The NEW Ultimate Energy Limit of the Universe
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 ก.พ. 2025
- Remove your personal information from the web at joindeleteme.c... and use code SPACETIME for 20% off DeleteMe international Plans: international....
Is there a limit to how much energy you can cram into, or pull out of one patch of space? Well, we thought so, but the James Webb Space Telescope has found a quasar that simultaneously breaks a century-old theoretical limit and may explain the conundrum of gigantic black holes in the early universe.
Sign Up on Patreon to get access to the Space Time Discord!
/ pbsspacetime
15% Off the Entire Merch Store This December
www.pbsspaceti...
Sign up for the mailing list to get episode notifications and hear special announcements!
mailchi.mp/1a6...
Search the Entire Space Time Library Here: search.pbsspac...
Hosted by Matt O'Dowd
Written by Matt O'Dowd
Post Production by Leonardo Scholzer, Yago Ballarini & Stephanie Faria
Directed by Andrew Kornhaber
Associate Producer: Bahar Gholipour
Executive Producer: Andrew Kornhaber
Executive in Charge for PBS: Maribel Lopez
Director of Programming for PBS: Gabrielle Ewing
Assistant Director of Programming for PBS: John Campbell
Spacetime is a production of Kornhaber Brown for PBS Digital Studios.
This program is produced by Kornhaber Brown, which is solely responsible for its content.
© 2024 PBS. All rights reserved.
End Credits Music by J.R.S. Schattenberg: / multidroideka
Space Time Was Made Possible In Part By:
Big Bang
Wojciech Szymski
Bryce Fort
Peter Barrett
Alexander Tamas
Morgan Hough
Juan Benet
Vinnie Falco
Mark Rosenthal
Supernova
Grace Biaelcki
Glenn Sugden
Ethan Cohen
Stephen Wilcox
Mark Heising
Hypernova
Dean Galvin
Michael Tidwell
Robert DeChellis
Stephen Spidle
Chris Webb
Massimiliano Pala
Justin Lloyd
David Giltinan
Kenneth See
Gregory Forfa
Alex Kern
Zubin Dowlaty
Scott Gorlick
Paul Stehr-Green
Ben Delo
Scott Gray
Антон Кочков
Robert Ilardi
John R. Slavik
Donal Botkin
Edmund Fokschaner
chuck zegar
Gamma Ray Burst
Satwik Pani
Param Saxena
John De Witt
Nathaniel Bennett
Sandhya Devi
Michael Oulvey
Arko Provo Mukherjee
Mike Purvis
Christopher Wade
Anthony Crossland
Grace Seraph
Stephen Saslow
Tomaz Lovsin
Anthony Leon
Lori Ferris
Koen Wilde
Nicolas Katsantonis
Richard Steenbergen
Joe Pavlovic
Chuck Lukaszewski
Cole B Combs
Andrea Galvagni
Jerry Thomas
Nikhil Sharma
John Anderson
Bradley Ulis
Craig Falls
Kane Holbrook
Ross Story
Harsh Khandhadia
Michael Lev
Rad Antonov
Terje Vold
James Trimmier
Jeremy Soller
Paul Wood
Kent Durham
jim bartosh
John H. Austin, Jr.
Diana S
Faraz Khan
Almog Cohen
Daniel Jennings
Jeremy Reed
David Johnston
Michael Barton
Isaac Suttell
Bleys Goodson
Mark Delagasse
Mark Daniel Cohen
Shane Calimlim
Tybie Fitzhugh
Eric Kiebler
Craig Stonaha
Frederic Simon
Jim Hudson
Alex Gan
John Funai
Adrien Molyneux
Bradley Jenkins
Vlad Shipulin
Justin Waters
Thomas Dougherty
Zac Sweers
Dan Warren
Joseph Salomone
Julien Dubois
From the Space Time Department of Corrections: We did in fact make a mistake in our image of the great Sir Arthur Eddington. We accidentally used a mis-labled image of George Lemaître. We're going to now go do 1000 hours of differential equations as penance.
