Couldn't agree more, he is my absolute favorite aswell, damn even my four year old daughter likes him. He just seems to be such a nice person and I love how he is full of passion and actually enjoys what he is doing.
He's usually like this, but if you want to see him in an excited state, watch the series of videos about his visit to the LHC. He was practically weeping with joy.
I'm a theoretical physicist working on this exact problem, and this is really an excellent video explaining so much of the current state of research here. Great job to all involved!
What impresses me is how Brady can understand the context of all these topics well enough to be able to ask further questions in the videos, especially when he doesn't have a Maths, Physics or Engineering degree.
Even if he doesnt have a degree in stem im pretty sure he graduated high school im pretty sure any high school student would know about quantum gravity or hawking radiation or schwarzchild radius maybe some would even write papers about it or come up with equations
1:03 I always wondered, when there is something written on whiteboards behind the interviewed person, was it there before or did you write some random matrices just to fill it a bit?
Ivan Mazepa That's linear algebra on the board behind him. Linear algebra is often used in quantum mechanics, though it is used in many other areas of physics too. I don't know enough to be sure why it's written there. But if he wanted to write sonething on the board to look impressive (which would be highly unlikely) that wouldn't be it.
did you? That's wonderful. and now we all know that. We don't know you or where you are in the world or anything at all about you but we *do* know you, a person on the planet's surface somewhere, let out an audible "yes!"
Artur Mizuno that would be interesting. At school we just get "there are three states of matter" and then later on "we lied there's more, moving on". And then we don't get any more about them
I did a double take at the "10^-5 grams is Planck Mass" thing. All the other Planck units I know are so much smaller that I had to look up if that was right - it just seemed weird that Planck Mass is 10 micrograms while Planck Length is something like 1.6x10^-35 meters. But it was right! I guess Planck mass is the only Planck unit that people can actually visualize the scale off - google says it's the mass of a flea egg or whereabouts.
yes, it is also the mass of an object that has planck size (very small) and planck temperature (very big), so it's not that surprising the unit is somewhere in between.
So what happens when one of these mountain-mass blackholes wanders into a burning star? I imagine it would accrete mass at a fantastic rate as it falls/burrows through the star's outer layers and then settle at the core where it would rapidly devour the star from within. What would the emissions from that look like? And if the star was spinning then the angular momentum would have to be preserved as the mass becomes concentrated into the schwarzschild radius. It'd be one hellofa fast spinning top. And of course the jets of radiation and particles shooting out as this singularity consumes the doomed star would interact with the not-yet-adsorbed stellar material to create an upwelling of plasma at the polls. I wonder if it would have enough energy to escape the star's gravity or if it would fall back down like a fountain. Sounds like it'd be a fun supercomputer simulation.
OK so trick question (I don't know the answer): If the universe exploded as a single point in space that contained everything the universe currently has in it, why was *that* not a black hole? Surely that much energy/mass in that small a space would be enough to create a black hole. Why didn't the universe just explode into an instant black hole?
I like physics, don't get me wrong... but I cannot focus on the content with such a calm and soothing voice in the background. This is Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman all over again.
Dr. Copeland's expression when you asked about black hole accretion and its impact on evaporation was equally one of surprise and the pride of a teacher whose pupil was finally understanding enough to think about the problem and meet him rather than just receive lecture.
I love this. Not only are these videos interesting, I get a nostalgic feeling to when I watched these videos in the pivoting year 2009 in terms of my interest in physics and mathematics. Sixty symbols was not the initial spark that got me interested in physics and mathematics, but it most certainly made a breeding ground for my interest. I want to say a big thank you to Brady and the physicists at Nottingham University. You're part of why I just got accepted to do a masters degree in theoretical physics!
So if the 10^15 gram primordial black holes are NOT accreting mass/matter, and have ONLY been shrinking due to Hawking radiation, does that mean that their CURRENT mass is 10^15 grams? Or have they now shrunk to some very small size?
Wait a minute... So does that mean that there could be ancient black holes the size of a planck volume floating around in my room as I'm typing this comment?
"The thing about a black hole - its main distinguishing feature - is it's black. And the thing about space, the colour of space, your basic space colour, is black. So how are you supposed to see them?" Holly, Red Dwarf
this one was one of the most interesting explanation of how theoretical physics work. we model this, then we should see this, but if we see that than the model should answer that.
If you had some primordial monster black holes that rotated around each other, enough for them to cause significant local gravity waves, (even if it had to a group of pairs!) what affect would that have had on the forming galaxies, I was wondering if you would get either a void or the equivalent of the great attractor. Just what would you get from such constant waves over such a long period?
Gravity waves are quite weak, the holes themselves would cause a bigger disturbance, especially in a pre-stellar universe. There wouldn't be too much of an effect since gravity waves don't 'push' matter and energy places, merely changing its density temporarily. This might be enough to seed a few stars and through them eventually galaxies, but it almost definitely wouldn't throw off the symmetry of the universe. But two massive holes at that early an epoch, that itself would be a massive imbalance that could seed whole clusters of galaxies.
You're proofing my theorem slowly but surely. When the Unucleus collapses (Grand Fission) all black holes in our universe also collapse do to evaporated Quantum Funneling (no draw, no consumption,) what's left behind are massive clouds of Dark Matter. As the new Unucleus draws and coagulates and pressure stabilizes towards the center of our universe, a huge amount of Black Holes emerge (with in seconds.) As it grows, most will collapse instantly (do to over powered draws from Funneling) and others will swallow each other up. It's my assumption that there are extremely large, ancient black holes out towards the edges of our universe still to be discovered. Can't wait for the Webb to be operational!! ;O)-
About that primordial soup, is there a gluon-free version? I stopped following trends when Planking was a thing, but according to Ed, this goes back just as far. ;)
Could the dark matter that makes up such a large part of the missing matter in the universe actually be caused by these smaller black holes? And then along those lines couldn't the expansion of the universe be a consequence of these black holes evaporating restoring the space/time apparatus to normal causing the illusion of expansion as actually just the restoration of normal?
I'm confused, I thought the findings from WMAP related to the cosmic microwave background radiation suggested that the early inflation period was incredibly uniform and almost without feature. This means the "soup" wouldn't have had the density fluctuations to create primordial black holes. I wish they would have touched on this.
This is true, however the trick is that if you're very close to the 'limit' even a small difference can push you over. As you wind the clock back the universe becomes more extreme and closer to the 'critical density' required to form black holes. At different timescales different (Very small) amounts of variation are needed to do this, so primordial black holes should form in a universe with variation at all down to the inflationary or Planck epochs. Only perfect uniformity should eliminate them entirely.
