Prof. Copeland admits aspects of the paper are too technical for him to follow. Honest humility from such a smart person, wonderful!

@RoganGunn

2 жыл бұрын

I believe he is a particle physics theorist, whereas this topic is astronomy and astrophysics, so I guess not _exactly_ his wheelhouse when talking about a "relativistically broadened iron K fluorescence line" , or "energy-resolved light curves"... But he is being very humble, yes, and quite clearly he understood 99% of it! It's actually quite a readable paper - most watchers of this channel would be able to follow it for sure, apart from some stuff about the spectrums of X-rays at various keV ranges and the stuff I quoted above, most jargon and concepts are explained well in plain English, no huge reams of equations or peculiar units. (There's no pictures though!)

@joshuarosen6242

2 жыл бұрын

People who know their stuff are happy to admit ignorance of areas outside their core field. People who never admit to not understanding something, probably don’t understand very much.

@zerosugar8026

2 жыл бұрын

That's code for some of the paper is BS fiction

@Seawolf159

2 жыл бұрын

It's proof that papers are nonsense and not meant to exist.

@julsius

2 жыл бұрын

@@joshuarosen6242 never is a long word. it can take a scientist 50 yrs to truly understand something. 25 if he doesnt have distractions. and 5 if hes given a team of 5 smart scientists around him to help him understand it.

The intercut between two professors is so well done as if they have a script!

@Titan.....

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah it's called a knowledge of physics lol

@FHBStudio

2 жыл бұрын

The only other time I've seen something synced like that so perfectly was that one video synchronizing all of the "extremely dangerous to our democracy" bits.

@brekkoh

2 жыл бұрын

It's almost as if they read the same paper! ...

@raccoonlad

2 жыл бұрын

Pretty much every one of the sixty symbol videos is edited exactly like this, y'all have been drinking too much conspiracy juice

@hoola_amigos

2 жыл бұрын

@@brekkoh 😂😂

I love how as youtube in general has become a more and more competitive, click-baity, and unfamiliar place, you can always come back to Bradys channels with all the same good old pleasant professors as the last ten years

I love the other channels, but Sixty Symbols will always be my favorite. I’ve missed it, and these profs.

Taking a look at black holes from behind is my favorite past-time

@cescabhi

2 жыл бұрын

You pervert!!!!

@techno_dependent

2 жыл бұрын

belter🤣😂

@Metaldetectiontubeworldwide

2 жыл бұрын

🤣🤣🍻 cheers

@RocketboyX

2 жыл бұрын

Oh my!

@jamescollier3

2 жыл бұрын

Maybe they read the same technical papers before they did this video?

When I was born the first black hole (Cygnus X-1) still needed to be identified. Enormous progress has been made. Just Wow!

@lastbornrelic3430

2 жыл бұрын

When were u born if u dont mind my asking?

@z4zuse

2 жыл бұрын

@@lastbornrelic3430 according to the black hole Wikipedia page: before 1971 😉

@lastbornrelic3430

2 жыл бұрын

@@z4zuse and wise words u would wish to share to a measly 7th grader?

@z4zuse

2 жыл бұрын

@@lastbornrelic3430 don’t trust edited comments

@lastbornrelic3430

2 жыл бұрын

@@z4zuse there was a comma at the end of the other 1 instead of a q mark so I'll ask again no edit anything to share to someone young some tips for life?

When you have to zoom out to get all of Ed's gestures in the frame.

This is by far the best explanation I've read/seen about this paper. Thanks!

At first I thought this would be about light from bodies behind a black hole curving around it, but light curving back is even better.

I had a weird thought while watching this. Either it's brilliantly edited or Brady is a super-genius and the "professors" are just actors reading the lines Brady has written...

@salottin

2 жыл бұрын

Editing + making the right questions, I'd assume

@duncanhall7228

2 жыл бұрын

They're both answering similar questions about the exact same paper so it makes sense the dialogue would mesh easily.

It's always a pleasure to hear from Professor Copeland!

@aussieevonne7857

2 жыл бұрын

Definitely.

