No, they are not Astrum episodes. At the undergraduate level you get a physics degree. At the PhD level you can become an astronomer or cosmologist, and these are difficult degrees. After that you are a post-doc, and the whipping boy of whatever university you get your grant from. Now you have The opportunity to work yourself day and night to discover something of importance, maybe a dark energy star, so you become noticed and can get a tenured position. After reaching the big time you can still moonlight for a Japanese telescope company to make ends meet, especially if you work close to a major telescope such as the Keck in Hawaii. It’s a rat race.
@@gsmollin2 Yes, the road to becoming an astronomer might be long and narrow but being a good science communicator like Carl Sagan -or Alex in this particular case- is so important to lure young people to choose a scientific path for their future careers I believe. And statistically for sure, a few of them will be good scientists.
One more interesting thing that you forgot to mention about Neutron Stars (which almost no one ever makes clear) is that they are almost pure neutrons - hence the name... but where did all the electrons and protons go that were in the star? Well once they get squeezed close enough to each other they combine and become more neutrons.
Dear Alex, I do appreciate your show and the enormous amount of work that you put into each episode. There is one criticism of today’s dialogue when about 1/3rd the way through you talked about “Heat coming from the sun”. Heat is the progression of the vibration of molecules within gas, liquids or solids. The sun lives in a bath of vacuum and therefore heat cannot be emitted from the Sun’s surface. Radiation {eg Infrared EMR} can travel through a vacuum and in turn heats up gases, liquids and solids when it interacts with them on Earth. This is how heating of Earth happens but it is an indirect rather than a direct process. Cheers.
Wow. Fabulous video. Probably one of the most mind stimulating productions I have seen. Dark energy is the pressure which expands our universe, so I assume that black holes are definitely connected. No one wants to say we may be living in the equilibrium of a gravastar. Amazing concepts.
Speculation of alternative explanations are always good. We haven't made any real progress in cosmology for a long time, so we need all the speculation we can find and let the ideas compete with one another and compare them with observations.
What? When I was born, pluto was a planet, black holes hadn’t been photographed, and we didn’t have compelling evidence that we had a black hole in the center of our galaxy
@@Red_TwizzlerAstronomy is the testbed for cosmology, and that's my main interest. But you're right. We have made great progress in astronomy, and within the next five years we will have several magnificent new telescopes: Magellan, ELT, Roman, LSST and several other.
There has been so much new info coming out about black holes recently. It's a super exciting time to be intrested in this stuff. And From what I have heard other science channels say, James Webb is just getting started. the last year has been fine tuning it, and now we can get some very intresting data from it!
Consider there is a new massive telescope in Hawaii and another telescope being planned for launch as well that is even bigger. We will start generating 3d maps of the galaxy and universe with new telescopes and another one will be able to be pointed to a planet to detect life better than JWST.
Love ASTRUM. For non-scientists; I’ve read it take a million years for a photon to radiate outward from the sun’s center til we see it. If there is some truth, please explain. Thanks. Tom. Poulsbo, Washington
Individual photons bump into individual particles due to pressure, density, and heat, and sometimes they are absorbed, and then re-emitted. the sun is a huge ball, and this can take a very very long time due to all the chaos.
Yes, the photons bounce around in the sun like small pinballs, though for the photon, no time has passed, because of time dilation they don’t experience time at all, space is truly wierd and wonderful.
It's the pressure of the gasses it's burning ; lager stars the grater the pressure & longer it takes for htons to be seen . The explanation given by Alex , in the first 3-4 minuets , , followed by the nature of white dwarfs and neutron- stars . Red giants , are more prone to going to nebula stage - a big bang . The rest , including black holes , and smaller objects , was included , while typing this up . Hope it helps , as what's n the post is part of my own aquired knowledge .
That is either a duck or an extremely dense object mimicking a duck. Everything's funnier when you replace it with a duck, especially a rubber duck wearing a top hat.
I'm leaning toward 1 more kind of star, the quark dwarf. (Not necessarily different externally from black hole, but different internally.) Only works if there is quark-degeneracy pressure, and probably only works with neutrons stars close to the neutron-degeneracy limit. Pre-quark neutron star vacuums up gas (interstellar medium) until second collapse. Then quark degeneracy takes over for interior. (An extension of _____'s book, "The Dragon's Egg", where a crustquake and collapse caused a size reduction.) If a collapse is gentle enough, and quark degeneracy exceeds neutron degeneracy, a quarkstar is possible. Still could be invisible, but not nigh-singularity. Just conjecture, though. While I've read of same-quark resistance to touching, I haven't read how close top and bottom quarks get in protons and neutrons.
I don't know why but I was thinking that every information you said just in the first 30 seconds of the video took Millennia to be discovered and making an astrophisicis of just 100 years ago or less listening to this 30 seconds would completelly blow his mind...
@@juandiegoprado if I recall correctly, something about selling private data which they did not disclose. I will admit I do not know much about the situation, so take that with a grain of salt.
Every time another Astrum video comes out, I just gravitate to it. This is another excellently presented, mind expanding topic. Astrophysics is getting weirder by the " - - -day, week, month or even year - - -". Are gravistars the universal version of antigravity generators?
I once saw a video about someone referring to this theorie, to suggest our universe is inside a black hole. With the edge of the observable universe being the event horizon. Matching the expansion. Pretty cool thought imo
I’ve been thinking that black holes are just exotic stars (sort of) for years and years, but humans don’t like things that have opposite effects and we can’t wrap our heads around things like this easily.
~ There shouldn't be any confusion about grav. blackholes, e.m. jet streams, or wormholes, because the balance of light energy & gravitational matter determines whether cosmic objects become strictly gravitational black holes, or e.m. jet streams (stars), & anything in between. Along with wormholes which are a equal density balance between both, as well as bound with their corresponding balanced & equilibrated strong & weak forces. ~ The blackhole/jetstream in the center of the Milky Way Galaxy is the e.m./grav. finite & mortal signature of our Milky Way Galaxy, which is also bound by it's correspective Strong & Weak Forces as well. ~ In conclusion: The balance & equilibrium of Strong & Weak Forces determine the color, shape, size, & spatial qualities of a grav. blackhole, e.m. jet stream, or a wormhole, in both space & time.
