Kip Thorne - Why Are Black Holes So Astonishing?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 13 лис 2023
- Watch more videos on black holes and dark matter: bit.ly/3QtG47P
Black holes warp space and time, squeeze matter to a vanishing point, and trap light so that it cannot escape. Black holes, with masses millions or billions times that of our sun, sit at the center of galaxies. How can black holes perform such stupendous tricks, and what can we learn from them?
Register for free today to get subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/3He94Ns
Support the show with Closer To Truth merchandise: bit.ly/3P2ogje
Kip Thorne is a theoretical physicist, known for his contributions in gravitational physics and astrophysics. He was the Feynman Professor of Theoretical Physics at the California Institute of Technology until 2009.
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
I'm so glad you were the consultant for Interstellar Kip. It was amazing seeing a movie where general relativity had such a profound impact on the storyline.
aaai. aaai.
Wow. GREAT & WONDERFUL.
Many thanks KIP.
So Oppenheimer probably wasn't 'just' another Nolan project, but something that came up and developed during the work on Interstellar. Interesting.
we need alot more guys like this....
what more liars
When talking about a black hole problem, we should not forget to mention Roy Patrick Kerr, a wonderful mathematician who found the exact solution to a rotating black hole problem - the Kerr geometry, the Kerr metric. I have the book on how he solved the problem: D. Wiltshire, M. Visser, S.M. Scott, The Kerr Spacetime, Cambridge University Press, 2009. I bought this book after two years of hard and vain endeavour to solve the Einstein Field Equations for the spinning matter. To me, this book is a real motivation for mastering General Relativity.
3:11… Would love to hear more about how we once viewed singularities as where the laws of physics break down, but now realize that’s where new laws of physics come in…
I think it's because -- everywhere else in physics (that are accessible to us) where there are singularities, that's exactly what we see. For example, consider two objects that are touching: the force of gravity could be said to be infinite, because the distance between the objects is zero. F=(k*m1*m2)/(r*r). When r gets close to zero, the force gets infinitely large. But of course, that's not what happens, because the distance is never zero: Electromagnetics takes over, the Pauli exclusion principle, so when I'm "touching" the rock, the distance between the particles in my hand and the particles of the rock is not actually zero, instead, the rock is pushing back against my hand and keeping it minutely far away, but far enough such that gravity doesn't really explode, the small masses of the particles in my hand and the surface of the rock are repelled so that m1*m2 (the product of the masses) does not drown out r*r (the square of the distance between those particles.) This is an example of where a singularity is overcome by "new physics." In the case of the black hole, it's that we struggle to model what happens near the core of a black hole. It's not like we can do experiments on ultra-dense things that form within black holes, because, clearly: everything involved would be sucked into the black hole.
@@LionKimbro Thank you. This was brilliantly and clearly explained. I find it very helpful.
If the laws of physics don't explain something physical, then they're wrong or incomplete and new physics is needed.
You are smart
Staines massive Love this guy
This footage must be really old, because Kip Throne is now 83. And he was a professor in 1971.
Yeah there's a lot of reuploads from these guys. You can tell when the host is younger too
Could yo do a Video about psychedelics like LSD, DMT (Ayahuasca), Mushrooms.
Why they even exist, and why the receptors in the human body interacts with these substances?
Would be great doing a series about Psychedelics.
Some of these substances are chemically very similar to chemicals that perform functions in the biochemistry of our brains, and so mimic their effects. LSD enhances the sensitivity of synapses to dopamine, which a chemical produced in the brain that transmits signals between neurons. DMT increases communication between various regions of the brain, but the mechanism isn’t well understood.
I've done all 3 bit dmt is on another level, nothing really compares to dmt just beware of scammers trying to sell it on instagram, they tend to spam posts like this
took mushroom once in the Nature, it was beautiful, I would definitely say that this substance has made me a better person.
I want to understand the Nature of these Substances.
I've read a lot about DMT, scary and fascinating 😊
Unfortunately social Media is full of scammers and i am fully aware of that.
The world ist full of evil people who want to abuse and make profit of this beautiful gifts by Mother Nature. @@Jack-gn4gl
Looks like Super Mario World paused on his screen in the bottom left.
i love the crts
Having a stroke?😂
I humbly suggest that, aside from gravity and thermodynamics, black holes might be the metaphorical "pistons" that help turn the metaphorical "crankshaft" of the great engine of the universe by causing the perpetual movement of the instantaneously entangled quantum substance from which the phenomenal features of the universe are created.
Very interesting thought. Note also the similarity between the appearance of black holes to the appearance of the pupil in the human eye - the eye being both the window to the soul and the tool of the conscious observer that brings light into wave form - and you have yourself a Hindu type holographic scaling of reality
@@LegendoftheLightningBolt Good one. And not only is the pupil of the eye a window to the soul, conversely, it is the window that the soul uses to peer outward into the universe. The soul can even choose to pull the shade down on that window and direct its full attention inward into its own universe, especially while asleep and dreaming.