Great video! The editing is excellent as always, and the Professors are clearly very excited to talk about this topic. Overall one of my favorites on the channel.

I'm excited to see what new corona related thing we can experience this year.

@thymythymyth

2 жыл бұрын

We don’t say that word anymore

@TheBackyardChemist

2 жыл бұрын

How about a coronal mass ejection?

It is clearly explained in simple way even High school students can understand 👍🙏

@Bartooc

2 жыл бұрын

If you can't explain it simple you don't understand it well enough.

@ct92404

2 жыл бұрын

@@Bartooc That is true...if you really have a thorough, close understanding of something, you should easily be able to break it down into layman's terms and speak in a conversational way about it.

I our observations and picture sets showing Light Echoes possibly one of the coolest things one can see! To be able to actually see light moving at well looks to be a slow speed, relatively speaking it is but the fact that we were able to also do it with a black hole incredible! I love their excitement in these videos, never ceases to make me smile! 😊

Even a neutron star has sufficiently strong gravity that looking at it, you can see more than 50% of its surface, because there are geodesics for light emitted from the surface that emanate from the "back" and are curved round towards the observer.

@alwaysdisputin9930

2 жыл бұрын

Yes like when I brush the hair at the back of my head over the top to hide the bald spot. Maybe we have 4 types of geodesic: 1 = straight lines 2 = light bent slightly around Sun e.g. during eclipse 3 = a geodesic like you describe 4 = null geodesic?'Is that when light just goes nowhere? It just spins around on the spot due to extreme g?

@askemervigbahnson333

2 жыл бұрын

Well but how would you describe a geodesic apart from being number one: A straight line?

@davidgillies620

2 жыл бұрын

@@askemervigbahnson333 A geodesic is a concept in differential geometry. Define a _connection_ on a manifold (a connection being a covariant derivative that allows us to specify derivatives along the tangent vectors to the manifold and in turn, meaningfully perform parallel transport of vectors on that manifold). A geodesic on the manifold is then a curve such that the connection acting on a tangent vector along the curve preserves its direction _i.e._ at every point the vector describing how the curve is changing points along the curve itself. In a manifold equipped with a _metric_ , the geodesic is the "shortest" distance between two points, but that path will not be a straight line except for flat, Euclidean space. In general relativity geodesics have a special significance; they are the paths along which bodies are in free fall. This is why orbits are curved. The orbiting body is taking the shortest path _in its own spacetime geometry_ . Null geodesics are geodesics followed by massless particles like photons. They have no proper time associated with them, but they can be curved just like the geodesics of massive particles.

When something comes to you at the speed of light, it's always ok to say "I didn't see that coming".

That was ridiculously good!

As usual top notch info and video!!

Still (one of) the best science channel here on KZread

Still the best channel on KZread.

I feel like this is kinda similar to Interstellar’s depiction of a black hole, where you could see the back of the accretion disk as the hole bent light around the top and bottom. Only in this case, it’s with x-rays from the corona discharge bouncing off the disk, still really an incredible feat!

What is the difference between light echos and reflections?

@denmaroca2584

2 жыл бұрын

A reflection is simply light bouncing off something. A light echo is when light from a source (which you may or may not be able to see directly) is seen when it bounces off surrounding material and reaches the observer after a perceptible delay.

very interesting thank you

It's like David Lynch did the animations for this video.

Completely mind-blowing

Light bending? Mind bending!

I don't fully understand the excitement around this, it's nice to have another test of GR, but I've seen some people (non physicists) get crazy about this as if they had actually disproven GR

@ZardoDhieldor

2 жыл бұрын

Well, it is a new kind of observation. Confirmation might not be as much as refutation but it's still something.

Imagine the day when our grandchildren can watch all of our celestial observations in fast forward... E.G. 100 years of data in animated motion in a matter of minutes. Here’s hoping!

Oh wow. There may be hope to apply experiments to some of the more esoteric aspects of theoretical astronomy/physics yet. I barely realized how similar the penrose diagram is to the lightcone predictions of the GR. I wonder if they can actually apply some of that methodology to testing put some of the weirder blackhole things like the Replica wormholes and capture of interior information, they were talking about at the American IAS, it was by douglas stanford et. al.