Here's something I've always figured to probably be way more plausible for black holes than most would reckon, which is... The fact that although they appear infinitely dense due to the fact that they are almost a true singularity, which would be infinitely dense and whatnot, They are not. In fact a rather interesting thing is... that black holes, if you could reach their surface safely without being ripped apart the moment you even got close to the event horizon in the slightest, would be immeasurable bright because of light's inability to escape. Which would also simultaneously make black holes the hottest objects in our universe because of the inability for light to radiate off like a star or stellar remnant. Furthermore, your retinas, would be fried on the spot the moment you even looked up out of the blackhole if they weren't fried the moment you saw the surface of the black hole. Furthermore, a theoretical star that has no real gravity that can be interacted with... although mathematically possible, I'd... reckon in terms of the real world, would be unlikely to ever see. Though on the other hand if we do encounter exotic stars. One such one that although would be more likely possible in an artificial format rather than natural... is a quantum energy star of sorts. A star whose existence is solely attached to quantum mechanics. And whose core would be a black hole potentially, that would also not only be fed by the star, but also feed the star too in the process. Relying on the potential unknowns of quantum mechanics to grow exponentially if not properly contained. Of course it'd be unlikely to see such a star, let alone one with a black hole at it's core in terms of natural ones.
@@timteecvhn but I mean, the heat is irrelevant if the light is allowed to touch you, that alone would vaporize you, so either you are protected from the light and continue to only see absolute black or you get vaporized by the extreme dosage of photons
Very interesting, so, if we follow the naming convention for neutron stars, could a white dwarf then be called an electron star since it's balancing on the electron degeneracy pressure limit?
Exotic holes are the key, I think, I always have the feeling that they are not searching in the right spot, I have this as an electronic engineer, we are kind of scientists as well, when we are developing stuff. And sometimes we come to a point that we are searching in the wrong place in (a) circuit(s). It's odd.
I think it’s possible all of these celestial objects exist simultaneously. I think it’s possible objects like Grav-stars can exist, and I think that there could be a variety of different types of what we would consider to be black holes; both the traditional gravitational singularities, and these newer hypothesized “troves of dark energy”. I theorize that it’s due to the lack of precision and advancement with our instruments that makes it difficult to tell what is objectively true or not for certain
13:40 I'm failing to parse this sentence, can anyone help me please? ‘So far ... the radius of the black hole candidates we _see_ ... is at least approximately equal to their Schwarzschild radius: in some cases, that’s just a rough estimate, _but in others, we’ve calculated that radius to within 40 decimal places.’_ (emph. mine). If I read it as ‘the radius of the black hole candidates we _observe_ in some cases [the "others" in the original sentence] was calculated [based on these observations] to 40 decimals’, it becomes sheer nonsense: nothing has been ever measured to 40 _or more_ decimal accuracy (the 'calculation' implies other inputs, with their own uncertainties), and unlikely will in the next 200 years if at all. The most precise experimental measurement ever made has been the electron's gyromagnetic anomaly _g−2,_ calculated to 10 decimals from a measurement done to whopping 13 decimals. That's in the lab experiment, and all astrophysical observations I'm aware of are a far cry from these. 40, 30, 20, 10, 7 decimals spell nonsense in this context. Additionally, a high-precision measurement consistently yielding the _Schwarzschild_ radius, not Kerr (rotating), even if made to 3 decimals, not 40, would mean that these candidates, if really BHs, are (nearly) non-rotating. We know that newborn neutron stars spin like crazy, exactly what we expect from the law of angular momentum conservation, and there is no reason to believe that a collapse to a BH instead of a NS would not result in the high angular momentum of the BH. We know the Milky Way's SBMH approximate spin, too, and it's definitely non-zero beyond counting any sigmas, despite low accuracy/precision. More to this, GW signatures match rotating BH mergers, where certainty is high enough. None were _definitely_ non-spinning; there were only spinning and "maybe". I wouldn't have missed such a revolutionary discovery paper; it would turn our understanding of a lot of physics on its head, up to questioning the very angular momentum conservation validity. I obviously misreading the sentence, but I cannot understand in any other way, whichever linguistic contortions I try; it's pretty straightforward. Obviously, you can calculate an imaginary, theoretical case to an arbitrary precision, but the statement is clearly about calculations from observational data: 'the radius of the black hole candidates we _see_ ... we’ve calculated ... to within 40 decimal places'. Any help out there translating that for me, please?
My belief is that dark matter appears now in theories because of the absence of allowing using electromagnetic forces to play an active role on and at large scales and distances, the cosmic forbidden force. Gravity and electromagnetism are equally important.
So they saying that they have separated a black light sun and a black hole, nice. Because I've wondered about that with some black holes giving off invisible light or gas but they are supposed to only absorb theoretically
We are told a black hole collapses to a singularity. Nobody asks why it needs to go that far. I believe the object simply has to be massive enough to prevent light escaping. The lump at its centre will be there. You just can’t ever escape its gravity. If you can actually get that fat during the life of the universe. Time stops at the speed of light. Gravity at the event horizon stops light so presumably it stops time as well.
Idk, the way you described gravistars would make them seem quite rare, as you would need extraordinary circumstances to balance the gravity and pressure like that. By just the amount of dark energy there is supposed to be in the universe (it is supposed to comprise up to 70% of everything) I don't think it is plausible that gravistars would make up the bulk of dark energy. Maybe a small portion of it, but certainly not all of it.
Interesting topic, but your charisma has all the captivating qualities of a house plant, which, I'm certain, would present it in more engaging manner, if given the opportunity. I could not watch it for more than 4 minutes without falling asleep
Black holes are a never ending source of fascination for me. I sometimes wonder if they're behind the creation of the universe in general. Maybe we're inside one right now.
Muy buen vídeo, enhorabuena! Puede ser que el gravastar sea la consecuencia de un agujero negro? La energía se contrae tanto en un agujero negro que la materia se polariza en forma de radiación y espacio-tiempo. Este espacio-tiempo se expandiría posteriormente en la siguiente capa en forma de energía oscura. Esta idea hace que el gravastar no sea necesario, pero sí existiera, debería ser consecuencia de un agujero negro
I agree, though I am woefully underqualified to really even have an opinion on the matter. On a side related note: what would a naked singularity look like?
I agree as well. I believe when the math shows zero volume it is correct but referring to zero volume of space within the "object" that is within the event horizon not zero volume within our spacetime js
well... black holes do slowly emit radiation and over time diminish in size and weight and density. Last time i heard and checked we have proved hawking radiation but we havent actually detected it. so if every black hole is emitting a form of radiation that we know exists but we havent detected yet, is that not a form of dark energy?
I'm still confused..... why wouldn't sufficiently dense/massive objects have an event horizon? Wouldn't the resulting gravitational effects be strong enough to prevent light from being emitted/escaping if the light is close enough to the object? Wouldn't the distance be an event horizon?
