The Problem with Black Holes - Sixty Symbols
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 гру 2024
- Singularities, General Relativity and Quantum Theory - can't they all just get along?
This is the third part in a little series we're doing on Black Holes...
Featuring Tony Padilla and Ed Copeland from the University of Nottingham.
Playlist (more to be added soon): bit.ly/Black_Ho...
Black Holes on Objectivity: • Magnets and Black Hole...
Visit our website at www.sixtysymbol...
We're on Facebook at / sixtysymbols
And Twitter at / sixtysymbols
This project features scientists from The University of Nottingham
bit.ly/NottsPhy...
Sixty Symbols videos by Brady Haran
www.bradyharanb...
Email list: eepurl.com/YdjL9
Visit our website at www.sixtysymbol...
We're on Facebook at / sixtysymbols
And Twitter at / sixtysymbols
This project features scientists from The University of Nottingham
bit.ly/NottsPhy...
Sixty Symbols videos by Brady Haran
www.bradyharanb...
Email list: eepurl.com/YdjL9
I like how professor Copeland whispers when he starts talking about cosmic string seeds - like he knows it's a naughty hope to have.
It it naughty. It's so completely out there that I don't understand why he gives it even the slightest bit of credence.
Most modern physics _is_ quite "out there". I think he's rooting for it because
A) he's been working on it for quite some time and because
B) it doesn't seem to be completely ruled out.
I believe he got some physics award based on cosmic superstrings.
@@Taricus
Probably so. I have a few awards too. The difference between his & mine is that I can explain, even to a simple man what mine are for.
Robert Mullenax Let’s hear your award winning hypothesis and your explanation
Please never stop making Sixty Symbols videos Brady. This is and always has been my favorite channel.
+Goldsrevenge i agreeeeeeee!
mine as well
+Goldsrevenge Same here
Although it's awesome too, but 3blue1brown's content is much more intricate imo.
Yes! For true!
a stringy type structure.. a, stringularity?
+starlight9889
There are no singularities in physics and the real world. Singularities are only mathematical artifacts that result when you apply a theory to some situation, beyond it's own validity.
+starlight9889 That name has a nice "string" to it!
+Frank Schneider how is mass/0 a mathematical thing?
i'll let that pass even though I am rather "string"ent when it comes to puns
*****
It should be obvious that "mass / 0", or in words "mass divided by zero" is a mathematical expression and not a physical reality. (Next to the fact that dividing by 0 is forbidden, so better use lim)
Just when you thought Prof. Copeland couldn't get more adorable 06:54
Yea, I had to giggle at that point because it was so cute the way he said it.
I just want to attend classes of that guy... he talks so smoothly...
And then he smashes it all 7:30 talking about majority... There is no such thing in science! lol
Safro Rox wtf
I studied black holes a few years ago in class but I never understood the point.
Zing!
+La Nausée "Dark" simply means that it doesn't interact electromagnetically. "Transparent" would probably be a better word, but it doesn't sound as cool.
Dayummm
Thats why we prefer white holes ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡° )
I feel like this is a pun, but I don't think I get it.
did you try to throw a rock in it to see how deep it is?
+suncu91 It's turtles... all the way down..
Nice idea! Personally, I can't throw very far, but I wish you luck if you're going to try.
+suncu91 It gets to the event horizon, stands still and redshifts into oblivion.
+suncu91 did they try turning it off and back on again?
+thrashish They haven't found a way of turning a rock off. Or did you mean a black hole? Or the universe? I don't think they know how to do any of those things, but stand by for an automatic 17 petabyte software update download which renders your computer unuseable for...ooh... 10,000 years?
"You will already be gone in terms of living"
What a nice way to put it.
I don't like to pick favorites, but I could listen to professor Ed Copeland all day long. Hearing him get excited and teasing about string theory makes my nerdy mind cheer :P
+Mike Orr He has a soothing voice.
+William Faulkner Go watch videos of Leonard Susskind!
He's one co-founders of string theory, and he has lectures available on UA-cam.
Gal Grünfeld
Will do.
i guess he do talk about ST, but why bring it up in the comments of this video, it seems quite a bit unrelated
It pertained to his excitement. Watching him become so happy just talking about it was heart warming.
That face is the face I think of when I think of scientific passion at it's finest.
I'm over 50 and have considered myself fully cognisant of physics and cosmology most of my life. So it's amazing to me to watch this and really learn something new and to realise that I previously didn't understand something as well as I thought I did. In this case, the quantum world clashing with the gravitational. Also Tony's explanation about how at high energy the symmetries reestablish themselves and mass disappears. Showing how the Higgs field physics pursued wasn't just about completing the Standard Model, but is an important paradigm for consequences of Grand Unified theories.
The big question is: can you really put all quantum excitations of the black hole mass into a single point? You need a volume for stuff to interact with other stuff, so to me that seems highly unlikely. In geometry, you can put an infinite number of lines on top of each other appearing as one, but that's math, not reality. Some people argue the universe might be a 'simulation'. In such a reality it would make perfect sense. It seems that the more humanity discovers, the more questions arise. There are exciting times ahead for physics.
