I like how professor Copeland whispers when he starts talking about cosmic string seeds - like he knows it's a naughty hope to have.

@General12th

7 жыл бұрын

It it naughty. It's so completely out there that I don't understand why he gives it even the slightest bit of credence.

@d5uncr

7 жыл бұрын

Most modern physics _is_ quite "out there". I think he's rooting for it because A) he's been working on it for quite some time and because B) it doesn't seem to be completely ruled out.

@Taricus

6 жыл бұрын

I believe he got some physics award based on cosmic superstrings.

@reefsroost696

5 жыл бұрын

@@Taricus Probably so. I have a few awards too. The difference between his & mine is that I can explain, even to a simple man what mine are for.

@pokeman123451

4 жыл бұрын

Robert Mullenax Let’s hear your award winning hypothesis and your explanation

Please never stop making Sixty Symbols videos Brady. This is and always has been my favorite channel.

@beachmobjellies

8 жыл бұрын

+Goldsrevenge i agreeeeeeee!

@daveangels

8 жыл бұрын

mine as well

@cphVlwYa

8 жыл бұрын

+Goldsrevenge Same here

@Adityarm.08

6 жыл бұрын

Although it's awesome too, but 3blue1brown's content is much more intricate imo.

@EmmyZoide

4 жыл бұрын

Yes! For true!

"You will already be gone in terms of living" What a nice way to put it.

did you try to throw a rock in it to see how deep it is?

@Diggnuts

8 жыл бұрын

+suncu91 It's turtles... all the way down..

@raykent3211

8 жыл бұрын

Nice idea! Personally, I can't throw very far, but I wish you luck if you're going to try.

@frosted1030

8 жыл бұрын

+suncu91 It gets to the event horizon, stands still and redshifts into oblivion.

@thrashish

8 жыл бұрын

+suncu91 did they try turning it off and back on again?

@raykent3211

8 жыл бұрын

+thrashish They haven't found a way of turning a rock off. Or did you mean a black hole? Or the universe? I don't think they know how to do any of those things, but stand by for an automatic 17 petabyte software update download which renders your computer unuseable for...ooh... 10,000 years?

Just when you thought Prof. Copeland couldn't get more adorable 06:54

@moinmoin1293

8 жыл бұрын

Yea, I had to giggle at that point because it was so cute the way he said it.

@joanardon6222

7 жыл бұрын

I just want to attend classes of that guy... he talks so smoothly...

@michaelryd6737

7 жыл бұрын

And then he smashes it all 7:30 talking about majority... There is no such thing in science! lol

@corywhitney1386

6 жыл бұрын

Safro Rox wtf

a stringy type structure.. a, stringularity?

@frankschneider6156

8 жыл бұрын

+starlight9889 There are no singularities in physics and the real world. Singularities are only mathematical artifacts that result when you apply a theory to some situation, beyond it's own validity.

@RisingproMK123

8 жыл бұрын

+starlight9889 That name has a nice "string" to it!

@BlueEyesWhiteTeddy

8 жыл бұрын

+Frank Schneider how is mass/0 a mathematical thing?

@clairechocolate12

8 жыл бұрын

i'll let that pass even though I am rather "string"ent when it comes to puns

@frankschneider6156

8 жыл бұрын

***** It should be obvious that "mass / 0", or in words "mass divided by zero" is a mathematical expression and not a physical reality. (Next to the fact that dividing by 0 is forbidden, so better use lim)

I don't like to pick favorites, but I could listen to professor Ed Copeland all day long. Hearing him get excited and teasing about string theory makes my nerdy mind cheer :P

@akburst510

8 жыл бұрын

+Mike Orr He has a soothing voice.

@galgrunfeld9954

8 жыл бұрын

+William Faulkner Go watch videos of Leonard Susskind! He's one co-founders of string theory, and he has lectures available on KZread.

@mike0rr

8 жыл бұрын

Gal Grünfeld Will do.

@thesage1096

8 жыл бұрын

i guess he do talk about ST, but why bring it up in the comments of this video, it seems quite a bit unrelated

@mike0rr

8 жыл бұрын

It pertained to his excitement. Watching him become so happy just talking about it was heart warming. That face is the face I think of when I think of scientific passion at it's finest.

I studied black holes a few years ago in class but I never understood the point.

@Leitilumo

8 жыл бұрын

Zing!

@brodaclop

8 жыл бұрын

+La Nausée "Dark" simply means that it doesn't interact electromagnetically. "Transparent" would probably be a better word, but it doesn't sound as cool.

@justinlewtp

8 жыл бұрын

Dayummm

@Carbocats

8 жыл бұрын

Thats why we prefer white holes ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡° )

@DaveGrean

8 жыл бұрын

I feel like this is a pun, but I don't think I get it.

