Can neutrinos escape a black hole? | Even Bananas
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ก.ย. 2024
- Black holes are the ghosts of the universe. Is it possible that our favorite ghost-like particles could tell us something about these cosmic specters? In celebration of #BlackHoleWeek, join #evenbananas host Dr. Kirsty Duffy and NASA scientist Dr. Regina Caputo as they explore what neutrinos and black holes could reveal about each other.
#neutrino #fermilab #NASA #physics #astrophysics #universe #space
Links:
Can supernova neutrinos travel faster than light? | Even Bananas:
• Can supernova neutrino...
Even Bananas playlist:
• Even Bananas
All Things Neutrino:
neutrinos.fnal...
Fermilab physics 101:
www.fnal.gov/p...
Fermilab home page:
fnal.gov
Production Credits:
Host: Kirsty Duffy
Director: Ryan Postel
Editor: Dan Svoboda
Camera/Audio: Luke Pickering, Rob Andreoli, Claire Andreoli
Illustrator: Samantha Koch
Writers: Caitlyn Buongiorno, Kirsty Duffy, Ryan Postel, Regina Caputo
Guest: Regina Caputo
Science consultants: Luke Pickering, Kurt Riesselmann
Special Thanks to the NASA team: Barb Mattson, Claire Andreoli, Sara Mitchell, Kelly Ramos, Emily Wilson
Theme Song: Scott Hershberger
![[TH] RNT vs SPG - VCT Ascension Pacific - Day 1](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RUTkf8Detj8/mqdefault.jpg)
If we have known about them for so many decades, shouldn’t they be called oldtrinos?
😅
Then we would have to rename supernovas to boomers. Now get offa my lawn!
🥁
@@CAPSLOCKPUNDIT You mean Superboomers… at least give them some credit.
@@michaelburke750 What are they planning another telescope already? I can't keep up...
Ice Cube found a neutrino from a black hole? Guess it was a good day 😎
I didn't have to use my AK
There are already other experiments, each of them whining about federal funding. I would worry more about privatisation of the next NASA experiment, which is the way of the oligarch's world, which is now being taught to children!
the neutrinos didn't come out of the black hole directly
It is perhaps pedantic, but perhaps very important to distinguish that singularities are not strictly accepted science. They are purely theoretical, only being described mathematically. Even the event horizon of a black hole is in fact a theoretical phenomenon, not observed(which is what science is all about), and additionally is most correctly referred to as an "apparent" event horizon. Einstein himself did not actually believe singularities to be real objects within black holes, and likewise, Roy Kerr does not seem to be of that opinion regarding his solution for rotating black holes either.
Event Horizon has been observed, twice.
Basically it might not be some infinity dense single point. It might be something like just really squished strange matter. Like the Singularity might actually have height, width, and depth. Might not be just a point of mass.
Correct. Singularities are not physical. When they show up in the math, either your math is broken, or you've made a mistake.
@@Corvaire Technically, the image we saw was not the event horizon. It was a sphere a bit bigger than the photon sphere, at which a photon passing a in a parallel path can leave without falling in.
@@Mernom there is an outer and inner event horizon. We'll never be able to see the inner one, however we have seen the outer. I take it that is what you're saying but "technically" it doesn't discount an observation.
Thanks Kirsty and Regina 😊
How about odd bananas ?
I've been wondering that myself, especially with regards to parity violation.
Always a great day when some even bananas content gets uploaded!
5:58 gravitational waves and neutrinos would both get "deflected" in the same way light does from curved spacetime. I think you mean light can get absorbed or scattered which wouldn't happen to GW or neutrinos
Both neutrinos and GW get absorbed and scattered, just much less so.
They pass through everything
One thing I'm a little confused about. They were saying detecting neutrinos could let us know where to point our telescopes to catch a supernova in the act - because the weekly interacting neutrinos can most easily escape. But my understanding is that neutrinos have an infinitesimally small mass, so would need to travel just a tiny bit below c. Doesn't that mean the photons from the supernova would outrun the neutrinos, so arrive first? I'm picturing a supernova as a rapid event, and a very far-away event.
You're partially correct. If there was nothing in the way, photons definitely would outrun neutrinos. However, the photons are highly "interactive", if you will. They interact with pretty much anything in their way and thus get slowed down in a sense. If you'll recall, light from the core of the sun spends around 300,000 years bouncing around inside it before it finally makes its way to the outside.
Neutrinos, on the other hand don't interact with anything and thus aren't "distracted" or slowed down. Basically a tortoise and hare situation. Hope this helps 😀
I am fascinated by the accretion disc. That all that matter moves around the black hole and only about 40% of it is pulled past the event horizon amazes me.
It's in orbit... like the Earth orbits the Sun. It can't get "pulled past the event horizon" unless it slows down. (Just like the Earth can't fall into the Sun unless it slows down.)
@@juliavixen176I think he’s referring to the fact that accretion discs can have a whopping 40% matter-energy conversion efficiency. Fusion only has a 0.7% conversion efficiency. The only thing that beats an accretion disc is direct matter anti-matter reaction.
"We don't really understand how the jets form, or why they're located on the black hole's axis." I would say the polar jets are the path of least resistance outwardly, for particles that were previously at the orthogonally situated accretion disk, and did not fall into the black hole, but did gain incredible amounts of energy from friction and from spaghettification, did gain incredibly immense angular momentum from their gravity encounter, so then they have unstable orbits and they have to go somewhere, flung to the poles and back away from the event horizon, through a sheer lack of anywhere else to go, through the polar regions where angular momentum accumulates in just the right ways to push a few outermore particles beyond escape velocity.
