Glad to see more Astrographics, @Astrographics and Simon - special request: please do an episode of a map of the known universe - starting from our Solar System which we all know, of course, but going on to the Local Group, the Virgo Supercluster, etc. and please tell us - where are all these cosmic voids - Bootes void, etc - thank you and keep it up!
I would argue that Planck Star is a better name for a black hole. Because "black hole" is a bit of a misnomer. There is an object there, it's just a mass that has collapsed to such a point of density, that it warps the fabric of spacetime around it, to the point that even light falls in. The "hole" part that we can observe, when it's accumulating matter, isn't the object, it's just how much it warps space around it. The event horizon is all we can observe.
Well they were first called dark stars and then gravitationally collapsed objects. Black hole was only coined in i think the 1960s but it caught on due to the undeniably provocative catchiness.
what gets me is that apparently once you cross the event horizon, the singularity (or in this case the planck star) stops being a point in space and becomes a point in time which is very abstract but makes sense. if you think about it all gravity kinda seems that way. if you fall towards earth without any way to escape the "pull" the ground kinda ceases to become a point in space but more like the future, in a way
@@slightlyamusedblackkidfrom9153read Roy Kerr's paper from December last year. That whole "time switches roles inside a black hole" is completely false. That's what physicists have said for a long time but he conclusively proves that to be incorrect. It is due to a faulty coordinate system. Inside a black hole is a "not dissimilar from neutron star" central mass held up by the centrifugal force. Time still passes inside a black hole, after passing through the inner horizon you could never leave the black hole again but you are not doomed to be destroyed at a singularity. He beautifully proves this and the few mainstream physicists who have addressed his paper have conceded he is absolutely correct. It is his disproof of the Penrose singularity theorem. For some reason most physicists desperately cling to the singularity idea even though it is completely illogical for a rotating black hole (event single black hole in the universe), but admitting a singularity is not real opens a Pandoras box they prefer to not deal with. But time 100% does not stop in a black hole and the "central core body" is not a future moment in time.
@@slightlyamusedblackkidfrom9153 I think that is a fantastic way to describe the "flip" once someone or something has crossed the event horizon. Very well put. 👍🏻
I am happy to watch your vids because you're an actual person doing the work, and not some trash chatbot. They are out of control! # supportREALcreators!
@@jeffdroogNot that it isn't heard of but the person has a 10 year old account. Most bots tend to be relatively new accounts. Although this account kind of uses a similar naming convention to ones bots use.
Scientists have actually proved mathematically that the known Universe is not old enough for any single person to have watched all the videos Simon has produced over the years in his singularity of channels!!!
Yes, it is pretty cool to know about. Pretty cool indeed. Thank you for this video! Planck stars are a new one for me, so it was fascinating to learn about them from you.
@@ibelieveingaming3562 Singularities are not facts. Quite the opposite, they're errors in our physics. Max Tegmark doesn't even believe they exist, he claims that we just don't have a full understanding of the physics yet. Singularities are what pops out of our maths when we try to merge quantum mechanics and relativity. Our physics breaks down and we get infinities (that's where the singularity comes from, an infinity in our math). This infinity is what gives rise to several paradoxes - the singularity itself is a paradox and cannot/should not exist. Some string theorists believe there is no singularity and that there is a string star at the center of a black hole. They call them "fuzz balls". They operate exactly as we observe black holes to operate with the exception of those pesky paradoxes & singularities. String Stars are basically neutron stars that have gone SSJ. When our sun dies, its core compresses down into a white dwarf - this is a star comprised of mostly electron-degenerate matter (aka an electron star). When an even more massive star dies, we get a neutron star being held together by neutron degeneracy pressure. Going beyond that, quark stars may exist as an intermediary between neutron stars and black holes but we've yet to find one. When a neutron star collides with another creating a black hole, what it's really doing is breaking down even further, into strings creating a string star, aka a fuzzball or black hole. Granted, there's no evidence for a fuzzball yet, but there's also no evidence for a planck star either. Anyone wanna jump into one and report back to us? You can communicate to me via my bedroom's bookshelf.
@@ibelieveingaming3562we don't even know if "inside" of an event horizon exists, much less if a singularity exists there. Our models of physics break at the event horizon. Every supposition of what, if anything, is beyond the event horizon is purely hypothetical at best.
So I don't know if you're taking suggestions, but I'd really like to see a video on one or more of the various non-government spaceships being developed/deployed. Maybe that's more of a sideprojects video but I'd be really interested nonetheless!
The ever growing list of hypothetical objects that try to explain black holes is so damn interesting. Off the top of my head we have fuzzballs,dark stars,dark energy stars,grava stars,magnetospheric eternally collapsing objects,black stars,electro weak stars,preon stars,boson stars,etc
The two particles explanation for black holes is common, but flawed. Hawking said the radiation was due to the black hole disrupting certain modes of quantum waves, preventing the destructive interference that stops these waves from being detectable as a particle.