If you crush neutrons into their subatomic particles (quarks) you end up with energy. If that energy had a negative charge at the core with a band further out where some neutrons might still hold their form or a combination of positively charged substances it sounds like a magnet. So what would cause the neutron (quark) star to have an opposite spin in different layers? the part I could see wrong in your video would be floating in such a star. The magnetic field would shred our atomic structure. Sorry, just thinking in place.
Toy with the idea that 'Black Holes' are highly organized toroidal plasma configurations that induce gravity (gravity without a corresponding quantity of mass). Matter is precious in our universe, and it is highly likely that its nature can do better than just pour it into an all-consuming cosmic dumpster.
Could possibly both versions of extremely dense objects exist in our universe? I am rather fantasising than speculating now, since I have no background in astrophysics: Could that be an explanation for the observed gap in the size of black holes, like: Stellar black holes are "real" black holes, whereas super massive black holes are of the even more exotic type?
I'm curious how neutron degeneracy pressure is affected/counteracted by centrifugal force generated by the star's spin. If the star at the absolute minimal mass to be a neutron star and was spinning so fast that its surface was moving very quickly, let's say 50% the speed of light, would that reduce the neutron degeneracy pressure enough to "break" it out of being a neutron star?
B-b-but wait a sec, the dark energy still comes from “nowhere” (if solutions of the Einstein Field Equation for the cosmological model is "nowhere"-everything else comes out of these same equations, after all; dark energy is not an outlier), only not spread uniformly in the whole spacetime but instead collects into the hypothetical gravistar blobs. What's so compelling about it? It's still the same dark energy in new packaging. But yeah, interesting to ponder indeed. “Certainly worth more investigation”-sure it is. Keep in mind that we publish papers because we like to toy with theories and models. Papers are how scientists communicate their ideas to other scientists, and most often aren't reports of a big discovery, or any discovery at all. That's simply our big Facebook where we post stuff that seems like an interesting idea, like, what if... There were over 5 million scientific papers published in 2023 alone. (And poor blokes in academia have to publish or perish, no matter what they publish, quantity over quality, but that's entirely a different issue.)
Another theory pertaining to what dark energy might be is parallel universes bumping into each other and being absorbed. Thus the continued acceleration observed in the expansion of the universe…apparently 🤷♂️
another thing to consider, if "space/time" is everywhere, but can be warped by gravity, it's safe to suggest that they are both two forms that could be defined by a manipulable particle or quark. Because that would explain why they can become one thing at a singularity. This would not be in agreements with this theory, because we have the infinite gravity of an object positive pressure equally balanced by infinite space time negative pressure, occupying the same singularity? My point is if it becomes a singularity, it must be made up of something manipulable. Otherwise it cannot be singular in the instance of a black hole. mmm? Also, non of this explains Expansion...... If space/time is manipulable you can't just add more of it, for this theory to work, you would need to keep adding matter in with space time so that a (5th dimensional loop) can add more space time as it all falls in and out of a (Centre black, outer white hole system.)
An interesting vid idea, since you decided to talk about unrealistic stars, is different colors. I understand why we probably wouldn't be able to see them because blue/red shift, but could they exist? Like a green star for example. When you burn certain elements they can flare up in many colors, so could the same be true for a star that contains an ample amount of differing elements, or would it just cause problems or a collapse?
Well, I would think that if a gravistar exerts no gravitational force no matter how close or far you are from it (maybe even touching it or sticking your finger in it), then it can't be a black hole, because black holes exert gravitational force.
My supposition is that it might be better to refer to these objects as gravstars until they are proven black holes, since it appears to be easier to prove a black hole than a gravstar, so it would make sense to eliminate from the catagory of gravstar than to attempt to separate accordingly - at least until we have better data and can make defining judgements of gravstars easier.
There are many subtleties-models usually have knobs you can tune until they match anything you want, for one. But yeah, a big +1 for scientific thinking: how can we eliminate something, disprove the model. Most people react along the lines “I like it” or “it sounds better to me than...”-and that's on sci-ed channels. :(
Have we ever ACTUALLY observed these Star transitions, or are you only relying on CPU models made “binary” from human equations? Stars are BORN and until we start looking at them as Nature rather than “energy factories”, we will fail. They are ALIVE and most likely have different SPECIES. They may also breed and trade elements as trees trade minerals…have a wonderful week everyone.😊✌🏼
Similarly, on the topic of gravastars - if they DO exert a net zero gravitational pull on their environment *entirely* (without the presence of “gravitational zones” as I mentioned in my other comment - This makes me wonder about the likelihood that these gravastars would functionally be an anomaly within the universe, being acted-upon by the forces around them that first sent them careening through space (think big bang and similar catastrophically powerful events) while *NOT* exerting a force in *opposition*. (Think tidal opposition between the moon and the earth.) Clearly I am no quantum physicist, but this seems bizarre to me (though I think we can all agree that this is the case for much of quantum mechanics 😅). It seems like we would find it far more noteworthy to encounter objects that (functionally) don’t follow Newton’s second law on a larger scale. One would imagine that these object are simply careening through space, much like enormous asteroids, literally vacuuming up all the material in its’ path. 🤔
What?! A vacuum star? If u think here of vacuum as it describes, then how something, that "absolutely devoid of matter" can form a star which is "celestial body of great mass"? It sounds like a theory of those flatearthers
If you watched the video, this theoretical star has mass. It's just mass with strange properties where the pressure from the inside and the gravity cancel each other out. It's "vacuum" because its effect on their surroundings is the same as being in a vacuum.
@@saxor96 watch it again, there's not a word about a mass of a gravistar. all these goofy theories is just a proof that our physics is way of from how the universe works
I'm still stuck trying to understand how something like Jupiter with a liquid metallic hydrogen core becomes a star. Those are pressures we can't replicate so can only guess as to how they will actually behave. Given how much of modern cosmology is riding on it, I'd say it's pretty important to get it right.