Yeah I'm sure you will
Isn't that a bit harsh? How about pulling out your fingernails? Much more humane.
And probably enjoy it. Math can be beautiful, it's certainly the key to reality.
Do 1 hour but on a live stream
No slide rules allowed!
So glad this is presented by a person.
👋🤖
And not just any person: Matt O’Dowd
Sciencephile AI would like to know your location
You're so real for that
very yes
Poor old LeMaitre , never got enough credit and then had to stand for a photo shoot 'cause Eddington was off chasing eclipses.
😂I noticed that too. It took 91 years for the IAU to officially recognize Father Georges LeMaitre for his crucial contributions to the discovery of the expanding universe, and he is still getting dissed! Honestly, how did they mistake a man in a priest collar for Arthur Eddington? 🤦♂️
Came here to say that.
Enjoyed the Rubber Necked Georges however....
I was confused by the use of his image, even getting animated.
yeh....OOPS!
Came here searching for this. I couldn't focus cause I kept thinking. Man, Eddington looks a whole lot like LeMaitre. :D
It’s amazing a channel at such astonishingly high academic, physical, and production level can exist and be publicly available to enlighten the general public, insofar as that public wants to be enlightened. And it is free to watch.
I grew up poor and watched PBS damn near every day as a kid. It taught me far more than school ever did, including college.
PBS was one of the greatest things to happen for education. It broadened my mind so much as a child. I suspect the new nation of Trumpakistan will abolish PBS.
Jesus came to me in a dream and said this was witchcraft.
Free insofar as its funded by tax payers, and so in a very real way it is the precise opposite of free. Not trying to say anything bad, just stating a fact.
One of my favorite things about the modern world despite all the craziness is the existence of PBS spacetime. These videos are like a little pocket of peace and awe. Thanks!
This is the kind of thing that makes me think the internet was worth it.
I agree completely. In a world of crazy misinformation, I get a little bit of respite watching these videos
What craziness would that be?
@acmhfmggru it is clear to me. However, this series deals with things which share little with politics. I don't much care what the personal thoughts are of the talking head that they have hired. He speaks well enough to get the writers intent across clearly. That's really all that matters
Not for long.
Wow! Awesome to see my own star formation video played when the subject is talked about at 5:43! PBS Space Time is one of my favorite channels so it's really an honor :-D Fascinating how the mix of de-emphasized angular momentum and the channeled radiation pressure allows more matter to fall in than would otherwise be possible, I can see how that could lead to much higher BH feeding rates.
Now seen that bit, and I loved the animation, brief as it was. Erm... "wild times", perhaps.
Unfortunately, you have been misspelled in the credits as Physics_Haker.
@@BytebroUK Thanks, I'm glad you like it :-)
@@alexanderkohler6439 Yes, I am aware, though I did try searching it that way and my channel still comes up so although unfortunate I'm at least glad if a mistake was going to be made that it was a minor enough one such that the credit should still work.
Could you please tell us a bit about the process of creating those animations. I find it all fascinating.
I don’t think we can overstate how lucky we are to have PBS Spacetime.
It's so cool that humanity exists at a time when we can see to the edge of the universe and glimpse evere closer to seeing the beginning of time.
Beginning of our time?
Technically, you could almost always see the "edge" and beginning of the universe, at least after the universe stopped being opaque about 200k years after the BB
@@AisleEpe-oz8kf
No, the further you look the longer the light took to travel which means looking at distant galaxies lets us see back to the early universe
And due to expansion, someday we won't be able to see as far. We're very lucky.
@@AisleEpe-oz8kf it is a nice trick we do thanks to the speed of light and the expansion of the universe we can get information from far back in time
It just hit me how long I've been watching SpaceTime. It's always been top tier quality.. So, I went back to the very beginning to see how much Matt has changed and forgot that it had a different host originally!
I remember when Matt first started and people were complaining about him replacing Gabe. Weird to be one of the "old guard" that remembers.
