Go to ground.news/drbecky to get access to reliable information all in one place. Subscribe through my link to get 40% off unlimited access during their biggest sale of the year. Sale ends November 30.
sometimes I wonder how people call themselves doctors when they can not even see partial truth. How many goal posts must they move for you to see they just want you chasing a lie. GL Becky
What she is saying is the acceptance of Einsteinian cosmological constant based on a big bang 13.8 billion years ago. Prof. Penrose now disputes this theory, does light lose energy the farther it has to travel? The JWST has sent images of six or seven galaxies 92 million light-years away, the point being, how can this be if the universe is 13.8 billion years old? Just like the make-do and mend patch of dark energy and dark matter are unproven, so too is the Big Bang not being the first.
@@FaqueGoogle-wo6ipThe goalposts are always changing, you can only go on the available data, and when the data changes so do the goalposts, sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse, everything is best guess at these levels to an extent, sometimes even the most fundamental guesses turn out to be wrong. But that's half the fun.
Dr Becky are these theories DEBUNKED? 1 our entire visible universe is inside the jet of a really big really old Black Hole 2 our entire visible universe is inside a really big, really old Black Hole. I ask because we keep seeing:- Circular structures Really old objects The Great attractor And the expansion of the visible universe looks regular until that moment where we seem to have "made-up" that short period of "inflation" needed to get to a Singularity. But with the two Really Big Black Hole Theories the starting point would be at the Event Horizon one of the two Poles, a disc of finite size not a singularity. Also, our Observable Universe has mostly Matter with very little Antimatter. Would the migration in North / South due to magnetic fields in any way perform any kind of "sorting" process. Just a thought, anyway hopefully both of these have been completely debunked. It would be great if you could do some "Great Theories ... but Totally Debunked" videos 😉
I saw the news for this, and said, "I'll check it out later." Cut to today and I just remember, so I start looking like it everywhere, cause I don't know what to call it except an "extra super massive black hole." I love your channel, and I'm so glad I found a video you made on it! So thank you! 💗
As soon as someone who has a clue says something like "This should *not* exist!" I get excited because it often kind of implies either new physics, or new theories, or both. Love your work, Dr. Becky!
I find such a statement to be elitist. We humans think we know more than the reality of the universe. When we find something that our brilliance never envisioned, then we have the conceit to imply that something is wrong with the universe. The truth is that "This should exist", because it does exist. The fact that it exists is proof positive that it should exist. No one (especially authority figures) should teach learning minds that it should not exist. Perhaps such statements are for effect, to tug at emotions -- to get likes and subscriptions. To do that, at the expense of making viewers believe that we found something wrong with the universe is inappropriate. A proper statement would be: "We discovered something that we never imagined could exist." But no. Such brilliant people will rarely say something that shows that they actually did not know something. They have to be right, and the universe has to be wrong.
if they "shouldnt exist" than they dont exist, theyre looking for the most outlandish answers for things when we already know what causes the formations we are observing in deep space, electric currents and the electromagnetic fields they produce.
You forget that accepted theories might not entirely be correct. These black holes that shouldn't exist share the same distance and timing as the galaxies that shouldn't exist.
This is a gem of a video. Having grown up with TV programs, having something of the scientific depth and up-to-date as this would have been unthinkable some decades ago. I hope the new generations will appreciate it! (I had Carl Sagan though! But you have him here too if you look for him).
black holes do not exist. if they "shouldnt exist" than they dont exist, theyre looking for the most outlandish answers for things when we already know what causes the formations we are observing in deep space, electric currents and the electromagnetic fields they produce.
You’re certainly not British it would seem! The BBC has always included weighty scientific programs, like “Horizon” that began in 1964 and ran for over 50 years, with its wonderful Brian Eno theme tune, and “The Sky At Night” for astronomy and cosmology that started in 1957 and is STILL going (I think it’s the longest running science show ever!) and many, many more….and classic pop science shows like “Tomorrow’s World”, a must see show that was on right next to Top Of The Pops every Thursday back in the 70’s. AND let’s not forget The Open University that ran at night, once all the normal programming had ended. Those were hardcore STEM University classes! Yup, the BBC kept Britain well aware of scientific progress during the 60’s, 70’s, 80’s and 90’s pre-internet era!
❌NO!❌ Early supermassive black holes didn’t have to grow faster than u think if time was passing much slower than now. Spacetime should have been extremely warped in early extremely dense universe. Therefore, time should have been almost standstill🤏 The true age of the universe could indeed be MUCH MUCH older than anyone thinks🔥
There is no mystery here, just lack of scientific imagination. To advise Dr Becky that Direct collapse to a black hole (BH) is not possible but it is possible to get through the stages of forming many BH quite fast if there is enough concentration of mass in some region of the Universe. The process is very simple and it resembles a drop of condensing water forming on a window. 1) High concentration of gas over vast space leads to a dense concentration of a globular planet -like objects which are almost at a critical mass to collapse into stars. 2) One of those objects becomes a star which triggers a cascade process of many other objects to start conversion to stars. 3) Because they are so close to each other they release a lot of energy towards the neighbouring formations but they also get a lot of energy from neighboring formations. 4) As the cascade conversion to stats continues to propagate, a lot of energy returns to the place where it started resulting in a transition from a star to a black hole. 5) The released energy and stuff from the formation of the BH is sufficient to trigger another cascade but this time transforming the newly formed stars into BHs. 6) Because the BHs and Stars are so close to each other ,as they form, they release a lot of energy towards the neighbouring newly-formed stars and BHs but they also get a lot of energy from neighboring formations. 7) Some of the released energy from the cascade of BHs formation goes back to the first BH making it grow extremely fast. 8) We now have a vast area of densely populated BHs, stars and a central BH that absorbs them all at a rapid pace. It is like condensing a drop of water on the window, where the drop is the super massive BH. We do not see it happening today because such levels of concentration of dust over vast area is no longer present in the Universe due to its expansion.
0:00: 🌌 A recent research paper claims to have solved the mystery of how supermassive black holes form and grow. 3:27: 📰 The video discusses the benefits of using Ground News to stay informed about media coverage and biases. 6:32: 🌌 Black holes emit energy that pushes outwards, limiting the amount of material they can absorb and grow. 9:51: 🔬 The video discusses the detection of X-ray emissions from hot gas between galaxies in clusters using the Chandra telescope and JWST. 13:18: 🌌 Scientists use X-ray brightness and infrared light to estimate the mass of a black hole in a distant galaxy. 16:39: 🔬 Evidence for direct collapse black holes in the early universe suggests a solution to the astrophysics chicken or the egg question. 20:13: 🔬 The spectroscopic analysis of a galaxy initially believed to be very distant revealed it is actually much closer in age and distance than previously thought. Recapped using Tammy AI
Bloopers: "astrophysics chicken" ..... Dr Becky just created a new cartoon character to explain science to kids!! Love you work Dr. Becky.... look forward to your videos every week! (thank you for leaving the bloopers, makes me feel better when I trip on my words).... "Science is hard, words are harder!"
You explain this so well. I keep up with physics as an amateur. Many people dumb down thier information to a point that it looses all subtleties. Thanks for finding the sweet spot on your presentation.
@@DrBecky It is official, Dr Becky is a corrupt, fake Educator because her choices are to contaminate our minds with a verbal Diarrhoea called Advertising. Advertising for the mind is what smoking is for the lungs.
It is official, Dr Becky is a corrupt, fake Educator because her choices are to contaminate our minds with a verbal Diarrhoea called Advertising. Advertising for the mind is what smoking is for the lungs. Shame on you Dr Becky.
I really appreciate how Dr. Becky expresses scientific findings as a level of confidence or accuracy within a range of values. Way better then content providers that just state the numbers in a list of “facts.”
12:55 If a black hole is surrounded by dust and some of that dust reflects x-rays towards you and it will therefore appear brighter, wouldn't the opposite be true as well (assuming that the dust around the black hole is somewhat even). So the dust that sits in between you and the black whole reflects x-rays from the black hole away from you and makes the black hole thereby appear fainter.
well no, X-rays are not usually reflected, and when they are the angles are usually very close to 180 degrees. Also x-rays are only reflected by very high density/high atomic mass metals like Tungsten etc.
There is no mystery here, just lack of scientific imagination. To advise Dr Becky that Direct collapse to a black hole (BH) is not possible but it is possible to get through the stages of forming many BH quite fast if there is enough concentration of mass in some region of the Universe. The process is very simple and it resembles a drop of condensing water forming on a window. 1) High concentration of gas over vast space leads to a dense concentration of a globular planet-like objects which are almost at a critical mass to collapse into stars. 2) One of those objects becomes a star which triggers a cascade process of many other objects to start conversion to stars. 3) Because they are so close to each other they release a lot of energy towards the neighbouring formations but they also get a lot of energy from neighboring formations. 4) As the cascade conversion to stats continues to propagate, a lot of energy returns to the place where it started resulting in a transition from a star to a black hole. 5) The released energy and stuff from the formation of the BH is sufficient to trigger another cascade but this time transforming the newly formed stars into BHs. 6) Because the BHs and Stars are so close to each other ,as they form, they release a lot of energy towards the neighbouring newly-formed stars and BHs but they also get a lot of energy from neighboring formations. 7) Some of the released energy from the cascade of BHs formation goes back to the first BH making it grow extremely fast. 8) We now have a vast area of densely populated BHs, stars and a central BH that absorbs them all at a rapid pace. It is like condensing a drop of water on the window, where the drop is the super massive BH. We do not see it happening today because such levels of concentration of dust over vast area is no longer present in the Universe due to its expansion.