Make America great again!
you can't consider yourself "cognisant of physics" if you've never understood that gravity (classical physics) and quantum mechanics have not yet been unified. that's a fundamental problem that has been in physics for many years now. a fundamental problem that doesn't take any high level education to understand.
Mank Demes sory ahm stoopid. wunt coment on fizziks stuff anymore
+PopeLando dont worry, the Internet is like this, no one is nice when their social status is not at risk, I personally find your thirst of knowledge admirable and want to be like you at your age :)
The present Laws of physics are such Parker Squares
I really hope this joke will never die 😂😂😂
+Claes Henriksson OMGGG LOLLLL I am dying. xD
The Parker Square actually has a reference on knowyourmeme XD
Talking about the electron getting its mass FROM the Higgs f.. No wait (chuckle) the Higgs particle.. 🙉 You see this when we know that the standard model has too many flaws.
The idea that particles and atoms existed with a sole control over energy content is today outdated.
Empty space makes up most of the volume of a molecule, and empty space isnt even actually empty space (see research on vacuum energy, dark matter, dark energy..).
Let us think about sound for example. The output we call sound is created when atoms vibrate.. But there is an energy responsible for the vibratory state.
What is it?
The standard model does not consider this at all.
We know that there is a space curvature, black hole effects etc.
But we don't know how.
Maybe there is something more sensible to find in magneto-hydro-dynamics or in plasma cosmology?
Love how the whiteboard in the background becomes unfocused at 0:57 when Professor Ed Copeland says "that's when things can get smeared out."
I always love to see the excitement these guys have. Ed's 'secret hope' at the end is simply happiness. :)
I’m a simple man. When I see a video with Schrödinger and Einstein on the same thumbnail, I click immediately!
ask them about the uncertainty principle at the singularity.
+bryangoggin it would be a little bit dodgy, but not for any particularly special reason. If what you mean by 'at the singularity' is 'wavefunction is precisely localised to the exact position of the singularity' then the uncertainty of the momentum of the particle is infinite so it's impossible to predict its position in the future. If you mean 'wavefunction localised to kind of near the singularity' then the product of uncertainty of position and momentum is still greater than or equal to planck's constant over 4 pi. What seems to have happened here is you've put some buzzwords together in a way that you haven't necessarily seen before in that order, rather than the formation of any obviously impossible scenario. The maths would get a bit hairy, requiring a relativistic treatment of quantum mechanics (QFT) but Heisenberg's principle is still pretty damn solid
+bryangoggin The uncertainty principle is caused by the collapse of the wave function of a particle - in a black hole, I guess that the quantum states aren't defined at all, but they rather swing or oscillate indefinately. The idea of a black hole is that of a body that doesn't (in theory, we now have been kinda proven the opposite) lose any information, so that both states are present in the black hole itself for any given "particle" (or what it turns into once inside said body), until it decides to spew some of it out in the form of Gamma bursts - beyond that I cannot continue theorizing because we have too little knowledge about high energy particle physics, let alone in said scale; I'd like to quote Ed on this one by saying that they'd be part of something "stringy". Only under low enegy conditions can a particle actually collapse into one of 2 states - probably because only a particle can do so - inside of a black hole, particles wouldn't exist as we understand them.
+TAP7a tl;dw
but it sounds like im on the right track though.
+bryangoggin You set a complex question and expect a 1-liner as an answer, in a time where we can only speculate about the whole concept - gr8 m8, I r8 8/8 :D @TAP7a - aren't quantum states native to particles? And if in a black hole particles cannot exist as we understand them, how shall they keep this properties? I can rather imagine an electron staying "as is" in the sense of undergoing decomposition in it's elemental building blocks as they're leptons, and thus already in the range of quarks - but if strings are the most basic stadium of quarks and leptons, would we consider strings as having spin? My guess is that's not the case. Let maths at one side for a moment, as it will not provide you with any insight imo - don't get me wrong, it helps to get to a hypothesis, yet I'm sure that you're letting out a shitton of information in that first application of the uncertainty formula - are you even sure that planck's constant is even relevant inside a black hole, let alone be unhindered by all the surrounding changes imposed by said body? Unless you have a 32 Qbit functioning quantum computing machine at your disposition and the correct functions to describe a black hole and the behavior of universal physics in all energy levels already modeled and let it crunch numbers for a while, that is :P
+bryangoggin The singularity is called that because at 0 size the General Relativity (GR) equations are undefined (they produce infinity as the result). Thus, GR cannot describe this point.
From a Quantum Mechanical (QM) perspective, length is likely quantized and thus cannot go below the Planc length and thus avoid the singularity in GR (there is no length of 0). The problem here is creating a QM picture of GR that is consistent with both theories.
There are several different domains that the current theories describe. QM describes the very small and includes a picture of the forces (including electromagnetism) except for Gravity.
Galilean Mechanics describe motion of everyday objects (cars, etc.) at non-relativistic speeds and does not have the concept of a frame of reference.
Special Relativity (SR) extends Galilean Mechanics to include non-accelerating frames of reference using the result from electromagnetism that the speed of light is constant across all frames of reference.
General Relativity extends Special Relativity to include accelerating frames of reference, and produces gravity as a result of spacetime curvature and describes things like black holes.
Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) is a picture of electromagnetism that includes non-accelerating frames of reference that is consistent with SR.
A grand unified theory would need to combine these -- it would need to be a complete QM description of the strong and weak nuclear forces and electromagnetism (QM) in accelerating (GR) and non-accelerating (SR) frames of reference.
It would be interesting to see if something like QED could be extended to accelerating frames of reference first. Or build a complete SR-based theory of QM, before extending it to GR.
"You will already be gone in terms of living by then" Physicists have the best quotes.
Two thoughts:
1. A small point about "spaghettification" from ever stronger spacetime curvature. Often forgotten when this effect is brought up, is that along with the radial stretching of the falling object, there is azimuthal compression in the plane perpendicular to the radial direction; and this essentially doubles the effect (the strain tensor is volume-preserving).
2. In whatever turns out to be the unification theory for quantum gravity, the singularity *has* to disappear, because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which turns spacetime at the Planck scale into a "quantum foam;" unless HUP itself somehow falls away in the unification, which seems extremely unlikely.
This channel deserves an award. Just awesome content and general production. This is what The Discovery channel should have stayed true to; thoughtful explanations from passionate people who want to help educate.
why does a black hole have to be a singularity? if I recall correctly, an object will turn into a black hole, if said object is compressed beyond its schwarzschild radius. Now although a 0 dimensional point is most definitely less than the original star's schwarzschild radius, why does the star have to continue compressing itself beyond that point?
+Icarus To be infinitely dense, the volume needs to be 0, or the mass infinite. Mass can't be infinite, because that screws with everything we know about the universe. But we know point charges exist (elementary particles).
+Jasper Crowe But why does density need to be infinite for a black hole?
+Icarus Exactly what i was thinking. The initial answer would be that gravity could become greater than any known force that can resist collapse. And if there's no force to resist further collapse, then logically collapse would continue into a point. Obviously, the fact that we don't know of any collapse resisting forces beyond a certain point, doesn't mean there isn't one. There are hypothetical intermediates that are by definition black holes, but not singularities, like a quark star.
+Joris van Eil But you see Newtonian gravity is defined such that it depend on mass and 1/r^2(not sure how accurate this in Einstein's model). Lets say we have a super massive star with mass m and radius x which is about to go supernova. Lets say the star lost an insignificant amount of mass during the process. After the process the new radius of the star (now a blackhole) is less than its schwarzschild radius (2GM/c^2) but the mass is approximately the same. The new radius is much much smaller than the original but the mass is the same; isn't massive increase in gravity because of this? I.E. the star may not have to turn into a point particle in order to be a black hole.
+Jasper Crowe Those point particle are 3 dimensional instead of 0 dimensional, aren't they?
I would love to hear about cosmic strings.
I really like this physicist. Explains things well to a layman like me and you can tell he's only interested in the truth.
We do not understand the singularity of black holes in the exact same way that we do not understand the singularity of the Big Bang. If we did understand it, then we might have a better understanding of the origin of our Universe.
+Physics Videos by Eugene Khutoryansky that is correct.
then we can calculate back to t=0. but not yet what is befor that.
I think we can calculate to just an instant after T=0 (T=0+).
As we "fall" through time so the matter that's fallen into a black hole continues to fall forever "down" the hole gravity has made. The limitless distance available to fall, inside the black hole, is the time passing outside the black hole. Endless inward space is stolen from time itself. And the time left available to "exist" for any particle that's falling in is very short (yet never over) - temporal existence approaches an endless final instant.
Been watching Numberphile for a while. Had no idea about these other channels. Now I'm stoked.
Copeland is my favorite
What's this "singularity"? Is it part of our universe? Is it exclusive of our universe? Does time ends at the event horizon or at the singularity? Is all information out of the black hole, stuck at the event horizon? Can we see all the information of everything that fell in the black hole at the event horizon? If information stays out, what goes in?
+Damián Vila
The singularity is just the concept of having some mass stuck into a zero volume, so it is tsill part of our universe. Time ends at the event horizon. Our current theory says that the information is saved in the shape and behaviour of the black hole (movement, spin). What falls into a BH stays there until it comes out as radiation.
That's my current understanding of black holes! ;)
Is there extra footage of the electron in BH part? It's a puzzling thought. Thank you for the video!
What does " symmetry " mean in particle physics? I've never understood the concept.
+Philosophia In essence it means things are simpler that one explanation applies to more than one thing. Consider water, it's not very symmetric, you need to describe each water molecule's situation separately, they clump and rearrange and change. Ice is more symmetric, all the water molecules are in exactly the same situation. You can describe it as 'this one molecule but lots of them., the one explanation applying to all of the molecules at once.
Likewise the Higgs, before symmetry breaking there is no mass. All particles are (pretty much) massless, identical in that respect, simple. After each has its own unique mass you have to keep track of and things get messy.
+Gareth Dean Thanks, your explanation was really easy to understand.
Do a video on the Navier-Stokes equations :)
Question from a very interested but uneducated person here: if I could somehow perch myself one foot away from an event horizon, then stretch my arm out past the EH, could I move my fingertips, and if so, could I FEEL my fingertips moving against each other? Or is it simply once one part of my body has passed that EH no signal will ever reach any part of my body not past that same EH.