Astrographics I now love you hahah in 2018 I made a college essay on this! I AM SO very happy that others keep this idea alive! I love this with plank stores there is less paradoxes I don't understand why black holes with its paradoxes prevail. If anyone wants to read my college essay hit me up hahah
Can you do a video on variable speed of light theories? There is a niche group of scientists who claim their VSL theory explains all of GR with a VSL, but i need a channel like yours to break or down for people like me. Thank you. Keep up the good work!
imagining the black hole as an object stuck in time waiting for enough antimatter to fall in for the plank star to touch the event horizon is an interesting way to look at it
I was about 5 seconds ahead in my brain thinking about the differences in the time scale of the growth of such an object from the interior perspective and exterior perspective when you brought that up... but that felt a bit lack luster to me. It's gotta be *so much weirder* than that for things to work out mathematically. Like... there would be a point in time when the maths would indicate that the volume of the planck star inside the black hole, from the interior perspective, would exceed the volume of the event horizon. Naively, this would suggest that at some point, when our clocks finally catch up, black holes literally revert back to visible celestial bodies with regular space-time curvature. My money's still on Hawking Radiation, black hole evaporation, etc. But I *also* prefer the idea that there's some actual ... thing ... in the center of the black hole, and not some goofball mathematical singularity.
Pre-watch, I could only start listening to the song, "Black Hole Sun", in my head. It didn't stop after watching the video, but I was disappointed that top comments never mention this.
I always think about it, every time there is a black hole related video. I think about posting, "Black Hole Sun! Black Hole Sun!" Probably because Soundgarden is my favorite band.
You should do one about how a collapsing star might create the perfect atom. I think that is the idea i dont really remember where i saw this or read about it, might be something else.
First thought when hearing of "Planck Star" has nothing to do with the man, I first think of a very very small "star" inside the black hole which is made of all the matter collapsing into it, crushed by gravitational force. Usually physicists say that inside the black hole is a "singularity", but everyone knows that cannot be true, because no physical quantity can ever have an infinite value (infinitely large or infinitely small).
@@jacktup-s7x Easy. A finite thing cannot ever become infinite. Universe could be infinite only if it started infinite, otherwise it will always remain finite.
@@markosskace514 that's not proof of anything, actually. Seeing as we have no way to tell the size of the universe when it started, then your premise is flawed from the get go. And before you try to mention the Big Bang, please keep in mind that no matter how widely accepted it may be, it is still a theory. So until we either figure out how to see what happened, or find an end to the universe, it is in fact infinite
11:34 This is the part I don't understand. The anti-particle falling into the black hole reducing it's charge. However, to the black hole, it's just another particle, it doesn't matter if it's positive or negative, regular or anti-matter, it still feeds the black hole, making it grow. So the description of how hawking radiation works is in conflict.
10 years ago I read about unexplainable observation, that some theorised could have been white holes. Now with some new calculations and observations, we came up with an actual scientific possible explanation for it and call it Planck Stars. Cool.
No black hole today has started getting smaller from hawking radiation. More stuff is still falling in faster than the process. Black holes evaporating won't be starting for a long, LONG time from now.
There's a theoretical type of black hole called a Primordial black hole. They would be microscopic. Those are the ones that would be evaporating soon. If they exist. They have never been observed. So they are still just theoretical.
Yea, like the biggest blackholes would take 10^106 years to fully evaporate (for reference, the universe is 1.365x10^10 years old, so thats is a full 96 orders of magnitude larger)
Actually your wrong, sagatarius A * the black hole at the centre of the milky-way is not feeding at all, it is only radiating hawking radiation (if that actually exists) 🤔👽
@@bernieburton6520 Yes, basically remnants from the big bang or survivors of inflation or whatever (I'm no expert, but it was something along those lines). Being microscopic (even subatomic IIRC - that's in terms of volume, not mass), the odds of anything falling in are virtually zero, but Hawking radiation will evaporate them quickly (and quicker as they evaporate). IF they exist, of course.
Wouldn’t you be able to theoretically use hawking radiation as a propellant to navigate through a black holes event horizon? That’s also considering we can manufacture a material/satellite that can withstand the gravitational force…
13:17 An electromagnetic wave with a wavelength of 10 to 14 cm would be a microwave oven microwave which operate at 900 megahertz or 2,560 megahertz which have wavelengths of 33 centimeters and 11.7 centimeters respectively. Gamma rays have wavelengths of less than one trillionth of a meter (1/10¹²) and frequencies of 10²⁰ to 10²⁴ Hertz.
Just a note; A Black Hole isn't a vacuum, it isn't sucking things up as it wanders Spacetime. It's a weight that drags things that get to close down into the dark, kicking and screaming.
4:40 According to a recent study Big Crunch or Big Bounce is likely, but in a very far future. All I remember they observed distant galaxies and got 0.8 for a constant which should have been more than 1.0. So the expansion should be slowing already, but instead it's accelerating because of the mysterious Dark Energy. So it could be after all stars die out, all black holes explode (Hawking radiation), after all black dwarves explode (quantum tunneling fusion), in a universe full of decaying cold matter and photons or maybe sometimes after the time itself dies to the Heat Death. But again, these theories involve quantum mechanics, timescales of "forever" and science which is still being researched and I work in IT, not astrophysics, so take it with a grain of salt.
minor correction: there are no evaporating black holes today, as even the cosmic microwave background radiation alone is enough to sustain them. it won't be until nearly all stars have died out before black holes start evaporating.
Technically speaking, there are probably numerous evaporated black holes already. When scientists talk about it taking 10¹⁰⁰ years, that is for the largest of the supermassive black holes to finally fizzle away. Not all black holes are supermassive, although they're the only type we have been able to detect. Theoretically, micro black holes should also be common in the universe, evaporating within minutes or even seconds, too brief of a time for an astronomer to observe.