And maybe the larger black holes create new universes, like ours.
@@chester-chickfunt900 I suggest that black holes simply disassemble matter back down to its fundamental essence which then becomes a part of the "non-local" essence that makes-up the "not-so-empty" space of the "spacetime" fabric of the universe. It is then recycled for use in the creation of new phenomena. In other words, what happens within black holes is part of the "self-contained" system of just this one singular universe.
it is just gravity compressing matter and space time into one..
As old as it is, This video will never not be funny
What is not astonishing about black holes?
Je ne savais pas que les quarks avaient été découverts en 1939 ainsi que la chromodynamique quantique. Oppenheimer aurait pu le dire aux autres physiciens, ils auraient gagne 50 ans de recherche.
Those are not "gravitational Black Holes", because such "gravitational black holes" do not exist at all.
In reality those are simple natural dynamic electro-magneto-thermodynamic holes in which only very strong expansive phenomena are present.
They are strongly developed at the natural symmetrical dynamic center of galaxies depending only on the way a galaxy evolves by continuously encountering other intergalactic gas, matter, structures, other galactic structures, etc in the eons of galaxy's existence and evolution.
5:38 ... that could be done without observation just by having confidence in Einstein's laws but to figure out that they really are out there and what they do in the universe how they are the dominant objects of the centers of galaxies how they really are the end of deaths of massive stars that required extensive observation by huge number of very talent astronomers. 6:20 ... thery are wonderful objects for me as a physicist to study because they teach us so much about the warping of space and time about the connections between general relativity and quantum theory (?) they are powerful tools for trying to puzzle out the laws of nature that so to me that'sthe awe of them of course I'm in different role for example consulting on a science fiction movie
👍👍💯💯👏👏✔✔
I wonder how they end up in the center of galaxies
That’s were the most mass is located when galaxies form .
stellarwind1 • The correct answer to that question gives you the correct understanding that in those places only simple natural electromagnetic and thermodynamic phenomena take place.
No "gravitational Black Holes" there, that in REALITY they don't exist at all.
@@mikel4879 black holes are among the most common cosmological phenomena in the universe . You are a science denier .
Our universe is in the black hole .
It’s an interesting idea
nvm
@@bozo5632 no it’s a decent theory
@@zacatkinson3926 Yeah, you're right. It's interesting. And I was mostly wrong about the ticking, so I retract that comment.
@@bozo5632 Its an old theory its been around along time
Kip "Ahh eht" Thorn 😂
Thanks Kip, my good friend... you made Black Holes make sense.... Eric
thank god it wasn't just me who noticed the "aiyyt" ... what the heck could cause this???? what is the medical term for this involuntary "aiyyt"?
@@blueoxmillworks Facts
@@lordbacon4972 💀😂😂
_"Heyyyy, Macarena!..."_
think about it - black hole wtf is going on - where are we
"...their ability to probe the laws of nature.."
A strange statement. Not because it is true, but because it might not be.
The science of the past 150 years starts not with Einstein but with the electron. The inference of a "thing" by the observation of an actual thing. Well, one might say, doesn't that also include Newton and gravity? No. Because of one thing: we cannot control gravity.
Newton's induction of gravity is not like J.J. Thomson's induction of electrons is it? We didn't see electricity everywhere did we? Unlike gravity which we can see that things fall all the time. No electricity was a relatively rare phenomenon, rare but not unusual.
Unlike the force of gravity the force of electricity could be generated. Generated and controlled.
This distinction between electrons and gravity has a bearing on the ability to "probe" the laws of nature. Where electrons, electron miscroscopes, and attosecond lasers have given us glimpses of the extremely small, there has yet to be as effective a trove of devices to shed light on, or give us a glimpse of the extremely large. LIGO not withstanding.
"Eehhh..." you know, if you got a good sound editor to remove them all, I don't think anybody would get mad.
Eeeyuuhh... don't know what your talking aaaayuhh-bout...
A singularity is not a real physical thing. It’s basically division by zero.
Agreed, and there are quantum dynamical solutions that eliminate the singularity. It’s one of those areas where there are still genuine unknowns.
@@simonhibbs887
The main problem as I see it so you understand me a bit, is the presentation of these theories as if they’re true. I have a son that comes home from school and tells me all about these wonders. (And no I don’t rain on his parade… not yet)
I’ve been a research assistant. I have some understanding of these things that most people don’t have. No I don’t claim to be a super genius and no I’m not saying anything unique.