One of the rare channels that pushes the LIMITS all the time. Love it
In ALL these years I have watched you - you have NEVER disappointed my mind! Thank you for ALL you do!
Great episode! I'd note the 'images' of LID 568 are artist's concepts and not actual pictures of the quasar. This is noted in several sources online but seems to be omitted here. Still very interesting; thanks Matt!
The black hole images are not real images either. It's always rendered based on the data. Almost every visual in astrophysics works this way. They probably assume most people know this.
@@romeomargot-picquendar1281yes, I agree with you, most people interested in astrophysics will know the true images of distant objects are pixel-sized and anything 'pretty' is a rendering, but it wouldn't hurt to have a little caption for everyone else 😁
I agree with a caveat: most people interested in astrophysics will know the actual images of any object in deep space is a single pixel and anything larger is an artistic rendering, but I imagine Space Time's reach extends beyond only the YouTubiens interested in astrophysics. A small disclaimer wouldn't have hurt and is just meant as some feedback for the next video 😉
@@romeomargot-picquendar1281 Rendered based on data is more accurate to real life than concept art though, and I think concept art should be clarified. As while it was obvious to most of us it's concept art, some might think it's real because they're not familiar with it.
@@cortster12If all we can capture "visually" (whether in the visible light spectrum or not) is a single pixel, what makes up the additional data that can be used to build up a rendering? Is the data used systematically in some way to create a 2-D "plot" which directly becomes the render, or is the data used moreso in aggregate to guide the artistic interpretation (i.e., capturing the "essence" of the data)?
Sometimes a star travelling past the black hole in a direction opposite to the orbital motion of the accretion disk gets tidally disrupted, and the material from the star interacts with the material of the accretion disk, slowing the disk material so that it loses angular momentum and falls into the black hole.
this is the most amount of energy that can fit inside one patch of space-
Lindsey Nikole: -that we know of
Crossover episode??
there is a difference between descriptive sciences and theoretical ones
"Peering deeper and deeper into the cosmic dawn" has to be the most poetic thing you've ever said on this channel
Easily the best channel on TH-cam. Proud to be a member of the patreon.
This episode was packed with insights and left me in awe of the cosmos. This is why I love PBS Space Time! 🙌
No other videos make me feel so smart and so stupid at the same time. Kudos!
That was something.
Thumbnail says "4000%" and at 4:10 it says "4000 times" and these are distinctly different amounts.
Shame. Cheap clickbait on a good video.
@@VajarJuranin 4000% == 40x
@@VajarJuranin the thumb is hardly that enticing... calm down bro
Yea. That's a reverse clickbait if anything. 40x is maybe somethings wrong with measurements or something weird happened. 4000x is either method is garbage, theory, or a missexecution of experiment that probably should not happen.
@@robo0428well technically it’s 41x so idk
Thank Matt and PBS Team
Why do you have to upload during my sleeping time, I can't resist
Least it's only 20min
Use extreme daylight savings and set your clock 12 hrs ahead :P
Thank you for this! For once, you didn't make my brain hurt ala Monty Python. Quasars fascinate me! Had to save to my "science, astronomy" playlist to go over again, taking notes this time in my Science journal.
Hey. Cool episode. And I need another one of those black hole shirts. Mine has been blessed and is holy now.
Superb AGAIN! Do you have any idea how much we love you and this channel, Matt? Thank you for doing what you do ❤.
i geniunely wouldnt know where to keep up with cosmology news without this show
speaking of, where do i keep up with cosmology news surely this comment section would know
Dr. Becky runs regular updates on her channel.
Anton Petrov as well. He always cites his sources in his video descriptions too
I’ve learned a lot from his videos ngl
Fraser Cain is also great. He does weekly astronomy and spaceflight news videos both on TH-cam and his website/newsletter
Scott Manley is also very nice, more on the engineering and practical side of things than pure-science, but still very nice channel and a great guy.
Outside YT, there's Quanta Magazine which is nice too.
