measure for different things for a reason. In the US we use psi usually for line pressures. I’m a fire sprinkler fitter, my friend is a fire sprinkler designer. He shared an example with me recently, the computer does all your calculations for you, but obviously you should look and verify numbers make sense, working pressures for fire sprinkler systems are typically 7-200psi. Same range in BAR? .48 to 13.78. Sometimes your looking at differences of 20psi or less between functioning properly or not. That’s a difference of 1.3 bar. Sure you can train yourself to see it, but it’s far easier to see if things aren’t right when the particular frame of reference is easy to comprehend. I’d argue the same for feet and inches. Sometimes you need a measure inbetween the nearest factor of 10 that metric has. You have the meter, and the centimeter, and they’re just not particularly useful for things about 1-3 feet long. You have decimeter, but no one seems to use it. I’m not arguing we should be using imperial for everything, just that it has its place and there’s plenty of good reasons to use it, it’s not simply semantics or training.
Same, I use imperial in my day to day life because .. well... USA, but for sciency stuff I always use metric. I can do most of the conversions in my head, its like being bilingual.
Fun fact. Silver was used to make electrical cables for the Manhattan Project during WWII. They needed to make large electromagnets for one of the processes separating the uranium isotopes, but they couldn't risk calling attention to the project by diverting large amounts of copper away from the war effort, so they asked the Federal reserve to lend them a few tons of silver from which they made the required electrical coils. The silver was later returned to the reserve, minus a small quantity lost during the fabrication process.
Also is the best natural conductor, and considering they were using huge amounts of power to create beam divergence on u235 and u238 you want the best electromagnets in you practical acceleration.
Yes they ran out of copper because they were using it all for weapons. That's also why they stopped using it in pennies and made the pennies out of iron. I would have expected iron to be the metal of choice for weapons, but I guess shell casings are usually brass, not steel, because they need to have some give.
I'm glad this channel got popular over time. Despite me not planning to pursue a job in the field, science and astronomy has (and still is) my absolute favorite subject in school. My teachers made the subject extremely fun for me, so I have respect towards any science teacher who is passionate about what they do. I'm so glad to have been in their classes. I happen to be in my last year of highschool, and to be honest, I'm going to miss some of my science teachers. They all seem to take more care in making sure we learn about our universe, more than our grades. Thank you for your videos. They're really informative and nice to watch, I often listen to them while working on a story I've been writing (or) homework if I ever get it, which is rare nowadays for me.
If you love those subjects so much, perhaps a career in astrophysics is for you. Don't make the same mistake I did, my favorite subject was biology, particularly botany, I love plants, so I became an electrician, I was damned good at it, the pay was good but I was never happy.
@@MichaelClark-uw7ex. I almost made the same mistake and switched majors from molecular biology/medical microbiology to biochemistry. I’m so happy I stuck to what I loved.
CONGRATULATIONS on the 50K subscribers mark! 👏👏👏 I was one of the very first few to find your amazing channel and have been waiting to see these numbers finally happen for you! It might've even been the Planck length video I saw when I was like, "man, as soon as people see how well this guy simplifies and explains these amazing things... BOOM!" You cover these topics unlike any other and in a very unique and accessible way, too. Thank you! (And thank you for exploring the Quantum world as much as you do; it's so mysterious and invisible and you bring it to life nicely for your viewers: )
Thank you so much, and thank you so much for your continued support. Without people like you, and the support I get from this community, I'd have never got this far. Thanks again
At a certain point quite early in the scales of the Plannk Density in this video (or the size of a human, up to the observable universe in your latest upload) it becomes too much for us mere mortals to comprehend. The example of the atom nucleus being the size of a tennis ball and the electrons orbiting around 3-4 miles away is useful to put size and scale into perspective. However, when it got to the sun's core having a density of 162 tons in a cubic metre, all comprehension was gone! Still the crazy numbers that followed this is fascinating and mind boggling, I appreciate your efforts to make it as understandable as you did! Thanks for the headache, I think my mind is close to Plannk Density right now 🤯 Looking forward to more content like this 👍🏻
11:52 - 12:00 That is such a cool visualization of the nucleus! I only recently learned that protons and neutrons also exist in a cloud (the way electrons do; they are after all also defined by a wavefunction) and have energy states that they transition between -- and that "nucleus soup" visual really drove it home. They aren't static. They aren't classical.
I can go back nearly 70 years when our science teacher was trying to get us to come to grips with Density. I don't think he understood it. But he made up write out 200 times. "Density is mass per unit volume." Years later it is still clear in my head as it was when I put it there in the 1950s I am still befogged as before but I am going to play this video again.
It's surprising that you just did a video about the Planck density today, I was just discussing this with people a few weeks ago, believe it or not! I was discussing the theory that at the center of a black hole, the density isn't infinite, but actually the Planck density. Still incredibly small, but just not infinite. This also puts a link between the Big Bang and black holes, if the Big Bang started off at the Planck density, and the inside of a black hole is the Planck density, then the Big Bang and black holes may be related to each other. In other words, the universe we live in could be result of a black hole, or at least it's time-reversed counterpart, the white hole! We might be living in a time-reversed black hole! Also, the Planck density provides an upper limit on Boson density. We normally consider Bosons to be limitless density in theory, you can have as many Bosons in the same time and space together as you want. However, it's Fermions have to be spread out from each other, having a maximum limit. The Planck density would provide the final limit for the Bosons too.
I agree.If our universe is the interiorof a black hole, it explains dark energy & dark matter, as infalling material from outside the universe would be at what we consider the "edge" of our universe, & continuing to "push" the boundary further & faster.Our current observations would seem to confirm something like this.
There is a problem with the scale. Even a supermassive black hole cannot compare even remotely to the scale of the Big Bang. If you summed up all the black holes in the Observable Universe and subtracted it from the Big Bang you'd still have a whole Big Bang.
@@LolUGotBusted why can't our universe be a black hole on a far larger scale?I bet the entirety of our universe is already many trillions of orders of magnitude larger than the mere 93 billion light yeas across that we currently know about.
That would imply though that the Universe does have a center, for which we have no evidence suggesting that it does. We don't see galaxies all heading towards some central point. Since it's known that Black Holes have spin, and therefore must have angular momentum, then I realised it is impossible for the singularity to be an infinitessimal point. I took some time to follow that further, and found that a good number of physicists believe that the singularity is actually a 1-dimensional ring instead (still having no volume, but still having angular momentum). To me, this sort of seems like "cheating" where a mass can have a diameter, but no volume at all, and so that had me questioning the whole concept of singularities entirely. Later on, after watching more videos, especially about relativity and Hawking Radiation, it occurred to me that from the perspective of an outside observer located within the Universe, that an observer cannot ever observe something entering the event horizon. Hawking Radiation does exist though, so instead, over a very long period of time, an external observer would simply observe an object that approaches the event horizon will eventually get converted into Hawking Radiation. All of the above leads me to believe that from the perspective of an external observer, there actually is no singularity at all, at least not as a physical thing. I believe that when observed from within our universe, all the mass of a black hole is actually concentrated at the event horizon, since we can never ever observe anything cross the event horizon even if we wait an infinite amount of time. I believe that the concept of a singularity is really just something of a mathematical convenience, since as it's stated, we have zero knowledge at all of what occurs beyond the event horizon. We already know that for any mass its gravitational effects can be reduced to be as if acting as from a singular central point, which again leads me to believe that there's no such thing as a real physical singularity. For all intents and purposes, the event horizon is a self-contained "edge of the universe" and the region within it exists outside our in-universe space time. Matter that approaches the event horizon just gets concentrated around the event horizon and is (eventually) converted into Hawking Radiation as the black hole slowly "evaporates". Anyway, that's just my 2c. It could all be completely wrong, but given everything I've read, and I've often read the statement that "nature abhors infinities", the above is for me the way how I understand black holes to be. That doesn't mean that there can't be another Universe within one, or perhaps be acting as a sort of gateway between multiple universes, but that's something that we can never know, or if we can know it, it's not something that we could ever inform anyone within our universe about, but it's certain fun to imagine what might be.
