What more might we discover about black holes? What do you find most interesting about them? Let us know what you think in the comments! For some of Priya's latest cutting-edge research, see iai.tv/video/uncovering-the-secrets-of-the-universe-priyamvada-natarajan?TH-cam&+comment&
They're utmost fascinating! With their paradoxes, spacetime bending, and infinities... Recently, I'm thinking a lot about the possibility that maybe our entire universe is in fact black hole...
We will solve probably the information paradox. The most interesting I find....that black holes are the real deal when it comes to unification of all quantum fields. So if we want to bridge GR and Quantum mechanics....perceive what a Black Hole is, as it is the perfect proof of unitarity within physics.
@@TheInstituteOfArtAndIdeas A lot of talk about black holes and what they might be, but what we as humans have any benefit from it? I mean really we havent got reach by footstep to the mars yet, let alone any further. Why we as humans bother with something that we have no any benefits from it?
So speed of light is needed as escape velocity to escape from the grips of a black hole, but! it's called a black hole because not even light can escape it. Mind. Blown.
Great video and I think more videos like this should be made. However, I personally did not learn anything new here. I guess our knowledge about black holes is pretty limited and most of it can be easily learnt even by curious non physicists...
If blackholes have varrying sizes then I dont get this thing about all the matter being situated at a single point of infinite density within a blackhole. I mean these supermassive blackholes have event horizons that are so big compared to stellar mass blackholes. So obviously the matter fallen in, whatever form it takes, is occupying more space?
There is a geometry that would not have been graphed yet, and that includes the time-gravity factor. That is why that "pop" in which the black hole "disappears" would demonstrate the continuity (which we do not see optically) in the development of another big bang outside of our time. 
23:38 what’s is let “x 1,3” Eric Weinstein was talking about Einstein relativity theory?! Suddenly I felt dumb, but maybe that was intended by the way he speaks to the more general audience.
i think when this area reaches "infinite density", that "pop" is when it TEARS the FABRIC of SPACE TIME and essentially becomes the big bang in another dimension...when this singularity becomes so dense that it pierces space-time, it is the genesis of another universe in a different dimension or reality 🤔
Look into nested multiversal domain theory via quantum superemergence theories. Exploring the idea that the instance of a black hole for Observer A could lead to a number of different things across the umbilical cord of spacetime. Genesis of a pocket universe, entangled with a paired white hole in another region of spacetime, could be a hole into a parallel universe, etc. Universe is complex, theory is infinitely more complex given so many unknown unknowns still.
The second universal law of energy conservation is E=TC^2, which is my Smith-Borden 3T Proton Model that comports with energy conservation. The proton is a battery. I explain my model on my Rumble channel.
Rather than assuming that mass collapses to a point violating the laws of General Relativity we should instead look for an explanation that conforms to general relativity. Suppose a black hole contains a neutron star. A neutron star is a very dense object and we can work out the size of a neutron star that would be needed to form an event horizon outside the surface. It turns out to be 3.4 solar masses which gives the prediction that all black holes should be greater than 3.4 solar masses which is as observed. We do have rotating black holes which also invalidates the singularity hypothesis because a singularity cannot have angular momentum.
General Relativity predicts dilation, not singularities. Dilation explains dark matter/galaxy rotation curves. In the 1939 journal "Annals of Mathematics" Einstein wrote - "The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the Schwarzchild singularities (Schwarzchild was the first to raise the issue of General Relativity predicting singularities) do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters (star clusters) whose particles move along circular paths it does seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that more general cases will have analogous results. The Schwarzchild singularities do not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light." He was referring to the phenomenon of dilation. Mass that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside observer. It's the phenomenon behind the phrase "mass becomes infinite at the speed of light". A graph illustrates its squared nature, dilation increases at an exponential rate the closer you get to the speed of light. A time dilation graph illustrates the same phenomenon, it's not just time that gets dilated. Dilation will occur wherever there is an astronomical quantity of mass because high mass means high momentum. This includes the centers of very high mass stars and the overwhelming majority of galaxy centers. The mass at the center of our own galaxy is dilated. This means that there is no valid XYZ coordinate we can attribute to it, you can't point your finger at something that is smeared through spacetime. In other words that mass is all around us. Dilation does not occur in galaxies with low mass centers because they do not have enough mass to achieve relativistic velocities. It has been confirmed in 6 very low mass galaxies including NGC 1052-DF2 and DF4 to have no dark matter, in other words they have normal rotation rates. All binary stars have normal rotation rates for the same reason.
old snippets remixed and glued together with superficial connections, trying to give the impression of a coherent whole, "latest findings" discussed in 2018 etc. iai is just farming views with random remixes that don't help anyone learn and make sense of anything those prolific speakers talk about. i guess it's nice to fall asleep to for some people.