I'm over 50 and have considered myself fully cognisant of physics and cosmology most of my life. So it's amazing to me to watch this and really learn something new and to realise that I previously didn't understand something as well as I thought I did. In this case, the quantum world clashing with the gravitational. Also Tony's explanation about how at high energy the symmetries reestablish themselves and mass disappears. Showing how the Higgs field physics pursued wasn't just about completing the Standard Model, but is an important paradigm for consequences of Grand Unified theories.

@sithsmasher7685

8 жыл бұрын

The big question is: can you really put all quantum excitations of the black hole mass into a single point? You need a volume for stuff to interact with other stuff, so to me that seems highly unlikely. In geometry, you can put an infinite number of lines on top of each other appearing as one, but that's math, not reality. Some people argue the universe might be a 'simulation'. In such a reality it would make perfect sense. It seems that the more humanity discovers, the more questions arise. There are exciting times ahead for physics.

@Asmodrin

7 жыл бұрын

Make America great again!

@snackentity5709

7 жыл бұрын

you can't consider yourself "cognisant of physics" if you've never understood that gravity (classical physics) and quantum mechanics have not yet been unified. that's a fundamental problem that has been in physics for many years now. a fundamental problem that doesn't take any high level education to understand.

@PopeLando

7 жыл бұрын

Mank Demes sory ahm stoopid. wunt coment on fizziks stuff anymore

@guilldea

7 жыл бұрын

+PopeLando dont worry, the Internet is like this, no one is nice when their social status is not at risk, I personally find your thirst of knowledge admirable and want to be like you at your age :)

The present Laws of physics are such Parker Squares

@TheLuxma

8 жыл бұрын

I really hope this joke will never die 😂😂😂

@joulesjams20

8 жыл бұрын

+Claes Henriksson OMGGG LOLLLL I am dying. xD

@99bits46

6 жыл бұрын

The Parker Square actually has a reference on knowyourmeme XD

@KibyNykraft

5 жыл бұрын

Talking about the electron getting its mass FROM the Higgs f.. No wait (chuckle) the Higgs particle.. 🙉 You see this when we know that the standard model has too many flaws. The idea that particles and atoms existed with a sole control over energy content is today outdated. Empty space makes up most of the volume of a molecule, and empty space isnt even actually empty space (see research on vacuum energy, dark matter, dark energy..). Let us think about sound for example. The output we call sound is created when atoms vibrate.. But there is an energy responsible for the vibratory state. What is it? The standard model does not consider this at all. We know that there is a space curvature, black hole effects etc. But we don't know how. Maybe there is something more sensible to find in magneto-hydro-dynamics or in plasma cosmology?

I always love to see the excitement these guys have. Ed's 'secret hope' at the end is simply happiness. :)

the 15 dislikes are from stephen hawkings 15 accounts. LOLOL

I would love to hear about cosmic strings.

This channel deserves an award. Just awesome content and general production. This is what The Discovery channel should have stayed true to; thoughtful explanations from passionate people who want to help educate.

Love how the whiteboard in the background becomes unfocused at 0:57 when Professor Ed Copeland says "that's when things can get smeared out."

I’m a simple man. When I see a video with Schrödinger and Einstein on the same thumbnail, I click immediately!

Two thoughts: 1. A small point about "spaghettification" from ever stronger spacetime curvature. Often forgotten when this effect is brought up, is that along with the radial stretching of the falling object, there is azimuthal compression in the plane perpendicular to the radial direction; and this essentially doubles the effect (the strain tensor is volume-preserving). 2. In whatever turns out to be the unification theory for quantum gravity, the singularity *has* to disappear, because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which turns spacetime at the Planck scale into a "quantum foam;" unless HUP itself somehow falls away in the unification, which seems extremely unlikely.

Been watching Numberphile for a while. Had no idea about these other channels. Now I'm stoked.

ask them about the uncertainty principle at the singularity.

@TAP7a

8 жыл бұрын

+bryangoggin it would be a little bit dodgy, but not for any particularly special reason. If what you mean by 'at the singularity' is 'wavefunction is precisely localised to the exact position of the singularity' then the uncertainty of the momentum of the particle is infinite so it's impossible to predict its position in the future. If you mean 'wavefunction localised to kind of near the singularity' then the product of uncertainty of position and momentum is still greater than or equal to planck's constant over 4 pi. What seems to have happened here is you've put some buzzwords together in a way that you haven't necessarily seen before in that order, rather than the formation of any obviously impossible scenario. The maths would get a bit hairy, requiring a relativistic treatment of quantum mechanics (QFT) but Heisenberg's principle is still pretty damn solid

@Boomproof

8 жыл бұрын

+bryangoggin The uncertainty principle is caused by the collapse of the wave function of a particle - in a black hole, I guess that the quantum states aren't defined at all, but they rather swing or oscillate indefinately. The idea of a black hole is that of a body that doesn't (in theory, we now have been kinda proven the opposite) lose any information, so that both states are present in the black hole itself for any given "particle" (or what it turns into once inside said body), until it decides to spew some of it out in the form of Gamma bursts - beyond that I cannot continue theorizing because we have too little knowledge about high energy particle physics, let alone in said scale; I'd like to quote Ed on this one by saying that they'd be part of something "stringy". Only under low enegy conditions can a particle actually collapse into one of 2 states - probably because only a particle can do so - inside of a black hole, particles wouldn't exist as we understand them.