Speaking as an American, who has worked in industry, density has never come up in common parlance or even when I was working in tech, though in college, I was using all metric for physics classes. It's therefore academic jargon, and in technology jobs, we have started progressing almost completely to metric. So, yeah we use kg/m^3 now. It's just: • temperature (Fahrenheit for weather, cooking and body temp, Celsius for technology, like chemistry, GPU core or extruder temp) • liquid volume (gallons, quarts, and fluid ounces, except for "fizzy drinks", which are in liters) • weight (we use tons, pounds and ounces, Brits use stone, we don't know what that is, and metric in some industry and creeping into food. Influenced by "gram" and "kilo" being known quantities for drug culture.) • velocity (miles per hour for cars, feet per second for firearms, knots for water and aircraft, m/s in tech and industry) • distance (miles, feet, inches, industry uses meters.) and • pressure (oddly enough: bar OR mmHg (yes, millimeters of mercury) for weather, torr for vacuum chambers, pounds per square inch (PSI) for everything else, never seen pascals used anywhere.) ...that we don't generally use metric. Firearms, on the other hand, uses a composite and often competing system of: • "caliber" (ratio of an inch of a given bullet or barrel bore land-to-land diameter, and in most cases we say "caliber" after a number to indicate that a dot goes before it and it has two digits. Exceptions include: ".357" which is just "three-fifty-seven", ".380" is "three-eighty" instead of "thirty-eight", which is ".38" and a different cartridge case length, and both are equal in diameter to 9mm. No matter what, "point" or "dot" is never spoken.) • inches (for naval cannons and barrel length of any firearm, which may or may not include the chamber) • mm (for firearms of certain non-American pedigrees, most small arms above 1 inch in bore diameter, and land-based cannons) and • "gauge" (number of spheres of a given diameter of lead required to make a pound, for shotguns; this is a reciprocal length so, like photography f-stops, higher gauge is smaller diameter) Send help.
@@mikicerise6250 Hey, those that have micro scales and need to calibrate grams for weed are the same people interested in health food. I thought it was funny too.
Drug dealers converting Americans to metric, one high at a time. Weirdly enough mmHg was a unit that used to be used in otherwise entirely metric countries. It is outdated now though, you need to go back something like 50 years or more to find textbooks using it Except for blood pressure. Blood pressure is pretty much universally still measured in mmHg all across the world, however, it's rarely spoken or written down, it's usually just the number.
@7:50- when it was mentioned that Silver is a better conductor than copper (I think it is the best conductor among (relatively) common elements), I was reminded of this story: During WW2, copper was in very high demand, and the various War industries had to compete for enough for their products, be they electronics, wires, etc... The US gov obviously couldn't just use silver instead, since it was both far more expensive, and was a valuable store of reserve wealth. However, the Manhattan Project needed a HUGE amount of good conductors (for Oak Ridge Uranium enrichment, and, since the silver wouldn't leave US soil, General Groves convinced the US Treasury Dept. to release thousands of tons of silver for use there... BUT, when they requested the use of some of the silver reserve, in tons of silver, the arrogant Treasury told them: 'Tons? How much... here measure silver in Troy Ounces.' So, Groves asked for 550,000,000 million Troy Ounces (@15,000 tons), the Treasury was put in its place by the sheer amount of silver needed. Oak Ridge got the silver, enriched the uranium, and built the bomb. And the Treasury got its silver back after the war... Wow, eh? (How cool would it have been to be a fly on the wall for those interactions!? Cheers!
Same here. I barely graduated high school and did the bare minimum to get by. But at 52 I’m fascinated with a very broad range of subjects and spend a great deal of time studying them.
Honestly, thank you for this entire channel. You explain everything in ways that are easy to understand, even for people who don’t have much scientific background, and make it super interesting. Well, I do have scientific background, but really only in biology and chemistry lol. Anyway, I’ve always loved physics, but my brain just isn’t wired right to actually *do* physics. So channels like yours have allowed me to understand concepts that I otherwise wouldn’t be able to, or at least wouldn’t be able to without a massive headache.
The planck mass is about 21 micrograms. This is about what a cube of water the size of a laptop pixel would weigh. It's not a large mass, but the planck volume is so monumentally tiny that the planck density ends up an enormous figure.
The Planck density does an excellent job of demonstrating how the pre-Big-Bang universe may have been... and this video does as good a job as possible of visualizing such massive numbers for our limited human brains. I've been wondering about the connection between the Planck mass, volume, and temperature since your calculation video last month. Thank you!
Love this guy’s channel great videos, no clickbait, straight up to the point, as well as illustrating it clearly for peabrains like me who barely understand anything
What about a unit of mass at the Planck length to the Planck temperature? Wouldn’t this be the “maximum” energy density “allowed” to exist in the universe?
8:58 That isn’t how Osmium packs up at all! That is also like the least dense configuration of atoms you can make The real crystal structure is hcp - hexagonal close packed
Multiplying it by the speed of light squared (since E=mc² and we already have mass) gives a number suspiciously close to the catastrophically high calculated energy density of the universe.
What's strange to me is that Jupiter so big is millions of atmospheres more than Earth at its core. Therefore is it has the power ro crush everything within its atmosphere inward. It should have the density to do that, yet it doesnt. The whole " Jupiter could float on water on earth" amazes me. It squeezes its moons enough to cause catastrophic tidal forces in its surfaces. Yet it doesnt do it to itself. Density is actually kind of mind boggling.
Planck density is currently the "smallest" that any THING made of mass can be. We know black holes are definitely made of mass (since that's how it gets its gravitational force). As such, whatever strange and exotic form that mass has become, our current understanding of physics states that no two quantum units of mass can occupy the same quantum state. So, there's literally nothing that can be crushed any smaller/tighter. At this level of density, there's zero space between any of the subatomic particles. This is why the mass cannot be crushed to have ZERO volume, however Planck scales are so small that they might as well be infinitely small
This video is fantastic! So much great info and, as always, perfect graphics. Oh.. except the checker pattern for the atom electron field.. that made my head hurt. But other than that, brilliant! 😅❤❤❤🎉 I especially love how you explained why the Planck mass is relevant. Very interesting!
This video comes at the right time for me because I've been wondering about how possible the universe could have started from a region the size of a proton. What gives the universe its volume is what we don't see: quantum fields. And what gives its density is mass. So, density=mass/volume comes down to mass/quantum fields. According to cosmologist Alan Guth, prior to the big bang, the universe had only 5 grams of mass. Then, forces formed. These are quantum fields. So the density already diminished early on. In a neutron star, the ability to squash matter reaches its limit. A black hole goes beyond that limit by destroying quantum forces, that is, quantum fields. They become near zero, and the ratio is density=mass/quantum fields=mass/near zero=near infinite=Planck density.