At 11:53 the virtual particle pairs are depicted as attractive, they spring into existence, collide and annihilate each other. Why do they become repulsive at the Event Horizon? I understand the half inside the EH cannot escape but the EH isn’t a physical barrier. Why doesn’t the half outside the EH follow its pair into the black hole? What force is pushing it away?
There is nothing "Inside" a black hole except extremely tightly packed mass. The reason they are called black holes is because the mass creates a gravity well so extreme that even photons of light becomes trapped in orbit. You don't get that gravity if it's hollow.
Planks Stars aren't even a theory in the scientific sense, they are a hypothesis. Although one, that is we can test, would greatly expand our knowledge of black holes and the cosmos as a whole.
If the plan star's mass and size grows from adding more more material into it, wouldn't the event horizon grow proportionally as well, so the plank star surface would never reach the event horizon?
Great video as always, Simon. But (and it happens to all of us), you misspeak starting at about 1:40. You say "electron" when you meant to say "photon".
Event horizon is just a concentric sphere around a black hole, where the escape velocity equals the speed of light. Even if there is a planck star inside, how would that prevent the existence of event horizon?
1:27 "take the frequency of an electron" why said that? was it ai made, though dramatic effect of sound while saying black hole, still instead of photon calling it electron and its frequency as Electromagnetic wave frequency did they not clear up that it does not destroy information with some kind of surface area increase then also singularity is in the future of an object falling in to particle, which is weird, like all objects have a different futures or even each particle from accretion disk? though i wonder why would it take in negative particle, why can it not just emit positive? if gravity then it should absorb both. also from outside it would seem positive out human point, how he looks and how she looks or at least in the photos? did they do anything, i used to not thinking like that but after exposure to relationships work in USA and Europe , i wonder
The claim that virtual particles always and only one side falls in and the other is emitted as hawking radiation implies the black hole influences the direction of the creation and separation of the virtual particle where as virtual particles are forming all around us right now so avoiding violations of thermodynamics both negative and positive should be on either side of the event horizon
That's because the explanation they use in this video is both rudimentary and fundamentally flawed. The charge of the virtual particle is irrelevant and in reality there would be an equal number of both positive and negative particles. In fact that's not even right because what the explanation he's referring to is the particle/anti-particle pair, not the electric charge. What is really the point is that the energy of the particle that escapes from just outside the event horizon (not from within, that's still impossible) has to come from somewhere and where it comes from is the black hole's mass. But even THEN that's far too simplistic an explanation and to be frank I don't fully understand the full breadth of it. But it has to do with quantum fields interacting with the event horizon or how they bend around the black hole. PBS Space Time has a video on it and I've not been able to wrap my head around it enough to retain the info frankly.
Conservation of information isn't a tenet of General Relativity; it's a tenet of Quantum Mechanics, so... gaping hole in the theory of Quantum Mechanics should be the line, along with a few others. ;) Otherwise, good job so far at 7:06!
"Billions of years" doesn't even beginn to describe the time it takes for a large (~solar mass) black hole to evaporate, and the larger they are the longer it takes.
A Planck star actually makes sense, since it is the pixel of the universe. And since it is a "black hole" or a Planck star, then it can only have Planck density, which would be exactly the density you would need so that only information/"photons" gets out, anything less wouldn't make it. The max density and gravity so that only internal universe processes can communicate out of it. And those just enough, it is the limit. This would be the so called "Hawkings radiation". A singularity would be some kind of overflow of information into that pixel, and I guess that can't happen, the whole universe would crash just like a computer program would. I actually like the computer metaphor applied to the universe, even if simplistic and not to be taken literally, it kinda makes sense.
Wouldn't the event horizon - which is just the point at which measurement by light breaks down due to gravity - grow along with the addition of mass to the Planck star? Proportionally, even?
It's a common misconception that nothing can be smaller than the plank scale, however that's not really what the mathematics says. It's just the smallest MEASURABLE length due to uncertainty
Planck Stars is also the name of a five-member Japanese idol girl group from Hiroshima. They made their debut in 2018 and reached mainstream in 2021. Their music is a mix of Rock and electronic dance music.
Ah, so that's what those things are called. I always had this concept in my head of something inside a black hole that's actually a weird starlike object.
OK 14 year old me just jumped for joy, I asked my old physics teacher, What if a Black hole is just that a hole, and once it's consumed enough Matter to equal the amount of Matter the original Star had it vanishes having been filled in. he laughed and said It was a stupid idea. while not exactly the Same, this is a small win.
Its honestly always mystified me why we didnt always assume this was the case, why we dont assume black holes are quarks and gluons forced into each other like electrons into neutrons in a neutron star
Wait. "The Big Crunch" scenario has been found to be unlikely due to new findings that show the universe will likely expand forever. So the entire premise being postulated here falls apart. Feel free to correct me.
Riddle me this batman- if you try and pull two quarks apart- the gluonic forces that hold them together grows stronger- and if you continue to pull and eventually overcome this bond- the amount of energy created by the snap- immediately creates two new quarks and now you have 2 pairs. And if you pull those apart- you just keep making quarks. So- if a pair of quarks falls across the event horizon, the tidal force will tear them apart like everything else- but wouldn't this lead to the quarks eventually eating the gravitational energy of the blackhole- leaving nothing but a massive ball of quark soup or something? Have we found a way to kill a black hole- just toss a pair of quarks into it?