@@epajarjestys9981 Strange to say so in reply to a comment, which therefore wouldn't be seen by the channel moderators. Guess it relieves one just looking for a sounding board.
Singualrities do not exist in reality. This should be common knowledge by now. The key factors to keep in mind here is time dialation and hawking radiation. When an object falls in to a blackhole, for an outside observer it never even crosses the event horizon, and will kind of look frozen in time. This is no different for the collapsing star that made the blackhole in first place. It has not collapsed into a singularity, it is sort of frozen in time, collapsing ever so slowly that by the time it reaches the center of mass, so much time have passed that the object have already been radiated out as hawking radiation. If we plug in this extreme time dialation into the spacetime coordinate map, we should see that matter never really reaches the center of mass because long before that, the blackhole has already radiated itself off into space.
@@astraluniverse5928 the objects themselves don't experience time dilation. like you said, only from observers' perspective. interesting idea, but unfortunately no
I fort we lived in q black hole, that was pushed in q higher dimension when it was created, and the dark matter is the matter coming into the black hole from the outside, is dsrk because its from a diffrent dimension/vibration.
As far as i know all stars are rotating, thus all stars have a certain angular momentum that has to be conserved while they are shrinking to become black holes. Has anyone considered this fact which should be opposing to the formation of a singularity?
Mathematics of singularity implys infinite gravity...which bends spacetime into a single point. Since we exist in spacetime...The implications are that we actually exist inside the singularity of every blackhole...
Spheres can form 1/r² and the three dimensional physics of the Inverse Square Law. Even the spherical 4πr² geometry of Huygens’ Principle of 1670 that says: “Every point on a light wave front has the potential for a new spherical 4πr² light wave".
What is the 3D_Diameter of a single Photon in spacetime, considering it as a wave? 1_Ly after 1 year; 14E9_Lys for a CMB_photon, now? What is it's frequency and energy? Distributed? or collapsed_at one point of absorption in a pixel of the Plank Satellite Telescope? A single Photon, does it even have a straight Line direction and a definitive Wavelength? As the energy, frequency and Ny of a photon strongly depends on the relativistic speed_difference between emitter and absorber/observer! if they both are not in the same frame of reference You can't attribute a well defined, measured Ny (Sabine Hossenfelder)! PS.: how long will the biggest, most massive, tens_of_billions_Sol_masses BlackHoles grow from absorbing CMB_photons, before they start shrinking by emitting Hawking rad?
Carroll made the most sense(at least to a point 01.12). There is no infinitely dens etc infinitely small, but something we don't understand yet today, obviously.
from the cosmic microwave background (CMB), could there have developed larger supermassive black holes earlier in universe for the larger galaxies discovered by JWST? from pockets of greater density in CMB?
Black holes are very cold by and large because They are huge configuration machines and the cooler the better for configuration of information could be transferred within itself.
If in theory the universe was finite, and gravity was just the result of matter “pushing” on the empty space and that empty space pushing back, we should be able to calculate the size of the universe correct? Personally I’m not a fan of any of our current models of gravity.
Photon ∆E=hf energy is continuously transforming potential energy into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of matter, in the form of electrons, so photon energy is probably forming it!
'infinitely small volume'? 0:23 which also means it doesn't exist. 23 seconds in and Penrose has already stated black holes are not black before random woman states they don't exist.
Beyond Harkle- Hawking boundary state: p brane multi universal epr interphase point that created our respective universe .. see not a big bang .. but a quantum oscillation tunneling transition event
So wait… there’s no such thing as black holes except for on paper? I thought there were actual black holes that we know about in space right now. I never realized it’s just a made up idea to provide a catch all explanation for questions that we can’t answer
No, there _are_ black holes, and in fact there's a supermassive one at the centre of the Milky Way. The problem is that we don't know what happens at the centre of a black hole, at the singularity. Our maths simply breaks down. But black holes are very real...