That makes more sense. The focus of the discussion is on quark-muon plasma. It is theorized that the cores of neutron stars contain the same "soup-like" state of matter as the early universe. If primordial black holes can form by fluctuations wouldn't we expect the universe to have very few neutron stars. A star quake would be expected to generate similar fluctuations which would generate black holes and consume any neutrons stars on a comparably short cosmic time scale?
Why didn't everything just turn into a huge black hole during the first nanoseconds of the big bang? :S I thought it was impossible to get out of a black hole, but if everything was inside a tiny sphere by the start of the big bang, then everything would be inside the schwarzschild radius of the given matter, right? So it should form a black hole. But it didn't so is it then possible to get out from a black hole given enough speed? But even light can't escape black holes so... whaat? Or does it have to do with the fact that space itself expanded so the schwarzschild radius would be a lot bigger since space itself was contracted relative to today? :S STOP FRYING MAH BRAIN!
Because you have to have big net mas density to form black hole. It means that every particle was pulled by gravity in every direction that it can not collapse. However if you have had region with slightly higher density then this region would have formed Primordial Black Hole, that was talked in this movie.
Why wouldn't you have a big net mass density in the beginning? Everything is basically in the same spot, right? So there should be a mass center for everything where everything is getting pulled towards forming a black hole there :S Or is the universe like "round" and everything on one edge of the universe pulls on the other end, wrapping around giving a total net force of 0? :S
The singularity at the 'beginning' of the universe is, mathematically, a rather different kind than the singularities in black holes. Additionally, the calculations for event horizon geometry that are commonly understood by nonspecialists (like myself and many viewers) only really hold for 'normal' conditions in the universe. In the early universe, inflation could dramatically change the practical consequence of those calculations. Consider it like this - you don't necessarily have matter/energy leaving the horizon area; you have space itself stretching outside of it, with some energy/matter carried along for the ride - the 'stuff' never broke the rules, space itself just changed. Spacetime is allowed by the model to do things that are impossible for particles and packets of energy (such as 'move' faster than light, and perhaps even to 'move' outside an event horizon).
That's what I asked "Or does it have to do with the fact that space itself expanded". A lot of people seam to respond, none seam to know the answer they just want to say stuff. I have a relatively relativistic (lol word pun) view on space with dilation of spacetime etc, so I don't find it hard to imagine that space itself was "compressed" in the beginning, but I don't Know if this is the reason for why it didn't cause a black hole
A black hole is a volume of space from which nothing, including light, can escape. The cause of this is the fact hat spacetime is infalling at the boundary (Event horizon) of the hole at light speed. , to make a black hole you need more than just high mass\energy density, you need the spacetime in the volume to be falling inwards, compressing. Normally we think of 'regular' not-changing spacetime where the only thing that will warp it is the matter and energy inside it. The matter of the Earth warps space, pulling it inwards and causing Earth's gravity. Get enough matter in a small enough space and all that warping makes a hole. BUT the early universe was not made of 'regular ' spacetime; it was made of rapidly expanding spacetime. This means that there was a force counteracting the gravitational force of matter and energy, even if you had 'enough' matter in one place it wouldn't be able to form a hole because the expanding spacetime would pull it apart. PLUS the entire universe has no edge; this too is important. In order to form a black hole you need a center, one place everything can fall INTO. But the universe, as far as we know, has never HAD a center. No matter how dense the universe got there was no way for it to 'work out' where all the mass, energy and spacetime should collapse to. Each point was exactly the same, all the gravity cancelling out (For the most part.) AND we're not sure the universe had to get that dense in the first place; as it cools the universe produces more and more particles and energy. The sun for example has a fixed number of matter particles in it, but is always producing new photons. As spacetime expands dark energy increases. The early universe doesn't have to have had all the matter and energy we see now in it; if the universe started out empty in a 'high energy vacuum state' there would have been no matter or particles to form black holes. The spacetime would expand, as it does now, the energy in it growing as its volume increased. Then at some point it would decay into our 'regular' vacuum, producing matter and energy without ever having to cross that critical energy density.
0:29 tiny black holes (which is odd because they all have tiny quantum singularities right) but these tiny ones vanish quickly and have VERY low energy amounts ( in comparison ) to what we see from gamma ray burst ... and the problem with the large ones is that we think they evaporate to slowly .. never releasing a burst . i think black holes are Lagrangian points , powered by Galaxies and all the mass in them . this means the effects of black holes are still there that we see , but its just powered by something different . maybe when these points feed on matter they make gamma burst - maybe large exploding stars make gamma burst - maybe when massive Lagrangian points merge something happens -
gamma ray : penetrating electromagnetic radiation of a kind arising from the radioactive decay of atomic nuclei. Gamma-ray bursts : (GRBs) are extremely energetic explosions that have been observed in distant galaxies. They are the brightest electromagnetic events known to occur in the universe. two different things there buddy ... again i dont think black holes exist ...even quantum any evidence of them can be exchanged for lagrangian points , if your thinking you can explain them there .. Quantum things are not in our space time by the way
They have been but aren't so favored anymore. Evaporating holes are expected to produce a characteristic 'chirp' of gamma rays, starting with a 'tail' of low energy, low frequency emission and rising to s crescendo over a characteristic time scale. Most GRBs (There are several classes of them with different properties.) do not match these models and there exist several other theories to explain them.
I am curious, how would your theory explain 'small', stellar-mass dense objects like Cygnus X-1? From how things orbit it we know it has a mass of around 15 suns, yet it produces no light, only exceedingly powerful X-rays, some of the brightest in our skies. Lagrangian points don't work here, we have a massive star orbiting something very small, very dense and very dark, except for high energy radiation. There's no particularly special geometry that'd produce an unusual gravitational effect like Jupiter's Trojan Asteroids and the 'effect' is far smaller than what an entire galaxy could make.
Hang on. What exactly are the densities in the early (ie under 1s) Universe and more to the point: *Why isn't the whole universe just one black hole?* If _all the matter of the universe_ was squeezed into, say, a volume the size of a garden pea (The Garden Pea Epoch) then surely that would be a Black Hole.
True, but remember that at that period, space was expanding enormously at the same time. So any incipient black hole (call it Napoleon) would have been quickly "diluted" by the expansion of space (Napoleon blown-apart).
:-) But if I'm not being dense then despite this expansion of space(time?) Black Holes _are_ being formed during this epoch. All the matter of the universe is concentrated into the volume of a garden pea but only _some_ of it is dense enough to form Black Holes?
Whatever mechanism that drove the universal inflation did so at such a rate that the universe expanded faster than the black holes could form and merge with each other (spacetime itself is allowed to expand faster than light). The source of that inflation is still a mystery. Also, the temperature and density of the universe was not perfectly smooth due to quantum fluctuations in the very early stages.
