I know this is probably a stupid question… but why exactly are the electric and magnetic field related to each other? And are photons released when a magnet exists, similar to how photons are released due to an electric field?
What will happen (after gazillions of time) when the expansion of the universe between quantum particles is faster than c? (inside or outside a black hole)
Thank you for this video. It might seem random, but this video has reignited my motivation to learn about QM and GR. It's been 5 long years of self-teaching
there's no other kind, sir... education is not something someone else does to us... it is what we do to satisfy our own curiosity 😉 the word is autodidactic
your videos are great-and as someone who bears the Hawking surname, a screencap of "Hawking paradox: Hairy black holes" is heading straight for my Facebook cover photo album :)
Parth, thanks. The paper [1] is fascinating, and your presentation [2] on it was insightful. My immediate reaction was: Not hair, _holography_ [3][4]. The authors noticed this also since they mentioned holography three times. Holography emerges via the Fourier relationship between the complementary spatial and momentum wave function descriptions of the black hole, representing the same information in different forms. The vast and ever-expanding light cone of each infalling particle encodes its state holographically. As with an ordinary hologram, this information spreads over a large and intensively shared volume of space and matter but is never lost. The Calmet, Casadio, Hsu, and Kuipers (CCH&K) paper may be more radical than it sounds. The first and still-ongoing round of holographic cosmology proposals began when Gerard 't Hooft [5] asserted by fiat that black hole event horizons may consist of an effectively infinite number of Planck-scale bits with perfect memories. All actual instances of bits have non-trivial mass-energy costs and are quantum-impossible to make perfect, so this was at best an assumption made from a lack of understanding of the nature of real memory. Furthermore, associating the holographic process only with inaccessible phenomena undermined recognition of the profound universality of the complementary space and momentum view of the cosmos at multiple energy levels. Notice, however, that CCH&K just proposed the _opposite_ holographic scenario from that of 't Hooft and others. In CCH&K, the black hole is, for all practical purposes, _encoded_ by the ordinary mass and energy of some vast volume of space surrounding it. Now that is a nicely radical concept! Why? Well, for one thing, since the space around the black hole encodes _all_ available information on the black hole, the black hole no longer has an independent existence from its surrounding encoding. Black holes become little more than holographic projections created by the rest of the universe. While I find that image insightful, deeply intriguing, and delightfully funny, others may not react that way. Why intriguing? Because it's likely to be predictive. For example, CCH&K may have just accidentally proposed an explanation for why giant black holes only seem to occur in the center of large galaxies. Only a large galaxy has enough mass and energy to encode such a supermassive hole. Now there's a fun thought for further exploration! The second point is that all holographic images are _blurry._ They have a finite resolution that depends on encoding their information in the surrounding "emulsion" of spacetime. If you are a big fan of using Planck scale ideas to merge all forces into a unified force, even supermassive black holes cannot access such extreme energies. Since 2019, I've tended to refer to this kind of matter-based encoding as a "soft holographic" interpretation of the universe versus "hard holographic" approaches that use an inexplicably infinite-memory external brane. A soft holographic view - a holographic cosmos in which available mass-energy limits low-end resolution - profoundly impacts topics such as quantum uncertainty. A full elaboration of such ideas impacts several fundamental physics math assumptions, such as how superpositions work. Finally: What gravitons? Since no mathematically self-consistent formulation of gravitons exists, why should the paper get a free pass here? Fortunately, there are other paths to quantizing gravity, so I don't think this is a killer issue for now. So: Great paper, great idea, but likely more radical in impact than it might seem. Comment by Terry Bollinger, 2022-04-12.22;54 Tue, CC BY 4.0. PDF available at [6]. [1] X. Calmet, R. Casadio, S. D. Hsu, and F. Kuipers, _Quantum Hair from Gravity._ Physical Review Letters 128, 11 (2022). journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.111301 [2] Parth-G, _Hawking Paradox FINALLY Resolved? Hairy Black Holes + Information Loss EXPLAINED._ Parth-G (UA-cam) 2022-04-12 (2022). ua-cam.com/video/fib9GSbAGDM/v-deo.html [3] T. Bollinger, _A Soft-Holographic Universe Avoids Pure-State Infinities._ Backreaction 2019-10-22 (2019). backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/10/what-is-quantum-measurement-problem.html?showComment=1571769683260#c7930525230595066624 [4] T. Bollinger, _The Universe as a Self-Encoding Dual Denisyuk Hologram._ Backreaction 2021-03-31 (2021). backreaction.blogspot.com/2021/03/is-universe-really-hologram.html?showComment=1617226571494#c4195291181306303905 [5] G. 't Hooft, _Dimensional Reduction in Quantum Gravity._ arXiv Preprint Gr-Qc/9310026 (1993). arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9310026 [6] T. Bollinger, _A quick assessment of the paper 'Quantum Hair from Gravity'._ Parth-G (UA-cam) comment on 2022-04-12 (2022). UA-cam comment: ua-cam.com/video/fib9GSbAGDM/v-deo.html&lc=UgybRg3LhRjXn03Xmp94AaABAg PDF version of comment: sarxiv.org/pth.2022-04-12.2254.pdf
Absolute hats off to you for writing such a behemoth of a comment AND providing sources. Those ideas are very interesting, especially the CCH&K proposal. Still, wouldn't it fall into the same blunder of Hooft when it comes to not having enough information to devise a concise theory? For instance, assuming that black holes are encoded by their surroundings would, as you have said, imply that those would have a much higher probability of appearing in the center of galaxies. That being said, the discovery of a black hole of good size in intergalactic space, or even in a void, would contradict the theory. The thing is, the instruments for visualizing black holes are still very dependant on their surroundings, making lone black holes a thing we can't still observe. Could observing one of those such lone black holes be damaging to the theory? I would very much like to have a comment of yours on this matter, since you appear to be very knowledgeable on the subject. Thank you.
@@luizftavaresthanks for the thoughtful feedback, it is much appreciated. Could the CCH&K _holographic image_ model of black holes fall into the same trap that Gerard 't Hooft wandered into? Great question and the answer is yes. The biggest risk is that CCH&K based their model on assumptions about gravitons. Gravitons have no experimental basis and are not mathematically self-consistent even after decades of attempts. It's not possible to give definitive answers on available information densities without a more specific and cogent model of how gravity works at such extremely weak levels. Despite hundreds or perhaps thousands of papers attempting to quantize gravity, that level of understanding of gravity is still not available. On your second point, yes, finding massive blackholes _outside_ of galaxies would place experimental constraints on any variant of the CCH&K holographic model. But it can be more nuanced, and also more interesting, than just either-or discoveries. Particularly with a lot of new telescopes coming in line both now and in the near future, additional data on the distribution of black hole sizes and surrounding masses could provide detailed constraints on how black holes interact holographically -- that is, via momentum space -- with surrounding regions of less dense and less extreme space and matter. I've run across a few papers on how gravity might interact with momentum space. However, considering how fundamental momentum space is to quantum mechanics, it's an oddly sparse topic. The CCH&K holographic idea might help crack open more theoretical exploration of how momentum space and gravity interact by subjecting such theories to significant observational constraints. [2022-04-13.11;20 Wed]
Addendum: All versions of holographic physics ultimately depend on the Fourier equivalence of particle wave functions in xyz space and momentum space. That means if holographic models apply to electrons falling into black holes, they also apply to electrons floating in space. Interpreting Schrodinger wave functions as holographic images helps explain why they can be difficult to pin down: sarxiv.org/apa.2022-04-21.pdf pages 20-22 (slides 19-21).