The black hole is 800 million ligh years away. Lol. My brain hurts just trying to imagine how far that is. The light we're seeing happened before dinosaur were on the earth 🤣😆. Damn!

@jareknowak8712

2 жыл бұрын

...and this 800 mill is only a small distance in the obserwable universe, and obserwable universe is only apart o greater space of unknown size :)

Love this episode on black holes what are Boson stars?

Thanks

Brilliant

Can you guys do a show on frame dragging?

"...seeing the back side of a supermassive black hole..." Black Hole Chan artists are gonna have a field day with this one.

Why do g waves travel at c when Maxwell said c = 1/√ɛ₀μ₀ i.e. gravity's limited by ELECTRICAL permiittivy???

What opaque massive object can you normally see behind?

@benbooth2783

2 жыл бұрын

Yourself?

Why is it an accretion disc and not an accretion sphere?

Thanks for pointing out that we were watching "Artistic representations" 🤭

@sixtysymbols

2 жыл бұрын

It *slightly* diminishes the “well actually” comments - although does increase the “well duh” comments like yours. ;)

@qzbnyv

2 жыл бұрын

@@sixtysymbols If I was a content creator, I’d probably permanently have the phrase “well actually” (and similar) muted in my KZread comments and Twitter feed. As well as making liberal use of the muting feature for whatever else people like to nag me about.

I'll be honest, boys, not the best representations of magnetic field lines I've seen.

@user-qf6yt3id3w

2 жыл бұрын

They must have spent many minutes on their NewTek Video Toaster.

@HermanVonPetri

2 жыл бұрын

I'm glad they labeled it as an "artistic representation" or I would have though it was real.

@condor6222

2 жыл бұрын

Pretty sure it was made like that to show that it's not like your typically smooth magnetic field you'd get from a bar magnet on a larger scale - from what the video says it seems to be much more chaotic with fields interlacing (the twisting the profs mentioned)

Feels like your x-ray of different color is being dragged the wrong direction. Surely it would follow the rotation of the accretion disk.

"800 million years ago". But from the perspective of the photons (really hard to think about a single photon) it was at the whole journey at the same instance. It doesn't have a limit in space or time. The photon is just a wave in a field

If it's too technical for professor Copeland, it must be REALLY technical

@salottin

2 жыл бұрын

@@Sralit I thought so as well. It's probably very specific to the experiments they were already doing before this discovery

how do you sync photons coming directly from a light source vs from a bouncing object to get the time difference?

@HermanVonPetri

2 жыл бұрын

Most likely by looking for flare ups and when they seem to be repeated in the surrounding material. Also, there's always some variation in the light output of objects like these. They aren't always outputting a consistent level of brightness. If you can record a graph of the light output over time from the source then you can try and match a similar pattern of light emissions from the reflecting material.

@Bartooc

2 жыл бұрын

He explains it in the video, lower amplitude flashes.

Is this a little like the bending of light of the accretion disc, which Kip Thorn figured out for the movie 'Interstellar'?

@nmarbletoe8210

2 жыл бұрын

exactly like that

If the light is getting flung back at us, how did the 'first' light particle bounce straight toward the observer? Wouldn't both beams get 'twisted' the same amount? How can one bounce straight and one bounce in a curved path?

@davidiverson5928

2 жыл бұрын

The accretion disk reflects light more like a sheet of paper than a mirror. Light hitting it bounces off in many directions. So, on all parts some is bouncing towards us and some is bouncing away.

Does this mean the information we get from the X-rays coming towards us isn't complete as some of it is going to be thrown out in another direction?

6:00 Warne to Gatting, Old Trafford 1993

Do you ever think that blackholes are reaching from our dimension to a dimension orders above ours. Think of it as a continual variable transmission found in 1985 Honda F1 car, that uses heat/gravity and interlocking geometry/ physical complexity to link together.

Gravitational lensing is not surprising. The spin of a black hole and how that impacts its gravitational field explains the color shift from side to side, no? There's no substantial shift from 'north to south', right?

Woah.