Maybe I've answered my own question there...
Also is it true that anything smaller than a plunk lengh turns into a black hole, but anything that small just evaporates?
If that is true, does it not mean that what has happened with a regular size black hole is matter got crushed by gravity into the singularity (something smaller than a plunk length) but has had the matter to keep it alive and increase the surface area of the singularity. Increasing its entropy to hold massive amounts of entropy from the universe, keeping the singularity alive.
Is the illustration of a black hole correct? I imagine it as a single point, warping all space around it and spewing energy in all directions. Sometimes, it shown like a funnel or it only spews energy up and down.
Please talk about the great attractor !!
an issue with singularities is that there is a discontinuity. how does a region of finite density become infinite density in a finite time?
I have trouble squaring the idea that I can be past a point where light can’t escape, but also not “notice” the effects of the gravity.
I figure if the strength of gravity field I am in is “trapping” light, wouldn’t it inherently have to be strong enough to rip me to shreds? Aren’t there planets/neutron stars with gravity strong enough to flatten us, or is the problem here that there is no “floor” to flatten you with?
If you're debating black holes, you must also debate the stars, you could start with ours. “If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.” ~ Nikola Tesla
So at the event horizon gravity is so strong that light can't escape, so does that mean the closer you get to the singularity, that the rate at which you approach it, increases to more than the speed of light? And if that's true, would you even experience being stretched? Or would it happen so quick that you wouldn't experience It?
And if smaller black holes can stretch you before entering the event horizon, but supermassive black holes don't until after you pass the event horizon. Could there be a black hole so massive that at the event horizon you'd only experience 1g? And if so, why can't light escape 1g at that black holes event horizon, but can escape the earth surface?
I assume that if the singularity was truly infinite dense then a black hole wouldn't be able to grow, all the mass it gains would just end up in the singularity. But it has already been proven that they have different sizes. So it's likely that the core of a black hole is finite dense and will grow once mass enters it.
+thexyz the size of a black hole as we describe them is related solely to the mass, not the physical volume of space it occupies. Saying the black hole couldn't grow in mass if it had a singularity isn't correct.
01:25... I don't see how you could enter the event horizon and not notice anything. My very limited understanding of black holes is that once inside the event horizon there is no way out. That any direction you go will lead you back inside. Also, no information can leave the black hole. If this is true then wouldn't that mean you would get diced up as you entered, regardless of how little gravity is actually at the event horizon? I mean, as the first atoms in your body entered the event horizon they can no longer send signals to the atoms outside, right? Wouldn't that include any kind of "bond" they have with those other atoms outside the event horizon? If that wasn't true then what would keep you from being pulled back out before fully entering?
Professors,
When you say that matter is strecht until a infinity point, you mean that there is no scale beyond Planck length?
And instead of thinking a wave as a manifestation of energy why don´t we think a "contraction" if quantic level there is no "up side down"and "left and right" - relativism?
If we determine the structure of a particle like a electron or any particle, would possible undestand all that? Yes... I am talking a little about "string theory" but not position but as a "continum".
When talking about how super-massive black holes were formed; What do you guys think about the recent idea that a huge amount of gas, as theorized with the CM7 galaxy, collapsed to form a black hole, as opposed to the death of a star? Does it add anything about the massive string formation of super-massive black holes or add to the mystery as how these structures were formed? Also, extremely long or run-on sentences like the one I just provided are nice.
A thought that occurred to me is that as objects move towards the event horizon of a black hole, their clocks run slower and slower to an outside observer. Also, to an outside observer, the black hole has a finite lifetime, before evaporating.
How for away (probably in terms of the schwarzschild radius) does an object have to be to not reach the event horizon before the black hole evaporates?
Amazing! A minute or two into this video, I paused and asked myself the question, if the Higgs boson is what gives matter mass, and the gravitational attraction at the center of a black hole is dependent on mass responding to gravitational pull, then what happens when the Higgs bosons are destroyed near the center of the black hole? And then, a couple of minutes later, you guys bring it up! Spectacular!
+John Clavis Higgs boson is not what gives matter all its mass.. in fact it only accounts for ~2% the rest comes from the energy of the bounds between its constituents
+viermidebutura The example was an electron; there are no constituents.
If it is a singular point, wouldn't it spin at the speed of light due to the conservation of angular momentum? As the matter is compressed into a smaller volume, it should spin faster and faster.
Would the mass of the singularity essentially just be be the energy of curled up spacetime?
+Sam Smith I don't think you could describe it like that. It's the mass energy of the singularity that is causing the curvature of space-time. The curvature then acts as a potential well to nearby particles.
+Jack Kingers How about dark energy?Its ,,speeding'' up galaxies further apart faster than the speed of light.Given the fact that the GR doesnt really condone with that, chances are its causing the curvature of pace-time to contract/expand.So, my point is, if gravity and dark energy do interact, how doesnt dark energy amass in the singularity up to a point that the ,,expanding'' effect of dark energy completely counteracts the strength of the gravity field.And if it does, would it make a while hole?
+Aleksandar Sretenovic well we have to remember that we know extremely little about dark energy. We do not know its mechanics. We have just observed that there must be another force at play.