@@DobromirManchev He was nice, but went full racist and now shits on everything Russia or China does. Like calling every US astronaut "Gagarin wannabe", it's that bad...
I learnt something new about accretion discs today!
NGL, "DeleteMe" sounds like the name of the competitor for "Stop-N-Drop -- America's favorite (unaliving) booth since 2008".
Software often comes with README files, so "WriteMe" would be a logical company name too. For Unix people, "ExecuteMe" would be logical, but a _really_ bad company name!
Apparently, i needed to hear Matt say "so chonky" to make my day better 😁😄
You speed ran a good portion of Kip Thorne's Black Holes and Time Warps! And it was easy to follow: impressive work!
I do think you should entertain the third explanation: black holes are older than current models suggest. I know dissecting the big bang is unpopular, but Kip Thorne himself spent a good portion of his career exploring even less popular concepts and he's not a crackpot. Just because there are cranks out there doesn't mean we should throw the physics baby out with the crank bathwater.
Thanks for another fascinating episode!
Thank you for sharing yet another amazing episode of great work 💕 I love it 🥰 thank youuu and thank youuu so very very and so so very very much
The perfectly round chickens in a vacuum have finally come home to roost. The shape matters now. Love it!
Yay. I actually understood everything.
If your stupid enough to brag in comments to strangers that you understood this I highly doubt you actually did since we have no verification other than your narcissism.
Brilliant.XD
when pbs videos changes background sound you know things are getting seriously hard
Wow, love this show so very much!
Obvious potential mechanisms for the really big black holes:
1. Large stars - confirmed
2. Black hole mergers - partially confirmed
3. Direct collapse (requires much lower densities for much larger volumes and masses)
----Includes primordial black holes that get a head start
4. Magnetic fields feeding existing black holes
I'm sure I'm missing some more exotic potential mechanisms
There is also third option: probably primordial black holes which appeared in first minutes of Big Bang coalesced into seeds of SMBH.
Yes, I've wondered if that was the case before. Seems elegant, at least!
That is in fact the second option, and PBS Spacetime has videos on the topic :D
Maybe its a stupid question but maybe it helps others too.
1) blackholes have a feeding limit. a Disc forms, a sort of Que, for the stuff to fall into.
2) Blackwhole mergers are instant and dont form a disc.
WHY?
I guess intuitively: Two black holes merging would like to form a disk, but the material in the black hole can't get out, so they remain as just two objects. Even "spreading out" the black hole isn't going to happen because the gravity holds each object together so tightly. Also black hole mergers aren't instantaneous -- they spend a long long time circling each other. If you imagine the gravity wells of the two situations, it's just completely different.
We don't know what's going on inside a black hole, but maybe someone who has studied this more could answer this question: Does one black hole orbiting another black hole change the angular momentum of either black hole? What would be tidal forces perhaps creates internal motion within the black holes instead of breaking up objects into a disk as would happen without the huge gravity well.
I think your question is basically the final parsec problem. No one knows how the final merger of a black hole occurs, my understanding is our current model doesn't let it happen, but they clearly do eventually merge, and not just spin as a binary black hole forever.
Black hols cannot be broken up to form an accretion disk. So a merger will happen quickly, just like an asteroid hitting a planet. There IS a merger rate; the two holes can only approach each other at a certain rate as their orbits decay, but it's quite generous.
With apologies to Richard Feynman, if the Quasar is growing 4,000 times faster than the theoretical limit, then the theory is wrong.
Or, more likely, the measurements are wrong.
@jasonbates3846 sure. I was talking about a situation where the measurements are reliable. It's difficult to reach any firm conclusions when using deficient data.
I was referring to this quote:
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
So was Einstein with special relativity and the theory that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light yet photons can, thanks to Quantom entanglement
@timholmes8395 photons are what light is made out of. The travel at the speed of light.
@@jasonbates3846 Or you could just watch the video and realize that the theory describes the spherically symmetric case and it may be perfectly accurate within its purview, while the explanation for the excess comes from accretion disks.