US here. For day today measurements, we do use Imperial. However, for scientific measurements, such as density, we use metric. Imperial is actually used less than you would think over here. It's mostly for older parts, and also for basic reference for things like a person's weight, or how far away you were going, or how fast you were going. Scientific measurements being in metric is actually very normal here. You don't have to convert it.
For drinks it is a mix. Largest you get normally would be a gallon, then below that two liter, one liter, 750ml, and so on. For certain things like a can or small bottle of soda we use fluid ounce. It'd be pretty confusing at first for anyone not from the US.
shhhh, people want to act superior but then look dumb, and I say let them. It makes them feel better because their country is embroiled in our MIC, etc. and this look-down is in reaction to feeling helpless or inferior in some other way.
Great video Learning Curve. A very neat way to explain the Planck density via an analogy. However we really do not know if so called 'singularities' at the centers of black holes are denser than the Planck density. "Singularity" is a code word in physics for "We really have no idea what's going on". The same applies whenever infinities emerge in nature. Infinities are fair game in pure math, but I strongly doubt they exist in nature. Infinite density at the core of a black hole would mean that a ZERO Planck length analogue exists in there, which would make no sense. It would be like saying the smallest possible length is zero. But 'zero' length means no length at all. It would also mean that the "singularity"'s volume is zero too. Even in math dividing by zero (to get infinite density) is disallowed, since it leads to "undefined" results. The same applies in physics and in the real world. Apart from the absurdity of the concept of an infinite density (which would mean an infinite number of universes worth of matter, density wise, is packed in the core of a black hole) you cannot have infinite density without having zero volume. Not just very, very small, _literally_ zero. That's the same as saying "The core of a black hole has a density of ∞ / 0" Whether you use a few trillion tons for the mass value or ∞ the result is the same. In math that division is disallowed. It does not simply generate infinity.
No, I don't think so. I'm not an expert at string theory. It is quantum fluctuations of the energy levels of the fields. If you want to know more about fields, watch my vacuum decay video, I explain them a bit in that one.
Is it possible for the "observer effect" to have occurred in the early universe? I was thinking that a correlation of entangled particles 'observed itself' by randomly defining the parameters of the Planck mass. is something like that possible?
An atom is mostly enpty space. If the atoms core were as big as a marble sitting in the middle of a football field the electron whould orbit the nucleus outside the football field. In a neutron star there is no empty space at all in the atom, the space between the nucleus and electrons is filled (every nook and cranny of it) with neutrons.. I think this is so damn cool.. And a neutron star can rotate up to 800 times/ second, often being a magnetar with a magnetic field that completely dwarfs the earths magnetic field.. Earth magnetic field = 25.000 - 65.000 nT. (25 - 65 Gauss). Magnetar magnetic field = ca 1000000000000000000 nT (10^15 Gauss). Sooooo yeah, feeling abit nerdy here now but, its sooo damn cooool! =)
I've met a significant number of people who I swear could disprove the assertion, through their cognitive ability (or lack thereof) that there is no such thing as empty space
I think it depends on what you are talking about the density of, in terms of what units Americans use. I’m trying to think of something that I would think or communicate the density of on any sort of regular basis and I’m drawing a blank. If there were some kind of every day use like that, I imagine we would use the imperial units - for pressure we certainly use PSI (pounds per square inch). In terms of engineering and science, probably we would use metric units.
Great video, I like watching you talk about the Planck scales! Just a sidenote about the stupendously big density during the Planck epoch. Although really dense, we're not talking about matter at this stage, but pure energy (or perhaps an exotic new to be discovered subform of quantum effects) equivalent to the mass of the universe. Ofcourse reflected by E = MC2. I guess a lot of viewers might already thought about it, but just wanted to point it out for clarity👍
I believe the density of water can change depending on gravity put upon it. The density of water on the surface is not the same as the density of water at the bottom of the ocean.
@10:06 did you mean HELIUM in a shell around the core starts to fuse? Most of the Hydrogen is gone and it's starting to move down the periodic table looking for new snacks.
If I remember correctly, the ~2 x 10^49 tons of the observable universe if squished down to Planck density would occupy a volume of 1.1 times the size of a proton, so that is in agreement with your statement at the end. Nice video. Thumbs up.
What if Penrose is correct, that a universe of only photons has no discernable size? That becomes the singularity, where all photons are massless and occupy the same space. Infinite density is the entire matter of the universe condensed into photons. I think the universe absolutely hates paradoxes, so everything that exists does so to avoid paradoxes. Even though it feels like luck that anything exists at all, I believe that pure nothingness is a paradox that cannot exist. If nothing does exist, time is irrelevant and it instantly turns into something. There cannot be no relativity. What's really wild to me is that if the universe is cyclical as stated by Roger Penrose, then entropy resets and the universe is in perpetual motion. I suppose the only way this could happen is if the space separating matter becomes meaningless. Singularities reverse entropy, which is why they are so awkward and confusing for us to comprehend.
@@MichelleHell Penrose's CCC is interesting but has several problems to overcome. For one, there doesn't seem to be a decay time for protons or electrons, which means you'd never have a universe of only photons. I guess you could posit that everything would eventually end up inside a black hole, crushed into Planck energy and then radiated out as Hawking radiation, but that also doesn't seem like a certainty to me. Or, once the universe was expanded to quadrillions of lightyears, you could have a region of only photons that would undergo the CCC mechanism. Nothingness is definitely paradoxical. You can play around with the definitions of nothingness, existence and exist and easily see that the statement "nothingness exists" is logically inconsistent. I do believe the universe is cyclical, but I think the cycle involves black holes. I think black holes are the key to everything, including causality emerging from pure chaos. I'm even working on an idea to demonstrate this, but the initial math isn't promising for black holes that aren't spinning. So, now I have to figure out how spinning black holes falling into larger spinning black holes would support my idea. Yikes.
The Planck density does have a physically meaningful value - it's the density of the smallest possible black hole, which has a mass equal to the Planck mass, and a radius equal to the Planck length. Whether such a black hole can physically exist or whether it would immediately evaporate due to Hawking radiation is uncertain. If they do exist, they are a candidate for dark matter.
I have a couple comments to make 1) The Planck density (the density of the early universe, per title) only lasted 10^-43 seconds or so, and possibly inside black holes. Does this mean the universe at 10^-43 seconds was a black hole? 2) The planck density is mind boggling. The Planck temperature is as well, but the planck density is even more so. The former is derived by a simpler formula, but its value is so insanely high that it's nearly impossible to fathom. The latter is also derived by a somewhat more complicated formula, and is also insanely high, but this is WHOA!!!!!
I do truly wonder if we as a species will ever truly figure out the ins and outs of black holes, they’ve always fascinated me, just hulking fractures in space time
Just one problem. Physicists don't believe that the singularity inside a black hole is infinitely dense. Thats just where Einstein's equations break down and don't work anymore. Any time an infinity pops up in our maths, we know that it doesn't exist in reality. The density of the singularity inside a black hole is most likely the Planck density.
Great video, the Planck Density might explain black holes. In loop quantum gravity theory, a Planck star is a hypothetical astronomical object, theorized as a compact, exotic star, that exists within a black, so objects with this density could exist...
The plank density / length is literally directly associated w and defined by how they relate to black holes. The Planck length is the distance at which the amount of energy required to probe and measure at that resolution would create a black hole given the density of that much energy occupying such a small region. So it is literally impossible for anything to measure smaller than that length bc a black hole will always form and obscure the result
Your correct with the pound per square foot in the US. However, when it comes to science, metric is generally preferred. Imperial units are mainly used in certain trades, like construction, and in everyday type stuff. For example, I will buy a pound of whatever instead of a kilo. But in science based subjects, metric is used.