As for the black holes, they are centres of an extremely strong gravitational field, which dominates all macroscopic forces. Gravity is dominant, hence the attraction. If dark energy's mechanism allowed it to be concentrated at a singularity too, there would be no black hole, because the net force would no longer be attractive, and no event horizon would form.
Dark energy and gravity cause a deformation in space-time. The resultant curvature is simply the balance between the forces, one would assume.
But this isn't a very scientific answer. Short answer is no one knows until with reconcile gravity with quantum mechanics really!
I personally prefer the Planck Kugalblitz over sub Planck singularity. Going subplanck scale redefines all the fundamental constants.
I wouldn't mind a new theory / hypothesis for sub Planck phenomenon though. Any takers for the Nobel Prizes for next millennium. ;)
why the universe "exploded" in the beginning? shouldn't it be a blackhole, considering the heaviness of the mass?
+Jasc Tomm I think it actually did in some way, but since all the universe had to become a black hole we didn't even notisted it, in fact the event horizon would have to have the radius equal to the radius of the universe, hense no event horizon had been created!
Could it be the reason that quantum mechanics breaks down as you approach the singularity is because at some fundamental level quantum mechanics is incomplete? I have always believed we are missing some key bit of information that would allow us to move beyond our current understanding. Some unobservable thing or force that has an as of yet understood influence.
This might be stupid but can we fill the black hole. I mean how many stars can fit into the black hole so that the black hole will change (implode, explode or something ).
the 15 dislikes are from stephen hawkings 15 accounts. LOLOL
false LOLOL
Even if you only look at general relativity, doesn't time slow down in a gravitational field, and space get stretched? And isn't it true that at a singularity, time comes to a full stop, and space is stretched to infinity? Would that not mean that singularities can never form, because mass particles are unable to reach it?
What would happen to ambivalence in a black hole?
If the singularity has infinite density (and curvature is infinite), does that mean it is infinitely increasing in density (or curvature), or it is infinite and therefore "unmeasurable"?
If you fall feet first into a supermassive BH, wouldnt your feet and head be unable to communicate? If so, woudnt that be quite noticable as for the undetected entry?
With the discovery that there are such things as Quark Stars, where even neutrons are broken down in to their constituent Quarks and Gluons, could black holes not be the point where even the Quarks break down into the packets of energy they are most likely made of? If all of the mass is converted to energy by this state, and energy has no distinct dimensions like classical matter does, then it should be feasible that you would have a point with no dimensions. It is also known that the vast majority of mass which we see is not due to the Higss field, which gives mass to electrons, but due to the energy needed to bind Quarks into protons and neutrons, and also the energy needed to bind those particle into atomic nuclei. A true mass/energy equivalence. A black hole would then be a huge concentration of energy which also has a mass equivalent.
So, a singularity is an infinitely small, infinitely dense point with an infinitely strong gravity field. But gravity gets weaker the further you get from the centre of mass. So at a million light years from a singularity, the gravity is only a fraction of the original strength, but surely a small fraction of infinity is still infinity? so if singularities exist why is the universe expanding and not falling together?
I think... the mass of black holes is finite. So for objects far away from a black hole, the black hole acts like a normal object of the same mass.
False, true and false. The singularity isn't infinitely small in size, it's size is zero. If it had any size, the density wouldn't be infinite. Also gravity happens because of mass, the singularity has nothing to do with gravity (besides having mass).
if you lower a weight on a piece of string through the eventhorizon - can you pull it back out again?
Why would some one dislike this... what was their thought process?
Kip Thorne has said many times that the center of a black hole is not a singularity of mass but of energy. The mass of the black hole has been converted to energy and this is what warps space and time. Can I get your thoughts on this claim (everyone/anyone please).
+Digs Fossils-n-Knives Any theory is just as viable as any other theory in an area of science which cannot be properly tested.
+The Lorentz Factor More importantly, I think, what are the theoretical differences between these two claims? If the mass was all converted into energy, what would that change experimentally? How could we verify it even *in principle*.
Zuzu Superfly You're asking the wrong guy. I really don't think we even have the slightest idea how we would test such a theory. It is my understanding that an equal amount of mass-energy would interact the exact same way as mass with the surrounding spacetime.
The Lorentz Factor I wasn't really asking, just adding to the thread.
+Digs Fossils-n-Knives My problem is that black holes have mass. They have inertia while something possessing just energy would not. (And would thus be moving at light speed all the time, like a photon.)
I currently believe that the singularity is a pulsating photon and also that the directional component of the photon is "gravity". When the pulsating pure energy units interact with other pure energy units, they tend to stabilize and vibrate.
The Earth could be viewed as a single massive photon interaction with it's outer magnetic field, electrical telluric currents along the surface, and gravity being directed to the central core, all 90 degrees from each other.
In addition, a flat spiral galaxy could also be viewed as a single massive photon interaction, with the opposing magnetic fields on each side of the plane of matter, the electrical fields along the plane of matter, and the gravitational field directed towards the center of the galaxy, all 90 degrees from each other. The central black hole in the center of flat spiral galaxies might just be where these gravitational forces of this massive photon interaction meet.