Yeah, that's a great point. Thank you, jwst!! Hope this is the norm in the early universe.
Crazy how early Eddington predicted all of this! Smart guy!
Wasn't Eddington a critic of Chandrasekhar and mocked his work?
@@aoay Imagine an Englishman born in the 18th century being racist...inconceivable!
@@marckyle5895 I mean he was born in the 19th century but still, he was probably a smart, racist guy, that's true.
Nothing weird or wrong about a smart racist guy. Pretty natural to prefer your own people.
@@NukeCloudstalker shitting in the woods is also natural, just like dying from a tiny cut on your foot because it got infected. Luckily humanity as a whole is capable of learning, even if its individual members follow a bit of a Gaussian distribution when it comes to their ability to learn or think.
Was just thinking about you buddy keep us updated
I've never been this early woooooooo love this channel❤
no u dont
@@coroner2141 You think Casey doesn't love this channel?
@@General12th he HATES science
Let's GOOO!
Universe 3.0 JUST DROPPED!
Oh boy new video!
whoa boy this was a good one thanks
I'm glad I have notifications on for this channel :D
Soft Gold by Frederic Mauric Fortuny is such a calming yet pensive theme - it'll forever be my SpaceTime theme
Why are you using Georges Lemaître images when talking about Sir Eddington? (4:45 to 5:07)
oof
nerd
To see if we're listening
If it has become evident now that supermassive black holes can so far exceed the Eddington Limit in terms of luminosity, then perhaps a recalculation of many of the early SMBH masses is in order. Perhaps most of them were never nearly as massive at that time as we have assumed, which would reduce the need to explain how they reached those masses so early.
Kinda random thought, but is anyone else intrigued by the absurdity of a paid service existing to prevent other companies from making money off of your data?
Edit: its really funny to me how way off this reply section is, its a random observation, its not as if the company actually has anything to do with the data collection in the first place, the way it works is that they simply do what any citizen in the US can do, which is send legal notices. Its kinda like hiring a lawyer for the specific task of sending those letters.
While it was funny to see people desperately assume my motives, it's also kinda disappointing to me to know that even in the comments section of a science channel, people are unable to separate a random observation with the facts of the matter, if you believe that this company is out to get you, I recommend acting as a scientist would, and do your own research before pulling meaning from a random comment on yt lol
Irony is not absurdity.
its actually the same service. youre paying them to not sell your data
the data broker and data broker opt out companies are just the same company
That's called late-stage capitalism.
@@Gabu_ Ah yes, because it's fine when only the KGB or Stasi have the data! 🤣🤣🤣
Recently I’ve wondered if it would be possible to simulate what it would look like if you were standing on the surface of a star that collapsed into a black hole, assuming you could see through the incredibly dense photon sphere from the supernova. I imagine with all the gravitational lensing and time dilation, it would be a pretty spectacular sight
I'm interested.
Fascinating!
The Big Bang spawned Primordial Black Holes (PBHs), which ranged in size from supermassive (the topic of this episode of PBS Spacetime) to Planck-scale PBHs. The masses of this original litter formed a Boltzmann distribution. The smallest (least massive) cohort evaporated on a Planck timescale and gave rise to the Inflationary Period after the Big Bang. The lower end of the mass distribution continues to evaporate, giving rise to Dark Energy. The middling range of PBH masses account for Dark Matter.
Works for me. 😁
I like it when he says 'the thing' - Space Time
To me it feels like a weird kind of pun, a trick in which my only reaction can be to groan, so I always try to guess when it's coming up and pause the video before he says it so I can "win". I also try to pause Scott Manley videos before he says "I'm Scott Manley, Fly Safe." for the same reason. Weird, I know.
Thanks for slowing down. It’s easier for my brain to follow!
thank you for talking about science in such an easy way for most people to understand
Excellent video Matt and team, keep the hard work.
So...
1) wasn't everything closer together in the beginning? There was probably a lot more material closer to fall in, right?