Nothing can escape the gravitational pull of a singularity, which isn't even the densest thing. Yet the universe itself came out of a much, much denser object. Praise be to God!
I had a physics question if you don't mind. Thinking about a Planck length, since the smallest meaningful measurable 3D object would be a pyramid, generally speaking is it safe to say we live in a sort of triangulated universe?
Wouldn't the plank density have a gravitational field that would obliterate spacetime? How can anything actually be compressed that much? I mean how do the smallest constituents of matter even have that much space between them to contain that density?
I dont understand how the mass can be infinite inside a black hole. Does that mean the singularity is smaller then a planck cube?? I find infinite a word too easely used for VERY VERY BIG NUMBER we cannot calculate or imagine. I wonder if you have a video about planck lenghts cause that really confuses me more then anything. Time to look it up
Mass is not infinite. If the mass was infinite, the gravity is infinite, and say goodbye to the universe. Instead of the mass being infinitely big, it's the volume that is infinitesimally small. That being said, however, this is just going off of General Relativity, which does not mesh well with quantum physics, so the density of black holes may not be infinite anyways.
Does Quantum Gravity exist with the Planck Density? Assuming the Planck Density is fundamental to Field Theory and defines space-time itself, how much energy was required to force the ripping of the Planck Density resulting in the faster than light expansion of the Universe moments after the Big Bang?
I love your shows on the brass tacks of the universe (as we know it; could go upside down or inside out and snuff us overnight). My ignorant questions are these: are there Planck applications to angular momentum, diffraction index, chaos, gravity, to other universal constants, to relativity and quantum mechanics? The more esoteric the better. Please keep up the good work, and don't let my questions drive you crazy. Short of nukes, voodoo physics is all for fun in the long run, and probably proven wrong within the next decade?. My mind experiments go berserk when I picture photons radiating from a flashlight travelling at relativistic speeds and rotating quickly along one or more of its axes, then subject to outside gravitation. Are they still travelling at the speed of light and if so, where?
A request for a topic rarely addressed, and maybe boring to most people, but necessary to understand particle physics and get into quantum mechanics: *what **_is_** measurement?*
What is the concept of 10**-43 seconds (the Planck Epoch) after the Big Bang? If there is a space/time continuum it would be distorted inconceivably by an object of Planck density and time would be meaningless in terms we understand today on Earth. Extrapolating from here, the Planck velocity would be VP = LP/tP = 1.61625518E-35 m / 5.39124760E-44 s = 2.99E8 m/s = C I wonder if Planck Force has any significance? FP = 1.21E44 N, Planck Acceleration AP = 5.56 m/s^2
A black holes mass cannot be greater than the Planck density. That's a mathematical quirk based on a minimum of zero where our physical world doesn't allow for absolutes. You cannot have a defined minimum length (the Planck length) and then describe something that exists smaller than that. I would suggest that the Plank density is not achievable in this physical universe and the core of a black hole probably dances right at the edge of that density...but that's pure conjecture.
Some theorize that the Planck density is a hard limit for blackhole singularities and they may rebound once the Planck density is reached. We haven't observed any yet due to time dilation around the blackhole.
That… kinda actually makes sense!
That sounds very interesting. Where could I learn more about this?
@@feynstein1004 They're called "Planck Stars" but I've only been able to find a few articles on the subject.
@@seanspartan2023 Oh okay. I did a double take because I thought you said quark stars 😅
Could it be black hols in reality do not exist for billions and billions of years, and it only look like it because of time dilation? Because of the amount of mass all processes happens very slowly in our reality?
Most underrated channel on UA-cam!
The intriguing topics and passion this person brings should give him millions of views and subs. UA-cam algorithm and policies are completely broken!
Planck Density = if you crammed a billion galaxies into a space the size of an atomic nucleus.
It’s stunning that even stuffing the observable universe and all of it’s matter into a cubic meter will not suffice and be no where near the Planck density
Yes.....that's an amazing mathematical concept and hard to imagine thoes kind of numbers 🙄👍
@@karldunne5595 I just imagined a spaceship made out of it...with windows.
🤯
The US doesn't tend to use Imperial Units when we're talking about physics. Any physics class or text book, even at beginning/high school levels, will use the metric system. I'm American, and in my day-to-day life, I absolutely use feet over meters, but describing density in lbs/ft^3 is totally foreign to me. I would use kg/m^3 every time.
For calculations sure. But I work construction, and I can understand both the weight and volume measurements better. For his early ones, like water, silver, osmium, planets, etc. I have dealt with cubic feet/yards of concrete, lifted cast iron engine blocks, a 5 gallon bucket of water, etc. and then have a comparison I can relate to.
I agree that for everything much larger and smaller imperial units are pointless.
All the people that argue “metric is better in every case” are making pretty bad assumptions about what measurements are for IMO. Metric is better for two things: scalability and consistency. But imperial is incredibly practical for every day measurements and estimates. Measures for cooking and baking are incredibly fast and easy to visualize as opposed to weights like in most metric countries. And then people argue “but your imperial measures are defined by metric” I mean sure, but that doesn’t do anything but play into metric’s advantage for continuity between areas. It doesn’t remove imperial’s distinct advantages in practical measures.
Sorry for the rant 😂
People’s refusal to consider us “backwards imperial users” as having a reason other than tradition to use our measurements has always annoyed me…
@@connorjones1485 You said:
But imperial is incredibly practical for every day measurements and estimates. Measures for cooking and baking are incredibly fast and easy to visualize as opposed to weights like in most metric countries
It's not true. If your day to day units are metric, the calculations are extremely easy, since 1 liter (1000 cm3) of water weighs 1 kilogram (1000 grams) and is a cube with a side of 10 cm (0.1m)
Remind me how many gallons fit in a cubic foot and how many cubic inches? And why are we talking about three different basic units of, in this case, volume? Sorry, four units, I left out fluid ounces, also used in day to day life. I could live with all this mess, but at what cost?
@@connorjones1485Imperial’s practicality for everyday measurements is a matter of perspective and practice. Someone who was raised in using the metric system for those same measurements would carry them out with the same ease. On the other hand, as you correctly say, trying to use imperial for larger and smaller scales is simply impractical and, past a certain point, meaningless.
@@naedanger123 that’s true to a point, but not completely. We have different units of measure for different things for a reason. In the US we use psi usually for line pressures. I’m a fire sprinkler fitter, my friend is a fire sprinkler designer. He shared an example with me recently, the computer does all your calculations for you, but obviously you should look and verify numbers make sense, working pressures for fire sprinkler systems are typically 7-200psi. Same range in BAR? .48 to 13.78. Sometimes your looking at differences of 20psi or less between functioning properly or not. That’s a difference of 1.3 bar. Sure you can train yourself to see it, but it’s far easier to see if things aren’t right when the particular frame of reference is easy to comprehend. I’d argue the same for feet and inches. Sometimes you need a measure inbetween the nearest factor of 10 that metric has. You have the meter, and the centimeter, and they’re just not particularly useful for things about 1-3 feet long. You have decimeter, but no one seems to use it.
I’m not arguing we should be using imperial for everything, just that it has its place and there’s plenty of good reasons to use it, it’s not simply semantics or training.
