if we where in a blackhole i dont think we can observe the event horizon. if youre just a tiny bit below the event horizon the time difference would be too big meaning for our PoV it would take milenia for every light particle (or any other energy or matter) to reach the event horizon. so it cant be glowing all around us, even touogh it would be, we wouldnt see it even it all moves with the speed of light we would die of old age before we go anywhere
this video reminds me, and ill be spoiler free her, of the ending of the profound sci fi series called pantheon so much time, so much potential its beyond human ability to grasp or come to terms with... if youv an interest in classical scifi topics like brain computer interface, strong ai, and the nature of personhood in a post sigularity world, where the lines between sentiant program and born human are blurred, then id highly recommend cheaking out this sadly short two season series.
You might be interested in reading some of Nassim Haramein's papers (he's done some movies/series too if you'd rather watch), he is actually trying to mathematically prove this is infact the case. Also keep up the good content, you're actually taking an intelligent and open minded approach to even fringe subjects :D (and factual approach to nuclear subjects)
@@woswasdenni1914Well, you're right about how it looks from the outside. You can't observe anything going inside, hence the term event horizon. I believe actually that light from objects entering a black hole gets redshifted down (infinitely? Not sure how to make sense of that). But from your perspective, nothing changes. You just cross the event horizon. Nothing special happens. Time passes the way it always does. I am skeptical that there is actually a singularity. I don't know why so many science videos do this, but a singularity is a mathematical concept. Elsewhere in the sciences, they are typically taken to mean that whatever math you're using doesn't apply anymore. That is, mathematical models of black holes have singularities. But we haven't even unified quantum mechanics with general relativity, so how can anyone even say that singularities exist? It's just that we don't have a theory to describe what is going on. We have no bridge from GR to QM. No quantum gravity, so we're stuck. This is why (I think) you won't hear anyone talking about what is happening inside a black hole to subatomic particles. We have no way of describing it. I would be surprised to learn that astrophysicists even actually believe that "the singularity" refers to something real. I think when they explain it they end up talking about the math (because that is all we have!) and forget that the people they are talking to don't understand that a singularity is a mathematical feature. That is the charitable interpretation, anyway. I think science COMMUNICATORS conflate the math with reality. Again: there is no such thing as a physical singularity--or, at least, we have no good reason to believe there is. Dimensionless points are not physical objects. Well, this opens up a whole other can of worms: like are dimensions themselves actually attributes of "reality"?
@@shardinhand1243That is all fascinating stuff, but this singularity and the singularity in a post-singularity world are two totally different concepts. What you're referring to is the whole AI/mind concept, which I don't need to explain because I'm sure u already know. I understand why just hearing the word would remind u of that tho. Actually one of the most profound treatments of the topic I've ever seen in terms of media is in the anime "Neon Genesis Evangelion". You have to watch the whole entire series to get it (literally, it doesn't even come together until the very end), it's pointless for me to even try to describe it. The guy wrote the series while he was severely depressed in a psychiatric hospital IIRC. I am not even particularly into anime, but this seriously melted my brain. And there are little clues throughout the whole series (which is LONG), but it all doesn't come together until the last few minutes. I saw that like 20+ years ago and it STILL gives me chills thinking about it. I could barely talk right after watching the finale. I'm not exaggerating. I have no idea how anyone even wrote that thing.
Consider this possibility. Like said in the video, the singularity in a black hole isn't a particular place but a particular point in time. Time becomes spacelike, and space becomes timelike. Time can be traversed in any direction. From the outside, a black hole has maximum entropy. However, on the inside, the singularity itself would be the point of lowest entropy. So, if our arrow of time points the direction it does because of rising entropy, that would put the singlularity at the beginning of the arrow of time. Basically, we would experience time backwards, with the singularity at the beginning of time and the universe expanding, getting larger and cooler until maximum entropy is reached, i.e. the heat death of the universe, according to our perception.
Also, as the rate of time increases to infinity technically each sub-atomic particle becomes its own universe as it no longer can ever interact with anything ever again as it passes the event horizon. Even though there are other sub atomic particles around it there is always increasing distance and time between each particle. Also the "inside" of the particle would experience an expansion due to spacetime outside the particle expanding.
I think you did better than I would at explaining that! Pretty good. Just wanted to say that I don't understand why people talk about singularities as if they exist. I have never heard anyone even argue that case; only against it. I'm not sure if time can be traversed in any direction in the sense of going in one direction then the opposite in time. But I certainly could be mistaken.
The big bang theory also doesn't rule out an infinite existence of matter. The big bang we can record is merely when expansion got to the point of radiation being possible. It could very well be the case that prior to that, matter was still contracting infinitely back in time, but just hadn't gotten low density enough to allow radiation to be possible, so wasn't creating any background radiation we'd see later on.
Flubber is an old movie with Robin Williams. He plays a scientist who discovers an impossible substance that basically produces infinite energy and is also conscious. It's a family oriented comedy. As long as you ignore the science, it's a fun movie. Would reccomend.
And that, a remake of the 1961 "The Absent-Minded Professor", starring Fred MacMurray. At least that film got a sequel that also got good reviews, "The Son of Flubber". Ah, an era that was a simpler time, now all we have are simpler people.
The one difficulty I have with it is that the black holes inside a universe aren't infinite. It's possible to have an infinite black hole in an infinite universe and thus have black hole universes all the way down, but finite black holes with finite black holes in them require playing around with quantum physics. That's not to say it's wrong, though. There is a concept in physics called Conformal Cyclic Cosmology, where each heat death of the universe is from the perspective of a certain scale with larger scales playing out independently of one another. For that to work, you have the have something like quantum fields for each scale (though, not necessarily the same ones) so you could hypothetically divide finite black holes infinitely through different quantum fields inside each. But we don't really have any indication that quantum fields inside a black hole would be different.
Inside the black hole, space and time switch places. From our perspective, time is reversed, so we see the singularity in the past, hence "the big bang" being our genesis. Everything in our future has already happened though, we're just experiencing it. We're "along for the ride" and free will is just an illusion of our limited perception.
@@Chaos666Theoryif the black hole universe idea is true and the universal natural selection idea is also true, then it’s possible not every black hole is spinning in every universe
One thing to consider, any light or radio waves that enter the blackhole will be red shifted all the way into DC by the time those waves reach the singularity. This could explain the cosmic background radiation.
@@spvillano Because we aren't at the singularity so its not red shifted all the way, just part of the way according to the stretch of space time. remember, the reason why they think the universe is growing is because all light is red shifted from other galaxies. Light is just another form of EMR, and if you red shift light below infrared you start getting into radio waves. If you study quantum mechanics, radio waves are just photons with lower energy than infrared. The energy in a photon is the same thing as it's frequency.
In the halo games and lore, there is a super advanced race that were able to create entire universes in pocket dimensions, and they would crush them to create energy to power their technology.