How is non linear light useful at all? if it follows a curved path, how do we match a point to a signal?

@vinlebo88

2 жыл бұрын

calculation

@pianochannel100

2 жыл бұрын

@@vinlebo88 orly

I assume Zwicki 1 was named after Fritz?

Where would the “Behind” of the black hole be if it’s pulling in from all sides? I thought they were like spheres not like disks.

@waynedarronwalls6468

2 жыл бұрын

The problem is really that "black holes" are not really holes, more a multidimensional hypersurface, the material falls onto rather than into the "hole"...what appears as a "well" is merely the spacetime being curved so strongly by the enormous gravity of the black hole.

@TK1980

2 жыл бұрын

@@waynedarronwalls6468 I think we’re looking as space time as a 2D fabric. Even though it bends, the black hole should be like a sphere no matter how close it gets to singularity, it still pulls from all sides, not just one side.

@nmarbletoe8210

2 жыл бұрын

Imagine a sphere, like a planet. There can be something behind it, right? Same thing with a black hole -- there can be something that is on the other sie of the hole. Not inside it, but past it.

@TK1980

2 жыл бұрын

@@nmarbletoe8210 I understand that but if a planet has a gravitational force of a black hole, it would pull in everything from all sides therefore there is no front or back, it’s either in or out. I often think if we have this “fabric like space time” wrong. Is there an up and a down side to this fabric? What would that mean in a practically a never ending universe? That is what’s confusing us about some things. Yes, I know, Einstein can’t be wrong but you never know.

Hmm thats interesting its only been found with non- rotating block holes

@benbooth2783

2 жыл бұрын

The are no non-rotating holes, the Schwarzschild metric is only an approximation. All black-holes rotate due to the conservation of angular momentum. Why did you think it only occurs in non-rotating black-holes, does it say that in this video?

So obviously the event is not continuous or you would not be able to detect similar signatures... you get a flash of emission, then an echo.

I love how an astronomer would describe something one million years old as "very young".

@Casowsky

2 жыл бұрын

Never ask a celestial object their age!

bouncing on my boys accretion disk to this video

my brain is melting

Unless the aliens are hiding behind the black hole I expect the picture to be the same as the front of the back hole 😀

"Garraxy"? Oh, HERRO!

Actually with I Zwicky 1, the black hole is oriented so that the front is facing away from us. So really we're receiving direct signals from the back of the black hole and then the light echos allows us to see the front. I can't believe these "professors" didn't realize this. /s

Next you'll tell me they've found water on the moon.

This gives fast and the furious vibes

Huh, how can you be so sure the wave you detect is indeed coming from there and reflected (or, echoed) that way? Watching the video, I have impression that eliminating noises and errors would be an enormous task.

So a reflection then?

Yah here in the states we call that a reflection 😜

Black holes are the answer to the universe. 🕳

I still can't understand this concept....how is it possible for there to be a "behind" to a black hole...they aren't 2d. So how is this possible....I have a hard time even trying to envision how a 3d black hole would look. Idk...maybe my brain is broken...lol

@vinlebo88

2 жыл бұрын

It's a sphere. (about the) same shape as a ball. "Behind" means the black hole is inbetween us and something

@jasonH5997

2 жыл бұрын

@@vinlebo88 I get what you're saying, but for some reason i can't seem to visualize it. Everything would be getting pulled in from all directions in 3 or more dimensions. To picture that seems impossible to me. I've seen pictures of black holes and they don't really help. It breaks my brain...lol I can picture a ball or like a sphere type shape created by a void of sorts, but then when I to try to picture everything being pulled in from all directions in 3d or more....my "model" breaks. maybe not knowing where everything goes or how to envision something so complex is just beyond my capabilities. lol which is why I think i have a hard time with a "behind/backside" of a black hole.

@vinlebo88

2 жыл бұрын

@@jasonH5997 Animations might help you

1:02 That's not echo, it's reverb.

How os that from behind the blackhole? The line starts from above it.

@nmarbletoe8210

2 жыл бұрын

and then goes behind, so it comes to us from behind

A long time to say light echoes are 'reflections'.