Hello all, Isn't it time we stpped adjusting the mathematics, trying to prove what is not provable following the Standard model, and got back to Logic. The biggest problem in QM and Cosmology today is, that the standard model is fundamentally flawed at the level of the Atom. This has led to physicist having to invent overcomplicated theories and matematical equations to make the system work, and the standard model has become too complicated, to be a workable model. I believe that there is a far more simple explanation for the way QM and the universe works, Which I proffer in an hypothesis called ' The Two Monopole Particle Universe ', in which I propose, amongst other things, the following. 1) There is no such thing as a Singularity, or Curvature of Spacetime. I contend that the only curvature, is due to electromagnetic radiation and mass, being attracted to other mass 2) Einstein was wrong in his model of gravity, Gravity is in fact two opposing forces, and has nothing to do with curvature of space 3) The Universe has no known age or size, as it is infinite, has always existed much as it is today, and will go on for ever, much as it is today. 4) The Big Bang and Cosmic inflation never happend, as these are physical impossibilities, plus the universe is not expanding. The only evidence for the big bang, is the CMBR, and I would suggest that the reason for its existence, is misconceived. The ridiculous notion of Cosmic inflation, was an iilogical attempt at solving the Horrizon problem. The only evidence for an expanding universe is Redshift. Once again, this phenominon has been misconceived, and an alternative explanation for this, gives a nonexpanding universe, where the Horrizon problem doesn't exist. 5) Without curvature of space, mathematics will not lead to a singularity at the centre of a Black Hole, nor will it predict immense gravity. The whole concept of black holes as described in this video is a contradiction in terms and wrong. The centre of a black hole is said to be an area of immense gravity, HOW? Nothing makes sense. If there was an incredibly strong force of gravity at the centre of a black hole, there would not be an event horizon, as all of the matter surrounding the black hole would be drawn in and a new star would be formed, it is mathematical nonsense. The same applies to the description of a black hole being formed by a supernova casting off its outer layer and the core collapsing under its own gravity, to form the centre of a black hole. This again is mathematical nonsense. There are many celestial bodies in the universe that are not active stars with an outward pressure, but they do not collapse into bodies of immense gravity, they are just normal baryonic matter like our earth. Forget the maths for a moment and look at it logically. Gravity is a product of mass and has nothing to do with bending of space. If a star explodes, the whole star and all of its matter will be expelled into space, along with all of its gravity, leaving an area where the star was void of aggregate matter, an area devoid of matter will have no gravity, and result in a black hole. Because the star would have been rotating, the resulting debris from the exploded star would also continue to rotate, and all of the matter would be forced out by centrifugal force, but also each of the pieces of matter would be trying to coagulate into larger masses. Add to this the 'Dark Energy ' produced by ' Dark Matter ', which I propose consists of a cloud of negatively charged Monopole particles, which permeate the whole of the universe, will be pushing the Baryonic matter back inwards. A balance is reached where there will exist an embryonic galaxy of varying pieces of matter, which over billions of years will accrete more matter and grow, the larger masses forming new stars, and at the centre there will exist a basic vortex of empty space except for the ' Dark Matter ' producing the negative repulsive force of ' Dark Energy '. This is more fully explained in a recently published book called ' The Two Monopole Particle Universe by ' Tony Norman Marsh '. If you type Tony Norman Marsh into google, details will be shown. If you can supply me with an email address, I will send you a copy of my manuscript for your perusal, or it can be viewed quickly on ‘ Kindle ‘. Kind regards, Tony Marsh.
We need to go back to 1/r² and the three dimensional physics of the Inverse Square Law. Even back to the spherical 4πr² geometry of Huygens’ Principle of 1670 that says: “Every point on a light wave front has the potential for a new spherical 4πr² light wave". Each point on the wave front represents a potential photon ∆E=hf electron interaction or coupling. The spherical surface forms a boundary condition or manifold for the uncertainty ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π of this interaction.
@@Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time Hello, thank you for the reply, which has only just shown up on my computer. One of the biggest problems why there is so much confusion with regard to electromagnetic radiation including light, is the misconception that light travels as a wave, it doesn't, it travels as a astraight ray composed of discrete quanta. The distance between these quanta, is the frequency, which is erroneously described as the wave length, which it is not. The higher the frequency ( the larger the number of these quanta passing a given point in one second ), the further towards the blue end of the spectrum the light is. When radiation is emitted from a radio-active substance, it is in a straight line. The same applies in a Cathode Ray Tube, where the ray goes straight unless it is deflected to form a wave by magnetic deflection. Unless this basic concept of light is taken into account, all mathematics is pointless. Kind regards, Tony Marsh
Beyond Harkle- Hawking state: p brane multi universal epr interphase point that created our respective universe .. see not a big bang .. but a quantum oscillation tunneling transition event
There is not much news in this video...? What I miss is science from a mathematical approach for creating the universe from nothing? How can we imagine the creation of dimension(s) in the first place? Most science is about reasoning from present into the past or future. That's ok, but not the only option? We need some more creative thinking.