Here's the fun part. You approach a supermassive black hole, due to its immense size, no Roche limit to get pesky with your Starship Boobyprize. How can you tell once you actually cross the event horizon? Relative to you, light and matter are still falling in toward the hole, you're inside the hole, there's no magical firewall that blocks the view. Where they left the rails is calling the singularity the black hole, a black hole contains a singularity, it is not the singularity in total. The math of the universe doesn't break down until one reaches the singularity. At the event horizon, nothing weird is going on, only that escape velocity exceeds C. Now, from inside, you'd see the outside and everything looks like it's moving super fast as you approach the event horizon, once your cross it, your only realistic evidence is that everything appears outside to be moving infinitely fast. As for the singularity, the math breaks down, could be a tiny universal freezer section, cosmic incinerator, wormhole to Event One, unicorn and pixie world, we've no clue, as we can't figure out the math of conditions at a singularity yet. I think it'll turn out to be how many angles can be obtuse on the head of a pin. I'll just get my hat...
I forget the title, but years ago I did read a novel in which the universe was like this. As suggested here, all of the other universes had laws of physics that produced different results to our own. The closest were so subtly different that you likely wouldn't notice anything extraordinary. The further away you moved the less likely it was that the universe you arrived in would even be survivable, eventually reaching universes that were, for example, simply a uniform space full of energy, or could only exist for the briefest moments. The most distant were incapable of even moving beyond their singularity stage.
One interesting interpretation is that Hawking radiation, the way black holes evaporate, could in some way be related to why the Universe expansion could be accelerating, because the Universe would be "losing mass" (not literally) but that interpretation could be seen as an outward push.
15:10 In the theory of the big crunch leading to another big bang I always really liked the idea of every universe having its own random rules, maybe with stable (at least for a long time) universes like ours being the exception in between millions of start attempts.
The thing about black holes is that you can indeed create them out of any matter. If the mass is compressed To a smaller area than it's schwarzschild radius. Whatever that size may be as long as that size is larger than a planck radius
Ohh, I love that video. First time I could imagine a consistency in the way the universe works and how it should theoretically work given consistent laws and principles. In fact, maybe the total maintains it's balance by asynchronous big bangs which also serve to keep the singularity from engulfing all as the big bounce will follow close behind. Or maybe they are not so common in the multiverse and therefore it doesn't really affect the total and all can be in some sort of balance.
Singularity is the big bang Edit: Btw i hope time not existing doesn’t mean you don’t arrive at the singularity but instead when you are at the singularity you are directly transported to next universe Edit2: Another thing that makes this plausible could be the products of penrose diagrams when you pass to the universe of the white hole time and gravity is reversed so i would assume at the singularity there is equal amounts of gravity and antigravity so it doesn’t collapse
You would neither arrive or cease to exist. As the rate of time increases to infinity nothing can ever react with anything ever again, making each sub-atomic particle it's own self contained universe. From an outside perspective it instantly reaches the singularity, but from the perspective of the particle it never reaches the singularity. Think of running on an infinity long treadmill where you can't die until you reach the end and you can never stop running. If the treadmill goes faster than you can run then you're always going to be falling further away from the end forever because the treadmill never ends. Now imagine the further away you get from the end of the treadmill the faster it goes, if multiple people lined up and ran one in front of the other then slowly everyone would drift apart with no way to catch up to one another. This is essentially what a particle would experience in a black hole, a never ending fall where you get nowhere while simultaneously all the particles around you disappear forever.
What I don’t get is that once things go into a black hole space and time flip. So if we were in a black hole would our universe be have some weird inversion going on? Maybe the singularity is what what’s pulling things out since it’s flipped? What if is moving to the singularity is us getting dragged through time?
I would like to see a *new* video on thorium/"thorium reactors" or your opinion on the thorium topic. I know this isn't easy to do, but a video together with Sabine Hossenfelder (she made a recent video on thorium reactors coming to europe) or Elina Charatsidou (made a video handling uranium in her laboratory) would be awesome or at least reacting on one of their videos. Bret Kugelmass, the founder of Last Energy has a podcast talking with people in the nuclear industry and his interview with Walter Tromm from the KIT university, Karlsruher Institute of Technology, working at its nuclear research institute on nuclear safety and decommissioning, this interview tells a lot about the anti-nuclear resentment in NGOs and poltics versus scientific facts that would drastically lower the cost of nuclear energy. There is also a part on chernobyl in "what the green movement got wrong" documentary film where a moderator in this film talks with a leading UN investigator on the chernobyl accident debunking myths of the the consequences.
What's to say a black hole isn't simply just another level of stellar transformation where it's a star much smaller than a white dwarf with gravity so extreme light cant escape
It is virtually impossible to see in your own eyes because to get the light bright enough to see it, you wouldn't be able to see its reflection in a mirror. Get a penlight and someone who feels like suffering. You can see the retina. That's what "red-eye" is in film photos.
Biggest issue with this idea is black holes have mass that can be measured. This implies a finite amount of matter. So each black hole would be smaller and smaller, meaning each universe would be smaller and smaller. Meaning they're not really universes, are they?
Basically, the universe is the singularity and the event horizon is outside/around the universe, and the matter/energy that falls into the black hole becomes (dark) matter/energy within our universe
I think you forget about time dilation. Because time gets slower, what we see as happening over billions of years only happens in seconds according to time outside.
I watched that and was really annoyed that they didn't define universe. I think they meant "observable universe", in which case, yes, we could be living in a goldfish, but we can only talk scientifically about what is observable.
I'm struggling to follow the idea after the Big Crunch hypothesis. That if universe suddenly compresses down to one giant black hole, and after that something would happen resulting into another big bang - does that hypothesis presume that the black hole that resulted from the big crunch of the previous universe still exists? And from where does all the matter that would exist in the newly born universe come from, if the previous universe with all its matter compressed down to a black hole, would give birth to a new universe without providing matter required for the newly born universe to allow birth of new planets, stars, galaxies and black holes? Cause you cant get something out of nothing.
This idea uses purely a Relativistic view of black holes and the universe, without considering any of the quantum effects. Which is understandable since we don't yet have a working theory of quantum gravity, But many have hypothesized that singularities may not exist due the quantum nature of reality. And singularities are the linchpin pin of this nested black hole universe idea.
6:15 There... might not BE a singularity. Recent Astro-physics discoveries suggest that a Singularity inside a Black Hole might very well not exist, and could basically be a mere mathematical construct. I.E. a Singularity might simply be a way to "make the equation add up".