You see it because of visible light that reflects from the dust, X ray is just part of the electromagnetic spectrum of light which is part of the matter that black hole is spitting out .In fact it more starts to act like a white hole vs black holes. X ray isn’t part of visible light spectrum
@@992rasСвязано ли это с теми 👨💻🦹♂️ цифровыми террористами, которые 💉 заразили ``лексикон`` тем нелепым представлением о том, что 🚫🚫⛔⛔👎👎терраформирование👎👎⛔⛔🚫🚫 - это реальная вещь, а не какое-то неэтичное Безумная, проблемная, дьявольская смесь слабых, дурацких слов «вуду»?
This is such a small thing I noticed, but you always say "and collaborators." Which is such a good idea! et al. is nice for writing since it takes up less space, but when you're doing science communication, it's better to remove barriers and spend that extra second to make sure people understand.
Yeah, that’s indeed great. Also she always mentions the lead scientist by name and show their photo, which is a good way to remind us viewers that there’s real people behind science being made. I am not aware of other science communicators doing that so consistently and methodically. Traditional media never credit researchers by name.
It is official, Dr Becky is a corrupt, fake Educator because her choices are to contaminate our minds with a verbal Diarrhoea called Advertising. Advertising for the mind is what smoking is for the lungs. Shame on you Dr Becky.
Downloaded that paper a week ago and it has been sat here staring at me from the desktop. Not sure my Genetics qualifications were going to help me digest it, so: Thank you Dr Becky!
@Dr, Becky: I pre-ordered your book back in June. It finally arrived last week. I am thoroughly enjoying it. It takes me back to the sixties when I became interest in Astronomy and Astrophysics while reading all of Dr. Isaac Asmiov's Seventeen Essays book series. Your writing style in your Black Holes book is very reminiscent of Asimov's in his books. At the tender age of seventy, I find myself scouring around to obtain all of the books in his 17 essay series (I have most of his Science Fiction books already). Thanks for all you do to entertain and pique our curiosity in the field of Astrophysics and Astronomy.
I've wondered how solving time-problems in respect to things like black hole development in the early universe is even realistic given what must have been very contorted/ dissimilar time frames and relativistic distortions at work in the early universe, when matter was packed together and extreme forces were at work.
Likeweise, how can you know how much of the redshift is due to pure distance (making them appear very young) and how much is because of the black hole time dilation itself?
Afaik issues with relativistic time dilation only come into play when you're dealing with black holes themselves; the universe around them is pretty nonrelativistic and evolves classically.
❌NO!❌ Early supermassive black holes didn’t have to grow faster than u think if time was passing much slower than now. Spacetime should have been extremely warped in early extremely dense universe. Therefore, time should have been almost standstill🤏 The true age of the universe could indeed be MUCH MUCH older than anyone thinks🔥
You are absolutely fantastic to explain these complicated things! I understand everything you say. When i read the scientific reports i understand zero, so your channel is verry appreciated. Thanks!❤ !
I just love your shows. I wish the profs I had when I was in the game had the ability to explain things so clearly. My sincerest thanks. Now, if I could only build a time machine and go back to my second year.
I'm quite old, and I can assure you I don't remember anything from supermassive black holes when the universe was 700,000,000 years old. But my memory might fail me.
Very intresting, I am facinated by early black holes and I could see this being a hint of some new physics! Also, just pointing out the editing mistake around 17:55 with image opacity I presume.
The big bang was a local event, not a birth of the universe. The universe is far bigger than we believe and big bangs and expansions are local events that happen throughout the greater universe.
Can you build big black-holes avoiding the Eddington Limit by having many acretuing blackholes followed by mergers in a kind of tree? Maybe the Eddington Limit maths doesn't allow that, or the blackholes would merge too soon or there isn't enough time in these very old galaxies?
There's also an issue with black holes on a merging orbital path, the accretion discs would surely interact, the pressures pushing gases outwards would push into each other and mess with the Eddington limit maths.
The Eddington Limit says the mass accretion rate is proportional to the black hole mass, so splitting it across multiple black holes doesn't help (unless there's some mechanism that makes super-Eddington accretion easier for small black holes?) It is possible to beat the Eddington limit if you break its assumptions (basically, if you get energy out of the system more efficiently) but idk how much of a gain those processes grant.
@@Hailfire08 I mean, if you have 5 black holes accreting at the maximum rate, which then all merge, don't you now have a single black hole that's 5x more massive than the Eddington limit would allow?
@@lunafoxfire I think you have a black hole that's at the maximum for a seed five times the mass of the seeds for the five smaller black holes. So to get the equivalent of a seed 1000 times the mass, you would need to merge 1000 black holes. (Actually, more than that, since a large portion of the mass of merging black holes is lost in gravitational waves.)
Becky, are we looking to have a higher resolution replacement for Chandra in the coming 20-30 years? Would this help with tighter detail of x-ray sources etc, and thus help with determining black hole formation methods, etc?
Yes, the Athena telescope will be much more sensitive and have a higher resolution than Chandra. Unfortunately, one will have to wait for a decade of so before it gets launched.
If the universe is rapidly expanding in all directions, then it makes sense that early black holes were able to grow faster due to 'a smaller universe'
They don't grow faster as there is a limit to their growth, so they must start bigger. And as we don't have an early Universe at hand to see it happen now, we must observe the one that was to understand how.
Agree with Phillippe, but you are right in that the gas density is higher in the early Universe. It's just that this doesn't help. This is why in the current Universe, most BHs are accreting at *way* below the Eddington limit.
Since black holes are your area of research, especially the super massive ones in the early universe, I would love to know your thoughts on the Kurzgesagt video on this very thing titled Black Hole Stars. That video blew my mind and of all their videos that is the one I've rewatched the most
Dr. Becky, I wonder if there is simply an upper limit on the size of black holes before they themselves become the singularity of a new universe, blending with the existing “local” fabric. Could this create what we call “bubbles” of the multiverse while being consistent with the idea of a static larger and truly unbounded universe that can appear to have the properties of expansion when observed from sufficient distances?
In the early universe galaxies were a lot closer to each other SO it stands to reason that everything would happen at a MUCH FASTER RATE. Also there were almost no heavy elements. The first black holes had much more time to grow into Monsters from conjoining with each other because their was much less space to travel through. Mostly common sense
so just watched a previous video of yours, about dark stars. if dark stars are possible, could they be a reason for early super massive black holes? or would that process be too slow too?
Love your channel and I learn something with each watch. I have a question. Over time(however long it would take), will all the blackholes consume everything in the universe and consolidate? If so, would do you think would happen after that? Another big bang ? Thanks
No, they will not. They will become farther and farther apart due to the accelerating expansion of the universe. After billions of years, they will evaporate through Hawking radiation and cease to exist. The universe will be so stretched at that point, that nothing will be able to consolidate with anything else. I am not a physicist but this is what they all say :)
I'm not as qualified as Dr Becky but I think dark energy will spread black holes out too fast. Then black holes will evaporate(extremely slowly) through Hawking radiation. That's current theories at least I think.
Nope. Most galaxies are moving away from each other, with space itself expanding between them. Even with their enormous gravity, black holes cannot overcome the increasing expansion of the universe to consolidate into one.
Outstanding video!!... a real deep-dive in astrophysics!…A++video…Every astronomy major (or for that matter, every physical science major) should watch it!
Dr Becky, always a pleasure to watch and listen to, not just your enthusiasm, but your ability to explain things in 'simple' terms. On this one it seems like there is some form of cascading gravitational pull affect going on. Could conditions exist where pull and spin begin in an area full of small matter that began a spin and pulled in at an ever increasing rate until it crossed a 'barrier' that flipped it into a black hole. Origination could be tiny in an area full of mass with exponentially increasing consumption. Dunno, thinking of a fine grain sand experiment, seems at least plausible or worth pondering some. Still haven't bought your book, but intend to- mjb
The 'spin' that gets my jaw dropping is the one they did on the ISS in micro gravity where they have a 'T' shaped object, which flips itself. Something about the balance of the laws of physics. It just looks improbable. Did the 'birth' of the 'Big Bang Theory' start with a Black Hole that reached a critical mass and was spinning so fast, it started a 'snowball' effect at the core, that did the opposite of your small matter to black hole and went from black hole to lots of small matter?
If we're measuring distance by redshift, isn't it just possible that its closer but just moving extra fast away from us for some reason beyond the expansion of the universe?
@@tonywells6990 Isn't that already happening though? Aren't bits of the universe perceived to be moving away from each other at faster than the speed of light because of the expansion of the universe?
@@kennyhudson9201 Yes, distant objects are receding from us faster than light, but not through their local region of space. The OP was referring to close-by supermassive black holes that could be moving at relativistic speeds, but that is not possible.
Space Park in Redondo Beach did the final assembly of both Chandra and JWST. I was working at at Space Park when Chandra was being developed and got to see it during the EMI EMC testing.
Thanks for explaining it in understandable language. I have a question though: can’t (Cold) Dark Matter be the solution for the heavy seeds? It shouldn’t feel the outwards pressure when collapsing, as by definition it only feels the gravitation, but not the Electromagnetic interactions. Maybe you already answered it in another video.
What's your proposed mechanism for that collapse, given that it's not colliding with the other particles? Wouldn't it just stay in orbit indefinitely because it can't lose energy?
So cold dark matter is what's known as collisionless, so it stays quite diffuse as it's very unlikely to interact with other particles and loose enough energy to give a dense enough collapse into something resembling a star density nevermind a black hole.