We need to go back to 1/r² and the three dimensional physics of the Inverse Square Law. Even back to the spherical 4πr² geometry of Huygens’ Principle of 1670 that says: “Every point on a light wave front has the potential for a new spherical 4πr² light wave". Each point on the wave front represents a potential photon ∆E=hf electron interaction or coupling. The spherical surface forms a boundary condition or manifold for the uncertainty ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π of this interaction. Light waves radiate out spherically 4πr² with their interior forming the characteristic of three-dimensional space with the spherical surface forming a probabilistic wave front. Each point ∆E=hf on the curvature of the wave front forms the potential for a new spherical wave, a photon of energy, a new oscillation or vibration that forms our future. We have to square the radius r² because process is unfolding relative to the surface of the sphere. The Universe could be based on simple geometry that forms the potential for evermore complexity. Forming not just physical complexity, but also the potential for evermore-abstract mathematics. Time t², ψ², c², e² and velocity Eₖ=½mv² all squared, geometrical similarity formed out of spherical symmetry In this theory we even have an objective reason for the start of the Fibonacci numbers 0, 1, 1,... with the t = 0 and the positive +1 and negative -1 representing the positive and negative of electromagnetic waves with everything being based on a geometrical process. This is because if the quantum wave particle function Ψ or probability function is reformulated as a linear vector then all the information I have found says that each new vector is formed by adding the two previous vectors together this forms the Fibonacci Sequence 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, ∞ ad infinity! We have photon ∆E=hf energy continuously transforming potential energy into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of matter, in the form of electrons. Could this process form a design pattern or template in the form of spherical geometry for self-organization and complexity to arise?
We need to go back to experimental physics and 1/r² the three dimensional physics of the Inverse Square Law. Even back to the spherical 4πr² geometry of Huygens’ Principle of 1670 that says: “Every point on a light wave front has the potential for a new spherical 4πr² light wave".
wow we seem to have a lot of super geniouses and experts in this comment section...who regularly fly into space and observe blackholes and thier behavior and come back to state thier profound discoveries in the youtube chat section.....NOT!
This is cute. Like watching people theorize anime. It’s literally the same thing. You don’t know. It’s interesting, you look at a screen and come up with more theories to discuss. Yet you will never understand it, or touch it or know is you were even close to correct.
Ha ha ha , nice goodnight story tales...................... oh you people you really love your imaginary world in which you believe and creating the world of science as your own religion in which you becoming small gods
There ARE Black holes AND there ARE White holes....so IS there a grey hole? If there IS 1, where IS IT? Also, doesn't the Black hole diagram look greyISH or silverISH? ⚊
What more might we discover about black holes? What do you find most interesting about them? Let us know what you think in the comments!
For some of Priya's latest cutting-edge research, see iai.tv/video/uncovering-the-secrets-of-the-universe-priyamvada-natarajan?TH-cam&+comment&
They're utmost fascinating! With their paradoxes, spacetime bending, and infinities... Recently, I'm thinking a lot about the possibility that maybe our entire universe is in fact black hole...
We will solve probably the information paradox. The most interesting I find....that black holes are the real deal when it comes to unification of all quantum fields. So if we want to bridge GR and Quantum mechanics....perceive what a Black Hole is, as it is the perfect proof of unitarity within physics.
@@TheInstituteOfArtAndIdeas
A lot of talk about black holes and what they might be, but what we as humans have any benefit from it?
I mean really we havent got reach by footstep to the mars yet, let alone any further.
Why we as humans bother with something that we have no any benefits from it?
After a couple of whiskeys and a few beers, this was a perfect nightcap.
Same here. What an age we live in, eh?
Internet Age @@dashdotdot
Ripped a couple phat bowls it’s time to watch and not understand but still be fascinated
He's great for science!! 💪💪💪
Who, they shows a bunch of people
Ever since I knew and understood what black holes were, it didn’t take long for me to start thinking that they are how universes get started.
So speed of light is needed as escape velocity to escape from the grips of a black hole, but! it's called a black hole because not even light can escape it. Mind. Blown.
im thrilled that prof davies and i have had the same thoughts except i didnt envision a connection with wormholes
Great video and I think more videos like this should be made. However, I personally did not learn anything new here. I guess our knowledge about black holes is pretty limited and most of it can be easily learnt even by curious non physicists...