I think of black holes as 4D spheres. So your offhand comment about "it might even be a loop" struck me as 4 dimensional shapes seem to be looping. The best way I can think of explaining what I mean is by a tesseract. When you see a tesseract outside from our 3D perspective, it seem to loop into itself. search for a 4D square for visual purpose on youtube. Now imagine being inside the tesseract, but still viewing it from our 3d perspective, how would that look? no one knows, or can know unless we make like a quantum computer which can predict the future or whatever. Would it seem like a mirror infront of a mirror? would it be static from our perspective even though it's "moving" or maybe better expressed: "timing" (the verb) considering it's 4d and 4d seem to include the past and the future simultaneously The Universe has allot of fractal patterns in it, maybe the inside of a 4D, 5D, or however-high-it-goes-sphere would be fractal? I mean.. even we are kind of fractal, from our nervous system, blood circuitry neurons, to even our behavior, cultures, buildings, cities etc.. I'm not saying we're not unique or whatever, but we are self similar in allot of ways. You could say that every iteration of a fractal pattern is unique, but it's still similar. Everything around us seem fractal as well, like lightning strikes, plants, trees, hurricanes, the stars, galaxies, galaxyformations, and so on. There are religious descriptions around the world with strange fractal patterns that I know of. Even more interestingly if you have ever seen the accurate description of angels in the old texts before all the naked baby with wings stuff, they often have several appendages, some have like 4 faces and they're covered in eyes, which is kind of similar to Hindu gods, which also have several limbs, several expressions at once etc.. it's a noteworthy similarity. People taking DMT have strange visualizations that are similar to these images (which is kind of a evidence for religious founders tripping balls on something) When we make videogames with procedurally generated content, like No Man Sky or when we need to procedurally generate terrain, we often use mathematical formulas that generate a fractal pattern. No Man Sky specifically generates more galaxies every time you complete one, and you can visit and stumble into other galaxies etc.. They might've accidentally made a 4D game without even knowing it. It doesn't prove we're in a simulation, but neither does it disprove it. in fact, we could be in a real universe which is inside a simulation inside a real universe and so on. now, even if the universe end up being eternal, we know we can fit infinites inside other infinites, for instance there are infinite numbers, yet you can also put infinite decimals between two numbers, which is also infinite, but inside of another infinite. To finish up my wall of text here, I'll end with this: If there are infinite universes out there, that means that there's infinite universes where you exist, and there's infinite universes where you have no awareness of the other universes, however... that also means there are infinite universes where you do and there's an infinite amount of universes where you're a flying spaghettimonster. There's an infinite amount of universes where everything I've written here is wrong, but there's also an infinite amount of universes where this speculation is spot on.. Space really is amazing, like, literally everything is in space.
weirdly this video our man T Folse is reacting to reminds me of the series pantheon and excellent sci fi series on the potential of sapient strong ai, and how man kind may evolve and adapt to a world where uploading ones mind is possible, its a wonderful insightful and forward thinking show id recomend.
I’m asking once again in this comment section because Mr Folse and his subscribers are usually very smart. short version : why can’t we measure the 2 way speed of light ? i watched a lot of content about this and i understand this is a problem mainly about information-travel time being at a max of light speed and that clocks would be out of sync due to relativity. my question is since we’ve discovered quantum synchronization/entanglement and i’m sure that we are close to making “entanglement synced clocks” will we be able to measure the 2 way speed of light soon? (also because i learnt the properties that are entagled between particles can communicate faster than light(or instantaneously))
1:05 you dont need an absolute starting point for countable infinity, its countable if it can be mapped to the batural numbers, so number ever blackhole outside this one with the next odd number, and every one inside this one with an even number. to be uncountable, its much harder, basically each sub blackhole would need to contain an infinite number of infinite blackhole chains
It could also just be 1 black hole interacting with itself outside of time. Using time you can describe all of 3D reality using just 1 photon that exists in all places at once in space because it's outside of time.
What if we get time wring? What if we are moving backwards in time? A singularity exists not at a place but in a time, in the future. If information travels from lower entropy states to higher entropy states, and the universe is collapsing into a singularity causing entreaty to decrease with time, any life would perceive time as flowing backwards, and perceive the end of the universe as its beginning. If due to the nature of entropy we remember the future and forget the past, we perceive the future as the past and the past as the future. That would mean what is to us the beginning of the universe is actually its end, a big collapse when the universe becomes a timeless dimensionless singularity. So there was no "before" (from out perspective) the big bang, it never exploded, it collapsed and we are just perceiving things backwards.
The rule of physic is bound within our universe, including entropy. Our Universe's laws of thermodynamics would not be the same in another Universe. It could be that tge Universe preceding us had the laws of decreasing entropy, who know?
From a philosophical standpoint, if this idea is true and we are just parts of the universe with awareness, it means that we as a part of the universe will experience this cycle of constant rebirth as its scattered energy and pieces, though we lose our awareness and forms as we were. I also wonder, if a Black hole is just warping a local part of our universe's spacetime to accelerate us towards a moment of singularity, does this mean all black holes lead to the same singularity or are they different ones made from the limited space, mass, and energy that the black hole consumes? If it's the same singularity for every black hole, is that moment of singularity the big bang, or is it the big crunch? Or are they the same event? If the universe doesn't crunch and heat death looks like a field of infinite black holes, does that mean the mass and energy they consumed is all that will be recycled into the offspring universes? I've heard it said that time could hypothetically be curved back on itself like space can be curved, so if that is the case then in a big crunch scenario, would we experience the same warping effect that we expect in a black hole today as the universe is compressed back into a singularity?
Hi T.Folse Nuclear. I was wondering if a large version of a reactor was made and massive amounts of high level waste or from spent rods or from reprocessing was put into a form like a massive reactor surrounded by neutron reflectors could the spent fuel and waste be made to reduce its half life by causing more neutrons to split materials down further to materials with shorter half lives? Kind of like a waste reactor powered by waste to reduce the other waste to less long lived waste. If something like this could make power it would last a lot longer and give something back for the process to offset the cost of making it. Its waste would be less radioactive and have a shorter half life. Would that work?
i kind of understand what they are basing this on if you've seen the penrose diagrams of blackholes and the versions of it explaining possibilities for alternate universes. but my question has always been with regards to these is does these take into consideration hawking radiation and specifically the evaporation of blackholes? actually are penrose diagrams that have blackhole evaporation a thing? never seen a video on it. not that ive tried hard to search for it.
@tfolsenuclear T. Folse Nuclear do you think fusion power is possible? Is it a matter of money and time or do you think it is beyond the scope of humanity considering our limitations in time and technology? Edit- I am a mere mortal programmer with no knowledge about fission or fusion beyond wikipedia and youtube, would you consider making a video about the topic?
6:25 well its not atracting the whole observable univer but there is some point in space that out galaxy among many many others are all rapidly being pulled towards... its called rather mysterialy, The Great Atractor... and we just dont know what it is... theres also a few other strange unaxplaned anamolous space bound areas, the void where theres a huge strange absence of of all the normal nebula stars, planets and stuff we see in space, therees also my personal fav, the herculien super wall... a collection of nebula so vast that the light from 16 billian years ago the begining of the univers still hassint had time to cross the whole length of the wall....... and it completly obscures our view of what could be beyond it....
The problem of those denying we are in the black hole is that, you need to explain why the universe is inside its black hole radius, but not a black hole. That is obviously an inconsistency, and I see no one explained it.
welll if u use reallly strong gravity to squeeze a thing, the size of that thing and the mass wont be equal creating a really stong gravity which attract things and if it form the event horizon we can call it a black hole but i dont really understang why bigger black holes have less dense and also the formula cause im still 12 . but i still agree that the obserable universe is in a black hole due to the fact above but acording to math there is still a possibility that the universe is just a universe >
Kertgaszat is so far off from the truth in his video about the interior geometry of black holes. It's a difficult concept to explain in a short paragraph or two, but just beyond the event horizon, "time" becomes irrelevant and space is the only quantifiable metric. As you continue down the curvature of space towards the singularity, there is a point where "time" becomes relevant again. The singularity sits atop the inverse shape of the space curvature leading down to it. Think of the rebound in water when a drop falls in. At that point near the singularity (where the curvature starts to climb upwards towards the singularity) is a neutral zone where "spacetime" is essentially normal, then as you climb up the curvature towards the singularity, the inverse of space/"time" occurs again and space becomes irrelevant and "time" is the only quantifiable metric. And just as in approaching an event horizon, as you near the singularity, time begins to slow continuously until you reach the singularity,at which point time stops (again). It's beyond THAT point, that our ability to understand what happens, falls apart completely.