I’ve always wanted to see a green star be discovered. I know it’s a very thing wavelength to achieve but I’m sure there has to be at least one in the universe
The cause of the correlation between the expansion of the universe and blackhole growth is pretty obvious. Our universe is just a black hole in another universe. This explains the early rapid cosmic inflation as the period of time where stellar matter was rapidly collapsing during a supernova event. Also the fact that blackhole growth rates matches the growth of the universe tells us that the properties of both our universe and our parent universe are similar. this also means that blackholes convert matter into space but in a different dimension(made of 4 dimensions) where the space inside is way bigger than the space outside like some kind of bag of holding where you can't take anything out. lol
Planck Stars. These are nature's last-ditch effort to avoid singularities. They get their name from their size: Subatomic. How do they avoid becoming singularities? The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
Fascinating - I’ve heard of gravastars in the past but I didn’t know the slightest about them. If this is true, that they exert exactly zero gravitational pressure, is that *only* at its’ surface, and gravitational pressure exists perhaps further out from the surface of its’ radius? Meaning like any other star, an object would be drawn in by outlying waves of gravity exerted by the system, but *at the surface* the gravitational pressure equalizes? If so, one might think that it would create something that for all intents and purposes APPEARS to be a singularity - (no visible object PASSES the surface) when in actuality these objects become trapped within this “vacuum space”, where their motion is functionally neutralized? Maybe I’m confused by the mechanics at play here
"Dude, what if... Dude. Dude, what if... What if like, instead of regular pressure, some stars had the opposite! Like, negative pressure! It would totally explain dark energy 'cuz they would do the opposite of regular stars!" "What kind of matter would do that?" "....Uhh...." "You're not solving the dark energy problem, you're just adding extra steps before you get to the 'Hell if I know' stage."
Ion think the world normal would apply here is an acid normal from a base no you got positive or negative left or right I think the more we discover I think we will find the universe is just a bunch of paradoxical phenomena
Why couldn't it be both? Is it poasible, that a gravistar becomes a black hole? Just as our own sun will eventually expland into a larger and cooler sun once its uses its current fuel, is it possible that a gravistar turns into a black hole once it reaches a specific threshold of energy production? That its stable state of equilibrium tips and it becomes gravity positive instead of neutral. No longer pushing dark matter out into the universe but instead, devouring anything that passes its event horizon? I understand this all just theoretical and a thought experiment, was just curious on what someone smarter and having a better grasp on the math, thinks or my idea.
One is of the deduced opinion that a blackholes accretion rings where it is hottest due to hawking's radiation has the most gravitational influences on a blackhole the event horizon is lower but NO gravity in a blackhole only dark matter we don't understand todate ie that matter was a part of the elements build cycle it is now once ejected from the blackhole free to start the whole process once again
I don't know what happens to matter or energy that crosses the event horizon of any object. Black holes, gravistars, or the ingress-end of wormholes are likely not something we can distinguish between through observation alone. Here's a thought... not necessarily scientific or plausible, but maybe... Dark energy is not energy but an emergent property of the universe. As the universe inflates, the contents necessarily occupy a larger volume, so on average the distance between clusters of mass will increase. The filaments that define the structures along which the galaxies and intergalactic gas flow are stretched and the voids defined by where those filaments aren't will continue to expand. The "early" universe was probably comparable to a dense foam with bubbles of higher density around low density pockets. As the the bubbles expanded, the boundaries stretched thin and the low density centers became voids. As the bubbles tore and the voids joined it resembled a sponge. As the inflation continued, the density decreased and now it's more like a luffa, and if the expansion continues accelerating, the filaments will snap and tear. More voids will open up, and this will keep happening, splitting up the remaining lumps until the heat death of the universe.
Something I thought about when in high school. Could space or the universe we see, be a black hole itself? Or, could space itself be an object that hasn't been discovered by science yet? Dark matter and energy could be the first clues.
Everything I watch about deep space / universe / stars/ black holes is mainly theory what about black holes being unbelievably massive amounts of water ??? Just a thought 😊
I honestly don't believe black holes are actually holes I think they're some kind of strange star that absorbs energy instead of producing energy like a regular star
I'm not sure from this, it seems to say there are Back holes AND there are Gravastars. Both can look similar but have very different interiors? Of Gravastars form from collapsing stars and negative energy matter (never heard of that before more detail required), then how do black holes get created?
If I had known that Astronomy classes were lectured the way you do in your episodes, I would have chosen astronomy as a career..
Beautiful work.
Wow 😮😊
No, they are not Astrum episodes. At the undergraduate level you get a physics degree. At the PhD level you can become an astronomer or cosmologist, and these are difficult degrees. After that you are a post-doc, and the whipping boy of whatever university you get your grant from. Now you have The opportunity to work yourself day and night to discover something of importance, maybe a dark energy star, so you become noticed and can get a tenured position. After reaching the big time you can still moonlight for a Japanese telescope company to make ends meet, especially if you work close to a major telescope such as the Keck in Hawaii. It’s a rat race.
@@gsmollin2
Yes, the road to becoming an astronomer might be long and narrow but being a good science communicator like Carl Sagan -or Alex in this particular case- is so important to lure young people to choose a scientific path for their future careers I believe. And statistically for sure, a few of them will be good scientists.
It's mostly math. Calculating distances, luminosity, etc. So unless you're into that...
Same could be said for mathematics, chemistry and philosohy; but sadly, they aren't lectured this way...
i love how the more we find out about deep space the more questions it raises and the more we realize how little we know
It’s a metaphorical hydra.
One of the few astronomy channels I watch on a daily basis
Keep up the good work
same from here!
Yup, I miss SciShow Space as well
his content is intriguing, but sometimes his calming voice does soothe me to sleep
No wonderful people here?
I love history of the universe, aswell as antonpetrov
One more interesting thing that you forgot to mention about Neutron Stars (which almost no one ever makes clear) is that they are almost pure neutrons - hence the name... but where did all the electrons and protons go that were in the star? Well once they get squeezed close enough to each other they combine and become more neutrons.
Better Help are not good.
I'm going to have to watch this one a few times to let things sink in! Cheers Alex :)
You won't be the only one, for sure.
Dear Alex, I do appreciate your show and the enormous amount of work that you put into each episode. There is one criticism of today’s dialogue when about 1/3rd the way through you talked about “Heat coming from the sun”.
Heat is the progression of the vibration of molecules within gas, liquids or solids. The sun lives in a bath of vacuum and therefore heat cannot be emitted from the Sun’s surface. Radiation {eg Infrared EMR} can travel through a vacuum and in turn heats up gases, liquids and solids when it interacts with them on Earth. This is how heating of Earth happens but it is an indirect rather than a direct process. Cheers.
I did not know that, cool thanks for sharing.
Wow. Fabulous video. Probably one of the most mind stimulating productions I have seen. Dark energy is the pressure which expands our universe, so I assume that black holes are definitely connected. No one wants to say we may be living in the equilibrium of a gravastar. Amazing concepts.
Speculation of alternative explanations are always good. We haven't made any real progress in cosmology for a long time, so we need all the speculation we can find and let the ideas compete with one another and compare them with observations.