There are a few issues. Firstly to form a black hole you need space to be falling inwards faster than light. If space is expanding outwards it becomes more difficult to form a hole. (A hole is fine but if it can't form at all in the first place then it's a moot point.) Secondly you don't need a high energy density, if spacetime itself was in a higher energy state it wouldn't have to contain particles that could collapse. It would just expand, producing more 'vacuum energy' out of nowhere until it decayed, producing matter at a sub-black hole density. Space itself doesn't produce gravity despite having energy because- Thirdly a black hole needs a center. You're imagining the universe as a pea with an inside and an outside and a center in the middle.This is not the case. The universe has no outside; it can be finite in size and 'closed' but still wouldn't have a center. Without a center there's no preferred point for all the matter and energy to collapse to; every point is pulling everything in all directions at once. This massive tug-of-war stops any one point 'winning' and forming a universal hole.
I don't think they'd leave behind relics, I think they'd evaporate completely. Think of it in terms of energy quantum tunneling beyond the event horizon. Some tiny portion of the wavefunction always exists outside the event horizon, so energy will always leak out. If all that's left is one Planck unit of energy, then it would all tunnel out at once, pretty much instantly.
Is the amount of matter in the universe going down? If matter and energy are the same thing (E=MC2) and we are producing energy (through nuclear synthesis) AND energy can't be created or destroyed (only changed) then the energy we see MUST be coming from the conversion of matter into usable energy. If that is true, and we are not converting energy into matter, then what are the long term prospects for matter? And the life forms made from matter (like us)? Will the universe one day run out of matter?
Maybe small-sized black holes are responsible for the fact that there so much more matter than antimatter. Hawking radiation photons escape, form an muon/anti-muon pair, and the anti-muon falls back into the black hole. I mean a primordial black hole may have acted like matter-anti-matter converters, or “matterpumps” if you like.
Question to astrophysicists: Is there a major event that we "missed" ? If you could send a message in the past and say something like "observe this part of the sky on the 22nd of Feb 1973" what would the actual message be ?
A neuron is much less than 10^-5 gram. Supposedly a human brain has about 100 billion (10^11) neurons so if each one was 10^-5 gram then the whole human brain would be one metric ton.
Black holes like S5 0014+81 have to be Primordial black holes. A black hole feeding from the beginning of time. That is the best explanation to make sense of its sheer size.
The scary thing about PBHs is that there could be one at the center of the Earth and we wouldn't be able to tell (except by how quickly the wein's law peak moves over time) that it's there until it's too late - and it explodes with enough energy to vaporize the solar system.
We don't necessarily have to wait for them to explode to see them. The wavelength of light they give off is changing according to a function unique to very small black holes. We just need really powerful radio telescopes
I wish this came out sooner. I had to write a paper for my cosmology class and part of it was Primordial Black Holes. This would have helped get the ideas flowing -_-
Everything is connected continuously, and although the sense of it is the zero-infinity difference constant of Black-body Singularity-point positioning in ONE-INFINITY, inside-outside holographic time-timing presence, the Totality of Primordial vanishing-into-no-thing darkness is the same Primordial Eternity-now Interval, only "gravitational" Lensing, simultaneous spin-spiral convergence-divergence @.dt zero-infinity, shapes the appearance of a "Central Black Hole" or remote interstellar emptiness. Ie the Centre of Time Duration Timing at zero-infinity difference-displacement is that which constitutes the Reciproction-recirculation Black-body Singularity Conception-Universe.., ONE-INFINITY Superspin Modulation Mechanism. Sameness.
Does the concept of black holes at the Planck scale "floating about" make sense? The probabilistic position of a particle at Planck temperature is the size of the universe.
Wouldn't a 10^15g black whole take up a LOT LESS than 10^(-8)% of the total mass energy if the universe. I haven't done the exact calculations - but considering that the Milky Way alone has an estimated 10^11 STARS, that % seems WAY too big.
I am curious about the final phase of evaporation of small black holes. The smaller they get, the higher the effective 'temperature'. And temperature implies a given wavelength of photons, and thus a given energy of photons. (Yes, I realize it's a distribution, there's a peak wavelength and it depends on whether the emitter behaves as a black body, etc). But what happens if the black hole 'temperature' reaches a point where the implied photon energy is substantially in excess of the remaining mass-energy of the black hole? Maybe it can't evaporate anymore? Of course, I guess quantum effects come into play and there is still a non-zero chance of a photon "tunneling out", but it seems that this might cause some small black holes to persist for a long time? A bit of back-of-the-envelope math on Wolfram Alpha suggests that this might occur somewhere around the Planck mass. Prof Copeland mentioned the possibility of black hole "remnants"... is this what he meant?
one of thE coolest youtube channels & it only has 620K subs after nearly a decade ! wtf ? ......guess thats just a reflection of the lack of rap'n piano kitty & such.......thankfully.
it just seems so unlikely and unintuitive to hunt for a 10^15mass singularity that would have accomplished such a staggering mass dominance during the high-density confinement epoch that formed them as it would absolutely not promote a proximal vacancy as it would literally stimulate a cosmic "neighbourhood". Wouldn't the trend during rapid expansion favour the attractors, to the extent that the "great attractor" et al could be the legacy of these objects? Forgive my naiveté, I'm a musician.
Why does having black holes evaporating increases the ambient radiation? Those black holes are pockets of trapped energy. If they didn't form, all the energy would be whizzing around, increasing the temperature a lot more. I'd say having black holes decreases the energy level and shorten the time at which atoms can form. What did I miss?
2:52 - "They could have formed right at the plank era although you got to be very careful, we don't really understand the physics of quantum gravity." - I agree, but somehow you have no problem invoking a singularity at the center of a BH.
We don't understand the physics of Quantum gravity....If two black holes collide do we understand what can also happen (aside from a merger)? Or does the premise answer the proposed question?
I understand that black holes radiate thermally because matter-antimatter particle pairs can form in the vicinity of the event horizon, and the antimatter one falls in while the matter one radiates outward. What I've never understood is why the antimatter one is favored to fall in, and why isn't it just random which one falls in, so that we'd get some radiation and some absorption that just get in equilibrium so that the mass of the black hole neither grows nor lessens. Instead of evaporating why wouldn't the black hole simply stay roughly the same size? Is there some reason the matter particle of the pair preferentially radiates away while the antimatter particle preferentially falls in? Otherwise Hawking radiation wouldn't end up with black holes evaporating, would it? Thanks so much for clearing this up for me. I've been wondering this since the 1970s when I first read the SciAm articles about it.
Im confused... How can a black-hole decay? I understand the whole process but the destruction of a singularity I don't understand... 1. Is the mass of the black hole quantized to allow for clean evaporation? 2. Will mass inside the event horizon on a prolonged trajectory observe this decay, if it can't then would the decay of the event horizon be relative? 3. If it is relative, as the decreasing scale factor in between the universe and the inside of the event horizon approaches zero, does the singularity displace to have no quantifiable position in space relative to the universe besides for being apart from the universe itself. 4. If the black hole's position is now a zero dimensional coordinate, does that technically mean it has merged with the singularity that is our universe should it be considered in this manner?