Watch we’ve come up with these theories on what the interior of black holes are and how a singularity can exist, and the damn firewall phenomenon is the right one
@superslammer1273 not sure how this relates to my comment about the interior geometry of black holes since I mentioned nothing of paradoxs' arising from the nature of hawking radiation along the lifespan of a black hole. Can you please elaborate further so I can understand the underlying meaning of your comment ?
@@John-ir2zf I’m more referring to the existence of a singularity as the theory in question, the joke was that there might not be a singularity beyond the event horizon and that there could be a firewall instead. I don’t want to try to explain this stuff because I’m not a physicist and there’s other sources that will explain it infinitely better. Don’t read too much into it, I thought about it and wrote it in about 15 seconds
@SuperSlammer12 I see... But the firewall phenomenon/paradox doesn't have anything to do with the singularity itself. It is a theory about whether hawking radiation is in fact, one half of an entangled quantum particle pair as hawking theorized. If it is, and time is in fact slowed to a near stop at the event horizon, then any quantum particle could be entangled to any other particle across any time in the black holes lifespan. That would violate unitarity. It's a complex topic that I have delved in to in the past, but quantum mechanics is still a young science, so postulating how the particles behave near a black hole and across trillions of years of time is, well, difficult.
but honestly... I think it is testable. Potentially. Not with our current technology though. To test this you would need to find a way to observe how matter behaves after it reaches singularity. Which is... kinda hard. As it cannot emit anything. I wonder though... how would quantum entanglement work for this? Will it remain bound even after singularity? Or will this bond instantly break down?
What happens to the inner universe as a result of the hawking radiation in the outer one? Does that counteract the high entropy of the inner one? Does any of this matter?
Where is the singularity of the universe? Well, inside a black hole, the singularity is in the future, because of the bending of space-time, it isnt a place in space We could say that our univerve is a whitehole. because we had a singularity in our past, the big bang
6:20 maybe we are inside the singularity ofa spinning blackhole? from veritasiums video, gravity should be pushing back in such a place, which migh explain cosmic expansion?
IDK to me this is a white hole result. Seems like they should be way easier to see yet we don't seem to see them. Would make sense if we're in one. Odd stuff whatever things are.
So... Even in the most speculative of theories here, everything is cycling down. Seems like conservation of energy must exist in the global physics. This reminds me of string theory, "wouldn't it be cool if this untestable thing that amuses me also has broader consequences while also not changing anything that can be experimented on?" Ummm... Sure? I find the simulation hypothesis more likely because it would at least explain some physics that are otherwise tested and not fully understood (time goes slow at massive stuff, cause computation complexity; stuff seems to only exist if observed/relevant, 'cause lazy evaluation, uncertainty principle, 'cause universal precision is incredibly inefficient for no gain; virtual particles, 'cause so long as the net is zero on the usable time slice, noise is acceptable, etc.). And I still don't believe the simulation argument, persuasive as the "eventually it'll happen and all simulations will spawn simulations, etc." is mathematically. Where are all the anomalies other than this one instance we know of - us? Which makes an infinite universe unlikely seeing as an infinite one should contain all possible things eventually, and yet our experience seems to live by pretty consistent rules on the average scales.
The universe was born from a black hole. The collapse of a star, which forms the black hole, is the Big Bang itself. From your perspective in the almost infinitely far future, this event seems distant, but from the perspective within the black hole, it happens instantaneously. This is because the singularity acts as a wormhole to the future. At the moment of the Big Bang, everything had already fallen into the singularity, so this does not affect the explosion. From your future perspective, this event occurs near the end of the universe, when everything is close to maximum entropy. Due to the expansion of the universe, you are unable to see beyond this point, including other 'dying' black holes or the universe created by the last, largest black hole. Everything I wrote is true. Or not. 😵💫
Hey come on now. Didn’t they tell you when you started that content reactors aren’t supposed to get pop culture references? You’re doing this all wrong.
Thanks for your interesting video. Your viewers might enjoy this video showing under the right conditions, the quantization of a field is easily produced. The ground state energy is induced via Euler’s contain column analysis. Contain column m must come in to play before over buckling or the effect will not work. The system response in a quantized manor when force is applied in the perpendicular direction. Bonding at the points of highest probabilities and maximum duration( peeks and troughs) of the fields/sheet produced a stable structure out of three fields People say I am just plucked guitar strings. I said you can not make structures with vibrating guitar strings or harmonic oscillators. th-cam.com/video/wrBsqiE0vG4/w-d-xo.htmlsi=waT8lY2iX-wJdjO3 At this time I’m my research, I have been trying to describe the “U” shape formed. In the model, “U” shape waves are produced as the loading increases and just before the wave-like function shifts to the next higher energy level. Over-lapping all the waves frequencies together using Fournier Transforms, I understand makes a “U” shape or square wave form. Wondering if Feynman Path Integrals for all possible wave functions could be applicable here? If this model has merit, seeing the sawtooth load verse deflection graph produced could give some real insight in what happened during the quantum jumps. The mechanical description and white paper that goes with the video can be found on my TH-cam page. You can reproduce my results using a sheet of Mylar* ( the clear plastic found in school folders. Seeing it first hand is worth the effort!
Thanks so much for watching! For more about entropy, please check out: th-cam.com/video/--M1OGL2Fto/w-d-xo.htmlsi=JPEKwyU6YZ9Aa4sy
if we where in a blackhole i dont think we can observe the event horizon. if youre just a tiny bit below the event horizon the time difference would be too big
meaning for our PoV it would take milenia for every light particle (or any other energy or matter) to reach the event horizon. so it cant be glowing all around us, even touogh it would be, we wouldnt see it even it all moves with the speed of light we would die of old age before we go anywhere
this video reminds me, and ill be spoiler free her, of the ending of the profound sci fi series called pantheon so much time, so much potential its beyond human ability to grasp or come to terms with... if youv an interest in classical scifi topics like brain computer interface, strong ai, and the nature of personhood in a post sigularity world, where the lines between sentiant program and born human are blurred, then id highly recommend cheaking out this sadly short two season series.
You might be interested in reading some of Nassim Haramein's papers (he's done some movies/series too if you'd rather watch), he is actually trying to mathematically prove this is infact the case. Also keep up the good content, you're actually taking an intelligent and open minded approach to even fringe subjects :D (and factual approach to nuclear subjects)
@@woswasdenni1914Well, you're right about how it looks from the outside. You can't observe anything going inside, hence the term event horizon. I believe actually that light from objects entering a black hole gets redshifted down (infinitely? Not sure how to make sense of that). But from your perspective, nothing changes. You just cross the event horizon. Nothing special happens. Time passes the way it always does. I am skeptical that there is actually a singularity. I don't know why so many science videos do this, but a singularity is a mathematical concept. Elsewhere in the sciences, they are typically taken to mean that whatever math you're using doesn't apply anymore. That is, mathematical models of black holes have singularities. But we haven't even unified quantum mechanics with general relativity, so how can anyone even say that singularities exist? It's just that we don't have a theory to describe what is going on. We have no bridge from GR to QM. No quantum gravity, so we're stuck. This is why (I think) you won't hear anyone talking about what is happening inside a black hole to subatomic particles. We have no way of describing it. I would be surprised to learn that astrophysicists even actually believe that "the singularity" refers to something real. I think when they explain it they end up talking about the math (because that is all we have!) and forget that the people they are talking to don't understand that a singularity is a mathematical feature. That is the charitable interpretation, anyway. I think science COMMUNICATORS conflate the math with reality. Again: there is no such thing as a physical singularity--or, at least, we have no good reason to believe there is. Dimensionless points are not physical objects. Well, this opens up a whole other can of worms: like are dimensions themselves actually attributes of "reality"?