Same, I use imperial in my day to day life because .. well... USA, but for sciency stuff I always use metric.
I can do most of the conversions in my head, its like being bilingual.
Fun fact. Silver was used to make electrical cables for the Manhattan Project during WWII. They needed to make large electromagnets for one of the processes separating the uranium isotopes, but they couldn't risk calling attention to the project by diverting large amounts of copper away from the war effort, so they asked the Federal reserve to lend them a few tons of silver from which they made the required electrical coils. The silver was later returned to the reserve, minus a small quantity lost during the fabrication process.
Also is the best natural conductor, and considering they were using huge amounts of power to create beam divergence on u235 and u238 you want the best electromagnets in you practical acceleration.
Yes silver is more conductive that copper even of electricity and heat both.
So how much silver does the Manhattan Project owe the Federal Reserve, and what is the interest due on that, since 1945?
Yes they ran out of copper because they were using it all for weapons. That's also why they stopped using it in pennies and made the pennies out of iron. I would have expected iron to be the metal of choice for weapons, but I guess shell casings are usually brass, not steel, because they need to have some give.
"minus a small quantity lost during the fabrication process" whilst Oppenheimers back was turned I'm sure Hahahaha
I'm glad this channel got popular over time. Despite me not planning to pursue a job in the field, science and astronomy has (and still is) my absolute favorite subject in school. My teachers made the subject extremely fun for me, so I have respect towards any science teacher who is passionate about what they do. I'm so glad to have been in their classes.
I happen to be in my last year of highschool, and to be honest, I'm going to miss some of my science teachers. They all seem to take more care in making sure we learn about our universe, more than our grades.
Thank you for your videos. They're really informative and nice to watch, I often listen to them while working on a story I've been writing (or) homework if I ever get it, which is rare nowadays for me.
If you love those subjects so much, perhaps a career in astrophysics is for you.
Don't make the same mistake I did, my favorite subject was biology, particularly botany, I love plants, so I became an electrician, I was damned good at it, the pay was good but I was never happy.
@@MichaelClark-uw7ex. I almost made the same mistake and switched majors from molecular biology/medical microbiology to biochemistry. I’m so happy I stuck to what I loved.
CONGRATULATIONS on the 50K subscribers mark! 👏👏👏
I was one of the very first few to find your amazing channel and have been waiting to see these numbers finally happen for you!
It might've even been the Planck length video I saw when I was like, "man, as soon as people see how well this guy simplifies and explains these amazing things... BOOM!"
You cover these topics unlike any other and in a very unique and accessible way, too.
Thank you!
(And thank you for exploring the Quantum world as much as you do; it's so mysterious and invisible and you bring it to life nicely for your viewers: )
Thank you so much, and thank you so much for your continued support. Without people like you, and the support I get from this community, I'd have never got this far. Thanks again
At a certain point quite early in the scales of the Plannk Density in this video (or the size of a human, up to the observable universe in your latest upload) it becomes too much for us mere mortals to comprehend. The example of the atom nucleus being the size of a tennis ball and the electrons orbiting around 3-4 miles away is useful to put size and scale into perspective. However, when it got to the sun's core having a density of 162 tons in a cubic metre, all comprehension was gone! Still the crazy numbers that followed this is fascinating and mind boggling, I appreciate your efforts to make it as understandable as you did! Thanks for the headache, I think my mind is close to Plannk Density right now 🤯
Looking forward to more content like this 👍🏻
11:52 - 12:00 That is such a cool visualization of the nucleus!
I only recently learned that protons and neutrons also exist in a cloud (the way electrons do; they are after all also defined by a wavefunction) and have energy states that they transition between -- and that "nucleus soup" visual really drove it home. They aren't static. They aren't classical.
I can go back nearly 70 years when our science teacher was trying to get us to come to grips with Density. I don't think he understood it. But he made up write out 200 times. "Density is mass per unit volume." Years later it is still clear in my head as it was when I put it there in the 1950s I am still befogged as before but I am going to play this video again.
I am pretty sure "density" can also be defined as a child writing out lines 200 times because they were to dense to comprehend it any other way.
It's surprising that you just did a video about the Planck density today, I was just discussing this with people a few weeks ago, believe it or not! I was discussing the theory that at the center of a black hole, the density isn't infinite, but actually the Planck density. Still incredibly small, but just not infinite. This also puts a link between the Big Bang and black holes, if the Big Bang started off at the Planck density, and the inside of a black hole is the Planck density, then the Big Bang and black holes may be related to each other. In other words, the universe we live in could be result of a black hole, or at least it's time-reversed counterpart, the white hole! We might be living in a time-reversed black hole!
Also, the Planck density provides an upper limit on Boson density. We normally consider Bosons to be limitless density in theory, you can have as many Bosons in the same time and space together as you want. However, it's Fermions have to be spread out from each other, having a maximum limit. The Planck density would provide the final limit for the Bosons too.
I agree.If our universe is the interiorof a black hole, it explains dark energy & dark matter, as infalling material from outside the universe would be at what we consider the "edge" of our universe, & continuing to "push" the boundary further & faster.Our current observations would seem to confirm something like this.
Indubitably
There is a problem with the scale. Even a supermassive black hole cannot compare even remotely to the scale of the Big Bang. If you summed up all the black holes in the Observable Universe and subtracted it from the Big Bang you'd still have a whole Big Bang.
@@LolUGotBusted why can't our universe be a black hole on a far larger scale?I bet the entirety of our universe is already many trillions of orders of magnitude larger than the mere 93 billion light yeas across that we currently know about.
That would imply though that the Universe does have a center, for which we have no evidence suggesting that it does. We don't see galaxies all heading towards some central point.
Since it's known that Black Holes have spin, and therefore must have angular momentum, then I realised it is impossible for the singularity to be an infinitessimal point. I took some time to follow that further, and found that a good number of physicists believe that the singularity is actually a 1-dimensional ring instead (still having no volume, but still having angular momentum). To me, this sort of seems like "cheating" where a mass can have a diameter, but no volume at all, and so that had me questioning the whole concept of singularities entirely.
Later on, after watching more videos, especially about relativity and Hawking Radiation, it occurred to me that from the perspective of an outside observer located within the Universe, that an observer cannot ever observe something entering the event horizon. Hawking Radiation does exist though, so instead, over a very long period of time, an external observer would simply observe an object that approaches the event horizon will eventually get converted into Hawking Radiation.
All of the above leads me to believe that from the perspective of an external observer, there actually is no singularity at all, at least not as a physical thing. I believe that when observed from within our universe, all the mass of a black hole is actually concentrated at the event horizon, since we can never ever observe anything cross the event horizon even if we wait an infinite amount of time. I believe that the concept of a singularity is really just something of a mathematical convenience, since as it's stated, we have zero knowledge at all of what occurs beyond the event horizon. We already know that for any mass its gravitational effects can be reduced to be as if acting as from a singular central point, which again leads me to believe that there's no such thing as a real physical singularity. For all intents and purposes, the event horizon is a self-contained "edge of the universe" and the region within it exists outside our in-universe space time. Matter that approaches the event horizon just gets concentrated around the event horizon and is (eventually) converted into Hawking Radiation as the black hole slowly "evaporates".
Anyway, that's just my 2c. It could all be completely wrong, but given everything I've read, and I've often read the statement that "nature abhors infinities", the above is for me the way how I understand black holes to be. That doesn't mean that there can't be another Universe within one, or perhaps be acting as a sort of gateway between multiple universes, but that's something that we can never know, or if we can know it, it's not something that we could ever inform anyone within our universe about, but it's certain fun to imagine what might be.