For anyone interested, Anton Petrov just released a video covering the latest neutrino discoveries.
Also, ScienceClic just released a video showing what the film Interstellar would've looked like with more accurate visuals (titled "Let's reproduce the calculations from Interstellar"). His black hole animation is the best I've seen so far!
Don't know about dark matter but I have a great idea for dark energy. Dark energy expands the universe but expansion is an increase in volume and volume can only be calculated when the surface area or boundary is known. So what is the boundary of the universe? Why black holes of course. They are a boundary within the universe and the expansion of the universe is a measure of the space between galaxies not close enough to be gravitationally bound which all have super massive black holes. Black holes have no interior in the traditional sense because the interior of black holes is the space between them. Also it is known that all the information of a black hole is contained upon it's surface area. The surface area of a black hole is the only edge of the universe we can say exists. Everything that we think goes into black holes is encoded into the space expanding between them. Einstein once theorized that all particles of matter or energy can be described as being a fluctuation of space itself so if true it makes sense that when they fall into a black hole they would be flattened so to speak and the energy each conained would expand the overall size of space itself.
according to E=mc^2 space is an illusion, that that gets changed is the continuum of events, in other words according to spacetime you live inside a 4d movie
however, the quantum physics says "no" to this
Literally everything is invisible to scientists until it interacts with something.
Everything is invisible until it interacts with something
Inside an event horizon of a black hole there is no future spacetime path you can take that gets outside... so it doesn't matter what you are, there is no future outside the event horizon for you anymore.
wow the answer in the title is answered in exactly 1 minute and 11 seconds, impressive
Fermilab💪💪
Isn't Phoenix A supposed to be considerably larger than TON 618, to the point that we can't even figure out how it got that big?
Can whatever particles or fields inside a black hole be entangled with particles outside black holes?
Everything is invisible until it reacts with something.
Day n+1 trying to correct modern interpretation of Penrose diagrams, black holes[,] and relativity 😊
I think my favourite fact about black holes is that they will outlast everything else in our universe except the Hawking radiation they emit that will eventually doom even them. 🙂
@@m_hut Fair points. Especially on the subject of gravity. What's interesting is that, at least based on what I've read and seen in other videos on the subject, if we eliminate time from both sets of equations, general relativity and quantum theory are quite compatible. Einstein himself is credited with saying "the only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen all at once." So maybe time, not gravity, is the problem. I would love to see a video that addresses this possibility, complete with all the mathematics.
if thermodynamics are right then hawking radiation is a must to be
If neutrinos are a particle with mass but are affected by gravity, then should the expectation be that all neutrinos should slow down with age, or would all gravitic interactions work equally to maintain their velocity? If it interacts with gravity, then theoretically shouldn't you be able to halt its movement in space?
@@JorgetePanete Ah yes, quite so. Thank you.
also my question is, if "Primordial" Neutrinos from, lets say twice the distance behind the CMB or 95% the dist of CMB, arrive at Earth, they should be very slowly moving here; due to Cosmic Redshift Expansion! Wouldn't all those far Traveller_Ny have slowed down from Almost speed of Light to even less than < 1 m/sec?
There is probably no way of detecting such slow ones.
Or does this slow_down effect prevent us from ever "seeing/detecting" really Primordial Neutrinos, even if lots of them exist?
We expect there is a neutrino background radiation from the first second after the big bang, but they would be moving very slowly (compared to the speed of light) and have little energy (due to the very high redshift) and so are virtually undetectable. The background temperature of these neutrinos is 1.95 K, compared to 2.73 K of the cosmic microwave background. The neutrinos would have originally had a much higher temperature than the CMB photons, however.
Thank you! Howking Radiation!
Every black hole is only part of a much more massive galaxy, so they are far from being the most massive objects in the universe
Can neutrinos condensing go fluidic? For the black hole analogy. A tidal event and neutrinos falling in. The other would be big bang and C.N.B. ( cosmic neutrino background )
the popular myth is about how black holes eat light is incorrect, all black holes actually eat the vacuum of space and with it anything that is in this vacuum as well, include of light
now you know why "even light cannot escape"
PERIODIC TABLE OF THE ELEMENTS:
Potential completion of the Periodic Table of the Elements:
I currently believe that there are 120 chemical elements in this universe. If a person were to look at how electrons fill up the shells in atoms: 2, 8, 18, 32, 32, 18, 8 (seven shells), and realizing that energy could freely flow in this universe if nothing stopped it from doing so, then a natural bell shaped curve might occur. An eighth energy shell might exist with a maximum of two elements in it, chemical element #119 (8s1) and chemical element #120 (8s2).
Chemical Element #119 (8s1):
#119 I put at the bottom of the Hydrogen group on the Periodic Table of the Elements. It only has one electron in it's outer shell with room for only one more electron. Energy might even enter the atom through the missing electron spot and then at least some of the energy might get trapped inside of the atom under the atom's outer shell.