@@shardinhand1243That is all fascinating stuff, but this singularity and the singularity in a post-singularity world are two totally different concepts. What you're referring to is the whole AI/mind concept, which I don't need to explain because I'm sure u already know. I understand why just hearing the word would remind u of that tho.
Actually one of the most profound treatments of the topic I've ever seen in terms of media is in the anime "Neon Genesis Evangelion". You have to watch the whole entire series to get it (literally, it doesn't even come together until the very end), it's pointless for me to even try to describe it. The guy wrote the series while he was severely depressed in a psychiatric hospital IIRC. I am not even particularly into anime, but this seriously melted my brain. And there are little clues throughout the whole series (which is LONG), but it all doesn't come together until the last few minutes. I saw that like 20+ years ago and it STILL gives me chills thinking about it. I could barely talk right after watching the finale. I'm not exaggerating. I have no idea how anyone even wrote that thing.
We appreciate the thumbnail gag
There should have been, am am am aswell
Easily his best so far, hehe!
The best so far 😂
i dont wanna like your comment, because.... yeah
Devil vortex
That thumbnail made my day lmao. Keep up the great work Mr. Folse, we appreciate your insight into all things nuclear and beyond!
Consider this possibility. Like said in the video, the singularity in a black hole isn't a particular place but a particular point in time. Time becomes spacelike, and space becomes timelike. Time can be traversed in any direction. From the outside, a black hole has maximum entropy. However, on the inside, the singularity itself would be the point of lowest entropy. So, if our arrow of time points the direction it does because of rising entropy, that would put the singlularity at the beginning of the arrow of time. Basically, we would experience time backwards, with the singularity at the beginning of time and the universe expanding, getting larger and cooler until maximum entropy is reached, i.e. the heat death of the universe, according to our perception.
Also, as the rate of time increases to infinity technically each sub-atomic particle becomes its own universe as it no longer can ever interact with anything ever again as it passes the event horizon. Even though there are other sub atomic particles around it there is always increasing distance and time between each particle. Also the "inside" of the particle would experience an expansion due to spacetime outside the particle expanding.
This comment broke my brain far more effectively than the Kurzgesagt.
congrats we watched the same video
@@virality9000 You should watch less anime, might help with your low testosterone.
I think you did better than I would at explaining that! Pretty good. Just wanted to say that I don't understand why people talk about singularities as if they exist. I have never heard anyone even argue that case; only against it. I'm not sure if time can be traversed in any direction in the sense of going in one direction then the opposite in time. But I certainly could be mistaken.
The big bang theory also doesn't rule out an infinite existence of matter. The big bang we can record is merely when expansion got to the point of radiation being possible. It could very well be the case that prior to that, matter was still contracting infinitely back in time, but just hadn't gotten low density enough to allow radiation to be possible, so wasn't creating any background radiation we'd see later on.
You know, inhaling tiny black holes can be hazardous to your health.
Yummy
bbb
lies
My main question is, why haven't you called this channel Nuclear Reactions?
The thumbnail I'm dead!!!
Flubber is an old movie with Robin Williams. He plays a scientist who discovers an impossible substance that basically produces infinite energy and is also conscious. It's a family oriented comedy. As long as you ignore the science, it's a fun movie. Would reccomend.
And that, a remake of the 1961 "The Absent-Minded Professor", starring Fred MacMurray. At least that film got a sequel that also got good reviews, "The Son of Flubber".
Ah, an era that was a simpler time, now all we have are simpler people.
@@spvillano Yes! I forgot about that.
Brain hurty memory refuse to work
The one difficulty I have with it is that the black holes inside a universe aren't infinite. It's possible to have an infinite black hole in an infinite universe and thus have black hole universes all the way down, but finite black holes with finite black holes in them require playing around with quantum physics.
That's not to say it's wrong, though. There is a concept in physics called Conformal Cyclic Cosmology, where each heat death of the universe is from the perspective of a certain scale with larger scales playing out independently of one another. For that to work, you have the have something like quantum fields for each scale (though, not necessarily the same ones) so you could hypothetically divide finite black holes infinitely through different quantum fields inside each. But we don't really have any indication that quantum fields inside a black hole would be different.
When Tyler posts bro, tables flip themselves and spontaneous fission increases exponentially with amount of hype from this guy
If the universe is a black hole, wouldn’t entropy just be hawking radiation on a weirder level?
Well done on the thumbnail!
Inside the black hole, space and time switch places. From our perspective, time is reversed, so we see the singularity in the past, hence "the big bang" being our genesis. Everything in our future has already happened though, we're just experiencing it. We're "along for the ride" and free will is just an illusion of our limited perception.
I'm happy to see I'm not the only one who had that thought
ringularity*
@@Chaos666Theoryif the black hole universe idea is true and the universal natural selection idea is also true, then it’s possible not every black hole is spinning in every universe
One thing to consider, any light or radio waves that enter the blackhole will be red shifted all the way into DC by the time those waves reach the singularity. This could explain the cosmic background radiation.
Cosmic background radiation is microwaves, so it's decidedly not DC or well, a static magnetic field.
@@spvillano Because we aren't at the singularity so its not red shifted all the way, just part of the way according to the stretch of space time. remember, the reason why they think the universe is growing is because all light is red shifted from other galaxies.
Light is just another form of EMR, and if you red shift light below infrared you start getting into radio waves. If you study quantum mechanics, radio waves are just photons with lower energy than infrared. The energy in a photon is the same thing as it's frequency.
In the halo games and lore, there is a super advanced race that were able to create entire universes in pocket dimensions, and they would crush them to create energy to power their technology.
Your best thumbnail [･･]
Thanks! My wife designs them ❤️
Agreed. Came to say this. Honestly probably wasn’t gonna watch this right now but the thumbnail got me
Here's the fun part.
You approach a supermassive black hole, due to its immense size, no Roche limit to get pesky with your Starship Boobyprize. How can you tell once you actually cross the event horizon? Relative to you, light and matter are still falling in toward the hole, you're inside the hole, there's no magical firewall that blocks the view.
Where they left the rails is calling the singularity the black hole, a black hole contains a singularity, it is not the singularity in total. The math of the universe doesn't break down until one reaches the singularity. At the event horizon, nothing weird is going on, only that escape velocity exceeds C. Now, from inside, you'd see the outside and everything looks like it's moving super fast as you approach the event horizon, once your cross it, your only realistic evidence is that everything appears outside to be moving infinitely fast.
As for the singularity, the math breaks down, could be a tiny universal freezer section, cosmic incinerator, wormhole to Event One, unicorn and pixie world, we've no clue, as we can't figure out the math of conditions at a singularity yet.
I think it'll turn out to be how many angles can be obtuse on the head of a pin.
I'll just get my hat...