@bgoggin88

8 жыл бұрын

+TAP7a tl;dw but it sounds like im on the right track though.

@Boomproof

8 жыл бұрын

+bryangoggin You set a complex question and expect a 1-liner as an answer, in a time where we can only speculate about the whole concept - gr8 m8, I r8 8/8 :D @TAP7a - aren't quantum states native to particles? And if in a black hole particles cannot exist as we understand them, how shall they keep this properties? I can rather imagine an electron staying "as is" in the sense of undergoing decomposition in it's elemental building blocks as they're leptons, and thus already in the range of quarks - but if strings are the most basic stadium of quarks and leptons, would we consider strings as having spin? My guess is that's not the case. Let maths at one side for a moment, as it will not provide you with any insight imo - don't get me wrong, it helps to get to a hypothesis, yet I'm sure that you're letting out a shitton of information in that first application of the uncertainty formula - are you even sure that planck's constant is even relevant inside a black hole, let alone be unhindered by all the surrounding changes imposed by said body? Unless you have a 32 Qbit functioning quantum computing machine at your disposition and the correct functions to describe a black hole and the behavior of universal physics in all energy levels already modeled and let it crunch numbers for a while, that is :P

@msclrhd

8 жыл бұрын

+bryangoggin The singularity is called that because at 0 size the General Relativity (GR) equations are undefined (they produce infinity as the result). Thus, GR cannot describe this point. From a Quantum Mechanical (QM) perspective, length is likely quantized and thus cannot go below the Planc length and thus avoid the singularity in GR (there is no length of 0). The problem here is creating a QM picture of GR that is consistent with both theories. There are several different domains that the current theories describe. QM describes the very small and includes a picture of the forces (including electromagnetism) except for Gravity. Galilean Mechanics describe motion of everyday objects (cars, etc.) at non-relativistic speeds and does not have the concept of a frame of reference. Special Relativity (SR) extends Galilean Mechanics to include non-accelerating frames of reference using the result from electromagnetism that the speed of light is constant across all frames of reference. General Relativity extends Special Relativity to include accelerating frames of reference, and produces gravity as a result of spacetime curvature and describes things like black holes. Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) is a picture of electromagnetism that includes non-accelerating frames of reference that is consistent with SR. A grand unified theory would need to combine these -- it would need to be a complete QM description of the strong and weak nuclear forces and electromagnetism (QM) in accelerating (GR) and non-accelerating (SR) frames of reference. It would be interesting to see if something like QED could be extended to accelerating frames of reference first. Or build a complete SR-based theory of QM, before extending it to GR.

"You will already be gone in terms of living by then" Physicists have the best quotes.

Keep those videos coming!

Amazing! A minute or two into this video, I paused and asked myself the question, if the Higgs boson is what gives matter mass, and the gravitational attraction at the center of a black hole is dependent on mass responding to gravitational pull, then what happens when the Higgs bosons are destroyed near the center of the black hole? And then, a couple of minutes later, you guys bring it up! Spectacular!

@viermidebutura

8 жыл бұрын

+John Clavis Higgs boson is not what gives matter all its mass.. in fact it only accounts for ~2% the rest comes from the energy of the bounds between its constituents

@JamieDenAdel

8 жыл бұрын

+viermidebutura The example was an electron; there are no constituents.

Thank you Nottingham Univ. for the very interesting video, I would very much like to come and talk with you about the possibility's of the structure of a EDM, (black-hole), peace and love, Doug.

I love you channel. It used to be the chemistry vids but my love is for thr physics...yiu shoyld do a videilo toyring the science departments etc and introduce all the professors and what they are working onm that would be so cool.

Perhaps the James Webb will help shed more light (haha) on this problem since we will be able to peer even further back in time. Perhaps we'll find some of these super massive black holes that Copeland hopes to see. Ed is a badass, love listening to him expound on various subjects.

awesome video!

I really like this physicist. Explains things well to a layman like me and you can tell he's only interested in the truth.

Please make Ed whisper an entire episode. That accent at low volumes is very endearing to listen to

If you're debating black holes, you must also debate the stars, you could start with ours. “If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.” ~ Nikola Tesla

Is there extra footage of the electron in BH part? It's a puzzling thought. Thank you for the video!