Chemical Element #120 (8s2):
#120 I put at the bottom of the Helium group since it's outer shell is full of electrons. It might have some of the properties of group two, Beryllium group (Alkali Earth Metals group) since it has two electrons in it's outer shell; as well as some of the properties of the Helium group (Noble Gases group) since it's outer shell is full of electrons; and if you look at the step down deflection of the semi-metals and where #120 would be located on the chart, it's possible #120 might even have some semi-metal characteristics. #120 would be the heaviest element in this universe. I believe chemical element #120 could possibly be found inside the center of stars.
When a neutron split inside of this atom, it would give off one proton, one electron, neutrinos and energy. The proton and electron would be ejected outside of the atom since all their respective areas are full. One proton and one electron are basic hydrogen, of which the Sun is primarily made up of, and the Sun certainly gives off neutrinos and energy. And note, it's the neutron that split, not a proton. So even after the split, there are still 120 protons inside of the atom and the atom still exists as element #120. The star would last longer that way.
In addition, if the neutron that split triggered a chain reaction inside of the star, this could possibly be how stars nova, (even if only periodically).
If stars were looked at as if this theoretical idea were true, and found to even be somewhat true, then we might just have a better model of the universe to work with, even if it's not totally 100% true. And if it's all 100% true, then all the better. (Except of course for those who might be in the way of a periodic nova or supernova. They might have a no good, very bad, horrible day.)
Thanks for a great video.
Why doesn't a gravitational singularity vibrate on the order of a Planck length, giving it an effective size?
_What_ is vibrating, and why would it? Vibrating relative to... what?
Maybe it does, but it would require a successful theory of quantum gravity to describe.
A singularity (a curvature singularity) isn't even on the manifold, so "vibrate" would have no meaning.
6:10 are you suggesting using gravitational waves to communicate with?
Well it depends of the momentum that a neutrino can gain when it is emitted and where inside the BH it is generated... There is gravitational barrier and anything that has a higher momentum can escape....
It seems that along the axes, there is a way "to climb", one on the other, and achieve a sufficient momentum to escape (quasars jets). Can a neutrino be crashed by the pressure ? No data on this.
do Neutrinos oscillate only in the presence of dense matter, or do they also oscillate in the space vacuum between the Sun and Earth?
They do. However, neutrino oscillations within matter do occur at different rates than in a vacuum.
6:37 her body just made the loudest sound ever lmfao
why is it an accretion DISK and not an accretion SPHERE?
TDE = tidal disruption event. Maybe I just missed where that was explained in the video
It'll come out at the end of Time.
My favorite fact? Well, all are more or less theories, and nothing can be proven yet. I would say I have no favorite fact about black holes. I remember I was doing calculations and studies of the theories to black holes when I was a kid/early teenager. What is most interesting, to me, is still that we do not know what happens inside, and have clear physical/mathematical understanding of the inside.
Pictures of black holes do not reveal anything unusual at their centers. Nothing goes to infinity. Black holes eject streams of gases in two directions. There are photons in those streams.
Are neutrinos being observed in real time to catch the flashes from the beginning of a supernova explosion? How long does that explosion last, and how fast is the collapse into the singularity?
no energy that carry information can travel faster than the speed of causality "c"
you in your life, you see nothing "on live"since even the light out of your lamp needs some period of time to reach your eye, the period of time is very short [like picoseconds], however it's not on instant
Yes. It's called "multi-messenger astronomy"
@@juliavixen176 cool. Thanks.
The neutrino burst from a supernova lasts for about 10 seconds. As the core collapses (which takes less than a second) protons emit neutrinos as they join with electrons to create neutrons, then suddenly the core stops collapsing due to neutron degeneracy pressure (a neutron star is formed). The rest of the infalling gas (or plasma) of the star then hits the surface of the now rebounding neutron star causing a shockwave moving outwards that is amplified by the energy of the outward moving neutrinos heating the gas (the density is so high that some neutrinos interact with the gas) and carries on until it smashes out of the surface of the star.
If the collapsing core is beyond a certain mass then a black hole forms without any supernova explosion.
Thanks for the information
Why some scientist still give us the idea that there is a singularity just in the center of black holes? It is not like this. See Carlo Rovelli’s (and others) explanation about it!
I once had a favorite fact about a black hole... then it skimped too close to the event horizon.
0:50 About one minute into the video: my guess is that black holes produce neutrinos the same way they produce Hawking radiation. A virtual pair (of something) is produced at the event horizon, and a second reaction produces a real neutrino outside the event horizon.
Primordial black holes: I wouldn't be surprised if they were originally white holes. I argue that "white holes" are in reality black holes -- and I can give my argument in a reply if someone replies to this asking.
My answer was Magnetic polarity
Thanks. I have a sneaking suspicion about black holes. If I'm wrong, I'd like to know why, so I can get on with life. I think that the energy of matter, plus it's kinetic energy in collapsing, eventually causes it to collapse beyond the neutron degeneracy pressure, at which point it becomes pure energy, a la e=mc^2. This is what curves space so much that it forms an event horizon. Einstein's equations don't tell us they break down, they tell us matter can't collapse to an infinitely small point of infinite gravitation. Now: why am I wrong? tavi.
First, there's no such thing, physically, as energy so no "pure" energy. Matter doesn't collapse to a point, rather, a singularity forms and matter vanishes at the singularity. The curvature does run to infinity in the limit that r→0.
correct, a singularity cannot be made of matter
Is there any way to detect gravitational waves at a much smaller scale than just black hole mergers? Like how we can detect earthquakes and sounds using similar but different technology! Theoretically all the information of the movement of matter is encoded in the fabric of spacetime so if we make a precise enough detector and filter out the noise, we should be able to use it to detect all the objects in our solar system and beyond.