I forget the title, but years ago I did read a novel in which the universe was like this. As suggested here, all of the other universes had laws of physics that produced different results to our own. The closest were so subtly different that you likely wouldn't notice anything extraordinary. The further away you moved the less likely it was that the universe you arrived in would even be survivable, eventually reaching universes that were, for example, simply a uniform space full of energy, or could only exist for the briefest moments. The most distant were incapable of even moving beyond their singularity stage.
One interesting interpretation is that Hawking radiation, the way black holes evaporate, could in some way be related to why the Universe expansion could be accelerating, because the Universe would be "losing mass" (not literally) but that interpretation could be seen as an outward push.
15:10 In the theory of the big crunch leading to another big bang I always really liked the idea of every universe having its own random rules, maybe with stable (at least for a long time) universes like ours being the exception in between millions of start attempts.
Particle life
It's like, "it's turtles all the way down!"
That "someone" was Stephen Baxter in his Manifold series.
The thing about black holes is that you can indeed create them out of any matter. If the mass is compressed To a smaller area than it's schwarzschild radius. Whatever that size may be as long as that size is larger than a planck radius
Ohh, I love that video. First time I could imagine a consistency in the way the universe works and how it should theoretically work given consistent laws and principles. In fact, maybe the total maintains it's balance by asynchronous big bangs which also serve to keep the singularity from engulfing all as the big bounce will follow close behind. Or maybe they are not so common in the multiverse and therefore it doesn't really affect the total and all can be in some sort of balance.
Singularity is the big bang
Edit: Btw i hope time not existing doesn’t mean you don’t arrive at the singularity but instead when you are at the singularity you are directly transported to next universe
Edit2: Another thing that makes this plausible could be the products of penrose diagrams when you pass to the universe of the white hole time and gravity is reversed so i would assume at the singularity there is equal amounts of gravity and antigravity so it doesn’t collapse
You would neither arrive or cease to exist. As the rate of time increases to infinity nothing can ever react with anything ever again, making each sub-atomic particle it's own self contained universe.
From an outside perspective it instantly reaches the singularity, but from the perspective of the particle it never reaches the singularity.
Think of running on an infinity long treadmill where you can't die until you reach the end and you can never stop running. If the treadmill goes faster than you can run then you're always going to be falling further away from the end forever because the treadmill never ends. Now imagine the further away you get from the end of the treadmill the faster it goes, if multiple people lined up and ran one in front of the other then slowly everyone would drift apart with no way to catch up to one another. This is essentially what a particle would experience in a black hole, a never ending fall where you get nowhere while simultaneously all the particles around you disappear forever.
They should have called it the Subatomic Sphincter Hypothesis.
What I don’t get is that once things go into a black hole space and time flip. So if we were in a black hole would our universe be have some weird inversion going on? Maybe the singularity is what what’s pulling things out since it’s flipped? What if is moving to the singularity is us getting dragged through time?
I would like to see a *new* video on thorium/"thorium reactors" or your opinion on the thorium topic. I know this isn't easy to do, but a video together with Sabine Hossenfelder (she made a recent video on thorium reactors coming to europe) or Elina Charatsidou (made a video handling uranium in her laboratory) would be awesome or at least reacting on one of their videos. Bret Kugelmass, the founder of Last Energy has a podcast talking with people in the nuclear industry and his interview with Walter Tromm from the KIT university, Karlsruher Institute of Technology, working at its nuclear research institute on nuclear safety and decommissioning, this interview tells a lot about the anti-nuclear resentment in NGOs and poltics versus scientific facts that would drastically lower the cost of nuclear energy.
There is also a part on chernobyl in "what the green movement got wrong" documentary film where a moderator in this film talks with a leading UN investigator on the chernobyl accident debunking myths of the the consequences.
What about the "great attractor" that we can't see? That being the massive gravity well thats pulling the lanikea supercluster
I think that they finally resolved that one. To a massive object.
I'll just get my hat...
The object pulling was actually a large galaxy group beyond the great attractor. Atleast,to what i know.
What's to say a black hole isn't simply just another level of stellar transformation where it's a star much smaller than a white dwarf with gravity so extreme light cant escape
…isn’t that basically what they are already?
Are your pupils black holes? Light doesn't escape.
Yeah it does. If it didn't, an optometrist probably would have mentioned it.
It is virtually impossible to see in your own eyes because to get the light bright enough to see it, you wouldn't be able to see its reflection in a mirror. Get a penlight and someone who feels like suffering. You can see the retina.
That's what "red-eye" is in film photos.
@@bsadewitz So we just need to shine enough light on a black hole to see it then.
Biggest issue with this idea is black holes have mass that can be measured. This implies a finite amount of matter. So each black hole would be smaller and smaller, meaning each universe would be smaller and smaller. Meaning they're not really universes, are they?
Basically, the universe is the singularity and the event horizon is outside/around the universe, and the matter/energy that falls into the black hole becomes (dark) matter/energy within our universe
I think you forget about time dilation. Because time gets slower, what we see as happening over billions of years only happens in seconds according to time outside.
I watched that and was really annoyed that they didn't define universe. I think they meant "observable universe", in which case, yes, we could be living in a goldfish, but we can only talk scientifically about what is observable.
I'm struggling to follow the idea after the Big Crunch hypothesis. That if universe suddenly compresses down to one giant black hole, and after that something would happen resulting into another big bang - does that hypothesis presume that the black hole that resulted from the big crunch of the previous universe still exists? And from where does all the matter that would exist in the newly born universe come from, if the previous universe with all its matter compressed down to a black hole, would give birth to a new universe without providing matter required for the newly born universe to allow birth of new planets, stars, galaxies and black holes? Cause you cant get something out of nothing.
This idea uses purely a Relativistic view of black holes and the universe, without considering any of the quantum effects. Which is understandable since we don't yet have a working theory of quantum gravity, But many have hypothesized that singularities may not exist due the quantum nature of reality. And singularities are the linchpin pin of this nested black hole universe idea.
6:15
There... might not BE a singularity.
Recent Astro-physics discoveries suggest that a Singularity inside a Black Hole might very well not exist, and could basically be a mere mathematical construct.
I.E. a Singularity might simply be a way to "make the equation add up".
I think of black holes as 4D spheres.
So your offhand comment about "it might even be a loop" struck me as 4 dimensional shapes seem to be looping.
The best way I can think of explaining what I mean is by a tesseract. When you see a tesseract outside from our 3D perspective, it seem to loop into itself. search for a 4D square for visual purpose on youtube.
Now imagine being inside the tesseract, but still viewing it from our 3d perspective, how would that look? no one knows, or can know unless we make like a quantum computer which can predict the future or whatever. Would it seem like a mirror infront of a mirror? would it be static from our perspective even though it's "moving" or maybe better expressed: "timing" (the verb) considering it's 4d and 4d seem to include the past and the future simultaneously
The Universe has allot of fractal patterns in it, maybe the inside of a 4D, 5D, or however-high-it-goes-sphere would be fractal? I mean.. even we are kind of fractal, from our nervous system, blood circuitry neurons, to even our behavior, cultures, buildings, cities etc.. I'm not saying we're not unique or whatever, but we are self similar in allot of ways. You could say that every iteration of a fractal pattern is unique, but it's still similar. Everything around us seem fractal as well, like lightning strikes, plants, trees, hurricanes, the stars, galaxies, galaxyformations, and so on.