TY 6:13 _"It implies that information can be completely destroyed from the universe & we have no idea where it goes & there's no way whatsoever to recover it, whereas most physics theories do not agree that this should be possible at all."_ Why do they think it's impossible? I often forget things & there's no way to recover the information. It's no big deal.
Thank you for bring trending and doing video about current investigations in physics. I recently saw that paper being published but i completely forgot about it until i saw your video.
A cool coverage of black hole information theory is by Tom Hartman, videos found on YT either for a lecture series, or a 3-lecture trilogy given at a conference. They're I think accessible to those with good QFT background. The resolution seems so simple lol
Very interesting, but... at very far distances, wouldn't the gravitational effect of a black hole (or anything) end up being smaller than the Plank length?
I guess it could still be measured by exposing whatever sensor they use for a long time. Think about it like they way Hubble can detect stars that are too far for photons to hit it, but with enough exposure magically appear in the lenses.
can you see what's behind the BH? The light of the back side can tell something what's on the "other side" ? Don't forget light is a information carrier
I was wondering about this. Simulations of colliding black holes do not address internal mass distribution when the resulting singular black hole reforms into a sphere. These black holes should have internal structure like accretion disks, resulting in oblong shaped Schwarzschild boundaries. In other words, there should be gravitational hair that rapidly resolved. We’ll get there one day. Thank you Parth.
Don’t we already lose information when we consider anything that has already fallen? How can we tell from which height and what way did something fell from its already fallen state?
Not a physicist, but can something which absorbs light flowing into it, give away heat in radiation? Is the “hair” in the “hairy” merely matter which “bounces off” from the edge of the event horizon? Great video. Came round it first time and highly impressed!
1. Does physics have a principle of the conservation of information? 2. If the force of gravity is mediated by exchange of gravitons, which travel at the speed of light, and the mass of the black hole resides within the event horizon, how do the gravitons get out of the black hole? Does this mean that the graviton theory is wrong?
I've heard many times in videos that in (normal GR) black holes, all mass would be concentrated in the center at the singularity, lately from reliable sources such as PBS spacetime. I have actually thought about this statement and don't find it so clear. Now you start your video, saying we have no way of knowing a black hole's mass distribution 1:43. Maybe you could clarify how you (or the authors of the literature you've read) come to that conclusion. From studying GR myself, the mass distribution within the black hole was just not discussed. You derive the Schwarzschild metric and study geodesics outside and inside the event horizon to better understand what's going on in that spacetime. In the metric, you actually just have a free parameter R_S, the Schwarzschild radius, which you identify in terms of mass M by matching the Newtonian limit. You can then show that M corresponds to the Komar energy integral, i.e. it is the total energy of that spacetime. But at no point of the discussion, it is relevant how M is distributed. However, when I thought about it, since the singularity is in your future and you can't avoid hitting it, it started making sense to me that all mass sits at the center, unless something had just passed the event horizon and is still on its way towards the singularity. Now you make me question my thoughts on this topic. Is it even relevant for the information loss paradox where the mass sits? You could construct the same argument of losing the information what has made the hole if all mass sits at the center, no? Btw, if all mass/energy does sit at the center, how is energy even transfered to the outside in the form of Hawking radiation, can't be a local process then?! I think I have to study Hawking radiation as well.
I do not presume to know the answer to this question. However I do know that not all black holes are distant: I work with some. They bear an uncanny resemblance to humans (they have hair for example), but I know they are actually black holes because: 1. Their density approaches infinity. 2. No one knows, or can ever know, what goes on inside their heads. 3. No information, such as useful feedback or a viable idea, ever escapes from them. 4. Their existence is an unsolvable paradox: they receive a paycheck, but produce no discernible value. If you are interested in studying such an object, let me know and I’ll refer you to one.
Heads up I am not a physicist but my thoughts on this is why must information be preserved in a Black Hole? There are lots of situations on Earth where information is lost e.g. cremation of the last family member or a homeless person - all the information relating to that person disappears or it just gets transmuted into another form which makes the information unretrievable from the dust that's left. Perhaps we should consider the information in the same way as energy. it changes into another form or even just pure energy which then creates the Hawkin Radiation and therefore cannot be traced back to the actual source that fell into the black hole. Perhaps a video on information and what it actually means from a physicist's point of view would be good.