2) can black holes stretch with the expansion of space itself?
I have no idea, I watch a lot of physics on TH-cam. Lol not an expert, nor do I understand a lot of it, I'm sure.
Love all PBS channels!
My view is that the amount of matter available has little effect on what prevents it falling in. And that a black hole isn't space, so whatever method causes expansion it can only affect the space between objects not the objects itself. Gravity itself holds the object together be it a planet or a galaxy, or a black hole.
@WideCuriosity ty! I love trying to learn more, even if I don't understand it all. It's good practice to keep the brain working!
A long time ago, matter was closer together, but it was also highly energized to the point that it exceeded the immense gravity produced from everything being so densely packed together. With everything that energized, it was able to resist collapsing into a black hole, at least for some time.
If not, then black holes would have to appear to become more massive because of their shrinking size relative to the expanding universe. On other hand, the increase in mass of a black hole would have to be balanced by negative mass/energy in the surrounding spacetime. May explain the increasing expansion rate, which is driven by negative energy?
@@robertjames4908 there was a PBS space time video saying that so it could be the case.
❤Thank you very much for this helpful lesson Matt .
9 seconds!
Edit: I wish you all a safe and Happy New Year as you journey through... Space Time. ❤️
Nice
Almost Faster then light 😅😅 lol
If the universe has teached me one thing: Don't feel bad if you are not normal; The most interesting things are learned, from what breaks the norm.
It seems that when you are discussing Eddington, it looks like you are using pictures of Georges Lemaître instead...
I caught that too
I thought so too
They corrected it in pinned comment now
Spectacular video, as always! Terrific explanations here!
No mention of the fact that larger early universe black holes was predicted ahead of time by MOND?
Still the disfavored child
Well they can't go down every rabbit hole for an episode. An alternative theory like MOND may agree with certain observed phenomena but that's not saying much until it fits well with the vast majority of observations.
Thank you for this topic.
My uncle is so dense it scares me to think he could collapse into a black hole.
Ahh, the classic avuncular collapse syndrome.
Xd man.
Biden supporter? 😂
@@alandouglas2789 C'mon uncle, you know what you are. 😉
This was a good one
I always resent having to have to go to physics class, but I click on this video anyway 😅
Sorry, but 0:38 in and recently learned of the potential for gravastars, and how indistinguishable from blackholes, and hearing what just said has me thinking are they connected. What if one forms the other. But we have no way of knowing which is which?
Hello, fellow Kurzgesacht watcher!
Lol, yeah, that came straight from Kurzgesagt latest video.
I wouldnt put my bet on gravistars honestly, black holes still have much theoretical potential and are as far as we know a quite accurate model without the need of magic super thin matter that weve never seen
@ yeah, i know, it’s just so fascinating of an idea, it’d be quite interesting how we have to change our perspective to accept them.
@@JoshuaLopez-mq5np REALLLL 😭😭😭😭
2:52 "The absolute limits of growth and power". Thought for a sec this was going to be about gym gains...
Gravity was first to emerge in symmetry breaking and must have been in a pure quantum state. Since we know almost nothing about quantum gravity (if it even exists), it's safe to say we are missing some very important facts regarding the early universe. The first question I want to see an answered is whether it's possible that primordial black holes formed prior to inflation. If so, we have a lot of things backwards.
The "ultimate energy limit" is a concept that bridges many areas of physics, from quantum mechanics to cosmology, and as our understanding of the universe deepens, new theories and discoveries will likely push these boundaries even further.
At 7:17 is that 3.5 (as per the graphic) or 4.5 (as per the script)?
Wiki has it at 3.5
Pay close attention to what he says. Both are correct.
@@alterego3734 that fact doesn't make the graphic any more pedagogically helpful.
Depends on the star, really
one is the average, one is "gets as high as"
Really great video. these animations help intuitively understand accretion disks in all their variations, asteroid belts and the general diskness of the universe's structures. Super-eddington accretion also seems like a plausible way to explain the anomalous speed at which supermassives form in the early universe since the high matter density would lend itself to produce these temporary feeding-tubes (disks).