I have my own hypothesis about the structure of the universe, according to which the universe is discrete at a very fine level, so there exist a maximal density. And thus, there is indeed something like a planck star in every black hole - simply a ball of matter with the that maximal density.
Very interesting topic but when we try to explain Planck Stars we should also explain why the Planck quantum is the smallest quantum possible and why that leads to a mass-collapse-result of a minimum-diameter star which is bigger than zero, and then we should be able to describe better what happens between the Planck Star surface and the black hole event horizon.
With an object that massive, effectively, sending matter and energy into the future, it would be somewhat like a spring of ancient water in a desert. Resources from the distant past are available to use and sustain life (or useful existence in this metaphor) in an oasis from emptiness.
Pressure at the Middle: As you go down a mine, the force of gravity on you decreases: there is more and more Earth above you, pulling upward on you. By the time you rach the middle, the net force of gravity is zero. You're under no pressure.
Blackhole lifespans are directly correlated to their mass. Smaller black holes would last fractions of a second while larger ones last billions of years, yet at the same time they all have the exact same lifespan from their perspective. How is that possible? Simple really, imagine a bucket with a big hole in it and a really sloppily placed patch. The less water in the bucket the worse the patch works. If you somehow fill the bucket up it's basically a fixed bucket that never empties, however anything less than that and the bucket simply empties out. The more water that leaves the bucket the faster it continues to leave. So why is their perspective different? That happens because mass is time. With out mass, there is no time, the more mass, the more time. Time being a motion in space, without an object there is no motion to have. The larger mass things move slower from our perspective because they gather time like a funnel gathering all the water around them. Big funnel, more time it sucks up, little funnel, the less time it sucks up. Big things age slower because they are bigger, and that mass eats up all the time around it. That being said there are always exceptions, primordial black holes are essentially buckets which never had holes, that have existed since the dawn of our universe. They are infinitely small buggers that flit about doing random quantum things which would boggle your mind all because they can. Just like the cheeky little brats they are. Since they have no holes to leak from, this makes them all but undetectable by our present methods, since with nothing leaking out, we can't spot them.
two things are infinite, the universe and the number of Simons channels
no fr like how does he make so many vids
The Multiverse is actually the Simonverse.
And I’m not sure about the universe
The universe is debatable.
Whistler-multiverse, Whistlerverse
This channel is among the best additions to the whistler-verse
As far as I can tell the whisler verse doesn't use ai except to spell check which is refreshing
😂😂😂
😂😂😂
Is this some sort of AI knockoff?
OMG, another post from Simon without ads. 👍
Glad to see more Astrographics, @Astrographics and Simon - special request: please do an episode of a map of the known universe - starting from our Solar System which we all know, of course, but going on to the Local Group, the Virgo Supercluster, etc. and please tell us - where are all these cosmic voids - Bootes void, etc - thank you and keep it up!
I would argue that Planck Star is a better name for a black hole. Because "black hole" is a bit of a misnomer. There is an object there, it's just a mass that has collapsed to such a point of density, that it warps the fabric of spacetime around it, to the point that even light falls in. The "hole" part that we can observe, when it's accumulating matter, isn't the object, it's just how much it warps space around it. The event horizon is all we can observe.
Well they were first called dark stars and then gravitationally collapsed objects. Black hole was only coined in i think the 1960s but it caught on due to the undeniably provocative catchiness.
what gets me is that apparently once you cross the event horizon, the singularity (or in this case the planck star) stops being a point in space and becomes a point in time which is very abstract but makes sense. if you think about it all gravity kinda seems that way. if you fall towards earth without any way to escape the "pull" the ground kinda ceases to become a point in space but more like the future, in a way
John Michell thought of “dark stars” around 1783.
@@slightlyamusedblackkidfrom9153read Roy Kerr's paper from December last year. That whole "time switches roles inside a black hole" is completely false. That's what physicists have said for a long time but he conclusively proves that to be incorrect. It is due to a faulty coordinate system. Inside a black hole is a "not dissimilar from neutron star" central mass held up by the centrifugal force. Time still passes inside a black hole, after passing through the inner horizon you could never leave the black hole again but you are not doomed to be destroyed at a singularity. He beautifully proves this and the few mainstream physicists who have addressed his paper have conceded he is absolutely correct. It is his disproof of the Penrose singularity theorem. For some reason most physicists desperately cling to the singularity idea even though it is completely illogical for a rotating black hole (event single black hole in the universe), but admitting a singularity is not real opens a Pandoras box they prefer to not deal with. But time 100% does not stop in a black hole and the "central core body" is not a future moment in time.
@@slightlyamusedblackkidfrom9153
I think that is a fantastic way to describe the "flip" once someone or something has crossed the event horizon. Very well put. 👍🏻
Hard to believe that a wooden board from a discontinued cartoon would have so much influence on the scientific community. 😂
Whoah deep cut! 🤣
BUTTERED TOAST
Don't know the reference, could you inform me. Though it sounds like something that would be in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
@@ckl9390 nope, it's a reference to Ed, Edd 'n Eddy.