Well, the assumptions of the paper seems to be quite strong, like being able to model the bh with a wavefunction and the existence of gravitons....gotta give it a good read asap
Namaste 🙏 tashi delek please allow me to ask a few questions... and examine the answers I've come up with... my dad built nuclear weapons for the US when I was born... he obtained his undergraduate degree from Berkeley and Lawrence Labs... after WW2... he helped build the scaffolding for the first weapon in 1945... two masters in reactor physics after I came along. . I learned simple calculus when I was 3 with the laws of motion.. throwing a ball, he described the arc... the acceleration... over time.. both as a continuous motion.. and incrementally... any time someone on television mentioned those letters... UFO... I got the relativity equations... so I have a pretty clear idea of how they work... as mass accelerates it gains mass through the auspices of kinetic energy ... at light speed the mass becomes infinite and it takes infinite energy to move infinite mass ok? so... an event horizon is said to be the point at which the stuff falling in passes light speed but only one can be true reality is one or the other... not both I'm going with Einstein
there are other issues with the idea of a black hole... or a big bang the observation, and theory of the fusion in stars is in agreement stars.. no matter how big... even the largest blue giant... cannot fuse elements above iron... the energy of gravity against the outward pressure of fusion and the most fundamental force in physics... two things with the same energy cannot occupy the same space... the combination of the inward and outward forces is an equilibrium that is maintained until all the hydrogen has fused into helium ... in blue giants they collapse and go nova... or supernova.. only supernova have sufficient energy to fuse elements above iron... these are well known quantities ... and they agree with spectrum analysis of stars... my dad said it takes 4 generations to create all the elements of the periodic table... I checked the math... From Bohr and Dirac among others... their math is good. . and this allows accurate predictions using Feynman diagrams in the physics of the nucleus of an atom... stars can only get to a certain maximum size... because of this equilibrium otherwise like a nucleus with insufficient number of neutrons... they won't stay together... they have no... duration which is why we don't find any the big bang was invented by a catholic priest ... promptly after Edwin Hubble found other galaxies moving around in relationship to our own motion along the Sagittarius arm of our own galaxy .. in Hubble deep space images... I develop with Snapseed.. an HDR application that gives an order of magnitude more information at each iteration.. by giving smaller and smaller units of information >> 4 iterations brings units of information small enough to get near and far infrared and ultraviolet... as well as visible light * the colors of the galaxies indicates relative motion red moves away... blue moves toward... green, yellow and orange move tangent to our own motion... and absolutely everything is going round and round... in spirals... like Richard Feynman said... the Universe is screwy...;;~} they are all mixed together... like Michaelson and Morely told us in the 1890s... there is no preferred direction this can be seen in all Hubble deep space images... a big bang would be like an 💥 explosion... there would be a preferred direction the idea that our lovely Universe began some finite Time in the past... and... that is all the stuff we will ever get... came from a believer in invisible guys.. or guy.. and.. that is definitely what is needed to overcome the physics of fusion but I'm what the Dalai Lama calls a non believer... and I don't believe in magic
space is ==>> the distance between two things it requires neither making... nor a beginning and end * quantum foam was proposed in 1957, and experimentally verified in 1964.. and my laboratory the past few years * at the Planck length level the Universe is no longer flat.. it seethes with sub quark and quark sized particles... from the passage of light from two sources of sufficient energy through vacuum the vacuum between atoms and the vacuum between stars is exactly the same.. and new particles pop in and out of existence continuously... an up and down quark are the combination of the waveforms from two sources... they have a sort of built-in up and down, eh? hydrogen atoms have one thing none of the rest have.... duration ☯️ and.. I'm pretty sure we are counting the same thing twice in the case of 2 up and a down quark.. because I am also pretty sure the electrons are firmly attached.. even though we can't see the attachment mechanism... the higher and lower energy waveforms begin chasing each other round and round.. in a vortex.. vortices store energy.. at exactly E = Mc² they pull things towards the center with a force that diminishes at the inverse square of the distance from the center the two adjacent vortices are.. sequential Fibonacci sequence numbers... from which we derive the golden ratio hydrogen atoms are created continuously...* all the Time... all around us... that's what creates Time.. because a hydrogen atom lasts forever ♾️ and they form one at a Time... in an infinite Universe each one creates a little more Space this is where Space-Time comes from no magic required if you don't see the math... it's not science... it's just blah blah blah the math is easy... it's just 1.. 2... 3.... the Universe is growing... one hydrogen atom at a Time... along the Fibonacci sequence, as all populations do the Planck length is calculated using a number we use for the golden ratio... the ratio of sequential Fibonacci sequence numbers... 1.6169 (10-³⁵) it's actually a variable irrational number between 1.5 and less than 1.7 that's why the Universe is fractal... self similar shapes at all scales the Fibonacci sequence is a non linear growth ... the next number is the sum of the previous 2... that's why we have detected more growth over Time.. it's not magic... there's more stuff to make more stuff... that's why Time flows in one direction... it can't go backwards.. because there's too much stuff now you know... about half of an actual theory of everything... I'm in a wheelchair too... but... hopefully.. not for long... We create our future with our thoughts and ideas... our words and deeds your mind has a direct influence on the creation of the Universe, which is, as I've shown you... an ongoing event Namaste==>> means >> I recognize the Creator (s) in you Namaste brothers and sisters Go in Peace ✌️
I'm probably just reaching for a connection but is there any relation to the hairy ball theorem from within math? There the hairs are tangent vectors. Are these hairs also tangent vectors in some sense?
How can something in the space-time once was a physical real object can suddenly dissapear from that point and time if it crosses a certain density making a huge hole in the space-time fabric?
Would you please explain how does Einstein's E=MC² works? I know what does it mean But how mass concerts into energy. What is difference between mass and energy. Is there anything changes in building of particles? I don't understand it I know the meaning but don't understand it
That's true, if you consider the time-dilation calc based on temperature, if say the internal temperature was 100 million degrees Celsius then the time-dilation factor is (100,000,000/5)^2 seconds observed for one second in the black hole. The other thing that needs to be taken into consideration is the expanding space red-shift of the photons being exhibited, which is the same time-dilation factor, meaning, that if the black hole has achieved stability (an extremely long time required, which for a single particle takes one second in it's temp/weight space) that is will stop exhibiting energetic particles altogether and become invisible to our observational space and start looking like empty space. But the deeper particle mass is still there and will have an aperture back to the 0 degree space, that is so time dilated that it will "kiss" or exhibit the negative gravity reactions of the expanding big bang. ;-)
The easiest way to resolve the paradox is to realize that black holes aren't real as they cannot form from the perspective of an outside observer due to gravitational time dilation halting the collapse. What we actually see are shell collapsars which have no singularities nor event horizons, and thus the paradox can never arise.
It loses mass due to the "Cooling" effect of the Hawking radiation, in other words it is walking towards temperature stability which in our observable Universe means it now expresses in our space as zero or "no" temperature and mass.
@@MrLidless Yes absolutely, just stably and less than Planck, on it's way towards the big bang but exhibiting red-shifted gravity and temperature ~0ºC, i.e the stable space we live in on top of the big bang itself.
Why are they concerned about information loss when any measurement in quantum mechanics does lead to loss of information due to the wavefunction collapse (in one interpretation at least)? Nobody was ever concerned about loss of information due to a measurement but for some reason it is a big problem when it comes to black holes. Why?
A black hole is comprised of a lot of particles. I highly doubt their wave-function would suddenly stop at an event horizon. My guess is we could find out what's inside by studying what transpires through the event horizon.
Somehow this new argument is flawed. For one thing, it is already agreed that there is Hawking radiation. Wouldn't studying the black hole far away would be studying this radiation? This "hair"? Personally I think black holes are objects that happen when all charge is absent. Question is what would make charge disappear? Btw, I think your videos are a great service to physics. Keep up the good work!
I am working on a hypothesis of mine which shows how one can derive the quantized Eigenstates of particles beyond event horizons using the black hole surface area. If anyone wants to talk about the idea feel free to ask here.
Great series! You rock ! Sorry to be pest but... Dirac large numbers ...why? BECAUSE a proton is a black hole of sorts. The smallest possible. A single photon caught over own gravity/tail. And because positive charge is convergence and negative charge is divergence the ratio of the tiniest black hole to the spatial boundary it inhabits, the electron cloud, is the same as that of the observable universe mass to size of observable universe. They are both fundamentally ruled by gravity. And the charge of the proton is DERIVED FROM its convergence. The convergence of space it causes.