Isn't it possible that the reason we aren't seeing any evaporate now is cause they might not exist? Or perhaps that because our understanding of quantum gravity is limited, they don't evaporate at all? I get that Hawking radiation is supposed to make them evaporate eventually, but since we don't understand quantum gravity, it's entirely possible it could give black holes properties that would prohibit hawking radiation from occurring.
So would black holes expand with the expansion of the universe? Or are they contributing in part to that expansion with their evaporation by yielding a smaller event horizon? Could we actually be living in a black hole, and the "quark soup" is just the super condensed matter that was "Spaghettified" matter that fell into it?
When you have the quark soup, why do you need any fluctuations at all to get formation of primordial black holes? The quarks are interacting probabilistically, so it wouldn't make any sense to consider everything homogenous and likely to remain static unless there are fluctuations.... or are those probabilistic interactions what those 'fluctuations' are? Seems strange to consider those fluctuations as everything always works that way.
Quantum nature of Hawking radiation, speaks of the non zero energy of empty space, where perhaps more dimensions are hidden, than the 11 of string. Could empty space hold the secret of the big bang and the production of tiny black holes?
How do you intepret these cosmological and astrophysical statements given we can only see a small portion of the universe and how do we use these models if they are only suppositions? Expansion can thin out space but so can black holes. The heat death or the big freeze and the big crunch have something in common, a symmetry.
I find some of his speculations to be a bit worrisome. I need more time to digest this...I hope I don't evaporate prior to achieving intellectual fulfillment! His theory does beg the question as to whether the smallest black holes could be found in our specific space-time environment, and indeed find suitable habitation in what we feel is our personal and proprietary reality? Can we co-exist with these events when they manifest in subatomic scales???
In allmost every Galaxy is a SMblack hole. Is it possible that primordial black holes can be them in every Galaxy? They should be very big I think if They where created in such early time period. Or not?
Mistake 5 minutes in, show parabolic dish telescopes when talking about gamma rays. Parabolic dishes allow you to focus a wave by reflecting it onto a point, but gamma rays can't be reflected.
So many videos on youtube make you *feel* like you learned something, but an hour later you remember nothing about the subject. What I like about this channel in general and Ed's videos in particular is that they are the *opposite* of this. I feel like I have no idea about this subject...but I could explain to somebody else probably a lot more than they knew before.
This video got me thinking - over the course of the history of the universe, there have been some phase changes... from the singularity to inflation, from inflation to a quark-gluon plasma, from a quark-gluon plasma to an electromagnetic plasma, from that plasma condensed matter, etc... Through each of these, it has been a matter of the average temperature of the universe crossing some threshold to where a fundamental force that is overcome by all matter above that temperature, is not at the lower. Is there another phase past the current familiar state of the universe which might be reached in the distant future? Or is this something unknowable? (like, if intelligent life culd exist in the quark-gluon, would they even be able to predict that a then-yet unobservable fundamental force would completely alter the nature of the universe as they knew it?)
I'd like to hear more about so-called "relic black holes", in which a stable black-hole-like remnant is left over. How many of these are there? How common are they? What is their cross section? How could they interact with matter? And so on.
I hear that if you compress the Earth into the size of a marble, it will turn into a black hole. How small would you have to compress Mount Everest? Does size matter? What would happen in a universe jar filled with black hole marbles? Does it take time to create a black hole
May a Quark Star possess a dense environment o quark soup that would lead to the formation of small black holes? Would their growth dynamic be compareabe to the early universe? edit: there would be no expansion inside the star like in the early universe. Should not their growth overbalance the radiation loss leading those stars to collapse inevitably?
ah finally a new Ed Copeland video, time just flew by watching this, my favorite professor of this channel.👍, we need more and longer videos like this
YES. It's the ones I learn a alot but leave dumber, with more questions
Ed has been my favorite for a long time now.. Especially in this longer format, It is a shame they are so few and far between
Agreed! Especially love moments like 13:36
Couldn't agree more, he is my absolute favorite aswell, damn even my four year old daughter likes him. He just seems to be such a nice person and I love how he is full of passion and actually enjoys what he is doing.
daveangels iDiskjki
I love how on point Brady is with his questions. They really contribute to how interesting the video is.
Life savers
is this guy always so calm? its very relaxing to listen to his voice xD
i have to rewatch it to pay more attention to the content... xD lol
He's usually like this, but if you want to see him in an excited state, watch the series of videos about his visit to the LHC. He was practically weeping with joy.
xD it makes sense then ;)
;)
his voice creeps me out - because I consider it inappropriate: as if he would be hitting on me
I am a simple man. I see Prof. Copeland in the thumbnail, I press like.
He is a simple man. He simplified.
Mee too :) Sometimes they say something in the first few seconds, and I HAVE TO exit from full screen to give a propper like :D
6:18 worst jumpscare by sixty symbols to date.
This isn't numberphile :p
true, thanks
The clap? Are you serious?
True
It's so soothing to listen to his voice then *CLAP*
Props to this channel for still making top-notch educational videos. So many "smart" youtubers have gone the way of clickbait
I'm a theoretical physicist working on this exact problem, and this is really an excellent video explaining so much of the current state of research here. Great job to all involved!
any progress in the 2 years since your comment?
I am also interested
Keep us updated
If you’re still alive that is
Could dark matter be mini black holes?
i love the art style of these videos!
+Jonah it was by Pete McPartlan
What impresses me is how Brady can understand the context of all these topics well enough to be able to ask further questions in the videos, especially when he doesn't have a Maths, Physics or Engineering degree.
He probably reads up on some of this stuff in his free time, since he obviously enjoys learning these topics.
Even if he doesnt have a degree in stem im pretty sure he graduated high school im pretty sure any high school student would know about quantum gravity or hawking radiation or schwarzchild radius maybe some would even write papers about it or come up with equations
In my high school, we never learned about those subjects in science, actually.
fairly rudimentary questions...
Favorite professor! Props to Brady for the critical questions
1:03 I always wondered, when there is something written on whiteboards behind the interviewed person, was it there before or did you write some random matrices just to fill it a bit?
Ivan Mazepa there is determinants too
Maybe it's from class
Ivan Mazepa That's linear algebra on the board behind him. Linear algebra is often used in quantum mechanics, though it is used in many other areas of physics too. I don't know enough to be sure why it's written there. But if he wanted to write sonething on the board to look impressive (which would be highly unlikely) that wouldn't be it.
I think it's from a linear algebra class. But I doubt it has anything to do with the topic of the video.