@ConnoisseurOfExistence
I too am trying to understand how these people pay for their degrees...
@@IdeaFactree85 I'm a bit lost. What does paying for a degree have to do with black holes being common knowledge?
@@IdeaFactree85 research is funded on the promise of progress, not its delivery;)
If blackholes have varrying sizes then I dont get this thing about all the matter being situated at a single point of infinite density within a blackhole. I mean these supermassive blackholes have event horizons that are so big compared to stellar mass blackholes. So obviously the matter fallen in, whatever form it takes, is occupying more space?
Yes exactly, anyone who takes the singularity to be a real physical thing is missing the point imo
There is a geometry that would not have been graphed yet, and that includes the time-gravity factor. That is why that "pop" in which the black hole "disappears" would demonstrate the continuity (which we do not see optically) in the development of another big bang outside of our time.

analytical continuation? 26:00
Where do I go to ask about Zeno’s Paradox and continuous vs discrete space?
23:38 what’s is let “x 1,3” Eric Weinstein was talking about Einstein relativity theory?! Suddenly I felt dumb, but maybe that was intended by the way he speaks to the more general audience.
i think when this area reaches "infinite density", that "pop" is when it TEARS the FABRIC of SPACE TIME and essentially becomes the big bang in another dimension...when this singularity becomes so dense that it pierces space-time, it is the genesis of another universe in a different dimension or reality 🤔
Look into nested multiversal domain theory via quantum superemergence theories. Exploring the idea that the instance of a black hole for Observer A could lead to a number of different things across the umbilical cord of spacetime. Genesis of a pocket universe, entangled with a paired white hole in another region of spacetime, could be a hole into a parallel universe, etc. Universe is complex, theory is infinitely more complex given so many unknown unknowns still.
The second universal law of energy conservation is E=TC^2, which is my Smith-Borden 3T Proton Model that comports with energy conservation. The proton is a battery. I explain my model on my Rumble channel.
Rather than assuming that mass collapses to a point violating the laws of General Relativity we should instead look for an explanation that conforms to general relativity.
Suppose a black hole contains a neutron star. A neutron star is a very dense object and we can work out the size of a neutron star that would be needed to form an event horizon outside the surface.
It turns out to be 3.4 solar masses which gives the prediction that all black holes should be greater than 3.4 solar masses which is as observed.
We do have rotating black holes which also invalidates the singularity hypothesis because a singularity cannot have angular momentum.
General Relativity predicts dilation, not singularities. Dilation explains dark matter/galaxy rotation curves. In the 1939 journal "Annals of Mathematics" Einstein wrote -
"The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the Schwarzchild singularities (Schwarzchild was the first to raise the issue of General Relativity predicting singularities) do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters (star clusters) whose particles move along circular paths it does seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that more general cases will have analogous results. The Schwarzchild singularities do not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light."
He was referring to the phenomenon of dilation. Mass that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside observer. It's the phenomenon behind the phrase "mass becomes infinite at the speed of light". A graph illustrates its squared nature, dilation increases at an exponential rate the closer you get to the speed of light. A time dilation graph illustrates the same phenomenon, it's not just time that gets dilated.
Dilation will occur wherever there is an astronomical quantity of mass because high mass means high momentum. This includes the centers of very high mass stars and the overwhelming majority of galaxy centers.
The mass at the center of our own galaxy is dilated. This means that there is no valid XYZ coordinate we can attribute to it, you can't point your finger at something that is smeared through spacetime. In other words that mass is all around us.
Dilation does not occur in galaxies with low mass centers because they do not have enough mass to achieve relativistic velocities. It has been confirmed in 6 very low mass galaxies including NGC 1052-DF2 and DF4 to have no dark matter, in other words they have normal rotation rates. All binary stars have normal rotation rates for the same reason.
@@shawns0762you should thank google and your ai
iai long form on youtube! Thanks. More please?
old snippets remixed and glued together with superficial connections, trying to give the impression of a coherent whole, "latest findings" discussed in 2018 etc.
iai is just farming views with random remixes that don't help anyone learn and make sense of anything those prolific speakers talk about. i guess it's nice to fall asleep to for some people.
@@epajarjestys9981 Strange to say so in reply to a comment, which therefore wouldn't be seen by the channel moderators. Guess it relieves one just looking for a sounding board.