They have, they are called the Stochastic Background or Gravitational Wave Background.
Gravitational waves are formed by VERY compact masses, accelerating very much.
Any signal from anything except black holes, neutron stars, and possibly white dwarfs, is VERY hard to detect.
Edit: Another problem is the frequency. In order for the signal to be properly recognizable, it needs to be fast, otherwise we can confuse it for noise. Objects bigger than neutron stars simply can't develop the orbital velocities needed for such regularity.
How do you decide what is or isnt noise if you dont know the precise mass and velocity of the objects you want to observe? When we measure the gravitational waves of black holes and neutron stars they are already observed by other means. Secondly gravitational wave detectors are limited in precision by their size, you can only make them so big.
@@lt3880 We can decide if it's noise since we know what patterns a true detection makes, and we can decode information about the masses involved from further analysis.
Have a look at the Pulsar Timing Array experiments! Granted they won't pick up "small" scale gravitational waves, more like the opposite really, but they should be able to pick up signals that are much, much slower than what LIGO/Virgo et al can detect.
"We have no way to observe anything going on in that region". Said just seconds after stating as a fact that at the center of the black hole is a "singularity". How do you know that what's inside the event horizon is a mystery? What does it even mean for a black hole to have a "center"? A black hole is not an object in space, it IS space. The singularity is not a singularity in space, it's a singularity in time. It's not at the center of space, it's at the end of time.
Lets start by positing that space's building blocks are ather-ates as in particul-ates. That rewinds time just before MM consequential experiment at the turn of 20th century. So, one would expect an atherate to be electrically neutral but rarefiable(R), polarizable (P) and spinable (S) particle. R gives the ather medium gravity, and P & S and EMism. So, what is a neutrino? A renegade ather that zips through space. Though neutral overall, its oscillations are a result of its polarizability. Here gravitational wave can be imagined as synchronized dance if the ather medium. All objects from a proton to a AGN produce neutrinos, and events from collisions at CERN to supernova. Do neutrinos collide? A rare case to set the experiment, but when they do, expect an electron ir positron giving rise to a fascinating objects hard to imagine-spinors.
I love science vids normally. However, this video felt like it was aimed at a seven year old. If anyone here is old enough to remmber "blue peter" the kids tv show. Well, this feels along the same level. Talking about gobbling up, and snacking black holes, "you can kind of think of black holes as the mouths of the universe" My 15 year son rolled his eyes at that one. That was the level of "science" in this video. By the way, try using a science based physics engine like space engine and throwing an object towards a black hole....good luck getting it to go into the black hole.
So if a neutrino were to escape around the vicinity of a black hole, which region would it be able to escape from, the ISCO (Innermost Stable Circular Orbit) or the Photon Sphere? We know the Event Horizon will pull everything in already. The ISCO is the closest a body with mass can get before it can't escape anymore, and the photon sphere is similar for massless particles. Would the neutrino be closer to a massless photon or a massive particle?
I think you mean "closest it can orbit".
only massless energy can leave the photon sphere, if you had rest mass and you saw the photon sphere then it's over for you
@@nemlehetkurvopica2454 No, the photon sphere is not any sort of horizon. Massless and massive particles alike can escape to infinity in any region outside the horizon.
for leaving the photon sphere you need to be massless, so yes the speed for leaving it is c
rest mass cannot achieve c [E=mc^2]
Thank you.
So neutrinos spawn in the photosphere and redshift as they climb out of the region?
Also, can we dumb this down more? Being spoon fed the choo choo mcgoo wasn't demeaning enough.
You can make it easy to understand without talking down to your audience.
Very interesting!
My favorite fact about Black Holes is that the strength of the gravitational field of a Black Hole with the mass of about 2 trillion times the mass of the Sun at the Schwarzschild radius is about the same as that of Earth. In theory, you could build a Dyson sphere just above the Schwarzschild radius and feel right at home.
You and the Dyson sphere would get obliterated, just no spaghettification at the horizon.
@@kylelochlann5053 Exactly this I doubt. Don't forget: It's just gravity, and if it is not stronger than the one on Earth, why should it destroy anything Earth would not destroy?
@@SiqueScarface The tidal acceleration approximates that of the Earth's surface, however, this completely independent of the physical force needed to hold a mass stationary (at constant r-coordinate), the force goes infinity as you approach the horizon.
@@SiqueScarface On Earth your head may weigh 20 pounds, which your neck and body can support. Near a black hole (of any size) your head may weigh 20,000,000,000,000 pounds. You would be liquified immediately down to the molecular level (assuming a Dyson sphere of infinite tensile strength).
The gravity on Earth that is the same at the event horizon of a large black hole is R^α_{βγδ} ξ^β x^γ ξ^δ (i.e. the geodesic deviation) which is not the gravity of you're thinking of, specifically, u^α∇_αu^β=(1-2m/r)^{-1/2}mr^{-2} (i.e. the proper acceleration exerted to maintain constant radial coordinate in the Schwarzschild geometry).
I'd like to know what black holes can tell us about neutrinos: To the best of our knowledge to date, all neutrinos are left-handed, and all antineutrinos are right-handed, but if they have mass, then if you swing them 180 ` around a black hole, their handedness should become reversed. So if you swing a neutrino around a black hole this way, do you get an antineutrino, or do you get a sterile neutrino? Unfortunately (as was pointed out to me in the comments for a different video), my expectations about current neutrino detector spatial resolution were way too high, so this is going to have to wait for a vast improvement in technology (like maybe a neutrino detector built into a large comet).