Those looks like tensors to me, and they are used for all sort of things in physics.
I let out an audible "Yes!" when I saw a Sixty Symbols upload with Prof. Copeland's face on it.
did you? That's wonderful. and now we all know that. We don't know you or where you are in the world or anything at all about you but we *do* know you, a person on the planet's surface somewhere, let out an audible "yes!"
cringe..
lol, Brady has his physics-hat on during these interviews. He's really smarter than his "caveman" persona lets on.
I feel most of the time, he's asking the question the "average viewer" would ask.
He's An excellent journalist. !
you could make a series of all states of matter (from solid, to plasma, bose einstein condensate, etc..)
Artur Mizuno that would be interesting. At school we just get "there are three states of matter" and then later on "we lied there's more, moving on". And then we don't get any more about them
I did a double take at the "10^-5 grams is Planck Mass" thing. All the other Planck units I know are so much smaller that I had to look up if that was right - it just seemed weird that Planck Mass is 10 micrograms while Planck Length is something like 1.6x10^-35 meters.
But it was right! I guess Planck mass is the only Planck unit that people can actually visualize the scale off - google says it's the mass of a flea egg or whereabouts.
yes, it is also the mass of an object that has planck size (very small) and planck temperature (very big), so it's not that surprising the unit is somewhere in between.
I was surprised too!
So what happens when one of these mountain-mass blackholes wanders into a burning star?
I imagine it would accrete mass at a fantastic rate as it falls/burrows through the star's outer layers and then settle at the core where it would rapidly devour the star from within. What would the emissions from that look like? And if the star was spinning then the angular momentum would have to be preserved as the mass becomes concentrated into the schwarzschild radius. It'd be one hellofa fast spinning top. And of course the jets of radiation and particles shooting out as this singularity consumes the doomed star would interact with the not-yet-adsorbed stellar material to create an upwelling of plasma at the polls. I wonder if it would have enough energy to escape the star's gravity or if it would fall back down like a fountain.
Sounds like it'd be a fun supercomputer simulation.
Brady and the whole team is doing a great job at bringing us this spectacularly brilliant content.
Prof Copeland could tell the world was ending and I'd approach it with a 'can do' attitude. You can't help but like the man.
12:25 science explained in 15 seconds!
i really like your talks with Ed, super interesting! And the art style and color grading of this clip is really nice as well :)
OK so trick question (I don't know the answer):
If the universe exploded as a single point in space that contained everything the universe currently has in it, why was *that* not a black hole? Surely that much energy/mass in that small a space would be enough to create a black hole. Why didn't the universe just explode into an instant black hole?
There was no space outside that point. So it wasn’t a black hole
I like physics, don't get me wrong... but I cannot focus on the content with such a calm and soothing voice in the background. This is Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman all over again.
Dr. Copeland's expression when you asked about black hole accretion and its impact on evaporation was equally one of surprise and the pride of a teacher whose pupil was finally understanding enough to think about the problem and meet him rather than just receive lecture.
I don't understand these videos I just like being lost by how intelligent these people are.
The whiteboard behind him, it's elementary row reductions of matrixes. Did I mention that Ed's voice is .... ?
I am so jealous you get to hang out with these people haha
Me too. Most of my friends are cavemen compared to him. Wish I could hang out with cool people more often.
I love this. Not only are these videos interesting, I get a nostalgic feeling to when I watched these videos in the pivoting year 2009 in terms of my interest in physics and mathematics. Sixty symbols was not the initial spark that got me interested in physics and mathematics, but it most certainly made a breeding ground for my interest. I want to say a big thank you to Brady and the physicists at Nottingham University. You're part of why I just got accepted to do a masters degree in theoretical physics!
Yo, professor. Just one hint from a native German speaker: there's no "child" in Schwarzschild. It's Schwarz-schild (black-shield). 🤘
So if the 10^15 gram primordial black holes are NOT accreting mass/matter, and have ONLY been shrinking due to Hawking radiation, does that mean that their CURRENT mass is 10^15 grams? Or have they now shrunk to some very small size?
Can two neutron stars collided and combine? What kind of forces are in play? Do they impact like solid objects or meld like two drops of water?
Wait a minute...
So does that mean that there could be ancient black holes the size of a planck volume floating around in my room as I'm typing this comment?
"The thing about a black hole - its main distinguishing feature - is it's black. And the thing about space, the colour of space, your basic space colour, is black. So how are you supposed to see them?" Holly, Red Dwarf
Hawking radiation evaporation time for a Planck mass black hole : 8.671*10^-40s.
Not the kind of black hole that would stick around until now is it.
I
Campbell's Quark Soup.
Hands down the cleverest thing about this video. With all due apologies to Prof. Copeland.
I'm a physics student, and every time a new video is released on this channel, my mind is blown! THANKS!!
quark soup... sounds Nasty
It has a strong force taste
Tastes kind of gluon, but it gets me excited. In fact, I'm getting a hadron just thinking about it.
It's universally accepted as your elementary nutrition if you want to grow up and form some matter.
These comments are very colorful
this one was one of the most interesting explanation of how theoretical physics work. we model this, then we should see this, but if we see that than the model should answer that.
so, question, the univers is expanding,and the univers is space, and space and time is part of the same thing, does time also expand?
If you had some primordial monster black holes that rotated around each other, enough for them to cause significant local gravity waves, (even if it had to a group of pairs!) what affect would that have had on the forming galaxies, I was wondering if you would get either a void or the equivalent of the great attractor. Just what would you get from such constant waves over such a long period?
Gravity waves are quite weak, the holes themselves would cause a bigger disturbance, especially in a pre-stellar universe. There wouldn't be too much of an effect since gravity waves don't 'push' matter and energy places, merely changing its density temporarily. This might be enough to seed a few stars and through them eventually galaxies, but it almost definitely wouldn't throw off the symmetry of the universe.
But two massive holes at that early an epoch, that itself would be a massive imbalance that could seed whole clusters of galaxies.
He is one of the best in the sense that he is clear in what we know , what we don’t know and what we may not know.
You're proofing my theorem slowly but surely. When the Unucleus collapses (Grand Fission) all black holes in our universe also collapse do to evaporated Quantum Funneling (no draw, no consumption,) what's left behind are massive clouds of Dark Matter. As the new Unucleus draws and coagulates and pressure stabilizes towards the center of our universe, a huge amount of Black Holes emerge (with in seconds.) As it grows, most will collapse instantly (do to over powered draws from Funneling) and others will swallow each other up. It's my assumption that there are extremely large, ancient black holes out towards the edges of our universe still to be discovered. Can't wait for the Webb to be operational!! ;O)-
lol
About that primordial soup, is there a gluon-free version? I stopped following trends when Planking was a thing, but according to Ed, this goes back just as far. ;)
Could the dark matter that makes up such a large part of the missing matter in the universe actually be caused by these smaller black holes? And then along those lines couldn't the expansion of the universe be a consequence of these black holes evaporating restoring the space/time apparatus to normal causing the illusion of expansion as actually just the restoration of normal?