But popular science misleads the public and educators mislead students likely because of their FAITH in science, or their ignorance of the undergirding philosophy of science. Either way, more voices need to amplify the dubitable nature of these theories.
@@deanodebo >"The main problem as I see it so you understand me a bit, is the presentation of these theories as if they’re true."
For the most part general relativity is very well verified now. There have been a good handful of big predictions it made that have been verified observationally since. The thing is singularities are another prediction. So when it's got full marks on big predictions that many times in a row, on the face of it betting against it on another prediction seems like a losing move. On the other hand singularities seem like another level of unlikely. So without any possibility of a direct observation, there's no chance of empirical evidence one way or the other. That deprives us of our main tool to verify a theoretical prediction.
Fortunately we have quantum mechanics which might help us out, but only if it makes predictions we can verify. Otherwise we're all just speculating.
In practical terms I'm not sure it matters that much. In the areas we can observe, and even more importantly in those areas we can apply them practically to develop new technologies, both general relativity and quantum mechanics are absolutely spot on.
@@simonhibbs887
Incorrect. Singularities are simply undefined areas of the equations. It’s not a real thing or a prediction. Are you aware that Einstein himself didn’t think black holes were a real phenomenon?
Newtons equations are very useful as well. The usefulness of various theories do not mean that a theory is “verified”.
You are sorely mistaken
Relativity is very useful in a very narrow context. It’s simply another mathematical model that has utility in a limited way.
@@deanodebo >"Are you aware that Einstein himself didn’t think black holes were a real phenomenon?"
I am, and that his objections to them proved to be unfounded, but that was about the formation of the event horizon in a real star collapse scenario.
>"Newtons equations are very useful as well. The usefulness of various theories do not mean that a theory is “verified”. "
I think you're taking the term 'verified' further than I intend. Verification simply means a demonstration that reality conforms to the prediction. For me scientific theories are simply descriptions of what we observe, that's all. They are in formal mathematical language which allows us to use them to also make future predictions, but they are still fundamentally just descriptive. So for Newton's Laws there are domains of application where they are verified, and domains where they are falsified.
For now relativity is verified in every domain we are able to test it against, but that does not mean that all of those predictions we cannot test through observations would also validate it. In fact we have a problem because relativity and quantum mechanics, while individually very highly verified against vast amounts of evidence, contradict each other in specific areas that elude direct observational validation. In those areas they can't both be accurately predictive.
>"Relativity is very useful in a very narrow context. "
That's an interesting use of the term 'narrow'. It's been correct in every domain we have been able to observe, from subatomic particles to the full extent of the observable universe. From objects at rest, to those traveling a hair's breadth below the speed of light.
>"It’s simply another mathematical model that has utility in a limited way."
Sure, if pretty much every situation in the entire universe except the very centre of black holes is all that 'limited'.
Time travel is just a fantasy.
Not for particles
I-ight I-ight I-ight
Why are you recycling old videos?
That’s literally what this channel is for.
@simonhibbs887 The original interview with Kip Thorne was published on this same channel 10 years ago. Why reposting it? it is already there. Are they trying to double-monetize it?
@@cruzcam It's what the channel does. All it's clips are taken from past episodes of the show, withe the exception of occasional recent full online interviews, which are a new thing since lockdown.
the guy with glasses wants to look younger obviously, aaaai. aaai.
What if it turns out that the black hole Sgr A is actually the center of our universe and not the Sun? And that everything revolves around it? At least everything that survives.
John 13:35
Why does Kip keep saying aaiiieee?
Thanks. Now that's all I can hear.
@@lensip2 Sorry. Once you hear it you are trapped.
😂😂😂😂
Some sort of speech issue
Couldn’t stop laughing once I heard it
😂aaaaaaiiieee
For well over 300 years (ever since Newton vs Leibniz) we have defined 0 and 1 (and their geometric counterparts) as follows:
0 = not-necessary
0D = not-necessary
1 = necessary
1D = necessary
(Newton won so above are his definitions. Newton conflated "natural" with "necessary" and was largely ignorant of Geometry.)
A year ago quantum physics proved that Leibniz was actually correct (the universe is "not locally real") which looks like this:
0 = necessary
0D = necessary
1= not-necessary
1D = not-necessary
Since Mathematics > Physics > Chemistry > Biology... the implications of the definitions of 0 and 1 changing are world altering.
"Only the zero-of yourself is necessary" is now a true statement. That's neat to think about.
A little over a year ago the zero-of yourself was not-necessary. See how the facts change over time? Newton really set humanity back with his conflated definitions.
Zero is the most important number in mathematics and is both a real and an imaginary number (this side/other side) with a horizon through it.
It's geometric counterpart zero-dimensional space is the most important dimension in physics and is both a real and an imaginary dimension (this side/other side) with an event horizon through it.