There are religious descriptions around the world with strange fractal patterns that I know of. Even more interestingly if you have ever seen the accurate description of angels in the old texts before all the naked baby with wings stuff, they often have several appendages, some have like 4 faces and they're covered in eyes, which is kind of similar to Hindu gods, which also have several limbs, several expressions at once etc.. it's a noteworthy similarity.
People taking DMT have strange visualizations that are similar to these images (which is kind of a evidence for religious founders tripping balls on something)
When we make videogames with procedurally generated content, like No Man Sky or when we need to procedurally generate terrain, we often use mathematical formulas that generate a fractal pattern. No Man Sky specifically generates more galaxies every time you complete one, and you can visit and stumble into other galaxies etc.. They might've accidentally made a 4D game without even knowing it. It doesn't prove we're in a simulation, but neither does it disprove it. in fact, we could be in a real universe which is inside a simulation inside a real universe and so on.
now, even if the universe end up being eternal, we know we can fit infinites inside other infinites, for instance there are infinite numbers, yet you can also put infinite decimals between two numbers, which is also infinite, but inside of another infinite.
To finish up my wall of text here, I'll end with this:
If there are infinite universes out there, that means that there's infinite universes where you exist, and there's infinite universes where you have no awareness of the other universes, however... that also means there are infinite universes where you do and there's an infinite amount of universes where you're a flying spaghettimonster. There's an infinite amount of universes where everything I've written here is wrong, but there's also an infinite amount of universes where this speculation is spot on..
Space really is amazing, like, literally everything is in space.
@T. Folse Nuclear The flat Earth on top of a turtle is a reference to Terry Patchett's 'Discworld novels' 😂 Awesome novels and well worth a read 😊
weirdly this video our man T Folse is reacting to reminds me of the series pantheon and excellent sci fi series on the potential of sapient strong ai, and how man kind may evolve and adapt to a world where uploading ones mind is possible, its a wonderful insightful and forward thinking show id recomend.
I’m asking once again in this comment section because Mr Folse and his subscribers are usually very smart. short version : why can’t we measure the 2 way speed of light ? i watched a lot of content about this and i understand this is a problem mainly about information-travel time being at a max of light speed and that clocks would be out of sync due to relativity. my question is since we’ve discovered quantum synchronization/entanglement and i’m sure that we are close to making “entanglement synced clocks” will we be able to measure the 2 way speed of light soon? (also because i learnt the properties that are entagled between particles can communicate faster than light(or instantaneously))
1:05 you dont need an absolute starting point for countable infinity, its countable if it can be mapped to the batural numbers, so number ever blackhole outside this one with the next odd number, and every one inside this one with an even number.
to be uncountable, its much harder, basically each sub blackhole would need to contain an infinite number of infinite blackhole chains
It could also just be 1 black hole interacting with itself outside of time.
Using time you can describe all of 3D reality using just 1 photon that exists in all places at once in space because it's outside of time.
What if we get time wring? What if we are moving backwards in time? A singularity exists not at a place but in a time, in the future. If information travels from lower entropy states to higher entropy states, and the universe is collapsing into a singularity causing entreaty to decrease with time, any life would perceive time as flowing backwards, and perceive the end of the universe as its beginning. If due to the nature of entropy we remember the future and forget the past, we perceive the future as the past and the past as the future. That would mean what is to us the beginning of the universe is actually its end, a big collapse when the universe becomes a timeless dimensionless singularity. So there was no "before" (from out perspective) the big bang, it never exploded, it collapsed and we are just perceiving things backwards.
Rick and morty did the whole universe battery thing.
5:00 You do know that Disk world, right? Terry Pratchett? If not, highly recommend!
Top tier thumbnail!
The singularity is in our past. We are time reversed relative to the outside of the black hole.
The rule of physic is bound within our universe, including entropy. Our Universe's laws of thermodynamics would not be the same in another Universe.
It could be that tge Universe preceding us had the laws of decreasing entropy, who know?
From a philosophical standpoint, if this idea is true and we are just parts of the universe with awareness, it means that we as a part of the universe will experience this cycle of constant rebirth as its scattered energy and pieces, though we lose our awareness and forms as we were.
I also wonder, if a Black hole is just warping a local part of our universe's spacetime to accelerate us towards a moment of singularity, does this mean all black holes lead to the same singularity or are they different ones made from the limited space, mass, and energy that the black hole consumes? If it's the same singularity for every black hole, is that moment of singularity the big bang, or is it the big crunch? Or are they the same event? If the universe doesn't crunch and heat death looks like a field of infinite black holes, does that mean the mass and energy they consumed is all that will be recycled into the offspring universes?
I've heard it said that time could hypothetically be curved back on itself like space can be curved, so if that is the case then in a big crunch scenario, would we experience the same warping effect that we expect in a black hole today as the universe is compressed back into a singularity?
Would you ever be willing to try playing some fallout games?
this would be awesome to see or even just him reviewing some of the fallout gameplay
what if the singularity is folded up in higher smaller dimensions and we see it as dark energy
If space were found to be descreat as opposed to continuous.
It 100% loops around imo
If you do every single combination of particles it will loop again
Hi T.Folse Nuclear. I was wondering if a large version of a reactor was made and massive amounts of high level waste or from spent rods or from reprocessing was put into a form like a massive reactor surrounded by neutron reflectors could the spent fuel and waste be made to reduce its half life by causing more neutrons to split materials down further to materials with shorter half lives? Kind of like a waste reactor powered by waste to reduce the other waste to less long lived waste. If something like this could make power it would last a lot longer and give something back for the process to offset the cost of making it. Its waste would be less radioactive and have a shorter half life. Would that work?
i kind of understand what they are basing this on if you've seen the penrose diagrams of blackholes and the versions of it explaining possibilities for alternate universes.
but my question has always been with regards to these is does these take into consideration hawking radiation and specifically the evaporation of blackholes? actually are penrose diagrams that have blackhole evaporation a thing? never seen a video on it. not that ive tried hard to search for it.
@tfolsenuclear T. Folse Nuclear do you think fusion power is possible? Is it a matter of money and time or do you think it is beyond the scope of humanity considering our limitations in time and technology?
Edit- I am a mere mortal programmer with no knowledge about fission or fusion beyond wikipedia and youtube, would you consider making a video about the topic?
8:18 until 14 billion years ago, expansion started, wait...
The earth began to cool…..
6:25 well its not atracting the whole observable univer but there is some point in space that out galaxy among many many others are all rapidly being pulled towards... its called rather mysterialy, The Great Atractor... and we just dont know what it is... theres also a few other strange unaxplaned anamolous space bound areas, the void where theres a huge strange absence of of all the normal nebula stars, planets and stuff we see in space, therees also my personal fav, the herculien super wall... a collection of nebula so vast that the light from 16 billian years ago the begining of the univers still hassint had time to cross the whole length of the wall....... and it completly obscures our view of what could be beyond it....
The problem of those denying we are in the black hole is that, you need to explain why the universe is inside its black hole radius, but not a black hole. That is obviously an inconsistency, and I see no one explained it.
We'll only know if we ever develop faster than light travel. Even then, could you escape from inside a black hole with FTL travel?
Hello T. Folse. I posess a question.
I usually saw only magnets, that are working with nearby objects (
welll if u use reallly strong gravity to squeeze a thing, the size of that thing and the mass wont be equal creating a really stong gravity which attract things and if it form the event horizon we can call it a black hole but i dont really understang why bigger black holes have less dense and also the formula cause im still 12 . but i still agree that the obserable universe is in a black hole due to the fact above but acording to math there is still a possibility that the universe is just a universe >
Kertgaszat is so far off from the truth in his video about the interior geometry of black holes.