Speaking as an American, who has worked in industry, density has never come up in common parlance or even when I was working in tech, though in college, I was using all metric for physics classes. It's therefore academic jargon, and in technology jobs, we have started progressing almost completely to metric. So, yeah we use kg/m^3 now. It's just:
• temperature (Fahrenheit for weather, cooking and body temp, Celsius for technology, like chemistry, GPU core or extruder temp)
• liquid volume (gallons, quarts, and fluid ounces, except for "fizzy drinks", which are in liters)
• weight (we use tons, pounds and ounces, Brits use stone, we don't know what that is, and metric in some industry and creeping into food. Influenced by "gram" and "kilo" being known quantities for drug culture.)
• velocity (miles per hour for cars, feet per second for firearms, knots for water and aircraft, m/s in tech and industry)
• distance (miles, feet, inches, industry uses meters.) and
• pressure (oddly enough: bar OR mmHg (yes, millimeters of mercury) for weather, torr for vacuum chambers, pounds per square inch (PSI) for everything else, never seen pascals used anywhere.)
...that we don't generally use metric.
Firearms, on the other hand, uses a composite and often competing system of:
• "caliber" (ratio of an inch of a given bullet or barrel bore land-to-land diameter, and in most cases we say "caliber" after a number to indicate that a dot goes before it and it has two digits. Exceptions include: ".357" which is just "three-fifty-seven", ".380" is "three-eighty" instead of "thirty-eight", which is ".38" and a different cartridge case length, and both are equal in diameter to 9mm. No matter what, "point" or "dot" is never spoken.)
• inches (for naval cannons and barrel length of any firearm, which may or may not include the chamber)
• mm (for firearms of certain non-American pedigrees, most small arms above 1 inch in bore diameter, and land-based cannons) and
• "gauge" (number of spheres of a given diameter of lead required to make a pound, for shotguns; this is a reciprocal length so, like photography f-stops, higher gauge is smaller diameter)
Send help.
I think it's quite amusing that 'gram' and 'kilo' are being popularized in the US by drug measurements. xD
@@mikicerise6250 Hey, those that have micro scales and need to calibrate grams for weed are the same people interested in health food. I thought it was funny too.
Drug dealers converting Americans to metric, one high at a time.
Weirdly enough mmHg was a unit that used to be used in otherwise entirely metric countries. It is outdated now though, you need to go back something like 50 years or more to find textbooks using it
Except for blood pressure. Blood pressure is pretty much universally still measured in mmHg all across the world, however, it's rarely spoken or written down, it's usually just the number.
Thank you again for these kinds of videos, having this in-depthness and still maintaining easy-to-understandness is hard to find elsewhere, kudos
@7:50- when it was mentioned that Silver is a better conductor than copper (I think it is the best conductor among (relatively) common elements), I was reminded of this story:
During WW2, copper was in very high demand, and the various War industries had to compete for enough for their products, be they electronics, wires, etc...
The US gov obviously couldn't just use silver instead, since it was both far more expensive, and was a valuable store of reserve wealth.
However, the Manhattan Project needed a HUGE amount of good conductors (for Oak Ridge Uranium enrichment, and, since the silver wouldn't leave US soil, General Groves convinced the US Treasury Dept. to release thousands of tons of silver for use there...
BUT, when they requested the use of some of the silver reserve, in tons of silver, the arrogant Treasury told them: 'Tons? How much... here measure silver in Troy Ounces.'
So, Groves asked for 550,000,000 million Troy Ounces (@15,000 tons), the Treasury was put in its place by the sheer amount of silver needed.
Oak Ridge got the silver, enriched the uranium, and built the bomb. And the Treasury got its silver back after the war... Wow, eh? (How cool would it have been to be a fly on the wall for those interactions!?
Cheers!
If I would’ve had this curiosity and easy access to this info in school, I think I would have taken a different route in life!
Same here. I barely graduated high school and did the bare minimum to get by. But at 52 I’m fascinated with a very broad range of subjects and spend a great deal of time studying them.
Honestly, thank you for this entire channel. You explain everything in ways that are easy to understand, even for people who don’t have much scientific background, and make it super interesting. Well, I do have scientific background, but really only in biology and chemistry lol. Anyway, I’ve always loved physics, but my brain just isn’t wired right to actually *do* physics. So channels like yours have allowed me to understand concepts that I otherwise wouldn’t be able to, or at least wouldn’t be able to without a massive headache.
Thank you very much
@@LearningCurveScience Of course!
fascinating stuff - I really appreciate the work you do to find and clarify the parameters of these fundamental concepts - cheers
The planck mass is about 21 micrograms. This is about what a cube of water the size of a laptop pixel would weigh. It's not a large mass, but the planck volume is so monumentally tiny that the planck density ends up an enormous figure.
The Planck density does an excellent job of demonstrating how the pre-Big-Bang universe may have been... and this video does as good a job as possible of visualizing such massive numbers for our limited human brains. I've been wondering about the connection between the Planck mass, volume, and temperature since your calculation video last month. Thank you!
Love this guy’s channel great videos, no clickbait, straight up to the point, as well as illustrating it clearly for peabrains like me who barely understand anything
Really really superb explanation.
What about a unit of mass at the Planck length to the Planck temperature? Wouldn’t this be the “maximum” energy density “allowed” to exist in the universe?
8:58 That isn’t how Osmium packs up at all! That is also like the least dense configuration of atoms you can make
The real crystal structure is hcp - hexagonal close packed
Ive been waiting for video about this. Thanks
I love your presentation. Please keep up the good work!
Thank you so much!
2:35
Bless you sir. You made my day. It's not often I hear that these days.
What... Did he sneeze?
Saw some of your videos, you really got an intresting way of seeing things, i salute you man!
Also loved the plankification videos of standard units
Multiplying it by the speed of light squared (since E=mc² and we already have mass) gives a number suspiciously close to the catastrophically high calculated energy density of the universe.
Superb explanation and video. Excellent!
Many thanks!
❤❤❤ Wow!!! That's almost a googol!!! I'm a huge fan of big numbers. Can you break down the first rung of Graham's Number?
It's really mind blowing.
What's strange to me is that Jupiter so big is millions of atmospheres more than Earth at its core. Therefore is it has the power ro crush everything within its atmosphere inward. It should have the density to do that, yet it doesnt. The whole " Jupiter could float on water on earth" amazes me. It squeezes its moons enough to cause catastrophic tidal forces in its surfaces. Yet it doesnt do it to itself. Density is actually kind of mind boggling.
Thanks for the conversions, as someone loving in the US it's still difficult for me to conceptualize SI units.
Thank you. I finally proved to my wife that I am not the densest thing in the universe.
Planck density is currently the "smallest" that any THING made of mass can be. We know black holes are definitely made of mass (since that's how it gets its gravitational force). As such, whatever strange and exotic form that mass has become, our current understanding of physics states that no two quantum units of mass can occupy the same quantum state. So, there's literally nothing that can be crushed any smaller/tighter. At this level of density, there's zero space between any of the subatomic particles. This is why the mass cannot be crushed to have ZERO volume, however Planck scales are so small that they might as well be infinitely small
This video is fantastic! So much great info and, as always, perfect graphics. Oh.. except the checker pattern for the atom electron field.. that made my head hurt. But other than that, brilliant! 😅❤❤❤🎉 I especially love how you explained why the Planck mass is relevant. Very interesting!