Using "gravitons" and "requires no new physics" is a contradiction given the existence of gravitons requires a new physics, specifically some form of quantum gravity.
Having only recently learned that we use difference in the earth's gravitionnal field to make informed guesses about the content of the crust at locations we are interested in, i'm surprised to learn that we might be able to do that, although needing to look a lot harder in the fabric of space, for black holes, i guess showing the deformation as "smooth" when representing the gravitational field of heavy objects as a distorded 2d grid, hides that reality. Completely unrelated, but for a non-physist like me, the idea that we can destroy information seems kind of obvious, hinting at maybe the simplification being a bit misleading, i mean, if i burn two books, i get two piles of hashes, and nobody is going to be able to tell me which had the content of "war an peace" and which had "pride and prejudice", the information of the text has been lost, we might be able to know about the ratio of ink to paper, and over interesting facts about the pile of hashes, but it's not going to give us back the text, if we see the black hole as a pile of hashes, no matter how it came to be, i'm not shocked to learn that we can't know what it was before. Quite an interesting short video anyway :).
The difference here is more that you know the specific atoms that made up the books, whereas a black hole that had 1 hydrogen atom fall into it would appear the same as a black hole that had a photon(s) of the same energy as the hydrogen atom fall in. You can't find out what makes the black hole. Yes, the books lose their written information, but that's just what humans have made up.
@@liammargetts ok, so not only we don’t know the arrangement of the matter that fell into the black hole, we don’t even know the kind of matter, only the quantity of energy it would convert through e=mc², or whatever version of the equation that works in this weird bit of spacetime, if we can even call that. That’s an useful distinction, thanks.
*Time stops* at the event horizon due to reaching limits of *gravitational time dilation* causing *quantum state* of falling particles to *freeze* at the horizon and never really falling-through/crossing it. Here the default observer/clock is outside the Blackhole event horizon (and not with the falling particle). This is why *all entropy* is at the *surface* (outside) and not in the volume of a Blackhole. Charged (non-zero) or non-spinning Blackholes are both *ONLY theoretical* in nature. GR+QM unification requires a *beginners mind* since most of QM/GR innovation is decades (close to century) old, with a very tiny percentage of modern innovation, that remotely deviates from conventional thinking.
But, gravity is not a fundamental force of the Universe, it is topologically emergent from the mass gradient effect on time. I can see how intra-event horizon properties can be gleaned from the distant topological measurements of space time.
A common misconception... there is no mass inside a black hole so its pointless to talk about how it's distributed. The mass has been converted into the curvature surrounding the singularity. Kip Thorne gives a very good description of this on UA-cam.
What was missing was a description of the information that went missing. If people were to look at pictures of explosions... would they be able to describe exactly what was blown up?
yeah, i was thinking something similar, we destroy information all the time, i suspect the simplification is a bit misleading, and some more fundamental type of information is being lost, but it's hard to imagine what.
A solution without needing a brand new physics theory --> mentions gravitons 😐 (not yet proven to exist, and as factual as any "new" physics). Btw, I'm not attacking the messenger here, but the message itself.
According to Einstein singularities (black holes) are not possible. Wherever you have an astronomical quantity of mass "dilation" (sometimes called gamma or y) will occur. Mass that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside observer. General relativity does not predict singularities when you factor in dilation. Einstein repeatedly spoke about this, thats why nobody believed in black holes when he was alive. He wrote about this in the 1939 journal "Annals of Mathematics". There is no place in the universe where mass is more concentrated than at the center of a galaxy. 99.8% of the mass in our solar system is in the sun. 99.9% of the mass of an atom are in the nucleus. If these norms are true for galaxies than we can infer that there is 100's of trillions of solar masses at the center of high mass galaxies. There is no way to know through observation, there is far too much interference, dilation and gravitational lensing. High mass means high momentum. If we attribute a radius to these numbers than we can calculate that relativistic velocities exist in these regions. The mass at the center of our own galaxy is dilated. In some sublime way that mass is all around us, there is no direction you can point your finger that you are not pointing to it. This is the explanation for the abnormally high rotation rates of stars in high mass galaxies (the reason for the theory of dark matter). There is no "mystery" mass there is just mass at differing degrees of dilation. Low mass galaxies (some galaxies can appear to be low mass but can have high mass at the center) have normal star rotation rates, this is what relativity would predict because there is an insufficient quantity of mass for relativistic velocities to be achieved. This is proof that Einstein is correct, there can be no other explanation for this fact. Einstein formulated relativity before the existence of galaxies was known. It is clear that the mass is dilated through the galaxy and not the universe as a whole. It exists everywhere and every when the galaxy has been. It is the cosmic backround radiation. Black holes and dark matter do not exist, all images and data from galactic centers is in line with relativity.
I don't see where is the paradoxe, why the information should be conserved or why any physical process should be reversible, this is obviously not the case. Nature is full of irreversible process , Black hole evaporation is one of them.
Hi everyone, thanks for watching! As always, please let me know what other topics to cover in future videos :)
Could you make a video on the holographic principle?
@@p.g.bharadwaj8545 I'll have to learn more about it first but I'll add it to my list - thanks for the recommendation!
I know this is probably a stupid question… but why exactly are the electric and magnetic field related to each other? And are photons released when a magnet exists, similar to how photons are released due to an electric field?
What will happen (after gazillions of time) when the expansion of the universe between quantum particles is faster than c? (inside or outside a black hole)
Please make a video on time travelling
Thank you for this video. It might seem random, but this video has reignited my motivation to learn about QM and GR. It's been 5 long years of self-teaching
there's no other kind, sir... education is not something someone else does to us... it is what we do to satisfy our own curiosity 😉
the word is
autodidactic
Same 🙌
your videos are great-and as someone who bears the Hawking surname, a screencap of "Hawking paradox: Hairy black holes" is heading straight for my Facebook cover photo album :)
Parth, thanks. The paper [1] is fascinating, and your presentation [2] on it was insightful. My immediate reaction was: Not hair, _holography_ [3][4]. The authors noticed this also since they mentioned holography three times. Holography emerges via the Fourier relationship between the complementary spatial and momentum wave function descriptions of the black hole, representing the same information in different forms. The vast and ever-expanding light cone of each infalling particle encodes its state holographically. As with an ordinary hologram, this information spreads over a large and intensively shared volume of space and matter but is never lost.
The Calmet, Casadio, Hsu, and Kuipers (CCH&K) paper may be more radical than it sounds.