7:52 calculation suggest they are real, but you’ve never observed anything in the universe therefore we should not accept it as reality until such. That sounds an awful lot like Hawking radiation, but everyone seems to agree that Hawking radiation is real. Why is that???
Is the mass of the black hole seed, and any further growth afterwards, affected by the kinetic energy of what’s being absorbed (with the orbiting mass going at relativistic speeds prior to being obsorbed)? Just wondering if the added mass to the black hole is equivalent to just the stationary mass of the absorbed material, or if relativistic properties of the material will affect it. (Keep in mind I have a pretty limited understanding of special relativity and none of general so I don’t even know what’s relevant lol)
I think whatever part of the energy is there regardless of reference frame, should count? Like, if you take the minimum of the energy over all possible reference frames, then, that should be included? Which like, if the total momentum is zero in some frame, then I think the kinetic energy in that frame should contribute to the mass? I’m not certain though
Wow! What a great video about a very complex subject. You continue to make some of the clearest science communication videos on the internet without stifling your enthusiasm. thank you so much 👍
If black holes form at the very beginning of the universe, and they exist in almost all galaxies, it seems like black holes are probably how galaxies formed in the first place. The black holes were the original seeds of galaxies, and galaxies grew around them as they accumulated more material.
It's more about dark matter haloes from before even the cosmic microwave background. Though they might somehow collect primordial black holes (if they exist; they're still very speculative) so maybe?
@@AndrewBlacker-t1d Who are you, master of the obvious? I noticed the mistake in spelling but didn't have the urge to insult or belittle the commentor in an attempt to prove myself superior as you apparently have. A failed attempt btw, it actually had the opposite effect.
Direct black hole formation in the early universe that was denser than now makes a lot more sense, and explains why quasars are common then and not now. ❤
So, wouldn’t it be possible that during the early universe mass is more abundant close together (due to a lack of the expansion since), and would allow for faster star formation, and subsequent black hole production. Could this not potentially also allow for more frequent black hole mergers, thus causing jumps in mass accrual that would outpace the Eddington limit, without actually violating it? Not necessarily a common occurrence, but a possibility perhaps.
That's what 'direct collapse' implies. The Eddington limit doesn't apply to black holes as they radiate only minimally, but they would have an accretion disk...
That's one idea. There are others, though. There's a Kurzgesagt video on black hole stars (Wikipedia calls them quasi-stars), which are a theoretical class of Population III stars that could have been the origin of DCBHs. Basically they are 'stars' that are so huge they have a black hole as a core, which produced heat through friction (like in the accretion disc of regular black holes) rather than fusion (hence 'quasi' - they're not stars in the usual sense). They would only have existed in the early universe because that's the only time the universe was dense enough for them to form and they would have been extremely short-lived.
I was thinking the same thing... what about clumping of black holes in an early universe that hadn't reached peak expansion? Easier to bump around when you're close together and start a chain of collapse with black holes falling faster & faster into each other.
perjaps the easiest explanation is that not all matter was created at the moment of the big bang. Maybe there was more matter in space before that and we just cant see it.
Is it possible that the rate of expansion after the big bang could have caused gas clouds to collapse so fast and so vigorously that it formed a direct black hole?
The expansion stretches the clouds; they do collapse more easily in the early universe though because the gas was much more transparent back then; almost no heavy elements to absorb light.
❌NO!❌ Early supermassive black holes didn’t have to grow faster than u think if time was passing much slower than now. Spacetime should have been extremely warped in early extremely dense universe. Therefore, time should have been almost standstill🤏 The true age of the universe could indeed be MUCH MUCH older than anyone thinks🔥
@@duran9664 Spacetime was not warped by much, it is after all 'flat'. Gravitational attraction of matter didn't really cause much warping for many millions of years after the big bang since the density was so uniform. Spacetime is only warped on galactic scales.
There is no mystery here, just lack of scientific imagination. To advise Dr Becky that Direct collapse to a black hole (BH) is not possible but it is possible to get through the stages of forming many BH quite fast if there is enough concentration of mass in some region of the Universe. The process is very simple and it resembles a drop of condensing water forming on a window. 1) High concentration of gas over vast space leads to a dense concentration of a globular planet-like objects which are almost at a critical mass to collapse into stars. 2) One of those objects becomes a star which triggers a cascade process of many other objects to start conversion to stars. 3) Because they are so close to each other they release a lot of energy towards the neighbouring formations but they also get a lot of energy from neighboring formations. 4) As the cascade conversion to stats continues to propagate, a lot of energy returns to the place where it started resulting in a transition from a star to a black hole. 5) The released energy and stuff from the formation of the BH is sufficient to trigger another cascade but this time transforming the newly formed stars into BHs. 6) Because the BHs and Stars are so close to each other ,as they form, they release a lot of energy towards the neighbouring newly-formed stars and BHs but they also get a lot of energy from neighboring formations. 7) Some of the released energy from the cascade of BHs formation goes back to the first BH making it grow extremely fast. 8) We now have a vast area of densely populated BHs, stars and a central BH that absorbs them all at a rapid pace. It is like condensing a drop of water on the window, where the drop is the super massive BH. We do not see it happening today because such levels of concentration of dust over vast area is no longer present in the Universe due to its expansion.
Scientists are a bunch of romantics. I'm really happy to see you guys struggling to keep everything together. You're like people walking downstairs with their arms completely full of dirty laundry.
I have to change the oil, replace the belts and bearings and rebalance the drive shaft in my brain after trying to keep up with you after every video, but don't change Dr. Becky. Love your content!
Or, if Black holes are so dense not even light can escape and the beginning of the universe had everything all in one infinitesimally dense point, how did it all escape? Or…. is the reason we can’t escape out of the universe not so much that it’s too big, but more because we’re inside a Black Hole? And if we were inside a Black Hole, would that mean the Black Holes inside our Universe are other Universes and there are little people on little planets in there wondering what’s beyond the ’edge’ that, for some reason, they cannot see or even really define all that well?
@@K1lostream Above a certain high temperature there is no mass because no particle that would carry it can be formed. But without mass there is no gravity.
@@akostarkanyi825 The whole universe being ‘above a certain high temperature’ (as you so precisely put it) means there must be a pretty mind-boggling amount of energy fizzing around though, right? Remind me, what is E equivalent to?
This is absolutely a plausible explanation for black hole growth - mergers of small BH. Not sure what the current thinking on this possibility is - I suspect this obs helps reject that hypothesis, because the dynamical merger timescale is longer than 700 kyr
My hypothesis on how black holes formed is that the radiation being uncertain in position or momentum equates to you can't really know if a region is moving away at the beginning or while doing that collided with other matter being exposed to entropy and random weak breakdowns. Point is that radiation could be so dense/energetic that countless photons of wavelengths < Planck Length could form "super waves" of intense energy. Since basically everything was 'nearby' at the time. Then as time went on it got huge. Now space is more rarefied and photons aren't generally having wavelengths below the Planck Length.
Thank you for again another super interesting video! It's great to have someone explain at least some the actual results from JWST to non scientists. I really enjoy your explainations and generally feel I understand a lot of them. I do have some trouble though trying to wrap my head around the 3d dimensional geometry involved in all of the JWST observations. Assuming the Universe expands as a sphere from a center point, where the big bang happened. Is that true? And if so, do we know where our solar system or the milky way is releative to that center and into what direction we're moving? Further assuming we're not at the center of the universe (although some people might behave like they are) there should be a direction with shortest distence/time to the boundary of the universe's sphere and every other direction would be longer. Now in what direction is JWST looking to see these far away galaxies? Maybe you explained all of that in earlier videos or my assumptions are completely wrong but if not, I would really appreciate a video on that 🙂
Love it when science types say stuff like it shouldn't be possible, etc. What, we humans have discovered and know everything there is to know about the universe? Amazing!
What we tend to forget (even tho it’s logical) is that the Universe is much older than Earth. What you’re seeing isn’t necessarily something that has always been there. One primitive “galaxy“ hides a lot of secrets, including one that’s very important : its past. You don’t see what happened prior to light traveling to us. These primitive galaxies could’ve merged with others in the past, way before we even discovered them. That could explain why some black holes in the early universe are that massive. These black holes’ host galaxies merged countless of times in the past and they had MUCH MORE matter to feed on than you’d imagine. A lot of matter to feed on + A long time = “absurd” mass.
Since existence cannot NOT exist and NOTHING can also NOT exist, then existence has existed forever in one form or not form or another and will continue so to do for the rest of forever. Infinity is real. Please ponder on this. Thanking Dr. Becky for all her good and great work.
Just a thought. Let's hypothesize that in the tiny fractional instant before the big bang there was homogeneity, yet almost immediately after we have loss of that homogeneity for some random reason. Is it possible that while the energy and matter was still incredibly dense, "mini" backhoes would form in this dense "cosmic soup" and then collapse repeatedly into eachother to form larger and larger black holes. The matter and energy that randomly "escapes" this process would appear as a sort of tenuous net from which our stuff comes from, in turn acting as it is expected, which the composite blackholes would be able to "capture" in a sort of proto galaxy.
A bunch of channels I follow have gotten sponsored by Ground News recently and it's kind of fascinating to see how all the different adverts emphasise different elements of the service.