Singualrities do not exist in reality. This should be common knowledge by now. The key factors to keep in mind here is time dialation and hawking radiation. When an object falls in to a blackhole, for an outside observer it never even crosses the event horizon, and will kind of look frozen in time. This is no different for the collapsing star that made the blackhole in first place. It has not collapsed into a singularity, it is sort of frozen in time, collapsing ever so slowly that by the time it reaches the center of mass, so much time have passed that the object have already been radiated out as hawking radiation. If we plug in this extreme time dialation into the spacetime coordinate map, we should see that matter never really reaches the center of mass because long before that, the blackhole has already radiated itself off into space.
@@astraluniverse5928 the objects themselves don't experience time dilation. like you said, only from observers' perspective. interesting idea, but unfortunately no
They are singular poles with extremely dense magnetic fields surrounded by electric emission.
0:29 “It is almost an impossibility” ⇔ BH singularity → ALMOST ‽
I fort we lived in q black hole, that was pushed in q higher dimension when it was created, and the dark matter is the matter coming into the black hole from the outside, is dsrk because its from a diffrent dimension/vibration.
And thats what drives r expansion
As far as i know all stars are rotating, thus all stars have a certain angular momentum that has to be conserved while they are shrinking to become black holes. Has anyone considered this fact which should be opposing to the formation of a singularity?
Mathematics of singularity implys infinite gravity...which bends spacetime into a single point. Since we exist in spacetime...The implications are that we actually exist inside the singularity of every blackhole...
Hmm. Peace ✌️ 😎. Sphere, lol. Always have time for Professor Penrose.
Spheres can form 1/r² and the three dimensional physics of the Inverse Square Law. Even the spherical 4πr² geometry of Huygens’ Principle of 1670 that says:
“Every point on a light wave front has the potential for a new spherical 4πr² light wave".
A geodesic will only converge to a singularity (Minkowski/Penrose/Einstein) if that geodesic is the path of least resistance.
What is the 3D_Diameter of a single Photon in spacetime, considering it as a wave? 1_Ly after 1 year; 14E9_Lys for a CMB_photon, now? What is it's frequency and energy? Distributed? or collapsed_at one point of absorption in a pixel of the Plank Satellite Telescope?
A single Photon, does it even have a straight Line direction and a definitive Wavelength?
As the energy, frequency and Ny of a photon strongly depends on the relativistic speed_difference between emitter and absorber/observer! if they both are not in the same frame of reference You can't attribute a well defined, measured Ny (Sabine Hossenfelder)!
PS.: how long will the biggest, most massive, tens_of_billions_Sol_masses BlackHoles grow from absorbing CMB_photons, before they start shrinking by emitting Hawking rad?
As for evaperating black holes. Heat disapates as light, so if light cannot escape a black hole then it cannot radiate and evaperate.
when star collapses into a black hole, is quantum interior of black hole produced? matter is crushed into quantum black hole?
Carroll made the most sense(at least to a point 01.12). There is no infinitely dens etc infinitely small, but something we don't understand yet today, obviously.
I disagree. I think Carroll is full of it.
Same with the wave collapse. Something there that we don’t understand. Carroll won’t admit that tho.
from the cosmic microwave background (CMB), could there have developed larger supermassive black holes earlier in universe for the larger galaxies discovered by JWST? from pockets of greater density in CMB?
Black holes are very cold by and large because They are huge configuration machines and the cooler the better for configuration of information could be transferred within itself.
If in theory the universe was finite, and gravity was just the result of matter “pushing” on the empty space and that empty space pushing back, we should be able to calculate the size of the universe correct? Personally I’m not a fan of any of our current models of gravity.
As a photon has no mass, why is gravity affecting it ??
Photon ∆E=hf energy is continuously transforming potential energy into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of matter, in the form of electrons, so photon energy is probably forming it!
'infinitely small volume'? 0:23 which also means it doesn't exist. 23 seconds in and Penrose has already stated black holes are not black before random woman states they don't exist.
Couldn't a black hole be because of neutron star that's sank very deep
Who doesn’t just love theoretical physics?? 😂😂😂
0:18
It’s a simulation, and simulation’s can be reprogrammed…
Beyond Harkle- Hawking boundary state: p brane multi universal epr interphase point that created our respective universe .. see not a big bang .. but a quantum oscillation tunneling transition event
could the mass of black hole be all around the surface / event horizon?
We need to go back to r squared and three dimensional physics!