Left over primordial blackholes as dark matter candidate - that is the same issue i was wondering about.
I'm confused, I thought the findings from WMAP related to the cosmic microwave background radiation suggested that the early inflation period was incredibly uniform and almost without feature. This means the "soup" wouldn't have had the density fluctuations to create primordial black holes. I wish they would have touched on this.
This is true, however the trick is that if you're very close to the 'limit' even a small difference can push you over. As you wind the clock back the universe becomes more extreme and closer to the 'critical density' required to form black holes. At different timescales different (Very small) amounts of variation are needed to do this, so primordial black holes should form in a universe with variation at all down to the inflationary or Planck epochs. Only perfect uniformity should eliminate them entirely.
That makes more sense. The focus of the discussion is on quark-muon plasma. It is theorized that the cores of neutron stars contain the same "soup-like" state of matter as the early universe. If primordial black holes can form by fluctuations wouldn't we expect the universe to have very few neutron stars. A star quake would be expected to generate similar fluctuations which would generate black holes and consume any neutrons stars on a comparably short cosmic time scale?
I absolutely LOVED the Campbell's soup visual! Very clever, and great design style! (Everything else was great as well, of course, as usual ;) )
How do you know primordial black holes didn't just combine into bigger, newer black holes?
THIS IS THE UPLOAD I'VE BEEN WAITING FOR!!11one
So exciting to see there's a new Sixty Symbol video :D
That's Gaussian elimination method on the whiteboard.
Nice visual upgrade :)
Great subject and animation. Loved this video. Best thing I've seen today on UA-cam. 😊
Look at all these animations! 👍👍
Could a black hole be split to form 2 or more black holes.
Why didn't everything just turn into a huge black hole during the first nanoseconds of the big bang? :S
I thought it was impossible to get out of a black hole, but if everything was inside a tiny sphere by the start of the big bang, then everything would be inside the schwarzschild radius of the given matter, right? So it should form a black hole. But it didn't so is it then possible to get out from a black hole given enough speed? But even light can't escape black holes so... whaat? Or does it have to do with the fact that space itself expanded so the schwarzschild radius would be a lot bigger since space itself was contracted relative to today? :S STOP FRYING MAH BRAIN!
Because you have to have big net mas density to form black hole. It means that every particle was pulled by gravity in every direction that it can not collapse.
However if you have had region with slightly higher density then this region would have formed Primordial Black Hole, that was talked in this movie.
Why wouldn't you have a big net mass density in the beginning? Everything is basically in the same spot, right? So there should be a mass center for everything where everything is getting pulled towards forming a black hole there :S Or is the universe like "round" and everything on one edge of the universe pulls on the other end, wrapping around giving a total net force of 0? :S
The singularity at the 'beginning' of the universe is, mathematically, a rather different kind than the singularities in black holes. Additionally, the calculations for event horizon geometry that are commonly understood by nonspecialists (like myself and many viewers) only really hold for 'normal' conditions in the universe. In the early universe, inflation could dramatically change the practical consequence of those calculations.
Consider it like this - you don't necessarily have matter/energy leaving the horizon area; you have space itself stretching outside of it, with some energy/matter carried along for the ride - the 'stuff' never broke the rules, space itself just changed. Spacetime is allowed by the model to do things that are impossible for particles and packets of energy (such as 'move' faster than light, and perhaps even to 'move' outside an event horizon).
That's what I asked "Or does it have to do with the fact that space itself expanded". A lot of people seam to respond, none seam to know the answer they just want to say stuff. I have a relatively relativistic (lol word pun) view on space with dilation of spacetime etc, so I don't find it hard to imagine that space itself was "compressed" in the beginning, but I don't Know if this is the reason for why it didn't cause a black hole
A black hole is a volume of space from which nothing, including light, can escape. The cause of this is the fact hat spacetime is infalling at the boundary (Event horizon) of the hole at light speed. , to make a black hole you need more than just high mass\energy density, you need the spacetime in the volume to be falling inwards, compressing.
Normally we think of 'regular' not-changing spacetime where the only thing that will warp it is the matter and energy inside it. The matter of the Earth warps space, pulling it inwards and causing Earth's gravity. Get enough matter in a small enough space and all that warping makes a hole.
BUT the early universe was not made of 'regular ' spacetime; it was made of rapidly expanding spacetime. This means that there was a force counteracting the gravitational force of matter and energy, even if you had 'enough' matter in one place it wouldn't be able to form a hole because the expanding spacetime would pull it apart.
PLUS the entire universe has no edge; this too is important. In order to form a black hole you need a center, one place everything can fall INTO. But the universe, as far as we know, has never HAD a center. No matter how dense the universe got there was no way for it to 'work out' where all the mass, energy and spacetime should collapse to. Each point was exactly the same, all the gravity cancelling out (For the most part.)
AND we're not sure the universe had to get that dense in the first place; as it cools the universe produces more and more particles and energy. The sun for example has a fixed number of matter particles in it, but is always producing new photons. As spacetime expands dark energy increases. The early universe doesn't have to have had all the matter and energy we see now in it; if the universe started out empty in a 'high energy vacuum state' there would have been no matter or particles to form black holes. The spacetime would expand, as it does now, the energy in it growing as its volume increased. Then at some point it would decay into our 'regular' vacuum, producing matter and energy without ever having to cross that critical energy density.
His voice is like butter
Are evaporating black holes at the very end of their lives considered candidates for Gamma Ray bursts?
no
0:29 tiny black holes (which is odd because they all have tiny quantum singularities right) but these tiny ones vanish quickly and have VERY low energy amounts ( in comparison ) to what we see from gamma ray burst ... and the problem with the large ones is that we think they evaporate to slowly .. never releasing a burst .
i think black holes are Lagrangian points , powered by Galaxies and all the mass in them .
this means the effects of black holes are still there that we see , but its just powered by something different .
maybe when these points feed on matter they make gamma burst -
maybe large exploding stars make gamma burst -
maybe when massive Lagrangian points merge something happens -
gamma ray : penetrating electromagnetic radiation of a kind arising from the radioactive decay of atomic nuclei.
Gamma-ray bursts : (GRBs) are extremely energetic explosions that have been observed in distant galaxies. They are the brightest electromagnetic events known to occur in the universe.
two different things there buddy ...
again i dont think black holes exist ...even quantum any evidence of them can be exchanged for lagrangian points , if your thinking you can explain them there ..