@philosophia7897

8 жыл бұрын

What does " symmetry " mean in particle physics? I've never understood the concept.

@garethdean6382

8 жыл бұрын

+Philosophia In essence it means things are simpler that one explanation applies to more than one thing. Consider water, it's not very symmetric, you need to describe each water molecule's situation separately, they clump and rearrange and change. Ice is more symmetric, all the water molecules are in exactly the same situation. You can describe it as 'this one molecule but lots of them., the one explanation applying to all of the molecules at once. Likewise the Higgs, before symmetry breaking there is no mass. All particles are (pretty much) massless, identical in that respect, simple. After each has its own unique mass you have to keep track of and things get messy.

@philosophia7897

8 жыл бұрын

+Gareth Dean Thanks, your explanation was really easy to understand.

Do a video on the Navier-Stokes equations :)

I currently believe that the singularity is a pulsating photon and also that the directional component of the photon is "gravity". When the pulsating pure energy units interact with other pure energy units, they tend to stabilize and vibrate. The Earth could be viewed as a single massive photon interaction with it's outer magnetic field, electrical telluric currents along the surface, and gravity being directed to the central core, all 90 degrees from each other. In addition, a flat spiral galaxy could also be viewed as a single massive photon interaction, with the opposing magnetic fields on each side of the plane of matter, the electrical fields along the plane of matter, and the gravitational field directed towards the center of the galaxy, all 90 degrees from each other. The central black hole in the center of flat spiral galaxies might just be where these gravitational forces of this massive photon interaction meet.

I understood spaguetti

@DamianReloaded

8 жыл бұрын

+Pinho9 Then you know more or less as much as scientists about singularities (assuming they are even possible) ^_^

This was awesome!!!

I LOVE PHYSICS!!

love how the professor is whispering like it is a secret :-) I for one would like to hear more about this theory of his

With the discovery that there are such things as Quark Stars, where even neutrons are broken down in to their constituent Quarks and Gluons, could black holes not be the point where even the Quarks break down into the packets of energy they are most likely made of? If all of the mass is converted to energy by this state, and energy has no distinct dimensions like classical matter does, then it should be feasible that you would have a point with no dimensions. It is also known that the vast majority of mass which we see is not due to the Higss field, which gives mass to electrons, but due to the energy needed to bind Quarks into protons and neutrons, and also the energy needed to bind those particle into atomic nuclei. A true mass/energy equivalence. A black hole would then be a huge concentration of energy which also has a mass equivalent.

As we "fall" through time so the matter that's fallen into a black hole continues to fall forever "down" the hole gravity has made. The limitless distance available to fall, inside the black hole, is the time passing outside the black hole. Endless inward space is stolen from time itself. And the time left available to "exist" for any particle that's falling in is very short (yet never over) - temporal existence approaches an endless final instant.

is anybody else seeing copelands face on the top centre and top left suggestions when the video finishes? hey you guys!!

I don't know why, but now I am hungry for string cheese. Hmm, anyway, great video! I always find this channel quite fascinating.

A thought that occurred to me is that as objects move towards the event horizon of a black hole, their clocks run slower and slower to an outside observer. Also, to an outside observer, the black hole has a finite lifetime, before evaporating. How for away (probably in terms of the schwarzschild radius) does an object have to be to not reach the event horizon before the black hole evaporates?

I love it when you guys talk about pretty much anything on this channel, but I get especially giddy when I see you're talking about black holes. I have read that some physicists think that a black hole can be charged, but I have never understood what that meant. I have also read that if say, a star made out of antimatter was massive enough to forma black hole at the end of its life, so you essentially had an antimatter black hole, you would have no way of knowing if it was ever matter or antimatter, and that if an antimatter and regular matter black hole merged, it would simply be the merger of two black holes, and nothing would really happen along the lines of annihilation, as antimatter and matter usually interact at lower energies. If a black hole can have a charge, but the matter/antimatter distinction doesn't apply, where exactly is the charge coming from? Thanks.

@garethdean6382

8 жыл бұрын

+evilcam Charge is different from (anti(matter); if two oppositely charged black holes merged their charges would cancel out and release energy. A cahrged black hole is just what it sounds like, it has electrical charge like an electron or proton. Since charge is conserved any black hole that 'eats' more of one charge than another must also be charged. If it wasn't then something has gone very wrong. With antimatter black holes the issue is we're not sure what the antimatter becomes. Matter and antimatter can only 'cancel out' when they both... well matter and antimatter. If a black hole crushes matter or antimatter into something else, say pure energy, then when the two holes meet there won't BE any matter or antimatter to cancel out.

so... time slows down as you get closer to high mass objects. is it possible for time to stop for an outside observer as the particles get closer to the event horizon? Waves coming from the particle would eventually be red-shifted more and more. Do two particles falling from oppisite side of the black hole ever meet? or does time slow down too much?