JAWBREAKERS 🤤🤤🤤
So, Simon's beard. I don't see that thing collapsing under any kind of pressure.
I don't think it's under any pressure.
Planck stars have something that no other stars have, and that’s strong abs.
damn! uploaded 28 seconds ago! thank you Simon and co for perfect timing!
Thank you for covering this topic! I've always found it really interesting.
I am happy to watch your vids because you're an actual person doing the work, and not some trash chatbot. They are out of control! # supportREALcreators!
Weird for a bot to say that lol
@@jeffdroogNot that it isn't heard of but the person has a 10 year old account. Most bots tend to be relatively new accounts. Although this account kind of uses a similar naming convention to ones bots use.
@dr4d1s I see a screen name like that,and all I can see is BOT lol Doesn't mean they are,it just struck me as weird,if it were a bot lol
Scientists have actually proved mathematically that the known Universe is not old enough for any single person to have watched all the videos Simon has produced over the years in his singularity of channels!!!
Of all of the stuff you've presented across all of your channels, this has to be one of the most mindblowing! To me at least.
My favourite of the channels
I enjoy your videos and subjects much 👍... Encourages me to think along those lines.
I think you mean 10 to -14 meters. 10 to 14 cm is radio waves.
AM or FM???
@@Oreguns85PM
DP
Not going to lie you have got to be my favorite person/chanel(s) of all time on UA-cam
Yes, it is pretty cool to know about. Pretty cool indeed.
Thank you for this video! Planck stars are a new one for me, so it was fascinating to learn about them from you.
Another notch in the whistlerverse. Wild
The theory of Planck stars inside a black hole seems much more valid than a singularity.
Singularity is a fact. Planck Stars is nothing, just a rewording because people are uncomfortable with the singularity.
😂
@@ibelieveingaming3562 Singularities are not facts. Quite the opposite, they're errors in our physics. Max Tegmark doesn't even believe they exist, he claims that we just don't have a full understanding of the physics yet. Singularities are what pops out of our maths when we try to merge quantum mechanics and relativity. Our physics breaks down and we get infinities (that's where the singularity comes from, an infinity in our math). This infinity is what gives rise to several paradoxes - the singularity itself is a paradox and cannot/should not exist. Some string theorists believe there is no singularity and that there is a string star at the center of a black hole. They call them "fuzz balls". They operate exactly as we observe black holes to operate with the exception of those pesky paradoxes & singularities. String Stars are basically neutron stars that have gone SSJ. When our sun dies, its core compresses down into a white dwarf - this is a star comprised of mostly electron-degenerate matter (aka an electron star). When an even more massive star dies, we get a neutron star being held together by neutron degeneracy pressure. Going beyond that, quark stars may exist as an intermediary between neutron stars and black holes but we've yet to find one. When a neutron star collides with another creating a black hole, what it's really doing is breaking down even further, into strings creating a string star, aka a fuzzball or black hole. Granted, there's no evidence for a fuzzball yet, but there's also no evidence for a planck star either. Anyone wanna jump into one and report back to us? You can communicate to me via my bedroom's bookshelf.
@@ibelieveingaming3562we don't even know if "inside" of an event horizon exists, much less if a singularity exists there. Our models of physics break at the event horizon. Every supposition of what, if anything, is beyond the event horizon is purely hypothetical at best.
So I don't know if you're taking suggestions, but I'd really like to see a video on one or more of the various non-government spaceships being developed/deployed. Maybe that's more of a sideprojects video but I'd be really interested nonetheless!
Thanks for this. I have watched so many physics vids on UA-cam and I never heard of this.
Rovelli's work in quantum gravity is inspired. He's also a wonderful storyteller. I highly recommend reading his books!
The ever growing list of hypothetical objects that try to explain black holes is so damn interesting. Off the top of my head we have fuzzballs,dark stars,dark energy stars,grava stars,magnetospheric eternally collapsing objects,black stars,electro weak stars,preon stars,boson stars,etc
The two particles explanation for black holes is common, but flawed. Hawking said the radiation was due to the black hole disrupting certain modes of quantum waves, preventing the destructive interference that stops these waves from being detectable as a particle.
Astrographics I now love you hahah in 2018 I made a college essay on this! I AM SO very happy that others keep this idea alive! I love this with plank stores there is less paradoxes I don't understand why black holes with its paradoxes prevail. If anyone wants to read my college essay hit me up hahah
I wouldn't mind learning more about exotic stars, maybe a summary of each in one video along with eventual videos of each individual type?
Can you do a video on variable speed of light theories? There is a niche group of scientists who claim their VSL theory explains all of GR with a VSL, but i need a channel like yours to break or down for people like me.
Thank you. Keep up the good work!
imagining the black hole as an object stuck in time waiting for enough antimatter to fall in for the plank star to touch the event horizon is an interesting way to look at it
The time travel part is basically the plot of that old TV show: Andromeda
I enjoyed Andromeda a lot. 👍🏼
@@charlesblack2523 It was fun, tho iirc some of the later seasons got really weird
Whoa, that's a blast to my childhood!