The first and still-ongoing round of holographic cosmology proposals began when Gerard 't Hooft [5] asserted by fiat that black hole event horizons may consist of an effectively infinite number of Planck-scale bits with perfect memories. All actual instances of bits have non-trivial mass-energy costs and are quantum-impossible to make perfect, so this was at best an assumption made from a lack of understanding of the nature of real memory. Furthermore, associating the holographic process only with inaccessible phenomena undermined recognition of the profound universality of the complementary space and momentum view of the cosmos at multiple energy levels.
Notice, however, that CCH&K just proposed the _opposite_ holographic scenario from that of 't Hooft and others. In CCH&K, the black hole is, for all practical purposes, _encoded_ by the ordinary mass and energy of some vast volume of space surrounding it. Now that is a nicely radical concept!
Why? Well, for one thing, since the space around the black hole encodes _all_ available information on the black hole, the black hole no longer has an independent existence from its surrounding encoding. Black holes become little more than holographic projections created by the rest of the universe. While I find that image insightful, deeply intriguing, and delightfully funny, others may not react that way.
Why intriguing? Because it's likely to be predictive. For example, CCH&K may have just accidentally proposed an explanation for why giant black holes only seem to occur in the center of large galaxies. Only a large galaxy has enough mass and energy to encode such a supermassive hole. Now there's a fun thought for further exploration!
The second point is that all holographic images are _blurry._ They have a finite resolution that depends on encoding their information in the surrounding "emulsion" of spacetime. If you are a big fan of using Planck scale ideas to merge all forces into a unified force, even supermassive black holes cannot access such extreme energies.
Since 2019, I've tended to refer to this kind of matter-based encoding as a "soft holographic" interpretation of the universe versus "hard holographic" approaches that use an inexplicably infinite-memory external brane. A soft holographic view - a holographic cosmos in which available mass-energy limits low-end resolution - profoundly impacts topics such as quantum uncertainty. A full elaboration of such ideas impacts several fundamental physics math assumptions, such as how superpositions work.
Finally: What gravitons? Since no mathematically self-consistent formulation of gravitons exists, why should the paper get a free pass here? Fortunately, there are other paths to quantizing gravity, so I don't think this is a killer issue for now.
So: Great paper, great idea, but likely more radical in impact than it might seem.
Comment by Terry Bollinger, 2022-04-12.22;54 Tue, CC BY 4.0. PDF available at [6].
[1] X. Calmet, R. Casadio, S. D. Hsu, and F. Kuipers, _Quantum Hair from Gravity._ Physical Review Letters 128, 11 (2022).
journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.111301
[2] Parth-G, _Hawking Paradox FINALLY Resolved? Hairy Black Holes + Information Loss EXPLAINED._ Parth-G (UA-cam) 2022-04-12 (2022).
ua-cam.com/video/fib9GSbAGDM/v-deo.html
[3] T. Bollinger, _A Soft-Holographic Universe Avoids Pure-State Infinities._ Backreaction 2019-10-22 (2019).
backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/10/what-is-quantum-measurement-problem.html?showComment=1571769683260#c7930525230595066624
[4] T. Bollinger, _The Universe as a Self-Encoding Dual Denisyuk Hologram._ Backreaction 2021-03-31 (2021).
backreaction.blogspot.com/2021/03/is-universe-really-hologram.html?showComment=1617226571494#c4195291181306303905
[5] G. 't Hooft, _Dimensional Reduction in Quantum Gravity._ arXiv Preprint Gr-Qc/9310026 (1993). arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9310026
[6] T. Bollinger, _A quick assessment of the paper 'Quantum Hair from Gravity'._ Parth-G (UA-cam) comment on 2022-04-12 (2022).
UA-cam comment:
ua-cam.com/video/fib9GSbAGDM/v-deo.html&lc=UgybRg3LhRjXn03Xmp94AaABAg
PDF version of comment:
sarxiv.org/pth.2022-04-12.2254.pdf
Absolute hats off to you for writing such a behemoth of a comment AND providing sources.
Those ideas are very interesting, especially the CCH&K proposal. Still, wouldn't it fall into the same blunder of Hooft when it comes to not having enough information to devise a concise theory?
For instance, assuming that black holes are encoded by their surroundings would, as you have said, imply that those would have a much higher probability of appearing in the center of galaxies. That being said, the discovery of a black hole of good size in intergalactic space, or even in a void, would contradict the theory. The thing is, the instruments for visualizing black holes are still very dependant on their surroundings, making lone black holes a thing we can't still observe.
Could observing one of those such lone black holes be damaging to the theory?
I would very much like to have a comment of yours on this matter, since you appear to be very knowledgeable on the subject.
Thank you.
@@luizftavaresthanks for the thoughtful feedback, it is much appreciated.
Could the CCH&K _holographic image_ model of black holes fall into the same trap that Gerard 't Hooft wandered into? Great question and the answer is yes. The biggest risk is that CCH&K based their model on assumptions about gravitons. Gravitons have no experimental basis and are not mathematically self-consistent even after decades of attempts. It's not possible to give definitive answers on available information densities without a more specific and cogent model of how gravity works at such extremely weak levels. Despite hundreds or perhaps thousands of papers attempting to quantize gravity, that level of understanding of gravity is still not available.
On your second point, yes, finding massive blackholes _outside_ of galaxies would place experimental constraints on any variant of the CCH&K holographic model. But it can be more nuanced, and also more interesting, than just either-or discoveries. Particularly with a lot of new telescopes coming in line both now and in the near future, additional data on the distribution of black hole sizes and surrounding masses could provide detailed constraints on how black holes interact holographically -- that is, via momentum space -- with surrounding regions of less dense and less extreme space and matter.
I've run across a few papers on how gravity might interact with momentum space. However, considering how fundamental momentum space is to quantum mechanics, it's an oddly sparse topic. The CCH&K holographic idea might help crack open more theoretical exploration of how momentum space and gravity interact by subjecting such theories to significant observational constraints.
[2022-04-13.11;20 Wed]
Addendum: All versions of holographic physics ultimately depend on the Fourier equivalence of particle wave functions in xyz space and momentum space. That means if holographic models apply to electrons falling into black holes, they also apply to electrons floating in space. Interpreting Schrodinger wave functions as holographic images helps explain why they can be difficult to pin down:
sarxiv.org/apa.2022-04-21.pdf pages 20-22 (slides 19-21).
This channel deserves more! Keep it up
Excellent talk. I would like to see a talk specifically about Hawking radiation.
Hey Parth 👋 Loving your videos! You should do a collaborative video with Dr. Becky
TY 6:13 _"It implies that information can be completely destroyed from the universe & we have no idea where it goes & there's no way whatsoever to recover it, whereas most physics theories do not agree that this should be possible at all."_
Why do they think it's impossible? I often forget things & there's no way to recover the information. It's no big deal.