What? When I was born, pluto was a planet, black holes hadn’t been photographed, and we didn’t have compelling evidence that we had a black hole in the center of our galaxy
@@Red_TwizzlerAstronomy is the testbed for cosmology, and that's my main interest. But you're right. We have made great progress in astronomy, and within the next five years we will have several magnificent new telescopes: Magellan, ELT, Roman, LSST and several other.
no progress since lead poisoning dropped the worlds IQ by 15 points....
@Red_Twizzler Pluto was never a planet, we just called it one :P
There has been so much new info coming out about black holes recently. It's a super exciting time to be intrested in this stuff. And From what I have heard other science channels say, James Webb is just getting started. the last year has been fine tuning it, and now we can get some very intresting data from it!
Consider there is a new massive telescope in Hawaii and another telescope being planned for launch as well that is even bigger. We will start generating 3d maps of the galaxy and universe with new telescopes and another one will be able to be pointed to a planet to detect life better than JWST.
Love ASTRUM. For non-scientists; I’ve read it take a million years for a photon to radiate outward from the sun’s center til we see it. If there is some truth, please explain. Thanks. Tom. Poulsbo, Washington
Individual photons bump into individual particles due to pressure, density, and heat, and sometimes they are absorbed, and then re-emitted. the sun is a huge ball, and this can take a very very long time due to all the chaos.
Yes, the photons bounce around in the sun like small pinballs, though for the photon, no time has passed, because of time dilation they don’t experience time at all, space is truly wierd and wonderful.
@@ewilgreen5148 Thank you. Astrum, IMHO, is the best overall layman’s channel.
@@ewilgreen5148Photoms are non-sentient and have no idea of time or anything else.
It's the pressure of the gasses it's burning ; lager stars the grater the pressure & longer it takes for htons to be seen .
The explanation given by Alex , in the first 3-4 minuets , , followed by the nature of white dwarfs and neutron- stars .
Red giants , are more prone to going to nebula stage - a big bang .
The rest , including black holes , and smaller objects , was included , while typing this up . Hope it helps , as what's n the post is part of my own aquired knowledge .
Alex, you are one of the most precious things in the Universe: An Educator. Thank you for all your work. 🙂
That is either a duck or an extremely dense object mimicking a duck.
Everything's funnier when you replace it with a duck, especially a rubber duck wearing a top hat.
duck energy duck
@@billynomates920 dense duck energy 🤣
Like a black goose wearing a derby mimicking a duck??!
For I moment I read 'extremely fast' and thought of that video with the alien bird.
kerzazagt viewer?
I'm leaning toward 1 more kind of star, the quark dwarf. (Not necessarily different externally from black hole, but different internally.) Only works if there is quark-degeneracy pressure, and probably only works with neutrons stars close to the neutron-degeneracy limit. Pre-quark neutron star vacuums up gas (interstellar medium) until second collapse. Then quark degeneracy takes over for interior. (An extension of _____'s book, "The Dragon's Egg", where a crustquake and collapse caused a size reduction.) If a collapse is gentle enough, and quark degeneracy exceeds neutron degeneracy, a quarkstar is possible. Still could be invisible, but not nigh-singularity.
Just conjecture, though. While I've read of same-quark resistance to touching, I haven't read how close top and bottom quarks get in protons and neutrons.
I don't know why but I was thinking that every information you said just in the first 30 seconds of the video took Millennia to be discovered and making an astrophisicis of just 100 years ago or less listening to this 30 seconds would completelly blow his mind...
Quick note, betterhelp has done some shady stuff in the past, and I would recommend avoiding them in the future.
Love the content here, keep it up!
Why are if not surprised
👁️‼️👁️
What did they do?
A quick check says that they like selling customer data.@@juandiegoprado
@@juandiegoprado if I recall correctly, something about selling private data which they did not disclose. I will admit I do not know much about the situation, so take that with a grain of salt.
@@MemeAnt Ahhh didn't know. Thanks for the info
Every time another Astrum video comes out, I just gravitate to it. This is another excellently presented, mind expanding topic. Astrophysics is getting weirder by the " - - -day, week, month or even year - - -". Are gravistars the universal version of antigravity generators?
I once saw a video about someone referring to this theorie, to suggest our universe is inside a black hole. With the edge of the observable universe being the event horizon. Matching the expansion. Pretty cool thought imo
I’ve been thinking that black holes are just exotic stars (sort of) for years and years, but humans don’t like things that have opposite effects and we can’t wrap our heads around things like this easily.
~ There shouldn't be any confusion about grav. blackholes, e.m. jet streams, or wormholes, because the balance of light energy & gravitational matter determines whether cosmic objects become strictly gravitational black holes, or e.m. jet streams (stars), & anything in between.
Along with wormholes which are a equal density balance between both, as well as bound with their corresponding balanced & equilibrated strong & weak forces.
~ The blackhole/jetstream in the center of the Milky Way Galaxy is the e.m./grav. finite & mortal signature of our Milky Way Galaxy, which is also bound by it's correspective Strong & Weak Forces as well.
~ In conclusion: The balance & equilibrium of Strong & Weak Forces determine the color, shape, size, & spatial qualities of a grav. blackhole, e.m. jet stream, or a wormhole, in both space & time.
Here's something I've always figured to probably be way more plausible for black holes than most would reckon, which is... The fact that although they appear infinitely dense due to the fact that they are almost a true singularity, which would be infinitely dense and whatnot, They are not. In fact a rather interesting thing is... that black holes, if you could reach their surface safely without being ripped apart the moment you even got close to the event horizon in the slightest, would be immeasurable bright because of light's inability to escape. Which would also simultaneously make black holes the hottest objects in our universe because of the inability for light to radiate off like a star or stellar remnant.
Furthermore, your retinas, would be fried on the spot the moment you even looked up out of the blackhole if they weren't fried the moment you saw the surface of the black hole.
Furthermore, a theoretical star that has no real gravity that can be interacted with... although mathematically possible, I'd... reckon in terms of the real world, would be unlikely to ever see. Though on the other hand if we do encounter exotic stars. One such one that although would be more likely possible in an artificial format rather than natural... is a quantum energy star of sorts. A star whose existence is solely attached to quantum mechanics. And whose core would be a black hole potentially, that would also not only be fed by the star, but also feed the star too in the process. Relying on the potential unknowns of quantum mechanics to grow exponentially if not properly contained. Of course it'd be unlikely to see such a star, let alone one with a black hole at it's core in terms of natural ones.
Not just your retinas, but your entire body would be vaporized in a femtosecond or something, no?
@@Jason75913If your protection against the gravity doesn't protect against the sheer ungodly heat within. Yeah. it would.