It's a difficult concept to explain in a short paragraph or two, but just beyond the event horizon, "time" becomes irrelevant and space is the only quantifiable metric. As you continue down the curvature of space towards the singularity, there is a point where "time" becomes relevant again.
The singularity sits atop the inverse shape of the space curvature leading down to it.
Think of the rebound in water when a drop falls in.
At that point near the singularity (where the curvature starts to climb upwards towards the singularity) is a neutral zone where "spacetime" is essentially normal, then as you climb up the curvature towards the singularity, the inverse of space/"time" occurs again and space becomes irrelevant and "time" is the only quantifiable metric.
And just as in approaching an event horizon, as you near the singularity, time begins to slow continuously until you reach the singularity,at which point time stops (again).
It's beyond THAT point, that our ability to understand what happens, falls apart completely.
Watch we’ve come up with these theories on what the interior of black holes are and how a singularity can exist, and the damn firewall phenomenon is the right one
@superslammer1273 not sure how this relates to my comment about the interior geometry of black holes since I mentioned nothing of paradoxs' arising from the nature of hawking radiation along the lifespan of a black hole.
Can you please elaborate further so I can understand the underlying meaning of your comment ?
@@John-ir2zf I’m more referring to the existence of a singularity as the theory in question, the joke was that there might not be a singularity beyond the event horizon and that there could be a firewall instead. I don’t want to try to explain this stuff because I’m not a physicist and there’s other sources that will explain it infinitely better. Don’t read too much into it, I thought about it and wrote it in about 15 seconds
@SuperSlammer12 I see...
But the firewall phenomenon/paradox doesn't have anything to do with the singularity itself. It is a theory about whether hawking radiation is in fact, one half of an entangled quantum particle pair as hawking theorized. If it is, and time is in fact slowed to a near stop at the event horizon, then any quantum particle could be entangled to any other particle across any time in the black holes lifespan. That would violate unitarity.
It's a complex topic that I have delved in to in the past, but quantum mechanics is still a young science, so postulating how the particles behave near a black hole and across trillions of years of time is, well, difficult.
but honestly... I think it is testable. Potentially. Not with our current technology though.
To test this you would need to find a way to observe how matter behaves after it reaches singularity. Which is... kinda hard. As it cannot emit anything.
I wonder though... how would quantum entanglement work for this? Will it remain bound even after singularity? Or will this bond instantly break down?
The Sun to the size of a city.
What happens to the inner universe as a result of the hawking radiation in the outer one? Does that counteract the high entropy of the inner one? Does any of this matter?
What's with the menacing music? Haha
hawking radiation left the chat
13:17 idk about a book but there an episode of rick and morty caled The Ricks Must Be Crazy exploring the idea of a microverse battery.
This just sounds like slavery with extra steps
Love your vids
What is forever in a system where all timeframed are diffrent?
maybe the big bang was the start of the black hole that we are in??
12023 is the human era calander
you should check out " entropy " the song by M.C.Hawking :P
Where is the singularity of the universe?
Well, inside a black hole, the singularity is in the future, because of the bending of space-time, it isnt a place in space
We could say that our univerve is a whitehole. because we had a singularity in our past, the big bang
At some point we should consider that this theory is utter rubbish though we didn’t understand their derivation for why we are in a black hole
6:20 maybe we are inside the singularity ofa spinning blackhole?
from veritasiums video, gravity should be pushing back in such a place, which migh explain cosmic expansion?
well done
IDK to me this is a white hole result. Seems like they should be way easier to see yet we don't seem to see them. Would make sense if we're in one. Odd stuff whatever things are.
😮 but the Supernova could be the big bang
Why are you eating the black holes
Can you react to hawking radiation theory videos
Thumbnail did it's thing
don’t DO THAT PLZ
So... Even in the most speculative of theories here, everything is cycling down. Seems like conservation of energy must exist in the global physics. This reminds me of string theory, "wouldn't it be cool if this untestable thing that amuses me also has broader consequences while also not changing anything that can be experimented on?" Ummm... Sure?
I find the simulation hypothesis more likely because it would at least explain some physics that are otherwise tested and not fully understood (time goes slow at massive stuff, cause computation complexity; stuff seems to only exist if observed/relevant, 'cause lazy evaluation, uncertainty principle, 'cause universal precision is incredibly inefficient for no gain; virtual particles, 'cause so long as the net is zero on the usable time slice, noise is acceptable, etc.). And I still don't believe the simulation argument, persuasive as the "eventually it'll happen and all simulations will spawn simulations, etc." is mathematically.
Where are all the anomalies other than this one instance we know of - us? Which makes an infinite universe unlikely seeing as an infinite one should contain all possible things eventually, and yet our experience seems to live by pretty consistent rules on the average scales.
The universe was born from a black hole. The collapse of a star, which forms the black hole, is the Big Bang itself. From your perspective in the almost infinitely far future, this event seems distant, but from the perspective within the black hole, it happens instantaneously. This is because the singularity acts as a wormhole to the future. At the moment of the Big Bang, everything had already fallen into the singularity, so this does not affect the explosion. From your future perspective, this event occurs near the end of the universe, when everything is close to maximum entropy. Due to the expansion of the universe, you are unable to see beyond this point, including other 'dying' black holes or the universe created by the last, largest black hole. Everything I wrote is true. Or not. 😵💫
You have to do a video on a pinewood computer core on roblox it's so funny lol
Stellatis
Have you thought about doing original content?
I like his reaction videos but would like to see him do something else too.
1+2=🦆.
Stealing more content let's go engineers
Hey come on now. Didn’t they tell you when you started that content reactors aren’t supposed to get pop culture references? You’re doing this all wrong.
😁
Thanks for your interesting video.
Your viewers might enjoy this video showing under the right conditions, the quantization of a field is easily produced.
The ground state energy is induced via Euler’s contain column analysis. Contain column m must come in to play before over buckling or the effect will not work. The system response in a quantized manor when force is applied in the perpendicular direction. Bonding at the points of highest probabilities and maximum duration( peeks and troughs) of the fields/sheet produced a stable structure out of three fields
People say I am just plucked guitar strings. I said you can not make structures with vibrating guitar strings or harmonic oscillators.
th-cam.com/video/wrBsqiE0vG4/w-d-xo.htmlsi=waT8lY2iX-wJdjO3
At this time I’m my research, I have been trying to describe the “U” shape formed.
In the model, “U” shape waves are produced as the loading increases and just before the wave-like function shifts to the next higher energy level.
Over-lapping all the waves frequencies together using Fournier Transforms, I understand makes a “U” shape or square wave form.
Wondering if Feynman Path Integrals for all possible wave functions could be applicable here?
If this model has merit, seeing the sawtooth load verse deflection graph produced could give some real insight in what happened during the quantum jumps.
The mechanical description and white paper that goes with the video can be found on my TH-cam page.
You can reproduce my results using a sheet of Mylar* ( the clear plastic found in school folders.
Seeing it first hand is worth the effort!
I'm not seeing any value-add with this guy, just humorless nitpicking.
nehehehehehehe
First to a Tyler folse vid
SUPRIS3