Thanks very much Stephanie, much appreciated
Another fantastic video that illustrates these concepts SO well. Thank you!
Thank you very much.
Saturn has a density lower than water. That means if you find a bathtub big enough, Saturn would float in it. But unfortunately it would leave a ring.
You are so sweet for doing the conversions!
That is some crazy stuff! Just found your channel, love it, can't wait to see more videos!!
This video comes at the right time for me because I've been wondering about how possible the universe could have started from a region the size of a proton. What gives the universe its volume is what we don't see: quantum fields. And what gives its density is mass. So, density=mass/volume comes down to mass/quantum fields. According to cosmologist Alan Guth, prior to the big bang, the universe had only 5 grams of mass. Then, forces formed. These are quantum fields. So the density already diminished early on. In a neutron star, the ability to squash matter reaches its limit. A black hole goes beyond that limit by destroying quantum forces, that is, quantum fields. They become near zero, and the ratio is density=mass/quantum fields=mass/near zero=near infinite=Planck density.
US here. For day today measurements, we do use Imperial. However, for scientific measurements, such as density, we use metric. Imperial is actually used less than you would think over here. It's mostly for older parts, and also for basic reference for things like a person's weight, or how far away you were going, or how fast you were going. Scientific measurements being in metric is actually very normal here. You don't have to convert it.
And for measuring the amount of Coca Cola they drink, Americans use metric too, as I understand it. ;)
For drinks it is a mix. Largest you get normally would be a gallon, then below that two liter, one liter, 750ml, and so on. For certain things like a can or small bottle of soda we use fluid ounce. It'd be pretty confusing at first for anyone not from the US.
shhhh, people want to act superior but then look dumb, and I say let them. It makes them feel better because their country is embroiled in our MIC, etc. and this look-down is in reaction to feeling helpless or inferior in some other way.
That was mind-boggling. I need to rewatch this a few times. Thank you!
Great video Learning Curve. A very neat way to explain the Planck density via an analogy.
However we really do not know if so called 'singularities' at the centers of black holes are denser than the Planck density. "Singularity" is a code word in physics for "We really have no idea what's going on".
The same applies whenever infinities emerge in nature. Infinities are fair game in pure math, but I strongly doubt they exist in nature.
Infinite density at the core of a black hole would mean that a ZERO Planck length analogue exists in there, which would make no sense. It would be like saying the smallest possible length is zero. But 'zero' length means no length at all. It would also mean that the "singularity"'s volume is zero too. Even in math dividing by zero (to get infinite density) is disallowed, since it leads to "undefined" results. The same applies in physics and in the real world.
Apart from the absurdity of the concept of an infinite density (which would mean an infinite number of universes worth of matter, density wise, is packed in the core of a black hole) you cannot have infinite density without having zero volume. Not just very, very small, _literally_ zero.
That's the same as saying "The core of a black hole has a density of ∞ / 0" Whether you use a few trillion tons for the mass value or ∞ the result is the same. In math that division is disallowed. It does not simply generate infinity.
Yes, dividing by zero does cause some problems. I think it's fair to say we just don't know.
2:57 is that because of a different dimension that we can’t see or something? Referring to particles popping in and out of existence
No, I don't think so. I'm not an expert at string theory. It is quantum fluctuations of the energy levels of the fields. If you want to know more about fields, watch my vacuum decay video, I explain them a bit in that one.
Is it possible for the "observer effect" to have occurred in the early universe? I was thinking that a correlation of entangled particles 'observed itself' by randomly defining the parameters of the Planck mass. is something like that possible?
Very interesting videos, love em. Keep up the amazing work and happy new years!
Thanks very much, and Happy New Year to you too!
An atom is mostly enpty space.
If the atoms core were as big as a marble sitting in the middle of a football field the electron whould orbit the nucleus outside the football field.
In a neutron star there is no empty space at all in the atom, the space between the nucleus and electrons is filled (every nook and cranny of it) with neutrons..
I think this is so damn cool..
And a neutron star can rotate up to 800 times/ second, often being a magnetar with a magnetic field that completely dwarfs the earths magnetic field..
Earth magnetic field = 25.000 - 65.000 nT. (25 - 65 Gauss).
Magnetar magnetic field = ca 1000000000000000000 nT (10^15 Gauss).
Sooooo yeah, feeling abit nerdy here now but, its sooo damn cooool! =)
I've met a significant number of people who I swear could disprove the assertion, through their cognitive ability (or lack thereof) that there is no such thing as empty space
Love your channel!
Like the way you make physics understandable to the layman
Thank you, I do my best.
The best post, anywhere on the Internet, this year.
He’s good but if you’re saying this you dont watch ScienceClic
@@stdesy As a practicing physicist, I can affirm you are a nob.
I'm flattered, but I'm sure there is better stuff out there.
@@LearningCurveScience No; it's in the delivery
15:01 fyi, that is 5.155 quetta-quetta-quetta-gigagrams per cubic meter (hyphens added for readability).
I think it depends on what you are talking about the density of, in terms of what units Americans use. I’m trying to think of something that I would think or communicate the density of on any sort of regular basis and I’m drawing a blank. If there were some kind of every day use like that, I imagine we would use the imperial units - for pressure we certainly use PSI (pounds per square inch). In terms of engineering and science, probably we would use metric units.
Wow. Well done. Thought provoking.
Thank you. Don’t sweat the unit conversations. It’s the relative orders of magnitude that are the point right?
i love your videos!❤ always chill and interesting
Glad you enjoy them, thank you very much.
Great video, I like watching you talk about the Planck scales! Just a sidenote about the stupendously big density during the Planck epoch. Although really dense, we're not talking about matter at this stage, but pure energy (or perhaps an exotic new to be discovered subform of quantum effects) equivalent to the mass of the universe. Ofcourse reflected by E = MC2. I guess a lot of viewers might already thought about it, but just wanted to point it out for clarity👍
We are talking about matter, as really at that stage all energy and matter where the same thing and picking one is kinda useless.
I believe the density of water can change depending on gravity put upon it. The density of water on the surface is not the same as the density of water at the bottom of the ocean.
he said exactly that.
Thank you! Best science video I’ve seen this year ;)
Thank you so much
Well, now my head hurts. Must be approaching the Planck density.
Thank you for knowledge
@10:06 did you mean HELIUM in a shell around the core starts to fuse? Most of the Hydrogen is gone and it's starting to move down the periodic table looking for new snacks.
Good Job.
If I remember correctly, the ~2 x 10^49 tons of the observable universe if squished down to Planck density would occupy a volume of 1.1 times the size of a proton, so that is in agreement with your statement at the end. Nice video. Thumbs up.
What if Penrose is correct, that a universe of only photons has no discernable size? That becomes the singularity, where all photons are massless and occupy the same space. Infinite density is the entire matter of the universe condensed into photons.
I think the universe absolutely hates paradoxes, so everything that exists does so to avoid paradoxes. Even though it feels like luck that anything exists at all, I believe that pure nothingness is a paradox that cannot exist. If nothing does exist, time is irrelevant and it instantly turns into something. There cannot be no relativity.
What's really wild to me is that if the universe is cyclical as stated by Roger Penrose, then entropy resets and the universe is in perpetual motion. I suppose the only way this could happen is if the space separating matter becomes meaningless. Singularities reverse entropy, which is why they are so awkward and confusing for us to comprehend.