@@drg9812 I mean when you involve time travel in any story it tends to get weird really fast
@@drg9812 I'm pretty sure that was because they replaced the writer after season 1
I was about 5 seconds ahead in my brain thinking about the differences in the time scale of the growth of such an object from the interior perspective and exterior perspective when you brought that up... but that felt a bit lack luster to me. It's gotta be *so much weirder* than that for things to work out mathematically.
Like... there would be a point in time when the maths would indicate that the volume of the planck star inside the black hole, from the interior perspective, would exceed the volume of the event horizon. Naively, this would suggest that at some point, when our clocks finally catch up, black holes literally revert back to visible celestial bodies with regular space-time curvature.
My money's still on Hawking Radiation, black hole evaporation, etc. But I *also* prefer the idea that there's some actual ... thing ... in the center of the black hole, and not some goofball mathematical singularity.
Oh no, Simon has yet another channel. Damn, what a productivity
The production in this video is more impressive than the average Simon video, nice.
11:32 not negative charge, negative mass/energy
11:45 Wait, I've never heard that before. Why do only positively charged particles escape as Hawking Radiation?
Pre-watch, I could only start listening to the song, "Black Hole Sun", in my head. It didn't stop after watching the video, but I was disappointed that top comments never mention this.
I always think about it, every time there is a black hole related video. I think about posting, "Black Hole Sun! Black Hole Sun!" Probably because Soundgarden is my favorite band.
Makes a lot of sense. I always disliked the idea of a singularity existing because its smaller than the Plank length.
You should do one about how a collapsing star might create the perfect atom. I think that is the idea i dont really remember where i saw this or read about it, might be something else.
First thought when hearing of "Planck Star" has nothing to do with the man, I first think of a very very small "star" inside the black hole which is made of all the matter collapsing into it, crushed by gravitational force. Usually physicists say that inside the black hole is a "singularity", but everyone knows that cannot be true, because no physical quantity can ever have an infinite value (infinitely large or infinitely small).
ok, now prove the universe isn't infinite...
@@jacktup-s7x Easy. A finite thing cannot ever become infinite. Universe could be infinite only if it started infinite, otherwise it will always remain finite.
@@markosskace514 that's not proof of anything, actually. Seeing as we have no way to tell the size of the universe when it started, then your premise is flawed from the get go. And before you try to mention the Big Bang, please keep in mind that no matter how widely accepted it may be, it is still a theory. So until we either figure out how to see what happened, or find an end to the universe, it is in fact infinite
@@markosskace514 Who says it didn't "start infinite"? Are you confusing the observable universe with the universe beyond what we can observe?
Yes please, more information on the uncertainty theory.
Astrophysics is my favorite subject. Do not disappoint me, Simon. 🤔😝
@1:27 he meant to say that the frequency of a "photon" instead of the "electron".
This video is full of errors, I wouldn't be surprised if all his videos are unreliable. :(
Bro, how many channels do you have??? 🤯
Everyday, I see this man's pic on a new thumbnail. On a new video. On a new channel!
11:34 This is the part I don't understand. The anti-particle falling into the black hole reducing it's charge.
However, to the black hole, it's just another particle, it doesn't matter if it's positive or negative, regular or anti-matter, it still feeds the black hole, making it grow.
So the description of how hawking radiation works is in conflict.
10 years ago I read about unexplainable observation, that some theorised could have been white holes. Now with some new calculations and observations, we came up with an actual scientific possible explanation for it and call it Planck Stars. Cool.
No black hole today has started getting smaller from hawking radiation. More stuff is still falling in faster than the process. Black holes evaporating won't be starting for a long, LONG time from now.
There's a theoretical type of black hole called a Primordial black hole. They would be microscopic. Those are the ones that would be evaporating soon. If they exist. They have never been observed. So they are still just theoretical.
Yea, like the biggest blackholes would take 10^106 years to fully evaporate (for reference, the universe is 1.365x10^10 years old, so thats is a full 96 orders of magnitude larger)
Actually your wrong, sagatarius A * the black hole at the centre of the milky-way is not feeding at all, it is only radiating hawking radiation (if that actually exists) 🤔👽
You don't know everything about the universe, so many things being observed for the first time constantly rewriting what we assume.
@@bernieburton6520 Yes, basically remnants from the big bang or survivors of inflation or whatever (I'm no expert, but it was something along those lines). Being microscopic (even subatomic IIRC - that's in terms of volume, not mass), the odds of anything falling in are virtually zero, but Hawking radiation will evaporate them quickly (and quicker as they evaporate). IF they exist, of course.
Wouldn’t you be able to theoretically use hawking radiation as a propellant to navigate through a black holes event horizon? That’s also considering we can manufacture a material/satellite that can withstand the gravitational force…
13:17 An electromagnetic wave with a wavelength of 10 to 14 cm would be a microwave oven microwave which operate at 900 megahertz or 2,560 megahertz which have wavelengths of 33 centimeters and 11.7 centimeters respectively. Gamma rays have wavelengths of less than one trillionth of a meter (1/10¹²) and frequencies of 10²⁰ to 10²⁴ Hertz.
Just a note; A Black Hole isn't a vacuum, it isn't sucking things up as it wanders Spacetime. It's a weight that drags things that get to close down into the dark, kicking and screaming.