Not exactly correct. Their handedness (chirality) is not reversed or affected by gravity or swinging around a black hole, but since they travel at near light speed their handedness can appear different to distant observers due to relativity and not specifically due to a black hole. The neutrino does not turn into another particle although it can oscillate between different neutrino flavours.
@@tonywells6990 If a black hole turns a neutrino's path around by 180 `, how would it NOT reverse the chirality? Neutrino starts out going north with its spin pointing north; black it goes around the black hole and it is now going south, but its spin is still pointing north. Same effect as if an observer managed to overtake it, but easier to do (you don't have to accelerate to 0.9999999999999999999999999999999c, just observe neutrinos that went around a black hole, which must be happening all the time).
I was thinking that if different nuclear reactions give rise to neutrinos of different energies then, in principle, by measuring the energies of neutrinos from a star like Antares or Betelgeuse we should be able to infer what stage of fusion the core is going through and from that how much time will pass before the star detonates as a supernova. Some time ago I was thinking that it would be cool to use solar neutrinos, which there are plenty of, to do neutrino tomography of planets and image their detailed internal structure, but apparently solar neutrinos have the wrong energy range so they can't be used in this way. That was disappointing.
Did you ever see that picture of the Sun taken through the Earth with neutrinos in a year long exposure?
The 'super massive' designation begins at 100,000 solar masses? I had thought that it was more around a million. Is 100,000 the start of the 'super massive' bin?
What do neutrinos decay to?
How do relativistic effects affect neutrino oscillation?
what if particles inside a black hole get accelerated beyond the speed of light? then they could escape
My favorite thing about black holes? That they are VERY far away. Is there anything else to like about them?
i think neutrinos are the nuclei from electron/positron decays.
Question: what gives the jets of matter shooting out from a blazar enough energy to overcome the gravity of the black hole ?
the jets are called "astrophysical jets"
these astrophysical jets are happening outside the event horizon [just like hawking radiation does], they never come out of black holes directly
there used to be two theories that were trying to describe how all those astrophysical jets happen [yes, still today we are not sure on 100% what drives the mechanism]
one of those was proposing that the accretion disk rules over the magnetic field, and over how much energy gets spitted in a form of astrophysical jet away [actually, the more a black hole tries to eat the more energy gets spit away, as you can see it's not so easy to "fall" into a black hole]
the second theory got proposed by two physicists blandford and znajek, they claimed it's actually in opposite way that the magnetic field is actually rulling over the accretion disk and over how much energy out of it can go inside a black hole
the latest measurements of m87 black hole revealed blandford and znajek are right
So if black holes range in size, and their accretion disc is comprised of surrounding debris caught in the maelstrom vortex of gravity flowing into the interior, then from where is that cloud of debris coming from? The most distant radius debris in a rotating cloud or spiral must be moving entirely faster than the black sphere is rotating on its axis, just like the g-force at the outer diameter of a merry-go-round, right? Light speed is the max rate at which those would be visible to us, but it's all to be consumed by the black sphere at some time. How could the slower accretion disc not be a surrounding ring at the equator, yet span the spherical surface to its poles and then be expelled in both directions on that axis? Needs some work.
So where are the 'black holes' that have already consumed all of their surrounding cloud matter? Even in the vast distances of space, one might imagine that gravitational powerhouse fields like those would overlap and dance until they combined into one. We might equate pressure with heat and energy, but what if that gravitational density creates a phase change in matter that condenses it into motionless (something else) that is devoid of resonant energy and its building blocks of mass and matter? What if the black spheres are cold space with an invisible nothing that we're really unable to see its potential for becoming or having ever been the mass/energy we see and touch?
There are only two sides to a black hole, the inside and outside. We can't see illuminations past one, though I'd like to see your description of galaxies that have clashed. Is eternity the sum of all black spheres becoming just one, or is there a structural limit to that physical model? Obviously, whatever happens to energy/matter that pass beyond 'the event horizon', gravity still is attracted to it in increasing fashion. We don't know what in an atomic nucleus attracts gravity, nor why that accumulation within it still attracts that in others to each other. EM waves and particles are bent by that effect, but who's observed or inferred that about neutrinos?
Is there a pattern to the infiltration of neutrinos on earth? Beneath or through it? Is that pattern of neutrinos affected by cosmic or domestic origins? Do the poles show less evidence of neutrino passage, as are impact craters? Is the universe a disc, a sphere, or a cloud? Does the cosmic neutrino direction tell us the dimensions of that universe, or is time/distance/motion the limit of what we can tell, where they all appear the same simply by perceiving only what has arrived by now? Could we navigate surface vessels by receiving and interpreting neutrino patterns, or are they all just 'white noise' in an indistinguishable background of static?
The black hole can spin at near light speed, but the velocity of material (and of space itself) in the accretion disk drops off with distance causing it to spiral. The accretion disk is not a rigid structure like a merry-go-round.
spinning cannot be measured at miles per hour
saying "something is spinning almost at the speed of light" is nonsense
if light cant escape neutrinos cant either
Where is that old cool scientist guy
Biggest suprise is Neutrino are affected by gravity. I thought they were not affected by gravity and thats why come first in nova explosions instead of light which comes 1-2 hour later.