It seems based on this that any structure generating inward pressure towards the black hole but with pathways for radiation to escape to reduce back-pressure could bolster the feed rate. Disk/donut is most likely in open space certainly but perhaps in the early universe there were enough dense regions surrounding some super early black holes to force feed massive ammounts of material? A suitable structure without as much angular momentum seems like it could also cause a very effective growth spurt.
oh boy...need to watch that one a few times....thank you!
4:43 is Lemaitre, not Eddington.
The best class on this subject, thank you!
Over 9000.
Ghost nappa
Super cool🙏🙏🙏🙏 love your vids👍
Hey PBS Space Time, I've got a question. If all matter in the universe suddenly accelerated to 99.9999% the speed of light in the same direction, would there be any way to tell? Speed and time are relative, so time dilation would be the same for everyone and it'd appear like nothing happened, I get that. But it takes a lot of energy to accelerate even a fraction closer to the speed of light, so what would happen to the energy requirement for you to move your hand in the same direction? Would it be the same as normal because time dilation makes you apply force to your hand for thousands of years that you experience as being only a moment, so it fulfills the energy equation? What about the expansion of the universe, would you measure it to be the same regardless of the time dilation? Would there really be no way to tell that it happened?
The very first thing that any hypothetical observer would notice in this scenario is that a rather large fraction of all observable light has suddenly blueshifted all the way into alarmingly-hard gamma radiation. Further observations are dependent on their shielding.
Nice question, you are a good question, I am a good boy, hare you and I wanna justa sitted and pen out, paper out, ass out and there should would be hard work
@@ReptilianLepton Hah, yeah I didn't include light in the question. Let's pretend light gets adjusted for the change xD
There would be a gravitational waves storm, I gather...
Yeah but aside from the immediate aftereffects.
The gravitational energy of the material falling into the BH can also be converted to kinetic energy, not only into heat, right?
"We tend to think of black holes as purely ____ing " wow rude
That just answered what I've been asking about for the last couple of decades.
2:16 “It’s currently growing four thousand _times_ faster than the theoretical limit.”
Is it growing 4000 _times_ faster like Matt says or 4000% faster like the thumbnail says? Because 4000% is equal to 40 _times_ faster. One of them is an error.
The thumbnail says 4000X faster, meaning 4000 times faster.
@@BenjaminGoose No. It says 4000% i.e. 40x
I'm so glad someone asked this. This is really bothering me.
@@BenjaminGoose Do you know what the symbol "%" means?
TH-cam allows creators to use different thumbnails for same video so they can see which one performs better. Y'all aren't all looking at the same thumbnail. One of the thumbnails for this video seems to have a typo, hopefully it gets corrected.
because time slows down near a black hole due to gravitational time dilation i think black holes might have had more time to consume and grow compared to regions like the solar system we live in where gravity is much weaker.
Damn physics keep breaking the laws of mathematics. If you ask a mathematician.
That doesn't even make sense. Try harder next time.
Absolutely true that a bigger star is more luminous.
The next Eddington is in the comments now, probably frustrated their understanding of the universe isn’t commonly accepted, frustrated by frameworks and ideas so forcibly pushed as true. Be the black hole inside of you
I need like 20 more videos on ‘virtual’ photons and particles. Energy is duplicated, created and then destroyed from seemingly nothing. I’d love to look into more theories
Great explanation, as always.
At this point, I'm convinced that astrophysics is like, 90% philosphy. No other fields credibility can survive the monthly "our models say that this thing we're looking at is impossible" which astrophysics just calmly wades through.
No other field can make predictions like the expected deflection from the DART mission, be more than 100% wrong, and have people simply accept the declaration that it was a massive success.
The point of the DART mission was to experimentally verify the deflection that would actually occur. Because models aren't reality. What field of science has perfect models?