Anybody here after the EHT real black hole image of M87
Here but in my opinion that wasn’t photo of a BH , instead of a Black Sphere whose density is less than 1kg per cubic meter, that means sort of a big cloud where all things can”t escape, light included.
Our own universe can be seen as a similare massive BH with a larger mass of about 10 squared 52 kg containing all galaxies with their billions of billions stars.
No
"That's just my own pet hope" -Ed Copeland
How would the singularity form as if time slows down in a gravitational field, once you get to a point where an event horizon formed wouldn't any matter beyond that point not be effectively frozen and so couldn't fall anywhere? Also wouldn't anything falling into the black hole just get frozen at the event horizon until the event horizon expands outward due to the extra mass?
What if there's no singularity at all? I've read recently about a hypothesis that the surface of the black hole - at the event horizon - has a fractal structure and it is able to store all information from the matter felt down on it. So what if the diameter of the black hole inside the black hole is actually only a Plank length long due to the severe warping the space-time continuum near the black hole itself, but outside of it has its observed diameter? I'm just saying... probably sounds crazy like it is said by Deepak Chopra or so.
I love it when you guys talk about pretty much anything on this channel, but I get especially giddy when I see you're talking about black holes.
I have read that some physicists think that a black hole can be charged, but I have never understood what that meant. I have also read that if say, a star made out of antimatter was massive enough to forma black hole at the end of its life, so you essentially had an antimatter black hole, you would have no way of knowing if it was ever matter or antimatter, and that if an antimatter and regular matter black hole merged, it would simply be the merger of two black holes, and nothing would really happen along the lines of annihilation, as antimatter and matter usually interact at lower energies. If a black hole can have a charge, but the matter/antimatter distinction doesn't apply, where exactly is the charge coming from? Thanks.
+evilcam Charge is different from (anti(matter); if two oppositely charged black holes merged their charges would cancel out and release energy.
A cahrged black hole is just what it sounds like, it has electrical charge like an electron or proton. Since charge is conserved any black hole that 'eats' more of one charge than another must also be charged. If it wasn't then something has gone very wrong.
With antimatter black holes the issue is we're not sure what the antimatter becomes. Matter and antimatter can only 'cancel out' when they both... well matter and antimatter. If a black hole crushes matter or antimatter into something else, say pure energy, then when the two holes meet there won't BE any matter or antimatter to cancel out.
¿where is the bit that was cut off after prof. Copeland said "wave function"?
so... time slows down as you get closer to high mass objects. is it possible for time to stop for an outside observer as the particles get closer to the event horizon? Waves coming from the particle would eventually be red-shifted more and more. Do two particles falling from oppisite side of the black hole ever meet? or does time slow down too much?
Please make Ed whisper an entire episode. That accent at low volumes is very endearing to listen to
I have a question: what happens if you have a stick and are orbiting a blackhole with enough mass to not spaghettify the stick. can i 1. put the stick in the event horizion and 2. if so can i pull it back? And can i when travelling near the speed of light throw a stick faster than the speed of light through relativity?
Could you make a video about Gravastars? it is a hypothetic cousin of black holes but not much vulgarization is availaable about it
I would say that the word "particle" is often (always?) used as a place holder in physics when the size is that smal so its hard or to measure, or if the size is unknown but very smal. Its really a mathematics estimation.
For instance particles is used for air poplutants. But they are not really particles, actually compared to normal molecyles like water and air the air pollutants is fairly large.
+matsv201 In reality, nothing has any volume because there is no fundamental definition of a surface. Forces change with distance, they don't just start acting once you reach a surface. There's also no force that exists solely to stop thing from passing right through each other, but only acts starting at one specific distance from each object.
+matsv201 'Particle' literally means 'a part of something'. It means any 'lump of stuff' even if they are quite large. (Sand grains for example can be measured even with a ruler but count as 'particulates' in water quality.)
Wait so how is the gravitational field past the event horizon in a super massive black hole weak? Shouldn't it by definition be strong enough so that escape velocity would be higher than the speed of light? Also thinking about it that way shouldn't the gravitational field at the event horizon be the same for all black holes?
I keep hearing about this 'spaghettification' process when falling into black holes. My question is, during the 'spaghettification' process, are we being stretched because of gravity's pull on us, or is it that we are in an area of such warped space-time that the area of space-time around our body is just really stretched and that we are stretched along with it?
it's both. gravity warps spacetime
+myles swanson Mostly this is tidal forces, that is stronger gravity at one place than another. This is in fact happening to Earth as we speak due to the moon. Space near a black hole isn't stretched, it's infalling, carrying you along with it.
Maybe I'm being naive, but my understanding of the event horizon is that it is the surface of a sphere where time stops altogether. To me, that means that no events can take place relative to the outside universe where time is still racing onwards. In that case, why on Earth do we even consider motion inwards towards the "singularity? There can be no motion (which is a series of events) inwards towards the cetre. In fact, I am reliably informed that the formation of a black hole starts with the event horizon then works its way inwards from there. That means, a singularity can never form relative to us outside. It will take until the end of the universe and longer for a singularity to form and so none of the black holes that exists can have a singularity inside them (yet). The singularity is just a mathematical formulation that bears no relation to the real world
Would it be possible to survive for a protracted length of time within the Event Horizon of a SMBH with the density on the order of water?
if I've started falling into black hole and when I cross event horizon there is another black hole with more gravitational pull poping near, can I actually get carried of first to second black hole?