Also is it true that anything smaller than a plunk lengh turns into a black hole, but anything that small just evaporates? If that is true, does it not mean that what has happened with a regular size black hole is matter got crushed by gravity into the singularity (something smaller than a plunk length) but has had the matter to keep it alive and increase the surface area of the singularity. Increasing its entropy to hold massive amounts of entropy from the universe, keeping the singularity alive.

I would say that the word "particle" is often (always?) used as a place holder in physics when the size is that smal so its hard or to measure, or if the size is unknown but very smal. Its really a mathematics estimation. For instance particles is used for air poplutants. But they are not really particles, actually compared to normal molecyles like water and air the air pollutants is fairly large.

@JWQweqOPDH

8 жыл бұрын

+matsv201 In reality, nothing has any volume because there is no fundamental definition of a surface. Forces change with distance, they don't just start acting once you reach a surface. There's also no force that exists solely to stop thing from passing right through each other, but only acts starting at one specific distance from each object.

@garethdean6382

8 жыл бұрын

+matsv201 'Particle' literally means 'a part of something'. It means any 'lump of stuff' even if they are quite large. (Sand grains for example can be measured even with a ruler but count as 'particulates' in water quality.)

Question from a very interested but uneducated person here: if I could somehow perch myself one foot away from an event horizon, then stretch my arm out past the EH, could I move my fingertips, and if so, could I FEEL my fingertips moving against each other? Or is it simply once one part of my body has passed that EH no signal will ever reach any part of my body not past that same EH. Maybe I've answered my own question there...

Professors, When you say that matter is strecht until a infinity point, you mean that there is no scale beyond Planck length? And instead of thinking a wave as a manifestation of energy why don´t we think a "contraction" if quantic level there is no "up side down"and "left and right" - relativism? If we determine the structure of a particle like a electron or any particle, would possible undestand all that? Yes... I am talking a little about "string theory" but not position but as a "continum".

When talking about how super-massive black holes were formed; What do you guys think about the recent idea that a huge amount of gas, as theorized with the CM7 galaxy, collapsed to form a black hole, as opposed to the death of a star? Does it add anything about the massive string formation of super-massive black holes or add to the mystery as how these structures were formed? Also, extremely long or run-on sentences like the one I just provided are nice.

Please talk about the great attractor !!

Black Holes are the perfect _"Carrot on a String"_ as we will always reach for its understanding. Love the mystery! ;O)-

Could you make a video about Gravastars? it is a hypothetic cousin of black holes but not much vulgarization is availaable about it

Could it be the reason that quantum mechanics breaks down as you approach the singularity is because at some fundamental level quantum mechanics is incomplete? I have always believed we are missing some key bit of information that would allow us to move beyond our current understanding. Some unobservable thing or force that has an as of yet understood influence.

I LOVE THIS!!!! :D

Is the illustration of a black hole correct? I imagine it as a single point, warping all space around it and spewing energy in all directions. Sometimes, it shown like a funnel or it only spews energy up and down.

I have trouble squaring the idea that I can be past a point where light can’t escape, but also not “notice” the effects of the gravity. I figure if the strength of gravity field I am in is “trapping” light, wouldn’t it inherently have to be strong enough to rip me to shreds? Aren’t there planets/neutron stars with gravity strong enough to flatten us, or is the problem here that there is no “floor” to flatten you with?

Dr Copeland's ear matched his sweater! xD

I have a question: what happens if you have a stick and are orbiting a blackhole with enough mass to not spaghettify the stick. can i 1. put the stick in the event horizion and 2. if so can i pull it back? And can i when travelling near the speed of light throw a stick faster than the speed of light through relativity?

Why would some one dislike this... what was their thought process?

Wait so how is the gravitational field past the event horizon in a super massive black hole weak? Shouldn't it by definition be strong enough so that escape velocity would be higher than the speed of light? Also thinking about it that way shouldn't the gravitational field at the event horizon be the same for all black holes?

Point of Infinite density as in the plane of inertia as related to 'magnetism' on a cosmic scale.

Would it be possible to survive for a protracted length of time within the Event Horizon of a SMBH with the density on the order of water?

fascinating,

I assume that if the singularity was truly infinite dense then a black hole wouldn't be able to grow, all the mass it gains would just end up in the singularity. But it has already been proven that they have different sizes. So it's likely that the core of a black hole is finite dense and will grow once mass enters it.

@richlawton1995

8 жыл бұрын

+thexyz the size of a black hole as we describe them is related solely to the mass, not the physical volume of space it occupies. Saying the black hole couldn't grow in mass if it had a singularity isn't correct.