Neutrinos are tricky! Unlike photons, which interact through gravity, the electromagnetic force and the weak force, neutrinos only interact through the gravity and the weak force. So neutrinos can slip out of the envelope of a collapsing supernova hours before particles of light. We go into more detail in this video: th-cam.com/video/fgjynaQxVNE/w-d-xo.htmlfeature=shared
"Biggest suprise is Neutrino are affected by gravity" - I thought of neutrinos not as being affected by gravity, but being affected by the space distortion. Could be wrong, though.
@@mountainhobospace distortion ~= gravity
@@steveywonder1990 She doesn't want to hear about MOND, it's not a British theory 😂😂😂
My old professor, Nicholas Solomey, has an experiment waiting to go up into orbit, to measure solar neutrinos. Looks like that got put on hold for NASA funding.
Has anyone mentioned that gravitons have to obey "c", which makes black hole models invalid? Gravity can't escape the clutches of the British Empire, either!
@@steveywonder1990 Yeah, but it's easier to visualize. ;)
Are neutrino/anti neutrino pairs created as readily as electron/ positron in the vacuum ?
They should be, and at a higher rate, given that you need to 'borrow' far less energy to create one. However, they're also far less detectable.
Can something we never saw escape something we never saw?
Великая сила влечет великую ответственность
If black holes have dark energy, are they then made up of dark matter? Or is it just black magic? :)
Fsscinating.
Funny how you admit you have no way to KNOW what is inside a black hole, but you KNOW there's a singularity inside!
So you think the universe has 2 gravities; one for the inside and a different type of gravity outside the horizon?
@@kylelochlann5053 No.
@@kylelochlann5053 th-cam.com/video/HRir6-9tsJs/w-d-xo.html
@@betepolitique4810 So then, if it's the same gravitational field on the inside as outside and we have a description of the gravitational field (called relativity) then we do have as good a description of the interior as we do the exterior spacetimes (granted, back reaction effects do give us some hard numerical problems to solve).
@@betepolitique4810 Yes, I know the paper and have spoken with Roy Kerr on several occasions about it, but I strongly suspect it doesn't say what you think it does.
IN THE INTEREST OF FINDING THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING:
SOME THINGS MODERN SCIENCE DOES NOT APPARENTLY KNOW:
Consider the following:
a. Numbers: Modern science does not even know how numbers and certain mathematical constants exist for math to do what math does. Surely the very nature of reality has to allow numbers and mathematical constants to actually exist for math to do what math does in this existence. (And nobody as of yet has been able to show me how numbers and certain mathematical constants can come from the Standard Model Of Particle Physics).
b. Space: Modern science does not even know what 'space' actually is nor how it could actually warp and expand.
c. Time: Modern science does not even know what 'time' actually is nor how it could actually warp and vary.
d. Gravity: Modern science does not even know what 'gravity' actually is nor how gravity actually does what it appears to do. And for those who claim that 'gravity' is matter warping the fabric of spacetime, see 'b' and 'c' above.
e. Speed of Light: 'Speed', distance divided by time, distance being two points in space with space between those two points. But yet, here again, modern science does not even know what space and time actually are that makes up 'speed' and they also claim that space can warp and expand and time can warp and vary, so how could they truly know even what the speed of light actually is that they utilize in many of the formulas? Speed of light should also warp, expand and vary depending upon what space and time it was in. And if the speed of light can warp, expand and vary in space and time, how then do far away astronomical observations actually work that are based upon light and the speed of light that could warp, expand and vary in actual reality?
f. Photons: A photon swirls with the 'e' and 'm' energy fields 90 degrees to each other. A photon is also considered massless. What keeps the 'e' and 'm' energy fields together across the vast universe for billions of light years? And why doesn't the momentum of the 'e' and 'm' energy fields as they swirl about not fling them away from the central area of the photon? And why aren't photons that go across the vast universe torn apart by other photons, including photons with the exact same energy frequency, and/or by matter, matter being made up of quarks, electrons and interacting energy, quarks and electrons being considered charged particles, each with their respective magnetic field with them?
Electricity is electricity and magnetism is magnetism varying possibly only in energy modality, energy density and energy frequency. So why doesn't the 'e' and 'm' of other photons and of matter basically tear apart a photon going across the vast universe?
Also, 'if' a photon actually red shifts, where does the red shifted energy go and why does the photon red shift? And for those who claim space expanding causes a photon to red shift, see 'b' above.
Why does radio 'em' (large 'em' waves) have low energy and gamma 'em' (small 'em' waves) have high energy? And for those who say E = hf; see also 'b' and 'c' above. (f = frequency, cycles per second. But modern science claims space can warp and expand and time can warp and vary. If 'space' warps and expands and/or 'time' warps and varies, what does that do to 'E'? And why doesn't 'E' keep space from expanding and time from varying?).
g. Energy: Modern science claims that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it's one of the foundations of physics. Hence, energy is either truly a finite amount and eternally existent, or modern science is wrong. First Law Of Thermodynamics: "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed." How exactly is 'energy' eternally existent?
h. Existence and Non-Existence side by side throughout all of eternity. How?
* ADDED NOTE: My current TOE idea can potentially answer all of these above items, and more, in a logical, coherent and inter-related manner. And wouldn't one expect the true TOE of existence itself to be able to do that? What other TOE idea in known existence can currently do that? Surely not the General or Special Relativity Models nor even the Standard Model of Particle Physics.