Destroyed is not the correct term, it is dimensionally removed or distant from our visible Universe because of Temperature.
Really love your channel and the way of your approach to concepts....simple and clear.
Thank you for bring trending and doing video about current investigations in physics. I recently saw that paper being published but i completely forgot about it until i saw your video.
You are doing well. You are have really influenced my life in physics.
I really appreciated this video. Very simple, yet fascinating. Thanks.
You genius physicist
Thanks for uploading
You should make more videos. And you should make playlists on ALL physics branches.
A cool coverage of black hole information theory is by Tom Hartman, videos found on YT either for a lecture series, or a 3-lecture trilogy given at a conference. They're I think accessible to those with good QFT background. The resolution seems so simple lol
Another great video!
Thank you!
Black holes may or may not have hair, but what is beyond dispute is that it's a very hairy question. Thank you, Parth, for another great video!
Excellent as always
Parth G has less hair now than last year but he continues to radiate as much information as before.
Very interesting, but... at very far distances, wouldn't the gravitational effect of a black hole (or anything) end up being smaller than the Plank length?
I guess it could still be measured by exposing whatever sensor they use for a long time. Think about it like they way Hubble can detect stars that are too far for photons to hit it, but with enough exposure magically appear in the lenses.
Yes
Thank you for the video.
Mr. Parth would you consider a video on eigenvectors, eigenvalues, eigenfunctions, eigenstates, eigenkets etc...?
If you have to go very far from the black hole to study the gravitons, why not just watch the light fronts from the time the black hole was forming?
can you see what's behind the BH? The light of the back side can tell something what's on the "other side" ? Don't forget light is a information carrier
I was wondering about this. Simulations of colliding black holes do not address internal mass distribution when the resulting singular black hole reforms into a sphere. These black holes should have internal structure like accretion disks, resulting in oblong shaped Schwarzschild boundaries. In other words, there should be gravitational hair that rapidly resolved. We’ll get there one day. Thank you Parth.
How to become a physicist and what we have to do after being a physicist🙏🏻
Please make a video on this🙏🏻
❣️I really love physics and universe
Don’t we already lose information when we consider anything that has already fallen? How can we tell from which height and what way did something fell from its already fallen state?
Please do Hawking Radiation and please include formulas
Not a physicist, but can something which absorbs light flowing into it, give away heat in radiation? Is the “hair” in the “hairy” merely matter which “bounces off” from the edge of the event horizon? Great video. Came round it first time and highly impressed!
1. Does physics have a principle of the conservation of information?
2. If the force of gravity is mediated by exchange of gravitons, which travel at the speed of light, and the mass of the black hole resides within the event horizon, how do the gravitons get out of the black hole? Does this mean that the graviton theory is wrong?
Thanks Parth for this. ❤.Your videos are so helpful.
"Btw I had a question, Do particle experience time"? In general?
was the sweater intentional?
Is there another link to the paper I can’t access it from the link 😔
But how gravitation wave escape the gravity of black hole
I've heard many times in videos that in (normal GR) black holes, all mass would be concentrated in the center at the singularity, lately from reliable sources such as PBS spacetime. I have actually thought about this statement and don't find it so clear. Now you start your video, saying we have no way of knowing a black hole's mass distribution 1:43. Maybe you could clarify how you (or the authors of the literature you've read) come to that conclusion.
From studying GR myself, the mass distribution within the black hole was just not discussed. You derive the Schwarzschild metric and study geodesics outside and inside the event horizon to better understand what's going on in that spacetime. In the metric, you actually just have a free parameter R_S, the Schwarzschild radius, which you identify in terms of mass M by matching the Newtonian limit. You can then show that M corresponds to the Komar energy integral, i.e. it is the total energy of that spacetime. But at no point of the discussion, it is relevant how M is distributed.
However, when I thought about it, since the singularity is in your future and you can't avoid hitting it, it started making sense to me that all mass sits at the center, unless something had just passed the event horizon and is still on its way towards the singularity.
Now you make me question my thoughts on this topic. Is it even relevant for the information loss paradox where the mass sits? You could construct the same argument of losing the information what has made the hole if all mass sits at the center, no? Btw, if all mass/energy does sit at the center, how is energy even transfered to the outside in the form of Hawking radiation, can't be a local process then?! I think I have to study Hawking radiation as well.
I do not presume to know the answer to this question. However I do know that not all black holes are distant: I work with some. They bear an uncanny resemblance to humans (they have hair for example), but I know they are actually black holes because:
1. Their density approaches infinity.
2. No one knows, or can ever know, what goes on inside their heads.
3. No information, such as useful feedback or a viable idea, ever escapes from them.
4. Their existence is an unsolvable paradox: they receive a paycheck, but produce no discernible value.
If you are interested in studying such an object, let me know and I’ll refer you to one.
Of course i am interested 😀
what the fuck are you talking about
Heads up I am not a physicist but my thoughts on this is why must information be preserved in a Black Hole? There are lots of situations on Earth where information is lost e.g. cremation of the last family member or a homeless person - all the information relating to that person disappears or it just gets transmuted into another form which makes the information unretrievable from the dust that's left. Perhaps we should consider the information in the same way as energy. it changes into another form or even just pure energy which then creates the Hawkin Radiation and therefore cannot be traced back to the actual source that fell into the black hole. Perhaps a video on information and what it actually means from a physicist's point of view would be good.
Well, the assumptions of the paper seems to be quite strong, like being able to model the bh with a wavefunction and the existence of gravitons....gotta give it a good read asap
Namaste 🙏 tashi delek
please allow me to ask a few questions... and examine the answers I've come up with... my dad built nuclear weapons for the US when I was born... he obtained his undergraduate degree from Berkeley and Lawrence Labs... after WW2... he helped build the scaffolding for the first weapon in 1945... two masters in reactor physics after I came along. . I learned simple calculus when I was 3 with the laws of motion.. throwing a ball, he described the arc... the acceleration... over time.. both as a continuous motion.. and incrementally...
any time someone on television mentioned those letters... UFO... I got the relativity equations...
so I have a pretty clear idea of how they work...
as mass accelerates it gains mass through the auspices of kinetic energy
...
at light speed the mass becomes infinite and it takes infinite energy to move infinite mass
ok?
so... an event horizon is said to be the point at which the stuff falling in passes light speed
but only one can be true
reality is one or the other... not both
I'm going with Einstein
there are other issues with the idea of a black hole... or a big bang
the observation, and theory of the fusion in stars is in agreement
stars.. no matter how big... even the largest blue giant... cannot fuse elements above iron... the energy of gravity against the outward pressure of fusion and the most fundamental force in physics... two things with the same energy cannot occupy the same space... the combination of the inward and outward forces is an equilibrium that is maintained until all the hydrogen has fused into helium ... in blue giants they collapse and go nova... or supernova.. only supernova have sufficient energy to fuse elements above iron...