So wait… there’s no such thing as black holes except for on paper? I thought there were actual black holes that we know about in space right now. I never realized it’s just a made up idea to provide a catch all explanation for questions that we can’t answer
No, there _are_ black holes, and in fact there's a supermassive one at the centre of the Milky Way. The problem is that we don't know what happens at the centre of a black hole, at the singularity. Our maths simply breaks down. But black holes are very real...
Blackholes circular motion seems to burn-out the periphery?
It's an AI computer! LMM (Large Matter Model)
it’s negative matter.
Hello all,
Isn't it time we stpped adjusting the mathematics, trying to prove what is not provable following the Standard model, and got back to Logic.
The biggest problem in QM and Cosmology today is, that the standard model is fundamentally flawed at the level of the Atom. This has led to physicist having to invent overcomplicated theories and matematical equations to make the system work, and the standard model has become too complicated, to be a workable model.
I believe that there is a far more simple explanation for the way QM and the universe works, Which I proffer in an hypothesis called ' The Two Monopole Particle Universe ', in which I propose, amongst other things, the following.
1) There is no such thing as a Singularity, or Curvature of Spacetime. I contend that the only curvature, is due to electromagnetic radiation and mass, being attracted to other mass
2) Einstein was wrong in his model of gravity, Gravity is in fact two opposing forces, and has nothing to do with curvature of space
3) The Universe has no known age or size, as it is infinite, has always existed much as it is today, and will go on for ever, much as it is today.
4) The Big Bang and Cosmic inflation never happend, as these are physical impossibilities, plus the universe is not expanding. The only evidence for the big bang, is the CMBR, and I would suggest that the reason for its existence, is misconceived. The ridiculous notion of Cosmic inflation, was an iilogical attempt at solving the Horrizon problem. The only evidence for an expanding universe is Redshift. Once again, this phenominon has been misconceived, and an alternative explanation for this, gives a nonexpanding universe, where the Horrizon problem doesn't exist.
5) Without curvature of space, mathematics will not lead to a singularity at the centre of a Black Hole, nor will it predict immense gravity.
The whole concept of black holes as described in this video is a contradiction in terms and wrong.
The centre of a black hole is said to be an area of immense gravity, HOW? Nothing makes sense. If there was an incredibly strong force of gravity at the centre of a black hole, there would not be an event horizon, as all of the matter surrounding the black hole would be drawn in and a new star would be formed, it is mathematical nonsense.
The same applies to the description of a black hole being formed by a supernova casting off its outer layer and the core collapsing under its own gravity, to form the centre of a black hole. This again is mathematical nonsense. There are many celestial bodies in the universe that are not active stars with an outward pressure, but they do not collapse into bodies of immense gravity, they are just normal baryonic matter like our earth.
Forget the maths for a moment and look at it logically. Gravity is a product of mass and has nothing to do with bending of space. If a star explodes, the whole star and all of its matter will be expelled into space, along with all of its gravity, leaving an area where the star was void of aggregate matter, an area devoid of matter will have no gravity, and result in a black hole.
Because the star would have been rotating, the resulting debris from the exploded star would also continue to rotate, and all of the matter would be forced out by centrifugal force, but also each of the pieces of matter would be trying to coagulate into larger masses. Add to this the 'Dark Energy ' produced by ' Dark Matter ', which I propose consists of a cloud of negatively charged Monopole particles, which permeate the whole of the universe, will be pushing the Baryonic matter back inwards.
A balance is reached where there will exist an embryonic galaxy of varying pieces of matter, which over billions of years will accrete more matter and grow, the larger masses forming new stars, and at the centre there will exist a basic vortex of empty space except for the ' Dark Matter ' producing the negative repulsive force of ' Dark Energy '.
This is more fully explained in a recently published book called ' The Two Monopole Particle Universe by ' Tony Norman Marsh '. If you type Tony Norman Marsh into google, details will be shown. If you can supply me with an email address, I will send you a copy of my manuscript for your perusal, or it can be viewed quickly on ‘ Kindle ‘. Kind regards,
Tony Marsh.
We need to go back to 1/r² and the three dimensional physics of the Inverse Square Law. Even back to the spherical 4πr² geometry of Huygens’ Principle of 1670 that says:
“Every point on a light wave front has the potential for a new spherical 4πr² light wave".
Each point on the wave front represents a potential photon ∆E=hf electron interaction or coupling. The spherical surface forms a boundary condition or manifold for the uncertainty ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π of this interaction.
@@Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time Hello, thank you for the reply, which has only just shown up on my computer.
One of the biggest problems why there is so much confusion with regard to electromagnetic radiation including light, is the misconception that light travels as a wave, it doesn't, it travels as a astraight ray composed of discrete quanta. The distance between these quanta, is the frequency, which is erroneously described as the wave length, which it is not.