Copperstein...

thanks to linguistic developments we now have another word for light echoes, that being reflection

"Getting information from the back..." is only useful to us if we didn't know all about what would be there in the first place... it's interesting that we know that X-rays can echo off the back of the Black Hole, but it does not change what we know about the Black Hole itself. If you told me that the X-rays showed how the relative stars behind the Black Hole looked, or how the magnetic lines near a Black Hole run...

@jamescollier3

2 жыл бұрын

Lol. So sad a thinking process

@SpeakShibboleth

2 жыл бұрын

It doesn't change what we know about this black hole. It doesn't even change what we thought would happen to these x-rays. It's simply more evidence that our current understanding of physics models the universe accurately. That evidence is worthwhile to gather because without it, and other evidence like it, we could not have understanding much less models to apply to other problems.

Please do not blend the two interviews together without some kind of visual signifier that you're switching speakers. The effect at 3:50 is really distracting when there isn't even a pause between voices.

So this is kind of what the math of Interstellar showed?

I'd be more impressed if we could see inside

@TerrelleCheers1

2 жыл бұрын

Death

*Röntgen rays. They already been discovered.

Last time I was so excited about "Black hole" it was in MaryJoLisa's room 😋

I knew (or i guessed) that it had to do with general relativity. General relativity is very fundamental.

@alwaysdisputin9930

2 жыл бұрын

General relativity doesn't say why energy curves spacetime. It just says energy & curvature are equal. Saying 2 things are equal without knowing why is called "fine-tuning". It could be Lord Buddha did it with space magic. If so then a theory with Lord Buddha in it is more fundamental than GR

@henrikl...1264

2 жыл бұрын

@@alwaysdisputin9930 And yeah well i think GR is a theory that is fundamental enough for cosmology and physics to be called fundamental but i know as you say that it is not superfundamental not as much as the time and dimensions themselves.

@nmarbletoe8210

2 жыл бұрын

@@henrikl...1264 Yeah is possible that GR is actually just the result of some simpler theory. But, it is (I hear) very simple itself. idk if simpler = more fundamental. Someone once said "It is fundamental if it is useful"

After learning about corona in space (sounds like a funny movie title), space has become less appealing. Are the martians in lock down yet?

hi

@pianochannel100

2 жыл бұрын

hi

explain yang-mils problem

NOT THAT CORONA

I can't believe these guys actually think black holes really exist even though at the end of his life stephen hawking said they may not be exactly what we think they are...

@Bartooc

2 жыл бұрын

Because they are basing it on the real life observations not on believes like you.

@calinculianu

2 жыл бұрын

@@Bartooc "Real life" observations. Yeah, right.

@ct92404

2 жыл бұрын

@@calinculianu Ha, so you're one of those flat Earther nuts? 😂

Do you all really believe that they have a telescope that come see ANYTHING 800,000,000 light years away? Come on y'all!!!!

@HermanVonPetri

2 жыл бұрын

You can see the Andromeda galaxy with the naked eye and it's 2,500,000 light years away. It's not about how far away it is. It's about how bright it is and how much light your telescope can collect. There are thousands of amateurs building their own backyard telescopes who can regularly view galaxies of more than 300,000,000 light years away using nothing bigger than an 8" telescope. So can professionals using telescopes ten times larger see things much farther way? Yes, absolutely.

@HermanVonPetri

2 жыл бұрын

@@Barabbas7798 Ignorance is forgivable, but willingly remaining ignorant is not. There's hundreds of years worth of research for you to catch up on.

@Barabbas7798

2 жыл бұрын

@@HermanVonPetri you are real hard behind that keyboard aren't you Polly

@Barabbas7798

2 жыл бұрын

@@HermanVonPetri What part of that is ignorant? BTW

@HermanVonPetri

2 жыл бұрын

@@Barabbas7798 Ignorance as in uninformed. In the sense that you haven't bothered to educate yourself about how these things are known. You're asking questions, and that's great. But you're just stopping there claiming you know better, when in reality you just are too lazy to put in the work to find out. The next step is to go and find the information that will answer those questions. These are scientific fields that are built upon literally hundreds of years of study from thousands of researchers worldwide that can't be answered in a KZread comment. Take an astronomy course. Go to the library. Read about Hubble, Chandrasekhar, and Hawking; stellar parallax, supernovae, and relativity. Why should anyone value your uninformed opinion when it's clear you don't value the contributions of people who have literally dedicated their life's work to answering these questions.