@@timteecvhn but I mean, the heat is irrelevant if the light is allowed to touch you, that alone would vaporize you, so either you are protected from the light and continue to only see absolute black or you get vaporized by the extreme dosage of photons
@Jason75913 all radiation is photons
Rhubarb
Not even two minutes in and i already got an ad man
Very interesting, so, if we follow the naming convention for neutron stars, could a white dwarf then be called an electron star since it's balancing on the electron degeneracy pressure limit?
It's sad that there is so much light pollution that I have to remember the night sky from my childhood or drive 100 miles.
Exotic holes are the key, I think, I always have the feeling that they are not searching in the right spot, I have this as an electronic engineer, we are kind of scientists as well, when we are developing stuff. And sometimes we come to a point that we are searching in the wrong place in (a) circuit(s). It's odd.
Things get complicated when new things are introduced in the world of physics.
I think it’s possible all of these celestial objects exist simultaneously. I think it’s possible objects like Grav-stars can exist, and I think that there could be a variety of different types of what we would consider to be black holes; both the traditional gravitational singularities, and these newer hypothesized “troves of dark energy”. I theorize that it’s due to the lack of precision and advancement with our instruments that makes it difficult to tell what is objectively true or not for certain
13:40 I'm failing to parse this sentence, can anyone help me please? ‘So far ... the radius of the black hole candidates we _see_ ... is at least approximately equal to their Schwarzschild radius: in some cases, that’s just a rough estimate, _but in others, we’ve calculated that radius to within 40 decimal places.’_ (emph. mine). If I read it as ‘the radius of the black hole candidates we _observe_ in some cases [the "others" in the original sentence] was calculated [based on these observations] to 40 decimals’, it becomes sheer nonsense: nothing has been ever measured to 40 _or more_ decimal accuracy (the 'calculation' implies other inputs, with their own uncertainties), and unlikely will in the next 200 years if at all.
The most precise experimental measurement ever made has been the electron's gyromagnetic anomaly _g−2,_ calculated to 10 decimals from a measurement done to whopping 13 decimals. That's in the lab experiment, and all astrophysical observations I'm aware of are a far cry from these. 40, 30, 20, 10, 7 decimals spell nonsense in this context. Additionally, a high-precision measurement consistently yielding the _Schwarzschild_ radius, not Kerr (rotating), even if made to 3 decimals, not 40, would mean that these candidates, if really BHs, are (nearly) non-rotating. We know that newborn neutron stars spin like crazy, exactly what we expect from the law of angular momentum conservation, and there is no reason to believe that a collapse to a BH instead of a NS would not result in the high angular momentum of the BH. We know the Milky Way's SBMH approximate spin, too, and it's definitely non-zero beyond counting any sigmas, despite low accuracy/precision. More to this, GW signatures match rotating BH mergers, where certainty is high enough. None were _definitely_ non-spinning; there were only spinning and "maybe". I wouldn't have missed such a revolutionary discovery paper; it would turn our understanding of a lot of physics on its head, up to questioning the very angular momentum conservation validity.
I obviously misreading the sentence, but I cannot understand in any other way, whichever linguistic contortions I try; it's pretty straightforward. Obviously, you can calculate an imaginary, theoretical case to an arbitrary precision, but the statement is clearly about calculations from observational data: 'the radius of the black hole candidates we _see_ ... we’ve calculated ... to within 40 decimal places'. Any help out there translating that for me, please?
I want to see this channel break 2M subscribers this year!! 💫🙏
Love the format but references would be nice
My belief is that dark matter appears now in theories because of the absence of allowing using electromagnetic forces to play an active role on and at large scales and distances, the cosmic forbidden force. Gravity and electromagnetism are equally important.
So they saying that they have separated a black light sun and a black hole, nice. Because I've wondered about that with some black holes giving off invisible light or gas but they are supposed to only absorb theoretically
I bet both my testicles that these stars do not exist or never have existed in our universe.
Wow, I have no juevos to risk but I'd like to be there when this bet is called.
I Love "Exotic Stars" am i right fellas
😂
Awesome videos with great quality as always say 🌍🌟
We are told a black hole collapses to a singularity. Nobody asks why it needs to go that far. I believe the object simply has to be massive enough to prevent light escaping. The lump at its centre will be there. You just can’t ever escape its gravity. If you can actually get that fat during the life of the universe. Time stops at the speed of light. Gravity at the event horizon stops light so presumably it stops time as well.
Idk, the way you described gravistars would make them seem quite rare, as you would need extraordinary circumstances to balance the gravity and pressure like that. By just the amount of dark energy there is supposed to be in the universe (it is supposed to comprise up to 70% of everything) I don't think it is plausible that gravistars would make up the bulk of dark energy. Maybe a small portion of it, but certainly not all of it.
Thank you, Alex! 🌟
Interesting topic, but your charisma has all the captivating qualities of a house plant, which, I'm certain, would present it in more engaging manner, if given the opportunity. I could not watch it for more than 4 minutes without falling asleep
Black holes are a never ending source of fascination for me. I sometimes wonder if they're behind the creation of the universe in general. Maybe we're inside one right now.
Muy buen vídeo, enhorabuena!
Puede ser que el gravastar sea la consecuencia de un agujero negro?
La energía se contrae tanto en un agujero negro que la materia se polariza en forma de radiación y espacio-tiempo.
Este espacio-tiempo se expandiría posteriormente en la siguiente capa en forma de energía oscura.
Esta idea hace que el gravastar no sea necesario, pero sí existiera, debería ser consecuencia de un agujero negro
My personal challengeable belief is that singularities only exist mathematically.
I agree, though I am woefully underqualified to really even have an opinion on the matter. On a side related note: what would a naked singularity look like?
I agree as well. I believe when the math shows zero volume it is correct but referring to zero volume of space within the "object" that is within the event horizon not zero volume within our spacetime js
I put my money on an 'unbound quark star' being the next star density between neutron and singularity.
Anything not forbidden is compulsory. The only limit is our perception.
well... black holes do slowly emit radiation and over time diminish in size and weight and density. Last time i heard and checked we have proved hawking radiation but we havent actually detected it. so if every black hole is emitting a form of radiation that we know exists but we havent detected yet, is that not a form of dark energy?
I'm still confused..... why wouldn't sufficiently dense/massive objects have an event horizon? Wouldn't the resulting gravitational effects be strong enough to prevent light from being emitted/escaping if the light is close enough to the object? Wouldn't the distance be an event horizon?