Dear Dr. Becky, I've a question about the eddington limit and I hope, you'll read this comment and answer it. (Thx in advance). The factor 4pi in formula you showed at 7:04 tells me, that this is the analytical solution for a spherical surface. This is fine for stars, but accretion disks are hardly spherical. Thus i wondered, is there any neat/analytical solution for the eddington limit for accretion disks? Or do you have to solve it numerically? I imagine, you would have to disect the disk into rings. If radiation emitted by each volume element dV is assumed to be isotropic and following an Black Body curve, each ring would push against its outer and its inner neighbour. But because of the temperatur gradient, the inner ring would push back, even harder. The radiation we see, is mostly emitted perpendicular to the disk. But this radiation would not help, to stabilze against gravity acting coplanar to the disk. Best regards, an interested physics student
Very impressed with this video. I have always been interested in astronomy and physics. It was things like this that drove me to enter those professions. Thank you for feeding my insatiable curiosity about the universe and the wonders that we discove
I love these smbh videos. There's so much that I have trouble wrapping my head around because of the lack of maths understanding, but the information is still fascinating. Merch idea? Lenticular pin of JWST art combined with AstroFicken when you turn it side to side.
I wish people would stop saying that something that is observed "shouldn't exist". Provided that the observations can be trusted, it's your theories and assumptions that "shouldn't exist" because clearly they are deficient. Nature is always correct.
Well, the first stars were usually very very large and of course had very low metallicity and roared through their supply of hydrogen extremely quickly with lifespans measured in the millions of years before inevitably going supernova and creating high mass black holes. Maybe due to the higher density of space in general back then black holes could grow quicker than they might now ?
Hi Dr. Becky, how does Bogdan et al account for the red-shift of the chandra X-ray data? Would the x-ray observations not be shifted high energy gamma rays, and if so, would the proportion of gamma vs x-rays emitted differ in a candidate SMBH signficantly enough to affect the interpreatation?
I can't wait until 'we' figure out that the universe is infinite and time is infinite and this big bang stuff was just a misinterpretation by our primitive stage of physics...
this is pure imaginative conjecture on my part: perhaps the supermassives were remnants of primordial Star-like objects. these objects were the hearts of celestial objects that spanned hundreds of thousands light years across. they were fed from the existence. our sun is a 3rd, probably 4th generation star. the first ones were the progenitors to the superclusters, but very unstable, creating localized areas of accelerated exapnsion, the next series were slightly more stable but were still too unstable to sustain themselves, and blew apart into chunks. and so on with each new generation, the average size dwindles logarithmically
I learned from TV that "Our whole universe was in a hot dense state, Then nearly fourteen billion years ago expansion started. Wait..." So, the early universe was in a hotter denser state and that must have facilitated early formation of direct collapse black holes.
My hypothesis is black holes slowly stop organizing energy and start randomly losing disorganized polarized 'heat' that exits the black hole and turns into heavy matter that they then cannibalize and heat up but it takes longer to heat up and it makes creating density more difficult and then they slowly become bigger and bigger. This could mean entropy is not chaos and is instead heat organization and means if more heat becomes 'stacked' more heat is created. 'Stacking' is similar to creating energy density and can still happen through disorganization but the process of losing heat could possibly be achieved by insulating the material you want to 'cool' or stabilize from electrical sources but then applying magnetic reverse polarization spins. Reverse polarization could then be a form of heat dissipation as long as the heat units inside the matter continue to stay separated uniformly. And maybe it goes further to say pure electricity is a form of energy that can create heat and atomic instability in matter; and pure magnetic energy is a form of energy that can create heat stability (coldness) and create atomic stability in matter. The above argument liberally mentions the word 'heat' singularly and plurally for a type of infinitesimal particle of energetic matter. Stephen Hakwing radiation means heat is lost from a black hole but could a black hole have internal 'flares' through quantum magnetics.
Much of the mainstream model of the universe points to its creation about 13 billion years ago. The assumptions is that it expanded into the void. The model has trouble explaining dark matter, dark energy and supermassive black holes in the early universe. Instead of a void it must have expanded into the “ashes” of earlier “universes”. The ashes would be dissolving black holes, stable isotopes of cold mater, and energy (dark or not dark).
We're finding so many interesting things so close to the beginning of the universe. We should really consider building a far larger telescope to get a better view of even earlier, perhaps a solar gravitational scope to see higher-energy things that don't red shift all the way to infrared. It seems like we're so close to seeing the moments after the big bang; perhaps a video explaining the challenges with actually looking back that far would be worth making?
2 points; 1. The early universe itself, was more dence allowing for matter accumulation to be faster than modern era. 2. The big bang was not the origin and space is far bigger and older than the observable universe.
This is actually exciting that there seems to be something wromg with our understanding of the expansion/evolution of the universe (big bang). This should inspire many scientists to find a possible solution and thus we should expect many new discories soon!
I am posting this more as a question, if I got this info correct. What is being mentioned here by direct collapse black holes, I believe is something I read about 15(ish) years ago, I believe it was called a "Dark Star(?)" which was a super massive 3rd Gen Star, that "survives" its core imploding into a black hole and goes on its Late Life Nuclear Fusing ways (near the core instead of in it) as the the core slowly eats it from the inside. The in-falling material now creates a pressure barrier that keeps stuff from falling in at fractions of the speed of light, despite the proximity of the star to its core, preventing nova waves. It would indeed have polar jets, but the sheer bulk of the star severely weakens said jets if they exit the star at all, where they and the event horizon scorching instead power the star's own internal heating, which makes it final fusions as well as collapse more uniformed, which means faster and more fully than the Eddington limit allows, which uses empty "space" as the medium in which this material falls, not the X-Factor gravity field, temp, as well as pressures of this star's near core environment combined to skew the numbers. again no Nova. Super bright star one day, bloop giant black hole the next, even if the means by which it bloops started 1,000 years earlier. Even last gasp nova's both material and photon, would be eaten "by" the black hole as it expands. By the time the polar jets break the surface of the star in any meaningful way most of the mass is already beyond the threshold. And it now resembles an AGN doing AGN things with a ready made disk. We have no local proof they exist because these "were" the first generations of stars who made the galaxies we live in locally now. We weren't looking back far enough to find them, and now we are. :) Now we need to catch one blooping. I also believe this is where gravity wave exploration is going to help.
Here is the correct physics F=ma is acceleration in space. From one coordinate to another. E=mc is acceleration in time. From atomic energy to radiant energy. The frame of reference is Acceleration. What is the mass being accelerated in? Space or Time. Light cant escape a black hole because there is not enough force/energy to accelerate the atoms to the speed of light - radiant energy. Thats your answer Becky. That Nobel Prize is mine.
Looking very simplistic, in the early universe its mass was closer together making it easier to make massive stars, black hole collisions and direct collapse.
I prefer the theory that the population III (first stars ) being so massive - all collapsed down to the first black holes , since everything was closer together , there gravity would attract more gas towards themselves = enough material to grown to there size .
So why do we still assume the galaxy is only 13.8 billion years old? We have no idea what beyond our observable universe, a line we’ll never cross, and we keep finding galaxies at this limit that shouldn’t exist. I know I’m missing something, and I’m no astrophysicist, just a fan of space, so if anyone can fill me in I’d be very grateful for what I’m not understanding. Thanks, love the video Dr. Becky!
Go to ground.news/drbecky to get access to reliable information all in one place. Subscribe through my link to get 40% off unlimited access during their biggest sale of the year. Sale ends November 30.
sometimes I wonder how people call themselves doctors when they can not even see partial truth. How many goal posts must they move for you to see they just want you chasing a lie. GL Becky
What she is saying is the acceptance of Einsteinian cosmological constant based on a big bang 13.8 billion years ago. Prof. Penrose now disputes this theory, does light lose energy the farther it has to travel? The JWST has sent images of six or seven galaxies 92 million light-years away, the point being, how can this be if the universe is 13.8 billion years old? Just like the make-do and mend patch of dark energy and dark matter are unproven, so too is the Big Bang not being the first.
@@FaqueGoogle-wo6ipThe goalposts are always changing, you can only go on the available data, and when the data changes so do the goalposts, sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse, everything is best guess at these levels to an extent, sometimes even the most fundamental guesses turn out to be wrong.
But that's half the fun.
Dr Becky are these theories DEBUNKED?
1 our entire visible universe is inside the jet of a really big really old Black Hole
2 our entire visible universe is inside a really big, really old Black Hole.
I ask because we keep seeing:-
Circular structures
Really old objects
The Great attractor
And the expansion of the visible universe looks regular until that moment where we seem to have "made-up" that short period of "inflation" needed to get to a Singularity.
But with the two Really Big Black Hole Theories the starting point would be at the Event Horizon one of the two Poles, a disc of finite size not a singularity.
Also, our Observable Universe has mostly Matter with very little Antimatter.
Would the migration in North / South due to magnetic fields in any way perform any kind of "sorting" process.
Just a thought, anyway hopefully both of these have been completely debunked.
It would be great if you could do some "Great Theories ... but Totally Debunked" videos 😉
I saw the news for this, and said, "I'll check it out later." Cut to today and I just remember, so I start looking like it everywhere, cause I don't know what to call it except an "extra super massive black hole." I love your channel, and I'm so glad I found a video you made on it! So thank you! 💗
As soon as someone who has a clue says something like "This should *not* exist!" I get excited because it often kind of implies either new physics, or new theories, or both.
Love your work, Dr. Becky!
I find such a statement to be elitist.
We humans think we know more than the reality of the universe. When we find something that our brilliance never envisioned, then we have the conceit to imply that something is wrong with the universe.
The truth is that "This should exist", because it does exist. The fact that it exists is proof positive that it should exist. No one (especially authority figures) should teach learning minds that it should not exist.