Two interesting things to know about the region "inside" the event horizon: (1) time and space exchange roles at the horizon. So thinking that one might avoid the singularity is like saying you'll avoid next Thursday. Can't happen. (2) From the frame of reference "inside" the horizon, the "outside" lies in your past. So one way to think of why you can never exit back over the horizon is that doing so requires time travel into the past, retro-causality, and the like. "Interstellar" and wormholes not withstanding, time travel not the past so far remains prohibited in this universe. Although, "inside" the horizon? That could be a new and different universe. Total speculation, but perhaps not out of the question. now, wormholes, better called by their proper name, an Einstein-Rosen bridge, actually ARE two black holes (actually one object), two BH's that share an interior. E-R did not recognize this, esp. since neither E nor R believed in the Schwarzschild solution to the equations of GR as being a real object, just a mathematical abstraction that could not exist. But before we get too excited about wormholes, E-R bridges, unlike actual black holes that we find naturally formed, wormholes necessarily have zero mass, just highly curved spacetime. They do not allow travel through the connected interior (which is eventually probably as thin as a Planck unit of distance), and they permit or enable no ability to send any information across the bridge. I think Kip Thorne knows all this, and it bothers me that he was the primary science consultant for "Interstellar," and the namesake for its robot, KIPP.

Is it possible that if you were to somehow make it through the event horizon unscathed, you would be spat out in what feels instant due to the breakdown of time and the fact that hawking radiation means black holes eventually decay?

If it is a singular point, wouldn't it spin at the speed of light due to the conservation of angular momentum? As the matter is compressed into a smaller volume, it should spin faster and faster.

When you mention cosmic strings I visualise a compression expansion trace and it makes me wonder if there is a variable specific gravity at centre, this would give an indefinable answer to a straight question.(what is the gravity at centre?) The expulsion of matter in gamma must have momentum so specific gravity could have an average of null due to fissile nature of matter at specific compressions.

@alanroberts2468

8 жыл бұрын

I picture the gamma bubbles around Sagittarius A as a fluctuation at speed at distance or a string theory fluctuating "brane".

@JamieDenAdel

8 жыл бұрын

Did you pull these words out of a hat?

@alanroberts2468

8 жыл бұрын

+Jamie Den Adel Well if I consider my vocabulary a hat then yes.

@alanroberts2468

8 жыл бұрын

+Jamie Den Adel The electromagnetic field of a free radical would extend throughout all space given the space, so repulsion from any other fields causes an equivalence to pressure known as potential energy. When specific gravity changes(eg. 2 suns merging) there is a fluctuation that spreads like ripples in a pond. Acoustics/cymatics display how reverberations affect masses motions.

If you fall feet first into a supermassive BH, wouldnt your feet and head be unable to communicate? If so, woudnt that be quite noticable as for the undetected entry?

How would the singularity form as if time slows down in a gravitational field, once you get to a point where an event horizon formed wouldn't any matter beyond that point not be effectively frozen and so couldn't fall anywhere? Also wouldn't anything falling into the black hole just get frozen at the event horizon until the event horizon expands outward due to the extra mass?

We do not understand the singularity of black holes in the exact same way that we do not understand the singularity of the Big Bang. If we did understand it, then we might have a better understanding of the origin of our Universe.

@rubikfan1

8 жыл бұрын

+Physics Videos by Eugene Khutoryansky that is correct. then we can calculate back to t=0. but not yet what is befor that.

@Mernom

6 жыл бұрын

I think we can calculate to just an instant after T=0 (T=0+).

If the wave functions of the matter falling in to a black are not lost i.e. the Hawking radiation is just leaking away tiny parts of the composite wave function of the black hole, then information would not be lost right? In fact assuming that the waves have non-zero amplitudes in the spacial dimensions then to me it's easy to see why, on the EH boundary of the black hole that particles can spontaneously escape. Why couldnt this be part of QM/QFT?

hey i am wondering if the singularity point is equal to plancks distance or even smaller?

Maybe I'm being naive, but my understanding of the event horizon is that it is the surface of a sphere where time stops altogether. To me, that means that no events can take place relative to the outside universe where time is still racing onwards. In that case, why on Earth do we even consider motion inwards towards the "singularity? There can be no motion (which is a series of events) inwards towards the cetre. In fact, I am reliably informed that the formation of a black hole starts with the event horizon then works its way inwards from there. That means, a singularity can never form relative to us outside. It will take until the end of the universe and longer for a singularity to form and so none of the black holes that exists can have a singularity inside them (yet). The singularity is just a mathematical formulation that bears no relation to the real world

What if there's no singularity at all? I've read recently about a hypothesis that the surface of the black hole - at the event horizon - has a fractal structure and it is able to store all information from the matter felt down on it. So what if the diameter of the black hole inside the black hole is actually only a Plank length long due to the severe warping the space-time continuum near the black hole itself, but outside of it has its observed diameter? I'm just saying... probably sounds crazy like it is said by Deepak Chopra or so.

why does a black hole have to be a singularity? if I recall correctly, an object will turn into a black hole, if said object is compressed beyond its schwarzschild radius. Now although a 0 dimensional point is most definitely less than the original star's schwarzschild radius, why does the star have to continue compressing itself beyond that point?