@@MichelleHell Penrose's CCC is interesting but has several problems to overcome. For one, there doesn't seem to be a decay time for protons or electrons, which means you'd never have a universe of only photons. I guess you could posit that everything would eventually end up inside a black hole, crushed into Planck energy and then radiated out as Hawking radiation, but that also doesn't seem like a certainty to me. Or, once the universe was expanded to quadrillions of lightyears, you could have a region of only photons that would undergo the CCC mechanism.
Nothingness is definitely paradoxical. You can play around with the definitions of nothingness, existence and exist and easily see that the statement "nothingness exists" is logically inconsistent.
I do believe the universe is cyclical, but I think the cycle involves black holes. I think black holes are the key to everything, including causality emerging from pure chaos. I'm even working on an idea to demonstrate this, but the initial math isn't promising for black holes that aren't spinning. So, now I have to figure out how spinning black holes falling into larger spinning black holes would support my idea. Yikes.
The Planck density does have a physically meaningful value - it's the density of the smallest possible black hole, which has a mass equal to the Planck mass, and a radius equal to the Planck length.
Whether such a black hole can physically exist or whether it would immediately evaporate due to Hawking radiation is uncertain. If they do exist, they are a candidate for dark matter.
The idea that fields form particles is a fundamental foundation of cosmology . Space time rules.
thanks can you please show how you get the mass at plank length
I did a video deriving the Planck units mathematically. That might be what you are looking for.
I have a couple comments to make
1) The Planck density (the density of the early universe, per title) only lasted 10^-43 seconds or so, and possibly inside black holes. Does this mean the universe at 10^-43 seconds was a black hole?
2) The planck density is mind boggling. The Planck temperature is as well, but the planck density is even more so. The former is derived by a simpler formula, but its value is so insanely high that it's nearly impossible to fathom. The latter is also derived by a somewhat more complicated formula, and is also insanely high, but this is WHOA!!!!!
Especially since it makes neutron stars seem vacuous by comparison.
Great video my friend !
Thank you very much
I do truly wonder if we as a species will ever truly figure out the ins and outs of black holes, they’ve always fascinated me, just hulking fractures in space time
Thanks , this was great
So where to politicians feature on the spectrum? Either complete vacuum or densest object in the universe? Maybe Schrodinger can help me out with that
Their brains are complete vacuum. Their hearts are planck density.
Just one problem. Physicists don't believe that the singularity inside a black hole is infinitely dense. Thats just where Einstein's equations break down and don't work anymore. Any time an infinity pops up in our maths, we know that it doesn't exist in reality. The density of the singularity inside a black hole is most likely the Planck density.
Love your stuff!
Thanks very much
Great video, the Planck Density might explain black holes. In loop quantum gravity theory, a Planck star is a hypothetical astronomical object, theorized as a compact, exotic star, that exists within a black, so objects with this density could exist...
The plank density / length is literally directly associated w and defined by how they relate to black holes. The Planck length is the distance at which the amount of energy required to probe and measure at that resolution would create a black hole given the density of that much energy occupying such a small region. So it is literally impossible for anything to measure smaller than that length bc a black hole will always form and obscure the result
Just saying .... @ 3:45, ....STP is 14.696 psig , 101.325 kPa referenced to Paris France at 20 ' C
Your correct with the pound per square foot in the US. However, when it comes to science, metric is generally preferred. Imperial units are mainly used in certain trades, like construction, and in everyday type stuff. For example, I will buy a pound of whatever instead of a kilo. But in science based subjects, metric is used.
PLANCK YOU FOR WATCHING !!
You should check out Uranus
Nothing can escape the gravitational pull of a singularity, which isn't even the densest thing. Yet the universe itself came out of a much, much denser object. Praise be to God!
Very much enjoy your work
Would love a video explaining interferometry using multiple telescopes
I had a physics question if you don't mind. Thinking about a Planck length, since the smallest meaningful measurable 3D object would be a pyramid, generally speaking is it safe to say we live in a sort of triangulated universe?
Wouldn't the plank density have a gravitational field that would obliterate spacetime? How can anything actually be compressed that much? I mean how do the smallest constituents of matter even have that much space between them to contain that density?
Planck density= my trashcan after missing trash day twice
Vacuum catastrophe density? How does the upper bound of that compare?
I dont understand how the mass can be infinite inside a black hole. Does that mean the singularity is smaller then a planck cube?? I find infinite a word too easely used for VERY VERY BIG NUMBER we cannot calculate or imagine. I wonder if you have a video about planck lenghts cause that really confuses me more then anything. Time to look it up
I found it!! Nvm
Mass is not infinite. If the mass was infinite, the gravity is infinite, and say goodbye to the universe.
Instead of the mass being infinitely big, it's the volume that is infinitesimally small.
That being said, however, this is just going off of General Relativity, which does not mesh well with quantum physics, so the density of black holes may not be infinite anyways.
Would Planck density really last only Planck time ? About 10^-34 seconds...
2024 update!: Scientists have now confirmed that the only object more dense than the Planck density is Kevin from 8th grade.
Does Quantum Gravity exist with the Planck Density? Assuming the Planck Density is fundamental to Field Theory and defines space-time itself, how much energy was required to force the ripping of the Planck Density resulting in the faster than light expansion of the Universe moments after the Big Bang?
I love your shows on the brass tacks of the universe (as we know it; could go upside down or inside out and snuff us overnight). My ignorant questions are these: are there Planck applications to angular momentum, diffraction index, chaos, gravity, to other universal constants, to relativity and quantum mechanics? The more esoteric the better. Please keep up the good work, and don't let my questions drive you crazy. Short of nukes, voodoo physics is all for fun in the long run, and probably proven wrong within the next decade?.
My mind experiments go berserk when I picture photons radiating from a flashlight travelling at relativistic speeds and rotating quickly along one or more of its axes, then subject to outside gravitation. Are they still travelling at the speed of light and if so, where?
A request for a topic rarely addressed, and maybe boring to most people, but necessary to understand particle physics and get into quantum mechanics: *what **_is_** measurement?*
Wow! The very best video evah! Thanks.
Thank you very much
Video suggestion: The most violent events in the known universe.
Nuclear bombs, supernovas, neutron star collisions
What is the concept of 10**-43 seconds (the Planck Epoch) after the Big Bang? If there is a space/time continuum it would be distorted inconceivably by an object of Planck density and time would be meaningless in terms we understand today on Earth.
Extrapolating from here, the Planck velocity would be VP = LP/tP = 1.61625518E-35 m / 5.39124760E-44 s = 2.99E8 m/s = C
I wonder if Planck Force has any significance? FP = 1.21E44 N, Planck Acceleration AP = 5.56 m/s^2
Great video, thanks....I wouldn't give a thought to imperial units, your viewer base is more than familiar with the metric system
Abigos for keeping effort to conversions. ;)🙌
99% of algorithm science recommendations are click bait or junk science. You sir are in the 1%
A black holes mass cannot be greater than the Planck density. That's a mathematical quirk based on a minimum of zero where our physical world doesn't allow for absolutes. You cannot have a defined minimum length (the Planck length) and then describe something that exists smaller than that. I would suggest that the Plank density is not achievable in this physical universe and the core of a black hole probably dances right at the edge of that density...but that's pure conjecture.
Excellent video! Thanks for your hard work
Check out: A common eigenmode postulate and a Lambda-only model predict an exact Hubble constant that prefers SH0ES result