Perhaps such statements are for effect, to tug at emotions -- to get likes and subscriptions. To do that, at the expense of making viewers believe that we found something wrong with the universe is inappropriate.
A proper statement would be: "We discovered something that we never imagined could exist."
But no. Such brilliant people will rarely say something that shows that they actually did not know something. They have to be right, and the universe has to be wrong.
black holes do not exist. these are plasma formations.
if they "shouldnt exist" than they dont exist, theyre looking for the most outlandish answers for things when we already know what causes the formations we are observing in deep space, electric currents and the electromagnetic fields they produce.
You forget that accepted theories might not entirely be correct.
These black holes that shouldn't exist share the same distance and timing as the galaxies that shouldn't exist.
Or a statistical error, but I guess statistical analysis is still pretty exciting.
This is a gem of a video. Having grown up with TV programs, having something of the scientific depth and up-to-date as this would have been unthinkable some decades ago. I hope the new generations will appreciate it! (I had Carl Sagan though! But you have him here too if you look for him).
We had Open University for the night owls 😅
black holes do not exist. if they "shouldnt exist" than they dont exist, theyre looking for the most outlandish answers for things when we already know what causes the formations we are observing in deep space, electric currents and the electromagnetic fields they produce.
You’re certainly not British it would seem! The BBC has always included weighty scientific programs, like “Horizon” that began in 1964 and ran for over 50 years, with its wonderful Brian Eno theme tune, and “The Sky At Night” for astronomy and cosmology that started in 1957 and is STILL going (I think it’s the longest running science show ever!) and many, many more….and classic pop science shows like “Tomorrow’s World”, a must see show that was on right next to Top Of The Pops every Thursday back in the 70’s.
AND let’s not forget The Open University that ran at night, once all the normal programming had ended. Those were hardcore STEM University classes!
Yup, the BBC kept Britain well aware of scientific progress during the 60’s, 70’s, 80’s and 90’s pre-internet era!
"This should not exist!"
Is my favorite phrase in astronomy, or science in general.
🎯
Reality have tendency to break our best constructs again and again.
I prefer "previously thought impossible" for the same concept. We don't decide the laws of nature, we just explore them.
❌NO!❌ Early supermassive black holes didn’t have to grow faster than u think if time was passing much slower than now. Spacetime should have been extremely warped in early extremely dense universe. Therefore, time should have been almost standstill🤏 The true age of the universe could indeed be MUCH MUCH older than anyone thinks🔥
There is no mystery here, just lack of scientific imagination. To advise Dr Becky that Direct collapse to a black hole (BH) is not possible but it is possible to get through the stages of forming many BH quite fast if there is enough concentration of mass in some region of the Universe. The process is very simple and it resembles a drop of condensing water forming on a window.
1) High concentration of gas over vast space leads to a dense concentration of a globular planet -like objects which are almost at a critical mass to collapse into stars.
2) One of those objects becomes a star which triggers a cascade process of many other objects to start conversion to stars.
3) Because they are so close to each other they release a lot of energy towards the neighbouring formations but they also get a lot of energy from neighboring formations.
4) As the cascade conversion to stats continues to propagate, a lot of energy returns to the place where it started resulting in a transition from a star to a black hole.
5) The released energy and stuff from the formation of the BH is sufficient to trigger another cascade but this time transforming the newly formed stars into BHs.
6) Because the BHs and Stars are so close to each other ,as they form, they release a lot of energy towards the neighbouring newly-formed stars and BHs but they also get a lot of energy from neighboring formations.
7) Some of the released energy from the cascade of BHs formation goes back to the first BH making it grow extremely fast.
8) We now have a vast area of densely populated BHs, stars and a central BH that absorbs them all at a rapid pace.
It is like condensing a drop of water on the window, where the drop is the super massive BH. We do not see it happening today because such levels of concentration of dust over vast area is no longer present in the Universe due to its expansion.
0:00: 🌌 A recent research paper claims to have solved the mystery of how supermassive black holes form and grow.
3:27: 📰 The video discusses the benefits of using Ground News to stay informed about media coverage and biases.
6:32: 🌌 Black holes emit energy that pushes outwards, limiting the amount of material they can absorb and grow.
9:51: 🔬 The video discusses the detection of X-ray emissions from hot gas between galaxies in clusters using the Chandra telescope and JWST.
13:18: 🌌 Scientists use X-ray brightness and infrared light to estimate the mass of a black hole in a distant galaxy.
16:39: 🔬 Evidence for direct collapse black holes in the early universe suggests a solution to the astrophysics chicken or the egg question.
20:13: 🔬 The spectroscopic analysis of a galaxy initially believed to be very distant revealed it is actually much closer in age and distance than previously thought.
Recapped using Tammy AI
seeing as how black holes do not exist this research paper means nothing in actual reality.
Bloopers: "astrophysics chicken" ..... Dr Becky just created a new cartoon character to explain science to kids!! Love you work Dr. Becky.... look forward to your videos every week! (thank you for leaving the bloopers, makes me feel better when I trip on my words).... "Science is hard, words are harder!"
You explain this so well. I keep up with physics as an amateur. Many people dumb down thier information to a point that it looses all subtleties. Thanks for finding the sweet spot on your presentation.
How do u not have a million subs already? Smart,fun, and u make it interesting where people like me can understand.
Growth relies on people sharing videos beyond TH-cam not just the algorithm :) if you'd like to help a gal out
@@DrBecky It is official, Dr Becky is a corrupt, fake Educator because her choices are to contaminate our minds with a verbal Diarrhoea called Advertising. Advertising for the mind is what smoking is for the lungs.
@@DrBecky The Eddington limit joke was *right there*! lol
Very much appreciate your clarity and simpicity of presentation without simplifying (or worse, sensationalizing) the content.
It’s always enlightening when you bring us up to speed in your field. 👍🏻🙂
So many unknowns and variables yet to discover..
light. speed?
It is official, Dr Becky is a corrupt, fake Educator because her choices are to contaminate our minds with a verbal Diarrhoea called Advertising. Advertising for the mind is what smoking is for the lungs. Shame on you Dr Becky.
I really appreciate how Dr. Becky expresses scientific findings as a level of confidence or accuracy within a range of values. Way better then content providers that just state the numbers in a list of “facts.”
12:55 If a black hole is surrounded by dust and some of that dust reflects x-rays towards you and it will therefore appear brighter, wouldn't the opposite be true as well (assuming that the dust around the black hole is somewhat even). So the dust that sits in between you and the black whole reflects x-rays from the black hole away from you and makes the black hole thereby appear fainter.
I had the same thought.
well no, X-rays are not usually reflected, and when they are the angles are usually very close to 180 degrees. Also x-rays are only reflected by very high density/high atomic mass metals like Tungsten etc.
There is no mystery here, just lack of scientific imagination. To advise Dr Becky that Direct collapse to a black hole (BH) is not possible but it is possible to get through the stages of forming many BH quite fast if there is enough concentration of mass in some region of the Universe. The process is very simple and it resembles a drop of condensing water forming on a window.
1) High concentration of gas over vast space leads to a dense concentration of a globular planet-like objects which are almost at a critical mass to collapse into stars.
2) One of those objects becomes a star which triggers a cascade process of many other objects to start conversion to stars.
3) Because they are so close to each other they release a lot of energy towards the neighbouring formations but they also get a lot of energy from neighboring formations.
4) As the cascade conversion to stats continues to propagate, a lot of energy returns to the place where it started resulting in a transition from a star to a black hole.
5) The released energy and stuff from the formation of the BH is sufficient to trigger another cascade but this time transforming the newly formed stars into BHs.
6) Because the BHs and Stars are so close to each other ,as they form, they release a lot of energy towards the neighbouring newly-formed stars and BHs but they also get a lot of energy from neighboring formations.
7) Some of the released energy from the cascade of BHs formation goes back to the first BH making it grow extremely fast.
8) We now have a vast area of densely populated BHs, stars and a central BH that absorbs them all at a rapid pace.
It is like condensing a drop of water on the window, where the drop is the super massive BH. We do not see it happening today because such levels of concentration of dust over vast area is no longer present in the Universe due to its expansion.
You see it because of visible light that reflects from the dust, X ray is just part of the electromagnetic spectrum of light which is part of the matter that black hole is spitting out .In fact it more starts to act like a white hole vs black holes. X ray isn’t part of visible light spectrum
@@992rasСвязано ли это с теми 👨💻🦹♂️ цифровыми террористами, которые 💉 заразили ``лексикон`` тем нелепым представлением о том, что 🚫🚫⛔⛔👎👎терраформирование👎👎⛔⛔🚫🚫 - это реальная вещь, а не какое-то неэтичное Безумная, проблемная, дьявольская смесь слабых, дурацких слов «вуду»?
Thanks so much!
This is such a small thing I noticed, but you always say "and collaborators." Which is such a good idea! et al. is nice for writing since it takes up less space, but when you're doing science communication, it's better to remove barriers and spend that extra second to make sure people understand.
Yeah, that’s indeed great. Also she always mentions the lead scientist by name and show their photo, which is a good way to remind us viewers that there’s real people behind science being made. I am not aware of other science communicators doing that so consistently and methodically. Traditional media never credit researchers by name.
Thanks both for recognising these little efforts - it means a lot!
I always find it amazing how a few blobs of light/radiation combined with clever maths and theories can yield so much information.
It is official, Dr Becky is a corrupt, fake Educator because her choices are to contaminate our minds with a verbal Diarrhoea called Advertising. Advertising for the mind is what smoking is for the lungs. Shame on you Dr Becky.