TOE IDEA: (Short version): [currently dependent upon the results of my gravity test]:
The 'gem' photon is the eternally existent energy unit of this universe.
The strong and weak nuclear forces are derivatives of the electromagnetic ('em') interactions between quarks and electrons. The nucleus is a magnetic field boundary. 'Gravity' is a part of electromagnetic radiation, gravity acting 90 degrees to the 'em' modalities, which of course act 90 degrees to each other. 'Gravity' is not matter warping the fabric of spacetime, 'gravity' is a part of spacetime that helps to make up matter. The gravity and 'em' modalities of matter interact with the gravity and 'em' modalities of spacetime and the gravity and 'em' modalities of spacetime interact with the gravity and 'em' modalities of matter.
I am open to any and all theory of everything ideas that can potentially answer all those above items in a logical, coherent and inter-related manner. Currently, as far as I am currently aware of, there are no others but my own.
GRAVITY TEST: (Short Version):
Direct a high powered laser 90 degrees through an electric field and magnetic field polarized as such to nullify the 'em' of the laser. "IF" my current TOE idea is correct, a gravitational black hole would become evident. (The 'gem' photon being the energy unit of this universe that makes up everything else in existence in this existence.)
It is good to make a prediction for a test. Every good theory should have at least one or more. My predictions were that quasars were black holes. That every galaxy would have a central black hole. That entropy would be the most important law of physics. That neutrinos have mass. That the universe was older than nine billion years. This was fifty years ago.
@@andrewdeardoff8465 I agree. One needs to come up with ideas concerning reality, but then also coming up with tests to test those ideas and revise one's beliefs as necessary. Basically trying to be an honest, sincere truth seeker, whatever the real truth is discovered to be, and whether it makes me happy or not and/or is beneficial to me and/or all of society or not. To not do so and one would not really be an honest, sincere truth seeker. Or so how I currently see it to be.
03:27 not snacking on anything…at the moment.
that can change, sometimes dramatically.
Gravitons have to obey the same principles as photons. So where, in Hawking's model, does it take into account that gravity, itself, cannot escape a black hole? There would be no explanation for the event horizon, which, supposedly, gives rise to these "relativistic particle jets" that we have "pictures" of, using our many radio telescopes.
I would expect that an actual model of a black hole hasn't been created, yet, to somehow preserve the fascination of the singularity. Dark matter is much easier to write off - which is a new way to see Physics.
Take action, and work together. We're going to win this war.
Why does a black hole eats up a more massive star and not the other way round? Shouldn't more mass just win the battle?
The black hole has a 'deeper' gravity well than the star, the gas on the outer surface of the star (when it is close enough) would feel a larger pull from the black hole than it does from the more massive star's centre. From a further distance a more massive star would actually pull the black hole towards it.
What are: 'invisible to scientists until they interact with something'... Er.... EVERYTHING ?
Isn't everything invisible until it interacts with something?
yes, you cannot see anything until a photon in visible range gets emmited by an electron away
moreover, this photon is responsible for forming of colors in your 🧠, so everything is basically colorless
Can we stop using the word infinite? The density of the center of a black hole cannot be infinite, very high sure. This is just a breakdown of our existing understanding.
Wow...that was unbelievably...patronizing.
I’m not convinced that there is a “singularity“ at the center of black holes… I think that’s where General Relativity equations breakdown… that said it seems more plausible that ALL matter gets annihilated down to its constituent neutrinos which, due to the Pauli Exclusion Principal cannot occupy the same space simultaneously in a “singularity“, but these neutrinos ultimately lineup along the black hole’s axis of rotation, pushing each other out along the poles which in turn invisibly power quasars… any matter external to the black hole that gets caught up, in this outbound stream of neutrinos will be what’s visualized as the quasar…
Matter can't fall down to JUST neutrinos. Each particle conversion process has a well defined recipe, and things like charge, color, and other things must be preserved.
Only quarks can hold color charge, so unless they all annihilated in antimatter reactions, it's impossible for the BH to be reduced to just neutrinos.
I do agree that taking GR's prediction about the singularity at face value is not wise. It was probably just a simplification for the purpose of not lengthening the video too much.
If one infinite is found, I believe everything is infinite.
@@mikeallover No infinites were found.
I'd say no one is really convinced about the "singularity" concept, not from a productive sciencey PoV at least (doesn't make sense mathematically, can't be confirmed empirically/by any means of observation), one of the many amorphous ideas we don't really understand but fill a narrative void meanwhile (like dark matter or dark energy). In the other side, I haven't heard of any quantum process that transforms a fundamental particle into another. I mean, it's the center of a BH, things get weird, but that is wildly hypothetical even for quantum theory (would be cool tho).
Principle.
The Pauli Exclusion Principal just suspends things when they try to occupy the same space, unless they’re repeat offenders and then they still need school board approval.
Person on TH-cam: “and at the very centre of the black hole lies the singularity”
Roy Kerr: “No it doesn’t.”
Yes, and LIGO's data matched it's predictions near perfectly. So, it's time to have them talk directly. The lies feed the next political problem, which love scandal. Seeding scandal seeds the next British push.