these are well known quantities ... and they agree with spectrum analysis of stars... my dad said it takes 4 generations to create all the elements of the periodic table... I checked the math... From Bohr and Dirac among others... their math is good. . and this allows accurate predictions using Feynman diagrams in the physics of the nucleus of an atom...
stars can only get to a certain maximum size... because of this equilibrium
otherwise
like a nucleus with insufficient number of neutrons... they won't stay together... they have no... duration
which is why we don't find any
the big bang was invented by a catholic priest ... promptly after Edwin Hubble found other galaxies moving around in relationship to our own motion along the Sagittarius arm of our own galaxy ..
in Hubble deep space images... I develop with Snapseed.. an HDR application that gives an order of magnitude more information at each iteration.. by giving smaller and smaller units of information >>
4 iterations brings units of information small enough to get near and far infrared and ultraviolet... as well as visible light
* the colors of the galaxies indicates relative motion
red moves away... blue moves toward... green, yellow and orange move tangent to our own motion... and absolutely everything is going round and round... in spirals... like Richard Feynman said... the Universe is screwy...;;~}
they are all mixed together... like Michaelson and Morely told us in the 1890s... there is no preferred direction
this can be seen in all Hubble deep space images...
a big bang would be like an 💥 explosion... there would be a preferred direction
the idea that our lovely Universe began some finite Time in the past... and... that is all the stuff we will ever get... came from a believer in invisible guys.. or guy..
and.. that is definitely what is needed to overcome the physics of fusion
but I'm what the Dalai Lama calls a non believer...
and I don't believe in magic
space is ==>> the distance between two things
it requires neither making... nor a beginning and end
* quantum foam was proposed in 1957, and experimentally verified in 1964.. and my laboratory the past few years *
at the Planck length level the Universe is no longer flat.. it seethes with sub quark and quark sized particles... from the passage of light from two sources of sufficient energy through vacuum
the vacuum between atoms and the vacuum between stars is exactly the same.. and new particles pop in and out of existence continuously...
an up and down quark are the combination of the waveforms from two sources... they have a sort of built-in up and down, eh?
hydrogen atoms have one thing none of the rest have.... duration
☯️
and.. I'm pretty sure we are counting the same thing twice in the case of 2 up and a down quark.. because I am also pretty sure the electrons are firmly attached.. even though we can't see the attachment mechanism...
the higher and lower energy waveforms begin chasing each other round and round.. in a vortex.. vortices store energy.. at exactly E = Mc²
they pull things towards the center with a force that diminishes at the inverse square of the distance from the center
the two adjacent vortices are.. sequential Fibonacci sequence numbers... from which we derive the golden ratio
hydrogen atoms are created continuously...* all the Time... all around us... that's what creates Time.. because a hydrogen atom lasts forever ♾️
and they form one at a Time... in an infinite Universe
each one creates a little more Space
this is where Space-Time comes from
no magic required
if you don't see the math... it's not science... it's just blah blah blah
the math is easy... it's just 1.. 2... 3....
the Universe is growing... one hydrogen atom at a Time... along the Fibonacci sequence, as all populations do
the Planck length is calculated using a number we use for the golden ratio... the ratio of sequential Fibonacci sequence numbers... 1.6169 (10-³⁵)
it's actually a variable irrational number between 1.5 and less than 1.7
that's why the Universe is fractal... self similar shapes at all scales
the Fibonacci sequence is a non linear growth ... the next number is the sum of the previous 2... that's why we have detected more growth over Time.. it's not magic... there's more stuff to make more stuff... that's why Time flows in one direction... it can't go backwards.. because there's too much stuff
now you know... about half of an actual theory of everything...
I'm in a wheelchair too... but... hopefully.. not for long...
We create our future with our thoughts and ideas... our words and deeds
your mind has a direct influence on the creation of the Universe, which is, as I've shown you... an ongoing event
Namaste==>> means >>
I recognize the Creator (s) in you
Namaste brothers and sisters
Go in Peace ✌️
I'm probably just reaching for a connection but is there any relation to the hairy ball theorem from within math? There the hairs are tangent vectors. Are these hairs also tangent vectors in some sense?
How can something in the space-time once was a physical real object can suddenly dissapear from that point and time if it crosses a certain density making a huge hole in the space-time fabric?
Would you please explain how does Einstein's E=MC² works?
I know what does it mean
But how mass concerts into energy.
What is difference between mass and energy.
Is there anything changes in building of particles?
I don't understand it
I know the meaning but don't understand it
Could there be a hole in time-space without a large mass causing that hole?
perhaps the spacetime condensed around it is to far a distance within for light to have had time to reach its edge..Blackhole to whitehole? idk
That's true, if you consider the time-dilation calc based on temperature, if say the internal temperature was 100 million degrees Celsius then the time-dilation factor is (100,000,000/5)^2 seconds observed for one second in the black hole. The other thing that needs to be taken into consideration is the expanding space red-shift of the photons being exhibited, which is the same time-dilation factor, meaning, that if the black hole has achieved stability (an extremely long time required, which for a single particle takes one second in it's temp/weight space) that is will stop exhibiting energetic particles altogether and become invisible to our observational space and start looking like empty space.
But the deeper particle mass is still there and will have an aperture back to the 0 degree space, that is so time dilated that it will "kiss" or exhibit the negative gravity reactions of the expanding big bang. ;-)
The easiest way to resolve the paradox is to realize that black holes aren't real as they cannot form from the perspective of an outside observer due to gravitational time dilation halting the collapse. What we actually see are shell collapsars which have no singularities nor event horizons, and thus the paradox can never arise.
As the black hole loses mass, does it necessarily stay a black hole all the way to eventual evaporation?
It loses mass due to the "Cooling" effect of the Hawking radiation, in other words it is walking towards temperature stability which in our observable Universe means it now expresses in our space as zero or "no" temperature and mass.
@@bloodyorphan Yes, but does it remain a black hole throughout? Does the density remain sufficient for a black hole?
@@MrLidless Yes absolutely, just stably and less than Planck, on it's way towards the big bang but exhibiting red-shifted gravity and temperature ~0ºC, i.e the stable space we live in on top of the big bang itself.
I've always wondered if the force of gravity got infinitely weaken far away from an object or stopped at some point.
Why are they concerned about information loss when any measurement in quantum mechanics does lead to loss of information due to the wavefunction collapse (in one interpretation at least)? Nobody was ever concerned about loss of information due to a measurement but for some reason it is a big problem when it comes to black holes. Why?
A black hole is comprised of a lot of particles. I highly doubt their wave-function would suddenly stop at an event horizon. My guess is we could find out what's inside by studying what transpires through the event horizon.