Quantum things are not in our space time by the way
They have been but aren't so favored anymore. Evaporating holes are expected to produce a characteristic 'chirp' of gamma rays, starting with a 'tail' of low energy, low frequency emission and rising to s crescendo over a characteristic time scale. Most GRBs (There are several classes of them with different properties.) do not match these models and there exist several other theories to explain them.
I am curious, how would your theory explain 'small', stellar-mass dense objects like Cygnus X-1? From how things orbit it we know it has a mass of around 15 suns, yet it produces no light, only exceedingly powerful X-rays, some of the brightest in our skies.
Lagrangian points don't work here, we have a massive star orbiting something very small, very dense and very dark, except for high energy radiation. There's no particularly special geometry that'd produce an unusual gravitational effect like Jupiter's Trojan Asteroids and the 'effect' is far smaller than what an entire galaxy could make.
Hang on. What exactly are the densities in the early (ie under 1s) Universe and more to the point: *Why isn't the whole universe just one black hole?* If _all the matter of the universe_ was squeezed into, say, a volume the size of a garden pea (The Garden Pea Epoch) then surely that would be a Black Hole.
True, but remember that at that period, space was expanding enormously at the same time. So any incipient black hole (call it Napoleon) would have been quickly "diluted" by the expansion of space (Napoleon blown-apart).
:-)
But if I'm not being dense then despite this expansion of space(time?) Black Holes _are_ being formed during this epoch.
All the matter of the universe is concentrated into the volume of a garden pea but only _some_ of it is dense enough to form Black Holes?
Whatever mechanism that drove the universal inflation did so at such a rate that the universe expanded faster than the black holes could form and merge with each other (spacetime itself is allowed to expand faster than light). The source of that inflation is still a mystery. Also, the temperature and density of the universe was not perfectly smooth due to quantum fluctuations in the very early stages.
Guest Informant Imagine a sphere of matter. In the middle of it, gravity from all around pulls you equally, effectively cancelling out.
There are a few issues.
Firstly to form a black hole you need space to be falling inwards faster than light. If space is expanding outwards it becomes more difficult to form a hole. (A hole is fine but if it can't form at all in the first place then it's a moot point.)
Secondly you don't need a high energy density, if spacetime itself was in a higher energy state it wouldn't have to contain particles that could collapse. It would just expand, producing more 'vacuum energy' out of nowhere until it decayed, producing matter at a sub-black hole density. Space itself doesn't produce gravity despite having energy because-
Thirdly a black hole needs a center. You're imagining the universe as a pea with an inside and an outside and a center in the middle.This is not the case. The universe has no outside; it can be finite in size and 'closed' but still wouldn't have a center. Without a center there's no preferred point for all the matter and energy to collapse to; every point is pulling everything in all directions at once. This massive tug-of-war stops any one point 'winning' and forming a universal hole.
More Dr Copeland videos!!
I don't think they'd leave behind relics, I think they'd evaporate completely. Think of it in terms of energy quantum tunneling beyond the event horizon. Some tiny portion of the wavefunction always exists outside the event horizon, so energy will always leak out. If all that's left is one Planck unit of energy, then it would all tunnel out at once, pretty much instantly.
Is the amount of matter in the universe going down? If matter and energy are the same thing (E=MC2) and we are producing energy (through nuclear synthesis) AND energy can't be created or destroyed (only changed) then the energy we see MUST be coming from the conversion of matter into usable energy.
If that is true, and we are not converting energy into matter, then what are the long term prospects for matter? And the life forms made from matter (like us)? Will the universe one day run out of matter?
Maybe small-sized black holes are responsible for the fact that there so much more matter than antimatter. Hawking radiation photons escape, form an muon/anti-muon pair, and the anti-muon falls back into the black hole. I mean a primordial black hole may have acted like matter-anti-matter converters, or “matterpumps” if you like.
Question to astrophysicists: Is there a major event that we "missed" ? If you could send a message in the past and say something like "observe this part of the sky on the 22nd of Feb 1973" what would the actual message be ?
A neuron is much less than 10^-5 gram. Supposedly a human brain has about 100 billion (10^11) neurons so if each one was 10^-5 gram then the whole human brain would be one metric ton.
That quantum soup "slide"/screen would make an excellent poster for a scientist's office. Just saying... maybe start selling those...
Black holes like S5 0014+81 have to be Primordial black holes. A black hole feeding from the beginning of time. That is the best explanation to make sense of its sheer size.
The scary thing about PBHs is that there could be one at the center of the Earth and we wouldn't be able to tell (except by how quickly the wein's law peak moves over time) that it's there until it's too late - and it explodes with enough energy to vaporize the solar system.
We don't necessarily have to wait for them to explode to see them. The wavelength of light they give off is changing according to a function unique to very small black holes. We just need really powerful radio telescopes
Should've put some tensor calculus on the whiteboard instead of beginner's Linear Algebra when you talk about an advanced subject like that. JS
I wish this came out sooner. I had to write a paper for my cosmology class and part of it was Primordial Black Holes. This would have helped get the ideas flowing -_-
more sixty symbols videos Brady!!!!
Everything is connected continuously, and although the sense of it is the zero-infinity difference constant of Black-body Singularity-point positioning in ONE-INFINITY, inside-outside holographic time-timing presence, the Totality of Primordial vanishing-into-no-thing darkness is the same Primordial Eternity-now Interval, only "gravitational" Lensing, simultaneous spin-spiral convergence-divergence @.dt zero-infinity, shapes the appearance of a "Central Black Hole" or remote interstellar emptiness. Ie the Centre of Time Duration Timing at zero-infinity difference-displacement is that which constitutes the Reciproction-recirculation Black-body Singularity Conception-Universe.., ONE-INFINITY Superspin Modulation Mechanism. Sameness.
Does the concept of black holes at the Planck scale "floating about" make sense?
The probabilistic position of a particle at Planck temperature is the size of the universe.
Wouldn't a 10^15g black whole take up a LOT LESS than 10^(-8)% of the total mass energy if the universe. I haven't done the exact calculations - but considering that the Milky Way alone has an estimated 10^11 STARS, that % seems WAY too big.
I see some similarities between the evaporation of black holes and radioactive decay, just consider the mechanics of it all in general layman's terms.
THE UNIVERSE IS INFINITE...of course anything can happen infinitely, after an Infinite number of Big Bangs?
I am curious about the final phase of evaporation of small black holes. The smaller they get, the higher the effective 'temperature'. And temperature implies a given wavelength of photons, and thus a given energy of photons. (Yes, I realize it's a distribution, there's a peak wavelength and it depends on whether the emitter behaves as a black body, etc).
But what happens if the black hole 'temperature' reaches a point where the implied photon energy is substantially in excess of the remaining mass-energy of the black hole? Maybe it can't evaporate anymore?