Behind the black hole is a pigeon, po

Isnt that a platonic solid reduced to a plank size and the hole is inside relative to the vetives because of the metric tensoring of dark matter.

@Jehannum2000

2 жыл бұрын

Only if you reverse the polarity of the neutron flow.

1st

3rd

light echoes...? you mean reflections???

Sorry, I'm two minutes into this video and it's still not clear to me if by "behind a black hole" you mean "behind the event horizon" which should indeed be impossible or merely "on the other side of the black hole" which shouldn't be impossible but trivial as the black holes bends all the light around it anyway, right? I'm strongly leaning towards the second interpretation but that intro was confusing af and unnecessarily so!

@unvergebeneid

2 жыл бұрын

Also, the "artist's impression" looks nothing like a black hole, which is additionally confusing to people who haven't, for example, seen the great representation in Interstellar. How is it that in the rendering in this video the x-rays bend around the black hole but not the visible light?

@s87343jim

2 жыл бұрын

You have to watch this video in the context of the paper published. While it does bends ALL electromagnetic waves, including visible light. They used XMM Newton to observe the black hole, which is a X-ray telescope. There is also nothing wrong to say you can see light behind the blackhole, because that's what you are seeing. The light gets bend from behind the black hole into the telescope. If you want to be more clear, I guess you can say "the light behind black hole that is outside the event horizon". The video has already stated that everything that is inside the black hole can't escape though, and I think the target audience for this type of videos would know that already

@unvergebeneid

2 жыл бұрын

@@s87343jim I'm not criticising the paper, I'm criticising its presentation in this video.

@AbiGail-ok7fc

2 жыл бұрын

This is from "behind the black hole", but it isn't as "trivial" as gravitational lensing where we are seeing objects far behind the lensing structure. This is from right behind the black hole -- more like being able to see a label on the other side of a lamppost (which itself is on the moon).

@unvergebeneid

2 жыл бұрын

@@AbiGail-ok7fc yes, and if you've ever seen a realistic depiction of a black hole, then you already know that you see both sides of the accretion disk as a ring around the black hole. I would expect the target audience of this channel to know that, which is why somehow denying that at first only to then go "psych!" is so confusing.

Need more about their methodology really, because they could (not suggesting that they did) just cherry-pick observations that do fit with GR, no?

But arent you really looking at the inside of an atom. Isnt this an example of a three d two sphere universe.

Do most physicists agree that black holes are super dense spheres of mass (not unlike neutron stars or white holes, just more dense) that have become dense enough that their event horizon diameter exceeds the sphere’s diameter, going black from our view? I think Einstein's wrong, that time is constant and that dark matter is the limiting factor to the speed of light. I think it’s not 'space-time' bending but rather gravitational and dark matter density variations. The common illustration showing a flat plane turning into a cone drawn into a black hole at one point is simply incorrect and absolutely misleading. A black hole is a super dense sphere of mass and everything should be illustrated with its gravity pulling everything into its center of mass from all directions. Event horizons are spherical in shape, not round and 2D. Please do a video on how horribly incorrect those common illustrations are.

@ct92404

2 жыл бұрын

Ok, that concept does make more sense. I always thought the idea of a black hole being 2-dimensional and pulling in things from one direction like a tornado or whirlpool was silly and cartoonish. Nothing is 2-dimensional in space. It would HAVE to be a sphere. From OUR perspective it looks 2-dimensional, but of course if a black hole is formed by a star collapsing in on itself then the gravity would pull from all directions, forming a sphere. The "back side" of a black hole should look pretty much the same as the side we can see. It's the INTERIOR of a black hole that's so mysterious.

Just call it reflections, jeez

You guys know Wendy

It's where we all end up. The way to the beginning it's the entrance to the light.