+Dos Vidos Wormhole.. ?
+Dos Vidos no
No. Once the black holes merged though, there's a chance your matter would be going towards the bigger singularity though. Of course, that doesn't matter once the singularities merge
+Dos Vidos No, the event horizon represents the point where you have to move at or greater than the speed of light to escape. Thus, another black hole couldn't pull you out because even if you had no mass and moved at the speed of light, you'd still be moving too slow.
However, if you have two black holes close enough you have the issue that the event horizons may merge so that there's just one of them. In that case I suppose you can still get pulled into the other other one, provided that you you never leave the event horizon after that.
+Dos Vidos No. To do this you would have to be inside a small black hole... that is now at least partially inside a larger black hole. The larger black hole *would* try to pull you away from the smaller one, BUT it is also in effect tidally stretching it. You will fall towards the bigger singularity, but at all ties still be in the smaller hole and probably reach its singularity before the larger hole's.
If the wave functions of the matter falling in to a black are not lost i.e. the Hawking radiation is just leaking away tiny parts of the composite wave function of the black hole, then information would not be lost right? In fact assuming that the waves have non-zero amplitudes in the spacial dimensions then to me it's easy to see why, on the EH boundary of the black hole that particles can spontaneously escape. Why couldnt this be part of QM/QFT?
So a black hole is a 1 dimensional object in a 3 dimensional universe?
+Eks calybur The universe has 4 dimensions. X, Y, Z and spacetime. Black holes have all of these dimensions as well. According to some (stringy) theories, there could be a lot more dimensions that have existed or still exist.
+Eks calybur No.. its just a mathematical estameate... it might be true, but it probably is not
+Witch Seeker Rykehuss of the Ordo Hereticus no
Kobil Shakur
Yes.
Then how do you explain the momentum of a point? There is a "frame drag" of rotating mass but how can a point exert that?
I sort of get the concept that supermassive black holes have low density of gravity, or at least that if infalling feet first the gravity at the feet is not much higher than at the head to cause spaghettification. However is it meaningful to talk about what such an imaginary astronaut might experience, for that presumes that electrons and nerve conduction signals can still move up from the feet to the head - yet as within the event horizon all time lines are only inwards towards the singularity, then how is it possible for any perception to occur within its boundary ? If electrical fields, which travel at the speed of light (electron motion and the biochemical cascade of nerve conduction each take considerably slower) can move up away from the singularity, then by definition would one not yet be at the event horizon ?
+bi1iruben we are talking about a thing in a free fall. The "electrons" moving from your feet to your head would actually not move away from the black hole - they would just fall slower than the rest of your body. Kind of like when you throw a ball backwards in a speeding car - the net velocity of the ball is still forward.
Is it possible that theres another fundamental force out there that can allow the volume of the black hole from being non-zero?
What prevents spacetime from self-intersection?
If you were 500m away from a super massive black hole event horizon and pushed your mate towards it with a 1km length of rope. Why couldn't you pull him back after he crossed it if the gravitational pull isn't that strong?
A good explanation I heard is that the chemical bonding that holds the rope together is based on the exchange of virtual photons. These virtual photons would not be able to escape the black hole, so the bonding wouldn't happen, so the rope would break.
I've read something regarding that very question haha! But it was some time ago so I don't remember it.
However I think that once you pass the horizon it's not just a question of gravity that's the issue. Inside the space-time is curved in such a way that whatever path you try to take will only get you closer to the singularity. I think that at some point the rope will just break of.
We know that stars fall down to neutron stars maybe fall down to quark stars. But then? Is it really just a point? Are there any speculations what else it might be?
+Marc Siegert Quantum mechanics implies that certain types of particles (specifically bosons) can exist "on top of each other". And in fact this property is very helpful in explaining how lasers work, and why you can build a laser using photons (which are bosons) and you can't build a laser out of atoms (which are not). So the idea that all the matter can collapse down to a point is really not that controversial. On the other hand no-one seriously thinks that what is essentially a division by zero in the field equation can accurately describe the real world. I suspect the most common conjecture is that all the matter will gather in one place, but the spacetime curvature will reach some kind of limit, or the quantum mechanical fluctuations will defy the curvature, and the end result will be some super-dense but finite-size pocket of concentrated energy.
I LOVE PHYSICS!!
Does only regular matter form black holes? What happens if dark matter particle (perhaps WIMP) goes beyond event horizon? Were super massive black holes in centres of galaxies formed dominantly by dark matter?
"What happens if dark matter particle (perhaps WIMP) goes beyond event horizon?"
We don't even know what dark matter is, but most likely it behaves the same as regular matter, because dark matter is influenced by gravity.
Hello, can the makers of this video please shed some light on what Professor Abhas Mitra is on about, with his supposedly new theory on black holes, and Eternally Collapsing Objects (ECOs)? He seems to have found some support from other mainstream scientists, but the issue hasn't gotten a lot of coverage and it's hard to know what widely held positions are being contested.