Of course, I guess quantum effects come into play and there is still a non-zero chance of a photon "tunneling out", but it seems that this might cause some small black holes to persist for a long time? A bit of back-of-the-envelope math on Wolfram Alpha suggests that this might occur somewhere around the Planck mass.
Prof Copeland mentioned the possibility of black hole "remnants"... is this what he meant?
one of thE coolest youtube channels & it only has 620K subs after nearly a decade ! wtf ? ......guess thats just a reflection of the lack of rap'n piano kitty & such.......thankfully.
Hmm, why are 40 creationists watching this video (thumbs down)?
it just seems so unlikely and unintuitive to hunt for a 10^15mass singularity that would have accomplished such a staggering mass dominance during the high-density confinement epoch that formed them as it would absolutely not promote a proximal vacancy as it would literally stimulate a cosmic "neighbourhood". Wouldn't the trend during rapid expansion favour the attractors, to the extent that the "great attractor" et al could be the legacy of these objects? Forgive my naiveté, I'm a musician.
Why does having black holes evaporating increases the ambient radiation?
Those black holes are pockets of trapped energy. If they didn't form, all the energy would be whizzing around, increasing the temperature a lot more.
I'd say having black holes decreases the energy level and shorten the time at which atoms can form.
What did I miss?
2:52 - "They could have formed right at the plank era although you got to be very careful, we don't really understand the physics of quantum gravity." - I agree, but somehow you have no problem invoking a singularity at the center of a BH.
We don't understand the physics of Quantum gravity....If two black holes collide do we understand what can also happen (aside from a merger)? Or does the premise answer the proposed question?
I understand that black holes radiate thermally because matter-antimatter particle pairs can form in the vicinity of the event horizon, and the antimatter one falls in while the matter one radiates outward. What I've never understood is why the antimatter one is favored to fall in, and why isn't it just random which one falls in, so that we'd get some radiation and some absorption that just get in equilibrium so that the mass of the black hole neither grows nor lessens. Instead of evaporating why wouldn't the black hole simply stay roughly the same size? Is there some reason the matter particle of the pair preferentially radiates away while the antimatter particle preferentially falls in? Otherwise Hawking radiation wouldn't end up with black holes evaporating, would it? Thanks so much for clearing this up for me. I've been wondering this since the 1970s when I first read the SciAm articles about it.
Im confused... How can a black-hole decay? I understand the whole process but the destruction of a singularity I don't understand... 1. Is the mass of the black hole quantized to allow for clean evaporation? 2. Will mass inside the event horizon on a prolonged trajectory observe this decay, if it can't then would the decay of the event horizon be relative? 3. If it is relative, as the decreasing scale factor in between the universe and the inside of the event horizon approaches zero, does the singularity displace to have no quantifiable position in space relative to the universe besides for being apart from the universe itself. 4. If the black hole's position is now a zero dimensional coordinate, does that technically mean it has merged with the singularity that is our universe should it be considered in this manner?
Huh. I'd assumed the "primordial black holes" in Heroes of Dundee by Gloryhammer was just more exaggerated nonsense...
Isn't it possible that the reason we aren't seeing any evaporate now is cause they might not exist? Or perhaps that because our understanding of quantum gravity is limited, they don't evaporate at all?
I get that Hawking radiation is supposed to make them evaporate eventually, but since we don't understand quantum gravity, it's entirely possible it could give black holes properties that would prohibit hawking radiation from occurring.
So would black holes expand with the expansion of the universe? Or are they contributing in part to that expansion with their evaporation by yielding a smaller event horizon? Could we actually be living in a black hole, and the "quark soup" is just the super condensed matter that was "Spaghettified" matter that fell into it?
When you have the quark soup, why do you need any fluctuations at all to get formation of primordial black holes? The quarks are interacting probabilistically, so it wouldn't make any sense to consider everything homogenous and likely to remain static unless there are fluctuations.... or are those probabilistic interactions what those 'fluctuations' are? Seems strange to consider those fluctuations as everything always works that way.
Quantum nature of Hawking radiation, speaks of the non zero energy of empty space, where perhaps more dimensions are hidden, than the 11 of string. Could empty space hold the secret of the big bang and the production of tiny black holes?
Nice video. I just read a paper about Planet 9 and the possibilty of Planet 9 being a Primordial Black Hole. Such a interesting theory.
How do you intepret these cosmological and astrophysical statements given we can only see a small portion of the universe and how do we use these models if they are only suppositions?
Expansion can thin out space but so can black holes. The heat death or the big freeze and the big crunch have something in common, a symmetry.
I find some of his speculations to be a bit worrisome. I need more time to digest this...I hope I don't evaporate prior to achieving intellectual fulfillment! His theory does beg the question as to whether the smallest black holes could be found in our specific space-time environment, and indeed find suitable habitation in what we feel is our personal and proprietary reality? Can we co-exist with these events when they manifest in subatomic scales???
In allmost every Galaxy is a SMblack hole. Is it possible that primordial black holes can be them in every Galaxy? They should be very big I think if They where created in such early time period. Or not?
Mistake 5 minutes in, show parabolic dish telescopes when talking about gamma rays. Parabolic dishes allow you to focus a wave by reflecting it onto a point, but gamma rays can't be reflected.
So many videos on youtube make you *feel* like you learned something, but an hour later you remember nothing about the subject. What I like about this channel in general and Ed's videos in particular is that they are the *opposite* of this.
I feel like I have no idea about this subject...but I could explain to somebody else probably a lot more than they knew before.
This video got me thinking - over the course of the history of the universe, there have been some phase changes... from the singularity to inflation, from inflation to a quark-gluon plasma, from a quark-gluon plasma to an electromagnetic plasma, from that plasma condensed matter, etc... Through each of these, it has been a matter of the average temperature of the universe crossing some threshold to where a fundamental force that is overcome by all matter above that temperature, is not at the lower. Is there another phase past the current familiar state of the universe which might be reached in the distant future? Or is this something unknowable? (like, if intelligent life culd exist in the quark-gluon, would they even be able to predict that a then-yet unobservable fundamental force would completely alter the nature of the universe as they knew it?)
I'd like to hear more about so-called "relic black holes", in which a stable black-hole-like remnant is left over. How many of these are there? How common are they? What is their cross section? How could they interact with matter? And so on.
I hear that if you compress the Earth into the size of a marble, it will turn into a black hole. How small would you have to compress Mount Everest? Does size matter? What would happen in a universe jar filled with black hole marbles? Does it take time to create a black hole
May a Quark Star possess a dense environment o quark soup that would lead to the formation of small black holes? Would their growth dynamic be compareabe to the early universe?
edit: there would be no expansion inside the star like in the early universe. Should not their growth overbalance the radiation loss leading those stars to collapse inevitably?