Monad (from Greek μονάς monas, "singularity" in turn from μόνος monos, "alone") refers, in cosmogony, to the Supreme Being, divinity or the totality of all things.
The concept was reportedly conceived by the Pythagoreans and may refer variously to a single source acting alone, or to an indivisible origin, or to both.
The concept was later adopted by other philosophers, such as Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who referred to the Monad as an *elementary particle.*
It had a *geometric counterpart,* which was debated and discussed contemporaneously by the same groups of people.
[In this speculative scenario, let's consider Leibniz's *Monad,* from the philosophical work "The Monadology", as an abstract representation of *the zero-dimensional space that binds quarks together* using the strong nuclear force]:
1) Indivisibility and Unity: Monads, as indivisible entities, mirror the nature of quarks, which are deemed elementary and indivisible particles in our theoretical context. Just as monads possess unity and indivisibility, quarks are unified in their interactions through the strong force.
2) Interconnectedness: Leibniz's monads are interconnected, each reflecting the entire universe from its own perspective. In a parallel manner, the interconnectedness of quarks through the strong force could be metaphorically represented by the interplay of monads, forming a web that holds particles together.
3) Inherent Properties: Just as monads possess inherent perceptions and appetitions, quarks could be thought of as having intrinsic properties like color charge, reflecting the inherent qualities of monads and influencing their interactions.
4) Harmony: The concept of monads contributing to universal harmony resonates with the idea that the strong nuclear force maintains harmony within atomic nuclei by counteracting the electromagnetic repulsion between protons, allowing for the stability of matter.
5) Pre-established Harmony: Monads' pre-established harmony aligns with the idea that the strong force was pre-designed to ensure stable interactions among quarks, orchestrating their behavior in a way that parallels the harmony envisaged by Leibniz.
6) Non-Mechanical Interaction: Monads interact non-mechanically, mirroring the non-mechanical interactions of quarks through gluon exchange. This connection might be seen as a metaphorical reflection of the intricacies of quark-gluon dynamics.
7) Holism: The holistic perspective of monads could symbolize how quarks, like the monads' interconnections, contribute holistically to the structure and behavior of particles through the strong force interactions.
@@NotNecessarily-ip4vc How many different accounts have you trolled this nonsense with?
is there a problem with the sound? cannot listen to this.
Well, you can be sure that they're real because there is a TV show that exists called "The Black Hole Theory."😊
Quantum information, Quantum entanglement,
Are, fundamental, underlying of Reality.
Quantum Mind emerge, Quantum Body emerge,
Mind and Body entanglement.. Consciousness emerge.
Spacetime emerge, Holographic principal.
We don't know that Black Holes even exist, so mainly the Human race's ability to believe the Standard Model is more astonishing.
A few decades ago that was the position maybe, but the observational evidence at this point is overwhelming.
@@simonhibbs887 No it isn't. The observational evidence is that they don't exist. The observational evidence is that the Cavendish experiment is wrong for a start. Then if mass doesn't attract mass the formulas are observably wrong. Mass moves towards negative mass making a black hole actually a negative mass hole which is a different thing. The negative mass hole would be where the black hole is so you have an alternative hole exactly where the black hole is supposed to be. Therefore no observational evidence so far.
@@pinchopaxtonsgreatestminds9591we’ve photographed them . We’ve even heard them
@@tonyatkinson2210 We've photographed a ring, and heard something.
@@pinchopaxtonsgreatestminds9591 we’ve observed gravitational wells and made mathematical prediction based of our modelling that these are caused by black holes . We’ve turned our radio telescopes to them and seen the rings that are of the right shape and size that our models predict black holes to be .
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it’s a duck
_They are astonishing because nobody have seen them._😅
There are NO SUCH THINGS as "bLaCk HoLeS"
I'm sorry, what now? Please continue.
It's more like a black sphere, but that just doesn't have the same ring tho, does it..)
Kip Thorne has a tic disorder, which is a huge burden socially, and probably has left him with significant trauma. So please shut up about the extra sounds he makes while speaking.
Hahahahaha... you guys better stop lying... none has already observed a black hole ... it’s something mathematical indeed.
Yes we have
Here you go. science.nasa.gov/resource/first-image-of-a-black-hole/
We’ve also heard them
Based on these equations, they also invent 95% of the universe for which there is no direct proof. Almost the entire universe is unproven. Besides, why would I trust a telescope? Made up of plastic and glass extracted from the earth, why would I assume that this is telling me some ultimate truth about fundamental reality.
Hahahahaha... good for you.
yet still a lie
aaaayyygaahh
aaaayyygaahh
aaaayyygaahh
aaaayyygaahh
aaaayyygaahh
🎉🎉🎉🎉😢
Einstein was a Neanderthal !