Pls add subtitle feature
Somehow this new argument is flawed. For one thing, it is already agreed that there is Hawking radiation. Wouldn't studying the black hole far away would be studying this radiation? This "hair"?
Personally I think black holes are objects that happen when all charge is absent. Question is what would make charge disappear? Btw, I think your videos are a great service to physics. Keep up the good work!
I am working on a hypothesis of mine which shows how one can derive the quantized Eigenstates of particles beyond event horizons using the black hole surface area. If anyone wants to talk about the idea feel free to ask here.
Great series! You rock !
Sorry to be pest but...
Dirac large numbers ...why? BECAUSE a proton is a black hole of sorts. The smallest possible. A single photon caught over own gravity/tail. And because positive charge is convergence and negative charge is divergence the ratio of the tiniest black hole to the spatial boundary it inhabits, the electron cloud, is the same as that of the observable universe mass to size of observable universe. They are both fundamentally ruled by gravity. And the charge of the proton is DERIVED FROM its convergence. The convergence of space it causes.
Using "gravitons" and "requires no new physics" is a contradiction given the existence of gravitons requires a new physics, specifically some form of quantum gravity.
Great!!!!!
Having only recently learned that we use difference in the earth's gravitionnal field to make informed guesses about the content of the crust at locations we are interested in, i'm surprised to learn that we might be able to do that, although needing to look a lot harder in the fabric of space, for black holes, i guess showing the deformation as "smooth" when representing the gravitational field of heavy objects as a distorded 2d grid, hides that reality.
Completely unrelated, but for a non-physist like me, the idea that we can destroy information seems kind of obvious, hinting at maybe the simplification being a bit misleading, i mean, if i burn two books, i get two piles of hashes, and nobody is going to be able to tell me which had the content of "war an peace" and which had "pride and prejudice", the information of the text has been lost, we might be able to know about the ratio of ink to paper, and over interesting facts about the pile of hashes, but it's not going to give us back the text, if we see the black hole as a pile of hashes, no matter how it came to be, i'm not shocked to learn that we can't know what it was before.
Quite an interesting short video anyway :).
The difference here is more that you know the specific atoms that made up the books, whereas a black hole that had 1 hydrogen atom fall into it would appear the same as a black hole that had a photon(s) of the same energy as the hydrogen atom fall in. You can't find out what makes the black hole.
Yes, the books lose their written information, but that's just what humans have made up.
@@liammargetts ok, so not only we don’t know the arrangement of the matter that fell into the black hole, we don’t even know the kind of matter, only the quantity of energy it would convert through e=mc², or whatever version of the equation that works in this weird bit of spacetime, if we can even call that. That’s an useful distinction, thanks.
Why the radiation does not go inside the blackhole? How can it scape and not be pulled by the blackhole?
*Time stops* at the event horizon due to reaching limits of *gravitational time dilation* causing *quantum state* of falling particles to *freeze* at the horizon and never really falling-through/crossing it. Here the default observer/clock is outside the Blackhole event horizon (and not with the falling particle).
This is why *all entropy* is at the *surface* (outside) and not in the volume of a Blackhole.
Charged (non-zero) or non-spinning Blackholes are both *ONLY theoretical* in nature.
GR+QM unification requires a *beginners mind* since most of QM/GR innovation is decades (close to century) old, with a very tiny percentage of modern innovation, that remotely deviates from conventional thinking.
But, gravity is not a fundamental force of the Universe, it is topologically emergent from the mass gradient effect on time. I can see how intra-event horizon properties can be gleaned from the distant topological measurements of space time.
Cool
A black hole does exhibit temperature! (around +5º above 0 Kelvin), so FTL is ???
A common misconception... there is no mass inside a black hole so its pointless to talk about how it's distributed. The mass has been converted into the curvature surrounding the singularity. Kip Thorne gives a very good description of this on UA-cam.
i don’t think anyone reads the description :/
Tensor topic
What was missing was a description of the information that went missing. If people were to look at pictures of explosions... would they be able to describe exactly what was blown up?
yeah, i was thinking something similar, we destroy information all the time, i suspect the simplification is a bit misleading, and some more fundamental type of information is being lost, but it's hard to imagine what.
Not physical stuff.. black holes are actually twisted spacetime. There’s no matter there, just energy.
Actually there’s a big problem here that should be discussed in the comment section of your Hawking radiation video, so make that fast…
Sir you look same ad telugu tv show actor HARI, comedy stars program
Anyone else came here thinking its a Rezo video? xD (blue hair in thumb)
A solution without needing a brand new physics theory --> mentions gravitons 😐 (not yet proven to exist, and as factual as any "new" physics).
Btw, I'm not attacking the messenger here, but the message itself.
According to Einstein singularities (black holes) are not possible. Wherever you have an astronomical quantity of mass "dilation" (sometimes called gamma or y) will occur. Mass that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside observer. General relativity does not predict singularities when you factor in dilation. Einstein repeatedly spoke about this, thats why nobody believed in black holes when he was alive. He wrote about this in the 1939 journal "Annals of Mathematics".
There is no place in the universe where mass is more concentrated than at the center of a galaxy. 99.8% of the mass in our solar system is in the sun. 99.9% of the mass of an atom are in the nucleus. If these norms are true for galaxies than we can infer that there is 100's of trillions of solar masses at the center of high mass galaxies. There is no way to know through observation, there is far too much interference, dilation and gravitational lensing. High mass means high momentum. If we attribute a radius to these numbers than we can calculate that relativistic velocities exist in these regions.
The mass at the center of our own galaxy is dilated. In some sublime way that mass is all around us, there is no direction you can point your finger that you are not pointing to it. This is the explanation for the abnormally high rotation rates of stars in high mass galaxies (the reason for the theory of dark matter). There is no "mystery" mass there is just mass at differing degrees of dilation. Low mass galaxies (some galaxies can appear to be low mass but can have high mass at the center) have normal star rotation rates, this is what relativity would predict because there is an insufficient quantity of mass for relativistic velocities to be achieved. This is proof that Einstein is correct, there can be no other explanation for this fact.
Einstein formulated relativity before the existence of galaxies was known. It is clear that the mass is dilated through the galaxy and not the universe as a whole. It exists everywhere and every when the galaxy has been. It is the cosmic backround radiation.
Black holes and dark matter do not exist, all images and data from galactic centers is in line with relativity.
I don't see where is the paradoxe, why the information should be conserved or why any physical process should be reversible, this is obviously not the case. Nature is full of irreversible process , Black hole evaporation is one of them.
If it is hair, it's the longest thinnest hair in the uni. lol
Hairy black holes? Now that's just rude... ;)
earlyyyyyyy
:D