That's because most of it is guess work and aimed at keeping these people employed.
@@lyellclare9365
No, it's aimed at accruing as much data as possible. Pursuing science isn't for the sake of employing people.
@@skateboardingjesus4006I mean, it can be both. 😂
Downloaded that paper a week ago and it has been sat here staring at me from the desktop. Not sure my Genetics qualifications were going to help me digest it, so: Thank you Dr Becky!
Spoiler alert - they won't...
@Dr, Becky: I pre-ordered your book back in June. It finally arrived last week. I am thoroughly enjoying it. It takes me back to the sixties when I became interest in Astronomy and Astrophysics while reading all of Dr. Isaac Asmiov's Seventeen Essays book series. Your writing style in your Black Holes book is very reminiscent of Asimov's in his books. At the tender age of seventy, I find myself scouring around to obtain all of the books in his 17 essay series (I have most of his Science Fiction books already). Thanks for all you do to entertain and pique our curiosity in the field of Astrophysics and Astronomy.
I've wondered how solving time-problems in respect to things like black hole development in the early universe is even realistic given what must have been very contorted/ dissimilar time frames and relativistic distortions at work in the early universe, when matter was packed together and extreme forces were at work.
I am minded of the term "stacking" the Chinese tower and the sublimation of phases, whether there really is "..a limit" with phenomena.
Likeweise, how can you know how much of the redshift is due to pure distance (making them appear very young) and how much is because of the black hole time dilation itself?
You ever cup a fart and smell your hand? Think about it young grasshopper
Afaik issues with relativistic time dilation only come into play when you're dealing with black holes themselves; the universe around them is pretty nonrelativistic and evolves classically.
❌NO!❌ Early supermassive black holes didn’t have to grow faster than u think if time was passing much slower than now. Spacetime should have been extremely warped in early extremely dense universe. Therefore, time should have been almost standstill🤏 The true age of the universe could indeed be MUCH MUCH older than anyone thinks🔥
Thanks!
You are absolutely fantastic to explain these complicated things! I understand everything you say. When i read the scientific reports i understand zero, so your channel is verry appreciated. Thanks!❤
!
I just love your shows. I wish the profs I had when I was in the game had the ability to explain things so clearly. My sincerest thanks. Now, if I could only build a time machine and go back to my second year.
I’ve finished reading your book professor & it was wonderful…very insightful 😁
Oh, GOSH, Dr Becky: Your enthusiasm is infectious.
I'm quite old, and I can assure you I don't remember anything from supermassive black holes when the universe was 700,000,000 years old. But my memory might fail me.
Imagine taking a course from Dr. Becky. I love her enthusiasm. 👍
Very intresting, I am facinated by early black holes and I could see this being a hint of some new physics!
Also, just pointing out the editing mistake around 17:55 with image opacity I presume.
What the bludy hell happened there? Didn't spot that one oops!
@@DrBecky Similar issue around @21:00
@@ChrisLindsley Somehow I didn't notice either of these lol
The big bang was a local event, not a birth of the universe. The universe is far bigger than we believe and big bangs and expansions are local events that happen throughout the greater universe.
Can you build big black-holes avoiding the Eddington Limit by having many acretuing blackholes followed by mergers in a kind of tree? Maybe the Eddington Limit maths doesn't allow that, or the blackholes would merge too soon or there isn't enough time in these very old galaxies?
Go to your room! lol
There's also an issue with black holes on a merging orbital path, the accretion discs would surely interact, the pressures pushing gases outwards would push into each other and mess with the Eddington limit maths.
The Eddington Limit says the mass accretion rate is proportional to the black hole mass, so splitting it across multiple black holes doesn't help (unless there's some mechanism that makes super-Eddington accretion easier for small black holes?)
It is possible to beat the Eddington limit if you break its assumptions (basically, if you get energy out of the system more efficiently) but idk how much of a gain those processes grant.
@@Hailfire08 I mean, if you have 5 black holes accreting at the maximum rate, which then all merge, don't you now have a single black hole that's 5x more massive than the Eddington limit would allow?
@@lunafoxfire I think you have a black hole that's at the maximum for a seed five times the mass of the seeds for the five smaller black holes. So to get the equivalent of a seed 1000 times the mass, you would need to merge 1000 black holes. (Actually, more than that, since a large portion of the mass of merging black holes is lost in gravitational waves.)
I think we can all agree that Astrofrickinchicken would be a great name for a rock band.
Becky, are we looking to have a higher resolution replacement for Chandra in the coming 20-30 years? Would this help with tighter detail of x-ray sources etc, and thus help with determining black hole formation methods, etc?
Yes, the Athena telescope will be much more sensitive and have a higher resolution than Chandra. Unfortunately, one will have to wait for a decade of so before it gets launched.
@@davidb2380 a decade is better than nothing. Science will wait. Many thanks for the update.
700 million years? Well, now I feel like a baby, so young, even though I'm almost 40! Hope no one can see me from space!
If the universe is rapidly expanding in all directions, then it makes sense that early black holes were able to grow faster due to 'a smaller universe'
They don't grow faster as there is a limit to their growth, so they must start bigger. And as we don't have an early Universe at hand to see it happen now, we must observe the one that was to understand how.
Agree with Phillippe, but you are right in that the gas density is higher in the early Universe. It's just that this doesn't help. This is why in the current Universe, most BHs are accreting at *way* below the Eddington limit.
Becky, thanks for sharing, educating, informing and entertaining! Great video as ever! 😎🤓❤
Since black holes are your area of research, especially the super massive ones in the early universe, I would love to know your thoughts on the Kurzgesagt video on this very thing titled Black Hole Stars. That video blew my mind and of all their videos that is the one I've rewatched the most
This needs to be said Becky does a great job explaining things. I learn a lot from her videos
That being said, I soooo have the hots for her. ❤
Dr. Becky, I wonder if there is simply an upper limit on the size of black holes before they themselves become the singularity of a new universe, blending with the existing “local” fabric. Could this create what we call “bubbles” of the multiverse while being consistent with the idea of a static larger and truly unbounded universe that can appear to have the properties of expansion when observed from sufficient distances?
In the early universe galaxies were a lot closer to each other SO it stands to reason that everything would happen at a MUCH FASTER RATE. Also there were almost no heavy elements. The first black holes had much more time to grow into Monsters from conjoining with each other because their was much less space to travel through. Mostly common sense
so just watched a previous video of yours, about dark stars.
if dark stars are possible, could they be a reason for early super massive black holes?
or would that process be too slow too?
Great out-takes...and great astro news! Many thanks.
Love your channel and I learn something with each watch. I have a question. Over time(however long it would take), will all the blackholes consume everything in the universe and consolidate? If so, would do you think would happen after that? Another big bang ? Thanks
No, they will not. They will become farther and farther apart due to the accelerating expansion of the universe. After billions of years, they will evaporate through Hawking radiation and cease to exist. The universe will be so stretched at that point, that nothing will be able to consolidate with anything else. I am not a physicist but this is what they all say :)
I'm not as qualified as Dr Becky but I think dark energy will spread black holes out too fast.
Then black holes will evaporate(extremely slowly) through Hawking radiation. That's current theories at least I think.
Nope. Most galaxies are moving away from each other, with space itself expanding between them. Even with their enormous gravity, black holes cannot overcome the increasing expansion of the universe to consolidate into one.
Outstanding video!!... a real deep-dive in astrophysics!…A++video…Every astronomy major (or for that matter, every physical science major) should watch it!
Dr Becky, always a pleasure to watch and listen to, not just your enthusiasm, but your ability to explain things in 'simple' terms. On this one it seems like there is some form of cascading gravitational pull affect going on. Could conditions exist where pull and spin begin in an area full of small matter that began a spin and pulled in at an ever increasing rate until it crossed a 'barrier' that flipped it into a black hole. Origination could be tiny in an area full of mass with exponentially increasing consumption. Dunno, thinking of a fine grain sand experiment, seems at least plausible or worth pondering some. Still haven't bought your book, but intend to- mjb
The 'spin' that gets my jaw dropping is the one they did on the ISS in micro gravity where they have a 'T' shaped object, which flips itself. Something about the balance of the laws of physics. It just looks improbable.
Did the 'birth' of the 'Big Bang Theory' start with a Black Hole that reached a critical mass and was spinning so fast, it started a 'snowball' effect at the core, that did the opposite of your small matter to black hole and went from black hole to lots of small matter?
I think this is one of your most well put together videos yet!
If we're measuring distance by redshift, isn't it just possible that its closer but just moving extra fast away from us for some reason beyond the expansion of the universe?
Look up peculiar motion in cosmology. This is a well-known feature that is accounted for in measurements/errors.
If that were true it would mean this object is moving at near light speed, not likely.
You forget the speed of light barrier, it’s only that far because of universel expansion after big bang(if it’s still valid)?!
@@tonywells6990 Isn't that already happening though? Aren't bits of the universe perceived to be moving away from each other at faster than the speed of light because of the expansion of the universe?
@@kennyhudson9201 Yes, distant objects are receding from us faster than light, but not through their local region of space. The OP was referring to close-by supermassive black holes that could be moving at relativistic speeds, but that is not possible.
Space Park in Redondo Beach did the final assembly of both Chandra and JWST. I was working at at Space Park when Chandra was being developed and got to see it during the EMI EMC testing.
Thanks for explaining it in understandable language.
I have a question though: can’t (Cold) Dark Matter be the solution for the heavy seeds? It shouldn’t feel the outwards pressure when collapsing, as by definition it only feels the gravitation, but not the Electromagnetic interactions. Maybe you already answered it in another video.