Roy Kerr added nothing we didn't already know. His recent paper basically says that geodesic incompleteness does not guarantee that all causal curves end up at an infinite curvature for a finite value of the affine parameter. We know this already, and in the perturbed Kerr geometry of a realistic black hole the singularity at the Cauchy horizon is null, so his principle null rays asymptotic to the inner horizon is much ado about nothing.
@@kylelochlann5053 Why are you worried about proving a singularity theorem based on field theory, rather than tackling the obvious mutual exclusion of particle theories of gravity. The graviton must obey light speed; and cannot, therefore, escape the "infinite gravity" of "itself". Light doesn't exit a BLACK hole.
@@ryanchicago6028 I'm not proving a singularity theorem. What particle theories of gravity? The graviton is restricted to the null structure of the gravitational field, just as photons. No one is saying that light or gravitons escape a black hole.
@@kylelochlann5053 Your dis-informing the public. Please stop doing that. You've just ignored my comment again.
The gravitons ARE the gravitational field. The contradiction is that they can ever exit the black hole to provide gravity!
❤🙏💕🙏💕🙏💕🙏💕🙏❤
1:38 Thats incorrect, there is a way to observe ..you can just simply JUMP into a black hole no?😏
Infinite density. As in It just keeps getting denser?
IMO; I do not Believe this. I think that in terms of pounds per square inch it does have a limit. Tho that limit has yet to be recorded and has an astronomical set of numbers left of the decimal. I dare say it does have a limit. Also, each hole that is black can have it's own very different set of zeros. Each having it's own lb PSI.
Just can't fathom it grows in density, when after all they do dissipate when it's time is up. Nay says I.
They answer the question in the first minute. No.
Is baby BH cute?
1:23 A singularity in the middle of a black hole?? Hasn't it been proven that 1. All black holes rotate. 2. A rotating black hole has no singularity. ?
Rotating black holes have a circular singularity
The big argument is whether a singularity or ring singularity is physical or just a mathematical entity. They might not exist at all or a spinning black hole might have no trajectories that end up inside the singularity and anything inside a black hole may just orbit near the singularity forever.
singularities do not exist since they are the cores of non rotating black holes
non rotating black holes don't exist
ringularities are the supposed centers of all rotating black holes
no singularities neither singularities are real, there is no infinity in nature as there is no zero in nature as well
In a rotating black hole there are 3 singularities, the mass-inflation singularity at the Cauchy horizon, another singularity in the outgoing direction, and a central BKL (null?) singularity.
so if two photons can't occupy the same space at the same time + photons = the left_over skeleton_shell ^after Light has dissipated: all of its [5 colors, Ele_Mag_Spec, 5 Quarks] ***(Few Blue too Many Red particles) [light is both a particle & a wave]
Then Accounting for the interstellar Plasma Ocean & its multi_Light Sourses ! = Can it be assumed that Dark Energy is the Byproduct of the Photons compacting (while both massless; w/its Matter & Anti Matter Superposition State) = ~Stasis
where Dark matter is the Result of Thicker Areas then Dark Energy has accumulated into YET
Acting like a [billion marbles] Moving the Universe in a Faster then the Speed of Light Progression (minus breaking the laws of Physics)
// making the Suns *the Central mass of the Expansion Lie & not a Universal Center Point ?
-----------------------------------------------------------
i am reminded of a Street Light at night
the Glow Only Appears too be Short Light Rays-bc-that is the Glare/Shine of it
as the Colors cause the Ele_Mag_Spec_'s Solid State___minus overlapping
& we know the Ele_Mag_Spec is a charge needing a current
Photons can occupy the same space at the same time since they are bosons.
@@tonywells6990 interesting*that is great to compile in to my data-thank you-although-my math still checks out-& explains why solar system distilled Quantum Vacuum Energy is not the same as the interstellar plasma ocean Quantum Vacuum Energy
At 1:25 you say that matter has infinit density in the singularity.
If you have infinit density in the physical world, it would have a mass
more than the whole observable universe.
Also that elementary particles are eventually ripped apart.
It's just a mathematical description. We don't know what actually happens at the singularity and most physicists would agree that points of infinite density probably don't exist.
It's just a heuristic way of saying black holes are crazy and beyond the scope of our current mathematical models, not to be taken literally.
@@rudyj8948 "points of infinite density probably don't exist." I agree on that, not even a milligram.
The infinite density is from a paper in the 1930s, a few decades later we had singularity theorems that require this to not be the case.
Hawking radiation should also contain neutrinos along with everything else.
I wounder whether a super gigantic black hole could give the birth of our universe by disturbing the virtual particle balance.
hawking radiation is predominantly photons, once a black hole gets smaller and smaller then there are also electrons and neutrinos
Hawking radiation is almost exclusive photons and gravitons as the surface gravity is too low to produce neutrinos in any meaningful amount. In the case of primordial black holes, then yes, in principle.
Wouldn't a Kerr style black hole allow for material that the black hole is trying to eat to be accelerated around the event horizon torus and possibly be expelled along the rotation axis like what we see with the jets?
😮
My self esteem?
you require a new model for inside a black hole. infinite density not.
....curse-tea?
Neutrinos in new chinos.
i am a secret proton
No
I don’t believe in white holes or worm holes.
I would say that from outside perspective the black hole singularity doesn't exist. It might exist in the distant future, but because of time dilation, even the event horizon doesn't exist, so certainly nothing inside it.
Where are the banana flavored neutrinos?
We'll let you know if we find any! Right now, we only know about the muon, tau and electron flavors 😉