Love this, blows the mind
4:40 According to a recent study Big Crunch or Big Bounce is likely, but in a very far future. All I remember they observed distant galaxies and got 0.8 for a constant which should have been more than 1.0. So the expansion should be slowing already, but instead it's accelerating because of the mysterious Dark Energy. So it could be after all stars die out, all black holes explode (Hawking radiation), after all black dwarves explode (quantum tunneling fusion), in a universe full of decaying cold matter and photons or maybe sometimes after the time itself dies to the Heat Death.
But again, these theories involve quantum mechanics, timescales of "forever" and science which is still being researched and I work in IT, not astrophysics, so take it with a grain of salt.
Okay, I was wondering, how strong is Planck Stars Gravity, It is finite right? What is it gravitational acceleration?
minor correction: there are no evaporating black holes today, as even the cosmic microwave background radiation alone is enough to sustain them. it won't be until nearly all stars have died out before black holes start evaporating.
Technically speaking, there are probably numerous evaporated black holes already. When scientists talk about it taking 10¹⁰⁰ years, that is for the largest of the supermassive black holes to finally fizzle away. Not all black holes are supermassive, although they're the only type we have been able to detect. Theoretically, micro black holes should also be common in the universe, evaporating within minutes or even seconds, too brief of a time for an astronomer to observe.
The point is all black holes are in a contiuous state of evaporation but the larger they become the slower the process
Neat!
If you boil some water in a pan and keep adding new water to it that doesn't mean the water suddenly isn't evaporating anymore... ^^;
Wouldn't the event horizon just expand as the Planck star grew in size/mass? Especially since mass rises faster than volume?
oh my god it’s another Chanel to add to my Simon collection
At 11:53 the virtual particle pairs are depicted as attractive, they spring into existence, collide and annihilate each other.
Why do they become repulsive at the Event Horizon? I understand the half inside the EH cannot escape but the EH isn’t a physical barrier. Why doesn’t the half outside the EH follow its pair into the black hole? What force is pushing it away?
Really..a new channel... my goodness.
There is nothing "Inside" a black hole except extremely tightly packed mass. The reason they are called black holes is because the mass creates a gravity well so extreme that even photons of light becomes trapped in orbit. You don't get that gravity if it's hollow.
Planks Stars aren't even a theory in the scientific sense, they are a hypothesis. Although one, that is we can test, would greatly expand our knowledge of black holes and the cosmos as a whole.
If the plan star's mass and size grows from adding more more material into it, wouldn't the event horizon grow proportionally as well, so the plank star surface would never reach the event horizon?
Great video as always, Simon. But (and it happens to all of us), you misspeak starting at about 1:40. You say "electron" when you meant to say "photon".
This is absolutely dope.
Event horizon is just a concentric sphere around a black hole, where the escape velocity equals the speed of light. Even if there is a planck star inside, how would that prevent the existence of event horizon?
Exactly
1:27 An electron is not electromagnetic radiation. A high frequency electron is not a gamma ray. A low frequency electron is not a radiowave.
1:27 "take the frequency of an electron" why said that? was it ai made, though dramatic effect of sound while saying black hole, still instead of photon calling it electron and its frequency as Electromagnetic wave frequency
did they not clear up that it does not destroy information with some kind of surface area increase
then also singularity is in the future of an object falling in to particle, which is weird, like all objects have a different futures or even each particle from accretion disk?
though i wonder why would it take in negative particle, why can it not just emit positive? if gravity then it should absorb both. also from outside it would seem positive out
human point, how he looks and how she looks or at least in the photos? did they do anything, i used to not thinking like that but after exposure to relationships work in USA and Europe , i wonder
How do you get gamma rays in the 2.1Ghz range?
Simon really the goat
we all came to life in an ongoing slow motion explosion
Well I learnt something new about Planck Stars.
The claim that virtual particles always and only one side falls in and the other is emitted as hawking radiation implies the black hole influences the direction of the creation and separation of the virtual particle where as virtual particles are forming all around us right now so avoiding violations of thermodynamics both negative and positive should be on either side of the event horizon
That's because the explanation they use in this video is both rudimentary and fundamentally flawed. The charge of the virtual particle is irrelevant and in reality there would be an equal number of both positive and negative particles. In fact that's not even right because what the explanation he's referring to is the particle/anti-particle pair, not the electric charge. What is really the point is that the energy of the particle that escapes from just outside the event horizon (not from within, that's still impossible) has to come from somewhere and where it comes from is the black hole's mass. But even THEN that's far too simplistic an explanation and to be frank I don't fully understand the full breadth of it. But it has to do with quantum fields interacting with the event horizon or how they bend around the black hole. PBS Space Time has a video on it and I've not been able to wrap my head around it enough to retain the info frankly.
If I reverse the big bang. Is it 10 2da minus +. & 60yrs 4mi?
I'm just glad there's no one here who is going to debate the existence of anything 😅😅😅
Conservation of information isn't a tenet of General Relativity; it's a tenet of Quantum Mechanics, so... gaping hole in the theory of Quantum Mechanics should be the line, along with a few others. ;) Otherwise, good job so far at 7:06!
"Billions of years" doesn't even beginn to describe the time it takes for a large (~solar mass) black hole to evaporate, and the larger they are the longer it takes.
13:10 Did you mean to say 10 to the minus 14th centimeters? Because there is no such thing as a gamma ray with a wavelength of 10 to 14 cm.