The higher the frequency ( the larger the number of these quanta passing a given point in one second ), the further towards the blue end of the spectrum the light is. When radiation is emitted from a radio-active substance, it is in a straight line. The same applies in a Cathode Ray Tube, where the ray goes straight unless it is deflected to form a wave by magnetic deflection.
Unless this basic concept of light is taken into account, all mathematics is pointless. Kind regards,
Tony Marsh
Beyond Harkle- Hawking state: p brane multi universal epr interphase point that created our respective universe .. see not a big bang .. but a quantum oscillation tunneling transition event
There is not much news in this video...?
What I miss is science from a mathematical approach for creating the universe from nothing?
How can we imagine the creation of dimension(s) in the first place?
Most science is about reasoning from present into the past or future. That's ok, but not the only option?
We need some more creative thinking.
It’s a ring singularity more toroidal
Lol, what is this BS. An old compilation with Weinstein in it? Anything with that guy in it gets unsubscribed
Stop using the word infinity. It just shows you have no idea what you're talking about.
Love Weinstein’s rants. Like cool water through the brain:)
Black hols scare me 😢
We need to go back to 1/r² and the three dimensional physics of the Inverse Square Law. Even back to the spherical 4πr² geometry of Huygens’ Principle of 1670 that says:
“Every point on a light wave front has the potential for a new spherical 4πr² light wave".
Each point on the wave front represents a potential photon ∆E=hf electron interaction or coupling. The spherical surface forms a boundary condition or manifold for the uncertainty ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π of this interaction. Light waves radiate out spherically 4πr² with their interior forming the characteristic of three-dimensional space with the spherical surface forming a probabilistic wave front. Each point ∆E=hf on the curvature of the wave front forms the potential for a new spherical wave, a photon of energy, a new oscillation or vibration that forms our future. We have to square the radius r² because process is unfolding relative to the surface of the sphere.
The Universe could be based on simple geometry that forms the potential for evermore complexity. Forming not just physical complexity, but also the potential for evermore-abstract mathematics. Time t², ψ², c², e² and velocity Eₖ=½mv² all squared, geometrical similarity formed out of spherical symmetry
In this theory we even have an objective reason for the start of the Fibonacci numbers 0, 1, 1,... with the t = 0 and the positive +1 and negative -1 representing the positive and negative of electromagnetic waves with everything being based on a geometrical process. This is because if the quantum wave particle function Ψ or probability function is reformulated as a linear vector then all the information I have found says that each new vector is formed by adding the two previous vectors together this forms the Fibonacci Sequence 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, ∞ ad infinity!
We have photon ∆E=hf energy continuously transforming potential energy into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of matter, in the form of electrons. Could this process form a design pattern or template in the form of spherical geometry for self-organization and complexity to arise?
keep reminding myself - these Are Theories & Concepts. not Proven science. yet. Thanks
We need to go back to experimental physics and 1/r² the three dimensional physics of the Inverse Square Law. Even back to the spherical 4πr² geometry of Huygens’ Principle of 1670 that says:
“Every point on a light wave front has the potential for a new spherical 4πr² light wave".
they don't have a clue.
🤠
Please invite actual experts on black holes to accompany Penrose, and bot Carrol, Matt O'Dowd who may not have the cleareat of picture about it.
wow we seem to have a lot of super geniouses and experts in this comment section...who regularly fly into space and observe blackholes and thier behavior and come back to state thier profound discoveries in the youtube chat section.....NOT!
This is cute. Like watching people theorize anime. It’s literally the same thing.
You don’t know. It’s interesting, you look at a screen and come up with more theories to discuss.
Yet you will never understand it, or touch it or know is you were even close to correct.
Nothing new then
Mathematical models are reality for all these clowns.
No escape except evaporation....
I think they have it wrong I don't think it's a curvature I think it's a fold because like they say space is flat
If it ends in a singularity its funny that one infinite can be bigger than another.
@@nyttag7830 littrly dude 👌😂
Ha ha ha , nice goodnight story tales...................... oh you people you really love your imaginary world in which you believe and creating the world of science as your own religion in which you becoming small gods
There ARE Black holes AND there ARE White holes....so IS there a grey hole? If there IS 1, where IS IT? Also, doesn't the Black hole diagram look greyISH or silverISH? ⚊
@@valariemgutierrexa.k.a.map6085 Describe a grey hole.