Okay, I've been handling the weird things in astronomy so far (I'm 77 yo), but here's my limit. You've finally gone "wonky" with "negative infinity".
A GRAVISTAR??? Ouch! I think you just bent my brain.
Superb video Alex! 10/10!
If you crush neutrons into their subatomic particles (quarks) you end up with energy. If that energy had a negative charge at the core with a band further out where some neutrons might still hold their form or a combination of positively charged substances it sounds like a magnet. So what would cause the neutron (quark) star to have an opposite spin in different layers? the part I could see wrong in your video would be floating in such a star. The magnetic field would shred our atomic structure. Sorry, just thinking in place.
Toy with the idea that 'Black Holes' are highly organized toroidal plasma configurations that induce gravity (gravity without a corresponding quantity of mass).
Matter is precious in our universe, and it is highly likely that its nature can do better than just pour it into an all-consuming cosmic dumpster.
Could possibly both versions of extremely dense objects exist in our universe? I am rather fantasising than speculating now, since I have no background in astrophysics: Could that be an explanation for the observed gap in the size of black holes, like: Stellar black holes are "real" black holes, whereas super massive black holes are of the even more exotic type?
I'm curious how neutron degeneracy pressure is affected/counteracted by centrifugal force generated by the star's spin. If the star at the absolute minimal mass to be a neutron star and was spinning so fast that its surface was moving very quickly, let's say 50% the speed of light, would that reduce the neutron degeneracy pressure enough to "break" it out of being a neutron star?
Plot twist, The universe is contained inside of a gravistar
WTF!.... Prove It!!
Sounds like a more compelling argument for dark energy than “it just comes from nowhere” to me. Certainly worth more investigation.
Good thing literally no one says something that stupid.
B-b-but wait a sec, the dark energy still comes from “nowhere” (if solutions of the Einstein Field Equation for the cosmological model is "nowhere"-everything else comes out of these same equations, after all; dark energy is not an outlier), only not spread uniformly in the whole spacetime but instead collects into the hypothetical gravistar blobs. What's so compelling about it? It's still the same dark energy in new packaging. But yeah, interesting to ponder indeed.
“Certainly worth more investigation”-sure it is. Keep in mind that we publish papers because we like to toy with theories and models. Papers are how scientists communicate their ideas to other scientists, and most often aren't reports of a big discovery, or any discovery at all. That's simply our big Facebook where we post stuff that seems like an interesting idea, like, what if... There were over 5 million scientific papers published in 2023 alone. (And poor blokes in academia have to publish or perish, no matter what they publish, quantity over quality, but that's entirely a different issue.)
Another theory pertaining to what dark energy might be is parallel universes bumping into each other and being absorbed. Thus the continued acceleration observed in the expansion of the universe…apparently 🤷♂️
Astrum : Dark Energy
Me : Ah....My type of star....
another thing to consider, if "space/time" is everywhere, but can be warped by gravity, it's safe to suggest that they are both two forms that could be defined by a manipulable particle or quark. Because that would explain why they can become one thing at a singularity. This would not be in agreements with this theory, because we have the infinite gravity of an object positive pressure equally balanced by infinite space time negative pressure, occupying the same singularity?
My point is if it becomes a singularity, it must be made up of something manipulable. Otherwise it cannot be singular in the instance of a black hole. mmm?
Also, non of this explains Expansion......
If space/time is manipulable you can't just add more of it, for this theory to work, you would need to keep adding matter in with space time so that a (5th dimensional loop) can add more space time as it all falls in and out of a (Centre black, outer white hole system.)
An interesting vid idea, since you decided to talk about unrealistic stars, is different colors. I understand why we probably wouldn't be able to see them because blue/red shift, but could they exist? Like a green star for example. When you burn certain elements they can flare up in many colors, so could the same be true for a star that contains an ample amount of differing elements, or would it just cause problems or a collapse?
Great video 10/10
you wrote this comment on a 17 minute video only one minute after release, you haven't watched it when you wrote the comment.
@@shanathered5910 I have watched the entire video
The video was posted 25 minutes ago, and your comment was posted 23 minutes ago, so no, you had not watched it all when you posted your comment.
@@castleanthrax1833early access 🤷♂️
Called out
I keep saying it! The universe is infinite!
Well, I would think that if a gravistar exerts no gravitational force no matter how close or far you are from it (maybe even touching it or sticking your finger in it), then it can't be a black hole, because black holes exert gravitational force.
My supposition is that it might be better to refer to these objects as gravstars until they are proven black holes, since it appears to be easier to prove a black hole than a gravstar, so it would make sense to eliminate from the catagory of gravstar than to attempt to separate accordingly - at least until we have better data and can make defining judgements of gravstars easier.
There are many subtleties-models usually have knobs you can tune until they match anything you want, for one. But yeah, a big +1 for scientific thinking: how can we eliminate something, disprove the model. Most people react along the lines “I like it” or “it sounds better to me than...”-and that's on sci-ed channels. :(
i would like to know what is the definition of a star... if a neutron star is a star then a black hole should be a type of star as well
Have we ever ACTUALLY observed these Star transitions, or are you only relying on CPU models made “binary” from human equations?
Stars are BORN and until we start looking at them as Nature rather than “energy factories”, we will fail.
They are ALIVE and most likely have different SPECIES. They may also breed and trade elements as trees trade minerals…have a wonderful week everyone.😊✌🏼
Similarly, on the topic of gravastars - if they DO exert a net zero gravitational pull on their environment *entirely* (without the presence of “gravitational zones” as I mentioned in my other comment -
This makes me wonder about the likelihood that these gravastars would functionally be an anomaly within the universe, being acted-upon by the forces around them that first sent them careening through space (think big bang and similar catastrophically powerful events) while *NOT* exerting a force in *opposition*. (Think tidal opposition between the moon and the earth.)
Clearly I am no quantum physicist, but this seems bizarre to me (though I think we can all agree that this is the case for much of quantum mechanics 😅). It seems like we would find it far more noteworthy to encounter objects that (functionally) don’t follow Newton’s second law on a larger scale. One would imagine that these object are simply careening through space, much like enormous asteroids, literally vacuuming up all the material in its’ path. 🤔
honestly sometimes i just look at the stars, or i’ll watch a video about the cosmos and i just think “man, what the HELL is going on out there” LMAO
I doubt a gravistar would be the cause of the vacuum pull. They sound like an inert rock like object floating around in space. Idk I'm not a scientist
What?! A vacuum star? If u think here of vacuum as it describes, then how something, that "absolutely devoid of matter" can form a star which is "celestial body of great mass"? It sounds like a theory of those flatearthers
If you watched the video, this theoretical star has mass. It's just mass with strange properties where the pressure from the inside and the gravity cancel each other out. It's "vacuum" because its effect on their surroundings is the same as being in a vacuum.