A Planck star actually makes sense, since it is the pixel of the universe. And since it is a "black hole" or a Planck star, then it can only have Planck density, which would be exactly the density you would need so that only information/"photons" gets out, anything less wouldn't make it. The max density and gravity so that only internal universe processes can communicate out of it. And those just enough, it is the limit. This would be the so called "Hawkings radiation". A singularity would be some kind of overflow of information into that pixel, and I guess that can't happen, the whole universe would crash just like a computer program would. I actually like the computer metaphor applied to the universe, even if simplistic and not to be taken literally, it kinda makes sense.
Wouldn't the event horizon - which is just the point at which measurement by light breaks down due to gravity - grow along with the addition of mass to the Planck star? Proportionally, even?
It's a common misconception that nothing can be smaller than the plank scale, however that's not really what the mathematics says. It's just the smallest MEASURABLE length due to uncertainty
Planck Stars is also the name of a five-member Japanese idol girl group from Hiroshima. They made their debut in 2018 and reached mainstream in 2021. Their music is a mix of Rock and electronic dance music.
me: what is planck star?
chat gpt: planck star is a girl group based in the event horizon of a black hole.
Hey! Knock that off! I might need those brain cells for something important someday!
If it's not actually an event horizon around a planck star, would there actually be any Hawking radiation or would that idea now become redundant?
The pressure - gravity is so great, that nothing can be there.
10:35 - "...just a theory"
That kind of wording is what causes laymen to dismiss the theories of Evolution and Big Bang as mere speculation.
LoL, this guy is everywhere.
Ah, so that's what those things are called. I always had this concept in my head of something inside a black hole that's actually a weird starlike object.
OK 14 year old me just jumped for joy,
I asked my old physics teacher, What if a Black hole is just that a hole, and once it's consumed enough Matter to equal the amount of Matter the original Star had it vanishes having been filled in.
he laughed and said It was a stupid idea.
while not exactly the Same, this is a small win.
Its honestly always mystified me why we didnt always assume this was the case, why we dont assume black holes are quarks and gluons forced into each other like electrons into neutrons in a neutron star
Wait. "The Big Crunch" scenario has been found to be unlikely due to new findings that show the universe will likely expand forever. So the entire premise being postulated here falls apart. Feel free to correct me.
10:35 wouldn't it be just a "hypothesis" and not a "theory"?
How can the Planck star grow to reach the event horizon if the horizon itself expands when mass falls inside the black hole?
Riddle me this batman- if you try and pull two quarks apart- the gluonic forces that hold them together grows stronger- and if you continue to pull and eventually overcome this bond- the amount of energy created by the snap- immediately creates two new quarks and now you have 2 pairs. And if you pull those apart- you just keep making quarks. So- if a pair of quarks falls across the event horizon, the tidal force will tear them apart like everything else- but wouldn't this lead to the quarks eventually eating the gravitational energy of the blackhole- leaving nothing but a massive ball of quark soup or something? Have we found a way to kill a black hole- just toss a pair of quarks into it?
I have my own hypothesis about the structure of the universe, according to which the universe is discrete at a very fine level, so there exist a maximal density. And thus, there is indeed something like a planck star in every black hole - simply a ball of matter with the that maximal density.
This guy has so many UA-cam channels he could make his own streaming platform that I would certainly pay for. lol
Very interesting topic but when we try to explain Planck Stars we should also explain why the Planck quantum is the smallest quantum possible and why that leads to a mass-collapse-result of a minimum-diameter star which is bigger than zero, and then we should be able to describe better what happens between the Planck Star surface and the black hole event horizon.
With an object that massive, effectively, sending matter and energy into the future, it would be somewhat like a spring of ancient water in a desert. Resources from the distant past are available to use and sustain life (or useful existence in this metaphor) in an oasis from emptiness.
Realy I like this video so much its interestyng
It's estimated that Sagittarius A* at the center of The Milky Way will take 10⁸⁷ years to evaporate
Pressure at the Middle:
As you go down a mine, the force of gravity on you decreases: there is more and more Earth above you, pulling upward on you.
By the time you rach the middle, the net force of gravity is zero. You're under no pressure.
Blackhole lifespans are directly correlated to their mass. Smaller black holes would last fractions of a second while larger ones last billions of years, yet at the same time they all have the exact same lifespan from their perspective.
How is that possible? Simple really, imagine a bucket with a big hole in it and a really sloppily placed patch. The less water in the bucket the worse the patch works. If you somehow fill the bucket up it's basically a fixed bucket that never empties, however anything less than that and the bucket simply empties out. The more water that leaves the bucket the faster it continues to leave.
So why is their perspective different? That happens because mass is time. With out mass, there is no time, the more mass, the more time. Time being a motion in space, without an object there is no motion to have. The larger mass things move slower from our perspective because they gather time like a funnel gathering all the water around them. Big funnel, more time it sucks up, little funnel, the less time it sucks up. Big things age slower because they are bigger, and that mass eats up all the time around it.
That being said there are always exceptions, primordial black holes are essentially buckets which never had holes, that have existed since the dawn of our universe. They are infinitely small buggers that flit about doing random quantum things which would boggle your mind all because they can. Just like the cheeky little brats they are. Since they have no holes to leak from, this makes them all but undetectable by our present methods, since with nothing leaking out, we can't spot them.
If only we had an infinite probability drive.
That’s crazy people came up with this