What's your proposed mechanism for that collapse, given that it's not colliding with the other particles? Wouldn't it just stay in orbit indefinitely because it can't lose energy?
So cold dark matter is what's known as collisionless, so it stays quite diffuse as it's very unlikely to interact with other particles and loose enough energy to give a dense enough collapse into something resembling a star density nevermind a black hole.
7:52 calculation suggest they are real, but you’ve never observed anything in the universe therefore we should not accept it as reality until such. That sounds an awful lot like Hawking radiation, but everyone seems to agree that Hawking radiation is real. Why is that???
Is the mass of the black hole seed, and any further growth afterwards, affected by the kinetic energy of what’s being absorbed (with the orbiting mass going at relativistic speeds prior to being obsorbed)? Just wondering if the added mass to the black hole is equivalent to just the stationary mass of the absorbed material, or if relativistic properties of the material will affect it. (Keep in mind I have a pretty limited understanding of special relativity and none of general so I don’t even know what’s relevant lol)
I think whatever part of the energy is there regardless of reference frame, should count?
Like, if you take the minimum of the energy over all possible reference frames, then, that should be included?
Which like, if the total momentum is zero in some frame, then I think the kinetic energy in that frame should contribute to the mass?
I’m not certain though
Wow! What a great video about a very complex subject. You continue to make some of the clearest science communication videos on the internet without stifling your enthusiasm. thank you so much 👍
If black holes form at the very beginning of the universe, and they exist in almost all galaxies, it seems like black holes are probably how galaxies formed in the first place. The black holes were the original seeds of galaxies, and galaxies grew around them as they accumulated more material.
Or the combined gravity of a Galaxy can create a Black Hole witch does fit the fact the size of the Black Holes are in proportion to size of Galaxy.
@@milferdjones2573"which."
Not, "witch "
When you get to 3rd grade, you'll learn very simple words.
It's more about dark matter haloes from before even the cosmic microwave background. Though they might somehow collect primordial black holes (if they exist; they're still very speculative) so maybe?
@@AndrewBlacker-t1d Who are you, master of the obvious? I noticed the mistake in spelling but didn't have the urge to insult or belittle the commentor in an attempt to prove myself superior as you apparently have. A failed attempt btw, it actually had the opposite effect.
Direct black hole formation in the early universe that was denser than now makes a lot more sense, and explains why quasars are common then and not now. ❤
So, wouldn’t it be possible that during the early universe mass is more abundant close together (due to a lack of the expansion since), and would allow for faster star formation, and subsequent black hole production. Could this not potentially also allow for more frequent black hole mergers, thus causing jumps in mass accrual that would outpace the Eddington limit, without actually violating it? Not necessarily a common occurrence, but a possibility perhaps.
Good thought, I wonder what the math looks like on that. Black hole mergers don't really have to obey the Eddington limit, do they?
That's what 'direct collapse' implies.
The Eddington limit doesn't apply to black holes as they radiate only minimally, but they would have an accretion disk...
That's one idea. There are others, though. There's a Kurzgesagt video on black hole stars (Wikipedia calls them quasi-stars), which are a theoretical class of Population III stars that could have been the origin of DCBHs. Basically they are 'stars' that are so huge they have a black hole as a core, which produced heat through friction (like in the accretion disc of regular black holes) rather than fusion (hence 'quasi' - they're not stars in the usual sense). They would only have existed in the early universe because that's the only time the universe was dense enough for them to form and they would have been extremely short-lived.
I was thinking the same thing... what about clumping of black holes in an early universe that hadn't reached peak expansion? Easier to bump around when you're close together and start a chain of collapse with black holes falling faster & faster into each other.
perjaps the easiest explanation is that not all matter was created at the moment of the big bang. Maybe there was more matter in space before that and we just cant see it.
It is crazy how easily we say something is a billion times the mass of the sun in passing. That is an incomprehensible amount of mass.
Is it possible that the rate of expansion after the big bang could have caused gas clouds to collapse so fast and so vigorously that it formed a direct black hole?
The expansion stretches the clouds; they do collapse more easily in the early universe though because the gas was much more transparent back then; almost no heavy elements to absorb light.
❌NO!❌ Early supermassive black holes didn’t have to grow faster than u think if time was passing much slower than now. Spacetime should have been extremely warped in early extremely dense universe. Therefore, time should have been almost standstill🤏 The true age of the universe could indeed be MUCH MUCH older than anyone thinks🔥
@@duran9664 Spacetime was not warped by much, it is after all 'flat'. Gravitational attraction of matter didn't really cause much warping for many millions of years after the big bang since the density was so uniform. Spacetime is only warped on galactic scales.
@@duran9664 Time is a human construct. Also, if space was Warped back then and now space is flat, how would you explain the change?
There is no mystery here, just lack of scientific imagination. To advise Dr Becky that Direct collapse to a black hole (BH) is not possible but it is possible to get through the stages of forming many BH quite fast if there is enough concentration of mass in some region of the Universe. The process is very simple and it resembles a drop of condensing water forming on a window.
1) High concentration of gas over vast space leads to a dense concentration of a globular planet-like objects which are almost at a critical mass to collapse into stars.
2) One of those objects becomes a star which triggers a cascade process of many other objects to start conversion to stars.
3) Because they are so close to each other they release a lot of energy towards the neighbouring formations but they also get a lot of energy from neighboring formations.
4) As the cascade conversion to stats continues to propagate, a lot of energy returns to the place where it started resulting in a transition from a star to a black hole.
5) The released energy and stuff from the formation of the BH is sufficient to trigger another cascade but this time transforming the newly formed stars into BHs.
6) Because the BHs and Stars are so close to each other ,as they form, they release a lot of energy towards the neighbouring newly-formed stars and BHs but they also get a lot of energy from neighboring formations.
7) Some of the released energy from the cascade of BHs formation goes back to the first BH making it grow extremely fast.
8) We now have a vast area of densely populated BHs, stars and a central BH that absorbs them all at a rapid pace.
It is like condensing a drop of water on the window, where the drop is the super massive BH. We do not see it happening today because such levels of concentration of dust over vast area is no longer present in the Universe due to its expansion.
Scientists are a bunch of romantics. I'm really happy to see you guys struggling to keep everything together. You're like people walking downstairs with their arms completely full of dirty laundry.
Amazing info. I'm sure glad there are people like you in the world.
I have to change the oil, replace the belts and bearings and rebalance the drive shaft in my brain after trying to keep up with you after every video, but don't change Dr. Becky. Love your content!
What if the mass was so dense in the early universe that a large number of black holes formed all VERY close to each other?
Or, the beginning of the universe was the grand daddy of all SMBH and it didnt fully expand but some of it stayed clustered.
Or, if Black holes are so dense not even light can escape and the beginning of the universe had everything all in one infinitesimally dense point, how did it all escape?
Or…. is the reason we can’t escape out of the universe not so much that it’s too big, but more because we’re inside a Black Hole?
And if we were inside a Black Hole, would that mean the Black Holes inside our Universe are other Universes and there are little people on little planets in there wondering what’s beyond the ’edge’ that, for some reason, they cannot see or even really define all that well?
@@K1lostream Above a certain high temperature there is no mass because no particle that would carry it can be formed. But without mass there is no gravity.
@@akostarkanyi825 The whole universe being ‘above a certain high temperature’ (as you so precisely put it) means there must be a pretty mind-boggling amount of energy fizzing around though, right?
Remind me, what is E equivalent to?
This is absolutely a plausible explanation for black hole growth - mergers of small BH. Not sure what the current thinking on this possibility is - I suspect this obs helps reject that hypothesis, because the dynamical merger timescale is longer than 700 kyr
My hypothesis on how black holes formed is that the radiation being uncertain in position or momentum equates to you can't really know if a region is moving away at the beginning or while doing that collided with other matter being exposed to entropy and random weak breakdowns. Point is that radiation could be so dense/energetic that countless photons of wavelengths < Planck Length could form "super waves" of intense energy. Since basically everything was 'nearby' at the time. Then as time went on it got huge. Now space is more rarefied and photons aren't generally having wavelengths below the Planck Length.
Just there at the end. I would sell a kidney to hear you sing. Completely convinced you have an amazing voice for that!
Thank you for again another super interesting video! It's great to have someone explain at least some the actual results from JWST to non scientists. I really enjoy your explainations and generally feel I understand a lot of them. I do have some trouble though trying to wrap my head around the 3d dimensional geometry involved in all of the JWST observations. Assuming the Universe expands as a sphere from a center point, where the big bang happened. Is that true? And if so, do we know where our solar system or the milky way is releative to that center and into what direction we're moving? Further assuming we're not at the center of the universe (although some people might behave like they are) there should be a direction with shortest distence/time to the boundary of the universe's sphere and every other direction would be longer. Now in what direction is JWST looking to see these far away galaxies? Maybe you explained all of that in earlier videos or my assumptions are completely wrong but if not, I would really appreciate a video on that 🙂
Not really re: spherical geometry. There is no centre to the expansion - at least, not in 3D.
This is really exciting to discover the secrets of black holes. There is so much room for innovation and unique ingenuity!
I love the AD timing bar; it's brilliant!
Love it when science types say stuff like it shouldn't be possible, etc. What, we humans have discovered and know everything there is to know about the universe? Amazing!
What we tend to forget (even tho it’s logical) is that the Universe is much older than Earth.
What you’re seeing isn’t necessarily something that has always been there.