@JasperCrowe

8 жыл бұрын

+Icarus To be infinitely dense, the volume needs to be 0, or the mass infinite. Mass can't be infinite, because that screws with everything we know about the universe. But we know point charges exist (elementary particles).

@Icarus1234

8 жыл бұрын

+Jasper Crowe But why does density need to be infinite for a black hole?

@j0ve

8 жыл бұрын

+Icarus Exactly what i was thinking. The initial answer would be that gravity could become greater than any known force that can resist collapse. And if there's no force to resist further collapse, then logically collapse would continue into a point. Obviously, the fact that we don't know of any collapse resisting forces beyond a certain point, doesn't mean there isn't one. There are hypothetical intermediates that are by definition black holes, but not singularities, like a quark star.

@Icarus1234

8 жыл бұрын

+Joris van Eil But you see Newtonian gravity is defined such that it depend on mass and 1/r^2(not sure how accurate this in Einstein's model). Lets say we have a super massive star with mass m and radius x which is about to go supernova. Lets say the star lost an insignificant amount of mass during the process. After the process the new radius of the star (now a blackhole) is less than its schwarzschild radius (2GM/c^2) but the mass is approximately the same. The new radius is much much smaller than the original but the mass is the same; isn't massive increase in gravity because of this? I.E. the star may not have to turn into a point particle in order to be a black hole.

@Icarus1234

8 жыл бұрын

+Jasper Crowe Those point particle are 3 dimensional instead of 0 dimensional, aren't they?

Hit the nail on the head towards the end there. There is no "singularity" or "infinite density." Black holes vary in mass so obviously they are physical objects that are made of something. Most likely the densest possible substance. Bose-Einstein condensate (Electronium)

So at the event horizon gravity is so strong that light can't escape, so does that mean the closer you get to the singularity, that the rate at which you approach it, increases to more than the speed of light? And if that's true, would you even experience being stretched? Or would it happen so quick that you wouldn't experience It? And if smaller black holes can stretch you before entering the event horizon, but supermassive black holes don't until after you pass the event horizon. Could there be a black hole so massive that at the event horizon you'd only experience 1g? And if so, why can't light escape 1g at that black holes event horizon, but can escape the earth surface?

I think "spaghettified" deserves a t-shirt!

Professor Ed Copeland is my all time favourite scientist

I like the idea that Blackholes have zero volume, but i wouldn't call it a point-like singularity. I imagine its closer to a "hypersurface" where every bit of mass in the blackhole exists as a surface mass (ie none of the mass is considered below the surface). As for what exist below this hypersurface, a name for it would be "hyperspace"

Quantum black hole by strong force from string theory have quantum gravity equal to 2ke^2 from Atiyah's Todd function 137=gm^2/ke^2.

Then how do you explain the momentum of a point? There is a "frame drag" of rotating mass but how can a point exert that?

01:25... I don't see how you could enter the event horizon and not notice anything. My very limited understanding of black holes is that once inside the event horizon there is no way out. That any direction you go will lead you back inside. Also, no information can leave the black hole. If this is true then wouldn't that mean you would get diced up as you entered, regardless of how little gravity is actually at the event horizon? I mean, as the first atoms in your body entered the event horizon they can no longer send signals to the atoms outside, right? Wouldn't that include any kind of "bond" they have with those other atoms outside the event horizon? If that wasn't true then what would keep you from being pulled back out before fully entering?

an issue with singularities is that there is a discontinuity. how does a region of finite density become infinite density in a finite time?

What's this "singularity"? Is it part of our universe? Is it exclusive of our universe? Does time ends at the event horizon or at the singularity? Is all information out of the black hole, stuck at the event horizon? Can we see all the information of everything that fell in the black hole at the event horizon? If information stays out, what goes in?

@omarcusmafait7202

8 жыл бұрын

+Damián Vila The singularity is just the concept of having some mass stuck into a zero volume, so it is tsill part of our universe. Time ends at the event horizon. Our current theory says that the information is saved in the shape and behaviour of the black hole (movement, spin). What falls into a BH stays there until it comes out as radiation. That's my current understanding of black holes! ;)

Kip Thorne has said many times that the center of a black hole is not a singularity of mass but of energy. The mass of the black hole has been converted to energy and this is what warps space and time. Can I get your thoughts on this claim (everyone/anyone please).

@bigsh00g17

8 жыл бұрын

+Digs Fossils-n-Knives Any theory is just as viable as any other theory in an area of science which cannot be properly tested.