@@MushookieManthank you.
@@MushookieMan Firstly, the point and the goal are wildly different things and you do yourself discredit by purposefully conflating the two. The goal was a shortening of orbit by 73 seconds. What happened was a shortening of 32 minutes. A factor of 26 higher.
If an officer's goal is to take down a wildly dangeous criminal, and his actions succeed from a great distance, but 25 innocent people perish by his hand, is that success?
I mean, "the point" was to eliminate a threat to society, *_right?_*
Secondly, You bring yourself further discredit by launching this silly strawman argument about perfect models. I said nothing about perfect models. I spoke shade upon models "more than 100% wrong", giving the good grace of not even mentioning that the models that governed the success criteria of the DART mission were a brain melting 2630% off the mark.
At least have the intellectual honesty to debate the things I actually said, instead of the things you wish I had said.
wonderful as always
Sabine put up a video today discussing a paper from one of the Wolfram mathematicians that shows their hypergraphs predict much more energy output from blackhole accretion. Unless I misunderstood. Does that apply here?
Don't mention Sabine here, she's literally the antithesis to these types of channels. Half her videos indirectly debunk most of what has been discussed and purported as fact on SpaceTime.
@@Kvltklassik They compliment each other. PBS can be idealist/optimistic while Sabine is usually realist/pessimistic. Both perspectives are fun in different ways.
Sabine has her axe to grind. I do like Sabine and I even agree with some of her critiques, but she has really fallen into clickbait and audience capture to post mostly “science is in crisis” video titles. She is powering a lot of anti-science people with her commentary that aren’t understanding her nuance. Professor Dave (who I generally don’t like) did a very good look at her recent video style.
@@Kvltklassik she likes MOND, while spacetime likes string theory. old academic rivalry.
@Kvltklassik
As an engineer, I appreciate Sabine's skepticism. Not every new idea is one worth pursuing or has merit.
I believe the universe is truly infinite. There never was a beginning in a sense we can fathom. What “big banged” was probably one of many in this infinite expanse. We are so infinitely small we might as well be atoms in an entirely separate body
The thumbnail says 4000 percent (40 times the Eddington Limit).
Thumbnail clearly says 4000X
@@Xiphiidae No. 4000%
@@Lord_Flashheart_Woof @Xiphiidae TH-cam allows creators to use different thumbnails for same video so they can see which one performs better. You both might not be seeing the same thumbnail. One of the thumbnails for this video seems to have a typo, hopefully it gets corrected.
I speed paint holograms from an innate understanding of what void or emptiness is
Perhaps there is no "beginning of time"? If the universe is infinitely old with no end nor beginning, then stars and black holes that are "too old" might simply be remnants of what came before.
The universe can't be infinitely old otherwise the sky would ve filled with the light of infinite stars.
But the universe is not static. Also it doesnt explain dark matter and dark energy. Or the cosmic background radiation
If the universe is forever changing, matter and light may not existed, but time could be infinite.
@@virutech32 Olber's Paradox relies on the universe being: Infinite, Homogenous, and Static
The universe is expanding, so light from sufficiently distant stars (most of them) is redshifted so much or becomes so scattered that we don't see it naturally. We do have scans of starlight in different wavelengths across the sky, and if you could see *all* wavelengths of light, you *would* see a sky filled to the brim with light.
There is also the Cosmic Horizon, at which point expansion is shunting stars off so quickly that we'll never receive the light.
@@virutech32 Yes it can. No it wouldn't. Spacetime spreads infinitely.
Thank you for yet another excellent video! I remember first learning about the black hole growth problem, but I didn't know we had observational evidence to help make progress toward solving that issue. I feel like I learned a lot from this one.
God be with you out there, everybody. ✝️ :)
As an example 3:37 , that's release of energy is what we can see, and of course hawking radiation, but what if matter is being broken down by the inner mechanism, creating "dark energy" or redistributing energy back into the universe. After all we've seen jets carry material for 100's of thousands of light years.
Thank you.