One primitive “galaxy“ hides a lot of secrets, including one that’s very important : its past. You don’t see what happened prior to light traveling to us.
These primitive galaxies could’ve merged with others in the past, way before we even discovered them.
That could explain why some black holes in the early universe are that massive.
These black holes’ host galaxies merged countless of times in the past and they had MUCH MORE matter to feed on than you’d imagine. A lot of matter to feed on + A long time = “absurd” mass.
Since existence cannot NOT exist and NOTHING can also NOT exist, then existence has existed forever in one form or not form or another and will continue so to do for the rest of forever. Infinity is real. Please ponder on this. Thanking Dr. Becky for all her good and great work.
That’s why the super massive and ultra massive black holes are in the center of the galaxies this is the most concentrated area of mass
I just want to say thank you for the content that you create!!! It is always interesting and I just love watching your videos!!! 💕
Just a thought.
Let's hypothesize that in the tiny fractional instant before the big bang there was homogeneity, yet almost immediately after we have loss of that homogeneity for some random reason. Is it possible that while the energy and matter was still incredibly dense, "mini" backhoes would form in this dense "cosmic soup" and then collapse repeatedly into eachother to form larger and larger black holes. The matter and energy that randomly "escapes" this process would appear as a sort of tenuous net from which our stuff comes from, in turn acting as it is expected, which the composite blackholes would be able to "capture" in a sort of proto galaxy.
A bunch of channels I follow have gotten sponsored by Ground News recently and it's kind of fascinating to see how all the different adverts emphasise different elements of the service.
Supermassive black holes are always exciting! They are basically "air-conditioners" of space, it can be so hot out there!
Dear Dr. Becky,
I've a question about the eddington limit and I hope, you'll read this comment and answer it. (Thx in advance).
The factor 4pi in formula you showed at 7:04 tells me, that this is the analytical solution for a spherical surface. This is fine for stars, but accretion disks are hardly spherical.
Thus i wondered, is there any neat/analytical solution for the eddington limit for accretion disks? Or do you have to solve it numerically?
I imagine, you would have to disect the disk into rings. If radiation emitted by each volume element dV is assumed to be isotropic and following an Black Body curve, each ring would push against its outer and its inner neighbour. But because of the temperatur gradient, the inner ring would push back, even harder. The radiation we see, is mostly emitted perpendicular to the disk. But this radiation would not help, to stabilze against gravity acting coplanar to the disk.
Best regards,
an interested physics student
Very impressed with this video. I have always been interested in astronomy and physics. It was things like this that drove me to enter those professions. Thank you for feeding my insatiable curiosity about the universe and the wonders that we discove
SCIENCE!!!
I love these smbh videos. There's so much that I have trouble wrapping my head around because of the lack of maths understanding, but the information is still fascinating.
Merch idea? Lenticular pin of JWST art combined with AstroFicken when you turn it side to side.
Considering what "ficken" means in German, I would advise strongly against this.
I wish people would stop saying that something that is observed "shouldn't exist". Provided that the observations can be trusted, it's your theories and assumptions that "shouldn't exist" because clearly they are deficient. Nature is always correct.
Well, the first stars were usually very very large and of course had very low metallicity and roared through their supply of hydrogen extremely quickly with lifespans measured in the millions of years before inevitably going supernova and creating high mass black holes. Maybe due to the higher density of space in general back then black holes could grow quicker than they might now ?
Hi Dr. Becky, how does Bogdan et al account for the red-shift of the chandra X-ray data? Would the x-ray observations not be shifted high energy gamma rays, and if so, would the proportion of gamma vs x-rays emitted differ in a candidate SMBH signficantly enough to affect the interpreatation?
I can't wait until 'we' figure out that the universe is infinite and time is infinite and this big bang stuff was just a misinterpretation by our primitive stage of physics...
Excellent as usual 👏
My biggest fear is meeting aliens and them not knowing the fate of the universe.
this is pure imaginative conjecture on my part: perhaps the supermassives were remnants of primordial Star-like objects. these objects were the hearts of celestial objects that spanned hundreds of thousands light years across. they were fed from the existence.
our sun is a 3rd, probably 4th generation star. the first ones were the progenitors to the superclusters, but very unstable, creating localized areas of accelerated exapnsion, the next series were slightly more stable but were still too unstable to sustain themselves, and blew apart into chunks. and so on
with each new generation, the average size dwindles logarithmically
Love these videos, Thank you Dr Becky xx
I learned from TV that "Our whole universe was in a hot dense state,
Then nearly fourteen billion years ago expansion started. Wait..." So, the early universe was in a hotter denser state and that must have facilitated early formation of direct collapse black holes.
My hypothesis is black holes slowly stop organizing energy and start randomly losing disorganized polarized 'heat' that exits the black hole and turns into heavy matter that they then cannibalize and heat up but it takes longer to heat up and it makes creating density more difficult and then they slowly become bigger and bigger.
This could mean entropy is not chaos and is instead heat organization and means if more heat becomes 'stacked' more heat is created.
'Stacking' is similar to creating energy density and can still happen through disorganization but the process of losing heat could possibly be achieved by insulating the material you want to 'cool' or stabilize from electrical sources but then applying magnetic reverse polarization spins.
Reverse polarization could then be a form of heat dissipation as long as the heat units inside the matter continue to stay separated uniformly.
And maybe it goes further to say pure electricity is a form of energy that can create heat and atomic instability in matter; and pure magnetic energy is a form of energy that can create heat stability (coldness) and create atomic stability in matter.
The above argument liberally mentions the word 'heat' singularly and plurally for a type of infinitesimal particle of energetic matter.
Stephen Hakwing radiation means heat is lost from a black hole but could a black hole have internal 'flares' through quantum magnetics.
I really enjoyed this video. You're a great communicator
Much of the mainstream model of the universe points to its creation about 13 billion years ago. The assumptions is that it expanded into the void. The model has trouble explaining dark matter, dark energy and supermassive black holes in the early universe. Instead of a void it must have expanded into the “ashes” of earlier “universes”. The ashes would be dissolving black holes, stable isotopes of cold mater, and energy (dark or not dark).
Love the out takes!
We're finding so many interesting things so close to the beginning of the universe. We should really consider building a far larger telescope to get a better view of even earlier, perhaps a solar gravitational scope to see higher-energy things that don't red shift all the way to infrared.
It seems like we're so close to seeing the moments after the big bang; perhaps a video explaining the challenges with actually looking back that far would be worth making?
2 points;
1. The early universe itself, was more dence allowing for matter accumulation to be faster than modern era.
2. The big bang was not the origin and space is far bigger and older than the observable universe.
This is actually exciting that there seems to be something wromg with our understanding of the expansion/evolution of the universe (big bang).
This should inspire many scientists to find a possible solution and thus we should expect many new discories soon!
I am posting this more as a question, if I got this info correct. What is being mentioned here by direct collapse black holes, I believe is something I read about 15(ish) years ago, I believe it was called a "Dark Star(?)" which was a super massive 3rd Gen Star, that "survives" its core imploding into a black hole and goes on its Late Life Nuclear Fusing ways (near the core instead of in it) as the the core slowly eats it from the inside. The in-falling material now creates a pressure barrier that keeps stuff from falling in at fractions of the speed of light, despite the proximity of the star to its core, preventing nova waves. It would indeed have polar jets, but the sheer bulk of the star severely weakens said jets if they exit the star at all, where they and the event horizon scorching instead power the star's own internal heating, which makes it final fusions as well as collapse more uniformed, which means faster and more fully than the Eddington limit allows, which uses empty "space" as the medium in which this material falls, not the X-Factor gravity field, temp, as well as pressures of this star's near core environment combined to skew the numbers. again no Nova. Super bright star one day, bloop giant black hole the next, even if the means by which it bloops started 1,000 years earlier. Even last gasp nova's both material and photon, would be eaten "by" the black hole as it expands. By the time the polar jets break the surface of the star in any meaningful way most of the mass is already beyond the threshold. And it now resembles an AGN doing AGN things with a ready made disk. We have no local proof they exist because these "were" the first generations of stars who made the galaxies we live in locally now. We weren't looking back far enough to find them, and now we are. :) Now we need to catch one blooping. I also believe this is where gravity wave exploration is going to help.
Here is the correct physics
F=ma is acceleration in space. From one coordinate to another.
E=mc is acceleration in time. From atomic energy to radiant energy.
The frame of reference is Acceleration. What is the mass being accelerated in? Space or Time.
Light cant escape a black hole because there is not enough force/energy to accelerate the atoms to the speed of light - radiant energy.
Thats your answer Becky. That Nobel Prize is mine.
Black Hole Sun, you’re the one. It makes some poetic sense that a galactic system should form in a manner analogous to a solar system.
You are superb at explaining and making contextual sense of all the research!
Nice summary and the animation work is exceptional.
That was great! I look forward to your report when they Finally get a spectrum.
Looking very simplistic, in the early universe its mass was closer together making it easier to make massive stars, black hole collisions and direct collapse.
I prefer the theory that the population III (first stars ) being so massive - all collapsed down to the first black holes , since everything was closer together , there gravity would attract more gas towards themselves = enough material to grown to there size .
So why do we still assume the galaxy is only 13.8 billion years old? We have no idea what beyond our observable universe, a line we’ll never cross, and we keep finding galaxies at this limit that shouldn’t exist. I know I’m missing something, and I’m no astrophysicist, just a fan of space, so if anyone can fill me in I’d be very grateful for what I’m not understanding. Thanks, love the video Dr. Becky!
You are Great Dr B