@zuzusuperfly8363

8 жыл бұрын

+The Lorentz Factor More importantly, I think, what are the theoretical differences between these two claims? If the mass was all converted into energy, what would that change experimentally? How could we verify it even *in principle*.

@bigsh00g17

8 жыл бұрын

Zuzu Superfly You're asking the wrong guy. I really don't think we even have the slightest idea how we would test such a theory. It is my understanding that an equal amount of mass-energy would interact the exact same way as mass with the surrounding spacetime.

@zuzusuperfly8363

8 жыл бұрын

The Lorentz Factor I wasn't really asking, just adding to the thread.

@garethdean6382

8 жыл бұрын

+Digs Fossils-n-Knives My problem is that black holes have mass. They have inertia while something possessing just energy would not. (And would thus be moving at light speed all the time, like a photon.)

Hello, can the makers of this video please shed some light on what Professor Abhas Mitra is on about, with his supposedly new theory on black holes, and Eternally Collapsing Objects (ECOs)? He seems to have found some support from other mainstream scientists, but the issue hasn't gotten a lot of coverage and it's hard to know what widely held positions are being contested.

¿where is the bit that was cut off after prof. Copeland said "wave function"?

Even if you only look at general relativity, doesn't time slow down in a gravitational field, and space get stretched? And isn't it true that at a singularity, time comes to a full stop, and space is stretched to infinity? Would that not mean that singularities can never form, because mass particles are unable to reach it?

"That's just my own pet hope" -Ed Copeland

Does only regular matter form black holes? What happens if dark matter particle (perhaps WIMP) goes beyond event horizon? Were super massive black holes in centres of galaxies formed dominantly by dark matter?

@Trias805

7 жыл бұрын

"What happens if dark matter particle (perhaps WIMP) goes beyond event horizon?" We don't even know what dark matter is, but most likely it behaves the same as regular matter, because dark matter is influenced by gravity.

I love when Prof. Copeland whispers of cosmic strings being responsible for supermassive blackholes.

This might be stupid but can we fill the black hole. I mean how many stars can fit into the black hole so that the black hole will change (implode, explode or something ).

If the singularity has infinite density (and curvature is infinite), does that mean it is infinitely increasing in density (or curvature), or it is infinite and therefore "unmeasurable"?

if you lower a weight on a piece of string through the eventhorizon - can you pull it back out again?

Always wondered why physicists are so certain Gravity and Quantum Mechanics eventually start working together… isn’t it possible that they simply continue to conflict? Maybe spacetime itself just starts breaking in the clash.

As much as i love & obsess over the subject of black holes. Im confused..... they say the black hole is a core of a massive star collapsed to a point/ smaller then an atom/ planck lengths etc. Now, its also said if the earth was compressed to a size of a golf ball it would be a black hole. But a golf ball isnt a point. Its also said that in the formation of a neutron star Pauli's Exclusion Principle prevent the mass of neutrons from being compressed/collapsing any further. So why does the principle hold for neutron stars but not in the case of a black hole? Where does this notion of 'a point' come from? Dont tell me that gravity becomes so overpowering that these neutrons are squashed so that their vibrating energy strings are all squeezed out. Cos you cant see them, hence a point/planck length or perhaps nothing? Since energy = mass, only the mass remains, & with mass comes gravity??? Can anyone enlighten me? Thanks.

Is it possible that theres another fundamental force out there that can allow the volume of the black hole from being non-zero?

I have a problem with your definition of the Spaghettification observation. Just like you wouldn't notice crossing over the event horizon, the event you describe is what an outside observer would experience seeing but since the fabric of space is proportionally stretching(I use this term loosely) with the object, from the objects point of view nothing changes. An objects observation is consistent with its space. If I draw a picture on a deflated balloon and then inflate it, the objective point of reference will see both the balloon expand and the image because they become dynamic to our static backdrop but the images observation to itself remains the same because its space proportionally expanded. Subjective to itself, everything would appear normal. Truthfully there is absolutely zero evidence that gravity is an actual force. We like to think that gravity affects space but there is just as much evidence to suggest that space creates what appears to be gravity. The possibilities are endless.

Leonard Susskind came up with "Black Hole Complementarity", and successfully resolved the black hole information paradox some years ago.

@tokajileo5928

8 жыл бұрын

+Michael Bishop until the firewall paradox came in...

@ozzymandius666

8 жыл бұрын

No, after the firewall hypothesis. Read the book.

@tokajileo5928

8 жыл бұрын

u r wrong. just ask Marolf, Polchinski or Bousso

@ozzymandius666

8 жыл бұрын

Read Susskind's work.

@tokajileo5928

8 жыл бұрын

read it, not convinced, same like Bousso, and Polchinski . The firewall ruined the theory.