@@saxor96 watch it again, there's not a word about a mass of a gravistar. all these goofy theories is just a proof that our physics is way of from how the universe works
Vacuum energy is still filled with many particles and antiparticles. So even vacuum is not truly empty.
I'm still stuck trying to understand how something like Jupiter with a liquid metallic hydrogen core becomes a star. Those are pressures we can't replicate so can only guess as to how they will actually behave. Given how much of modern cosmology is riding on it, I'd say it's pretty important to get it right.
We are at the beginning of Black Hole discovery. Many exiting new findings await those falling into the enchantment of their mysteries.
I like to think blackholes are the readings of warphole signatures but we just don't understand it yet.
The DNA of Scientific Perfection , written before Creation began , for I AM ! 🌟
Let's push divine vibes! We are all one divine spirit, getting back to the original form!
The photon's belt of Alcion will help us! 👽💫
@@sonoroprosound2919
Study is Good , it brings One to the knowledge that Only Faith can Understand ! 🌟💫
I’ve always wanted to see a green star be discovered. I know it’s a very thing wavelength to achieve but I’m sure there has to be at least one in the universe
It would have to be a boron star or something.
Dark energy: repulses things
Sun: immense gravity
Dark energy sun: ?
Wait if white dwarfs don't have fusion happening anymore what produces the light?
The cause of the correlation between the expansion of the universe and blackhole growth is pretty obvious. Our universe is just a black hole in another universe. This explains the early rapid cosmic inflation as the period of time where stellar matter was rapidly collapsing during a supernova event. Also the fact that blackhole growth rates matches the growth of the universe tells us that the properties of both our universe and our parent universe are similar. this also means that blackholes convert matter into space but in a different dimension(made of 4 dimensions) where the space inside is way bigger than the space outside like some kind of bag of holding where you can't take anything out. lol
Planck Stars. These are nature's last-ditch effort to avoid singularities. They get their name from their size: Subatomic.
How do they avoid becoming singularities?
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
Fascinating - I’ve heard of gravastars in the past but I didn’t know the slightest about them.
If this is true, that they exert exactly zero gravitational pressure, is that *only* at its’ surface, and gravitational pressure exists perhaps further out from the surface of its’ radius?
Meaning like any other star, an object would be drawn in by outlying waves of gravity exerted by the system, but *at the surface* the gravitational pressure equalizes?
If so, one might think that it would create something that for all intents and purposes APPEARS to be a singularity - (no visible object PASSES the surface) when in actuality these objects become trapped within this “vacuum space”, where their motion is functionally neutralized?
Maybe I’m confused by the mechanics at play here
Black Hole Sun! Won't You Come; And Wash Away The RAAAAAAIIIINNN!
Still only the best guess, till someone comes up with a better one 😉
wow !
"Dude, what if... Dude. Dude, what if... What if like, instead of regular pressure, some stars had the opposite! Like, negative pressure! It would totally explain dark energy 'cuz they would do the opposite of regular stars!"
"What kind of matter would do that?"
"....Uhh...."
"You're not solving the dark energy problem, you're just adding extra steps before you get to the 'Hell if I know' stage."
Ion think the world normal would apply here is an acid normal from a base no you got positive or negative left or right I think the more we discover I think we will find the universe is just a bunch of paradoxical phenomena
Why couldn't it be both? Is it poasible, that a gravistar becomes a black hole? Just as our own sun will eventually expland into a larger and cooler sun once its uses its current fuel, is it possible that a gravistar turns into a black hole once it reaches a specific threshold of energy production? That its stable state of equilibrium tips and it becomes gravity positive instead of neutral. No longer pushing dark matter out into the universe but instead, devouring anything that passes its event horizon? I understand this all just theoretical and a thought experiment, was just curious on what someone smarter and having a better grasp on the math, thinks or my idea.
I still think infinite density is impossible but am also skeptical of gravi-stars. I require more information than we are capable of gathering atm
One is of the deduced opinion that a blackholes accretion rings where it is hottest due to hawking's radiation has the most gravitational influences on a blackhole the event horizon is lower but NO gravity in a blackhole only dark matter we don't understand todate ie that matter was a part of the elements build cycle it is now once ejected from the blackhole free to start the whole process once again
No credit for the Stellardrone music?
I don't know if I buy into the current star hypothesis.
I have absolutely zero credentials in this field. But my gut feeling is that it makes a lot of sense.
I don't know what happens to matter or energy that crosses the event horizon of any object. Black holes, gravistars, or the ingress-end of wormholes are likely not something we can distinguish between through observation alone.
Here's a thought... not necessarily scientific or plausible, but maybe...
Dark energy is not energy but an emergent property of the universe.
As the universe inflates, the contents necessarily occupy a larger volume, so on average the distance between clusters of mass will increase. The filaments that define the structures along which the galaxies and intergalactic gas flow are stretched and the voids defined by where those filaments aren't will continue to expand. The "early" universe was probably comparable to a dense foam with bubbles of higher density around low density pockets. As the the bubbles expanded, the boundaries stretched thin and the low density centers became voids. As the bubbles tore and the voids joined it resembled a sponge. As the inflation continued, the density decreased and now it's more like a luffa, and if the expansion continues accelerating, the filaments will snap and tear. More voids will open up, and this will keep happening, splitting up the remaining lumps until the heat death of the universe.
Something I thought about when in high school. Could space or the universe we see, be a black hole itself? Or, could space itself be an object that hasn't been discovered by science yet? Dark matter and energy could be the first clues.
Everything I watch about deep space / universe / stars/ black holes is mainly theory what about black holes being unbelievably massive amounts of water ??? Just a thought 😊
If gravity does not affect Dark Matter/Energy then perhaps Black Holes Solar Winds are Dark Matter/Energy ?
This is the fundamental basis on which life exist
Can't objects denser than neutron stars exist if they are composed of elementary particles?
I think any hypothesis is possible
I'm mostly impressed with your ability to pronounce "Schwarzschild".
I honestly don't believe black holes are actually holes I think they're some kind of strange star that absorbs energy instead of producing energy like a regular star
I'm not sure from this, it seems to say there are Back holes AND there are Gravastars. Both can look similar but have very different interiors? Of Gravastars form from collapsing stars and negative energy matter (never heard of that before more detail required), then how do black holes get created?
honestly as a layman gravastars sounds way more plausible than singularities
This felt like an episode of JJK