Is it possible that if you were to somehow make it through the event horizon unscathed, you would be spat out in what feels instant due to the breakdown of time and the fact that hawking radiation means black holes eventually decay?
Point of Infinite density as in the plane of inertia as related to 'magnetism' on a cosmic scale.
Didn't Stephen Hawking and some of his colleagues just recently publish a paper explaining how the event horizon of a black hole could be deformed by the matter falling into it and therefore the event horizon itself could contain the information that we previously thought was lost?
+PINGPONGROCKSBRAH Yes, but it's just that, a paper and an interesting development at best.
+lenmetallica While technically true, this comes from the same man who initially vehemently supported the idea of black holes having no "hair", so there's that...
+RAI JI I don't believe Hawking radiation has been observed as of yet.
+kingofcobwebs
It may have been, in 2010. They're not a 100% sure about it.
Vuoto
I knew about that, but I prefer to think of a singularity as an ultimatum.
Keep those videos coming!
I still don't understand. In a gravitational field you get length contraction right? In a black hole this is put to the extremes, so the black hole actually becomes very small when you're in there right?? So the black hole actually is it's own singularity right?
+Johan 't Hart There are supermasive blackholes larger that our own solar sistem. Because there is so much mass there , 40 billions mass of our Sun , the biggest, then this mass will have a very huge gravitational field, that means that light cant escape its atraction from very far of the singularity,, so u get a huge blach hole in size. Bigger that our solar sistem. A black hole begins at the event horizon and ends up at the center (singularity).
Mike D I know. But I argue that the event horizon actually _is_ the singularity.
When you watch something falling in a black hole, it's light redshifts right? You see its clock run slower right? So you also see it getting bigger right? So when you see it become bigger, _it_ will see _you_ becoming smaller. And it will also see the horizon getting smaller. To the extremes, so it becomes the singularity from the point of view from the one falling in right?
you cant see anything just this person that its drifting to the black hole for days, till in a moment when you will see him frozen, at that time he have had reach the event horizon, then nothing. This person will dissapear from your sight. But only if is a supermasive black hole. If is a small one, then this person that is falling throw the black hole will no longer be visible to you at once that he feels the pull of gravity.
Perhaps the James Webb will help shed more light (haha) on this problem since we will be able to peer even further back in time. Perhaps we'll find some of these super massive black holes that Copeland hopes to see. Ed is a badass, love listening to him expound on various subjects.
is a black hole really infinitely dense or wouldn't be just as viable to believe that the matter could only compress to the smallest size that classical physics still holds true, by that I mean planck's length (1.6 x 10^-35 m)?
+Psychodegu What makes you think the planck length is the "smallest size"?
+Psychodegu It's infinitely dense because that's what the equation say. However, when know that those equations are in fact not complete. It could very well be that there's a smallest extent, but we currently have no way of knowing.
Side note: The Planck length is not the smallest size that classical physics holds true. It's (considered) to be the smallest size where 'length' still has any meaning before quantum effects render it nonsense (ie, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle on steroids).
I don't know why, but now I am hungry for string cheese. Hmm, anyway, great video! I always find this channel quite fascinating.
How does a singularity form if two particles can't occupy the same quantum space?
hey i am wondering if the singularity point is equal to plancks distance or even smaller?
If a charged particle falls into a black hole, does the black hole retain that charge?
I like the idea that Blackholes have zero volume, but i wouldn't call it a point-like singularity. I imagine its closer to a "hypersurface" where every bit of mass in the blackhole exists as a surface mass (ie none of the mass is considered below the surface). As for what exist below this hypersurface, a name for it would be "hyperspace"
When you mention cosmic strings I visualise a compression expansion trace and it makes me wonder if there is a variable specific gravity at centre, this would give an indefinable answer to a straight question.(what is the gravity at centre?)
The expulsion of matter in gamma must have momentum so specific gravity could have an average of null due to fissile nature of matter at specific compressions.
I picture the gamma bubbles around Sagittarius A as a fluctuation at speed at distance or a string theory fluctuating "brane".
Did you pull these words out of a hat?
+Jamie Den Adel Well if I consider my vocabulary a hat then yes.
+Jamie Den Adel The electromagnetic field of a free radical would extend throughout all space given the space, so repulsion from any other fields causes an equivalence to pressure known as potential energy. When specific gravity changes(eg. 2 suns merging) there is a fluctuation that spreads like ripples in a pond.
Acoustics/cymatics display how reverberations affect masses motions.
wait so the event horizon is described as the point at which once you pass, you can't return. Not even light is fast enough to escape. So why then would you not feel the strong gravitational pull and spaghettification once you've passed the event horizon in large black holes?
+ytmoog ah yep that makes sense. Thanks!
Why is the gravitational field weaker at the event horizon for larger black holes?
+LeadHase I don't know if the field would be weaker. Instead, I think the change in field strength across a small, local distance (like a spacecraft) would be stronger for smaller-mass black holes. In other words, I think the field would be more uniform on that local scale for the larger black hole. Or am I missing something?
1:10 He didn't explain it very well. What density of the event horizon? And you expirience the gravitation attraction WAY outside the event horizon...
What I THINK he meant is the difference in gravitational attraction at your feet and your head AKA tidal force.