He's usually like this, but if you want to see him in an excited state, watch the series of videos about his visit to the LHC. He was practically weeping with joy.
Couldn't agree more, he is my absolute favorite aswell, damn even my four year old daughter likes him. He just seems to be such a nice person and I love how he is full of passion and actually enjoys what he is doing.
I'm a theoretical physicist working on this exact problem, and this is really an excellent video explaining so much of the current state of research here. Great job to all involved!
What impresses me is how Brady can understand the context of all these topics well enough to be able to ask further questions in the videos, especially when he doesn't have a Maths, Physics or Engineering degree.
Even if he doesnt have a degree in stem im pretty sure he graduated high school im pretty sure any high school student would know about quantum gravity or hawking radiation or schwarzchild radius maybe some would even write papers about it or come up with equations
Dr. Copeland's expression when you asked about black hole accretion and its impact on evaporation was equally one of surprise and the pride of a teacher whose pupil was finally understanding enough to think about the problem and meet him rather than just receive lecture.
did you? That's wonderful. and now we all know that. We don't know you or where you are in the world or anything at all about you but we *do* know you, a person on the planet's surface somewhere, let out an audible "yes!"
I love this. Not only are these videos interesting, I get a nostalgic feeling to when I watched these videos in the pivoting year 2009 in terms of my interest in physics and mathematics. Sixty symbols was not the initial spark that got me interested in physics and mathematics, but it most certainly made a breeding ground for my interest. I want to say a big thank you to Brady and the physicists at Nottingham University. You're part of why I just got accepted to do a masters degree in theoretical physics!
1:03 I always wondered, when there is something written on whiteboards behind the interviewed person, was it there before or did you write some random matrices just to fill it a bit?
Ivan Mazepa That's linear algebra on the board behind him. Linear algebra is often used in quantum mechanics, though it is used in many other areas of physics too. I don't know enough to be sure why it's written there. But if he wanted to write sonething on the board to look impressive (which would be highly unlikely) that wouldn't be it.
Ed is my favorite professor in the series! It he is so patient with everything. Although I have to admit my favorite videos are when he gets his feathers ruffled. He doesn't even get upset he just gets slightly frustrated and stands his ground. Either way it's always a joy watching his videos.
Screw Krauss, Tyson, Guth and the rest. I've watched almost ALL the physics videos I can find on TH-cam and you my friend explain at the best level of detail with the most concise explanations I've seen yet. I haven't heard anything really new and interesting in a while and checking back to Sixty Symbols has definitely left me fulfilled. Keep at it mate.
Artur Mizuno that would be interesting. At school we just get "there are three states of matter" and then later on "we lied there's more, moving on". And then we don't get any more about them
I did a double take at the "10^-5 grams is Planck Mass" thing. All the other Planck units I know are so much smaller that I had to look up if that was right - it just seemed weird that Planck Mass is 10 micrograms while Planck Length is something like 1.6x10^-35 meters. But it was right! I guess Planck mass is the only Planck unit that people can actually visualize the scale off - google says it's the mass of a flea egg or whereabouts.
yes, it is also the mass of an object that has planck size (very small) and planck temperature (very big), so it's not that surprising the unit is somewhere in between.
We need more Ed! I Love these videos, the way he simplifies these complex ideas so anyone could understand is fantastic. Could listen to him for hours! Great back and forth as expected from Sixty Symbols.
I was looking forward to a new video with Prof. Copeland! And such an interesting topic. I always found black holes so fascinating. The animations are also great ^^ Thank you all for what you do, keep doing it please :)
I like physics, don't get me wrong... but I cannot focus on the content with such a calm and soothing voice in the background. This is Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman all over again.
I love a wandering deep-dive conversation like this. It reveals just how complicated the subject is, and how many unanswered questions we still have. Thank you!
How do you intepret these cosmological and astrophysical statements given we can only see a small portion of the universe and how do we use these models if they are only suppositions? Expansion can thin out space but so can black holes. The heat death or the big freeze and the big crunch have something in common, a symmetry.
So many videos on youtube make you *feel* like you learned something, but an hour later you remember nothing about the subject. What I like about this channel in general and Ed's videos in particular is that they are the *opposite* of this. I feel like I have no idea about this subject...but I could explain to somebody else probably a lot more than they knew before.
this one was one of the most interesting explanation of how theoretical physics work. we model this, then we should see this, but if we see that than the model should answer that.
13:30 If the temperature of the Hawking Radiation for a given black hole is less than the MBR then wouldn't that mean there is more energy falling into the black hole that radiation out? In that case would the black hole not be getting bigger, rather than smaller?
yes that is the case. In fact it is the case for all black holes we know of. It will take perhaps trillions of years if not more for BHs to actually start evaporating.
OK so trick question (I don't know the answer): If the universe exploded as a single point in space that contained everything the universe currently has in it, why was *that* not a black hole? Surely that much energy/mass in that small a space would be enough to create a black hole. Why didn't the universe just explode into an instant black hole?
If you had some primordial monster black holes that rotated around each other, enough for them to cause significant local gravity waves, (even if it had to a group of pairs!) what affect would that have had on the forming galaxies, I was wondering if you would get either a void or the equivalent of the great attractor. Just what would you get from such constant waves over such a long period?
Gravity waves are quite weak, the holes themselves would cause a bigger disturbance, especially in a pre-stellar universe. There wouldn't be too much of an effect since gravity waves don't 'push' matter and energy places, merely changing its density temporarily. This might be enough to seed a few stars and through them eventually galaxies, but it almost definitely wouldn't throw off the symmetry of the universe. But two massive holes at that early an epoch, that itself would be a massive imbalance that could seed whole clusters of galaxies.
So what happens when one of these mountain-mass blackholes wanders into a burning star? I imagine it would accrete mass at a fantastic rate as it falls/burrows through the star's outer layers and then settle at the core where it would rapidly devour the star from within. What would the emissions from that look like? And if the star was spinning then the angular momentum would have to be preserved as the mass becomes concentrated into the schwarzschild radius. It'd be one hellofa fast spinning top. And of course the jets of radiation and particles shooting out as this singularity consumes the doomed star would interact with the not-yet-adsorbed stellar material to create an upwelling of plasma at the polls. I wonder if it would have enough energy to escape the star's gravity or if it would fall back down like a fountain. Sounds like it'd be a fun supercomputer simulation.
When you have the quark soup, why do you need any fluctuations at all to get formation of primordial black holes? The quarks are interacting probabilistically, so it wouldn't make any sense to consider everything homogenous and likely to remain static unless there are fluctuations.... or are those probabilistic interactions what those 'fluctuations' are? Seems strange to consider those fluctuations as everything always works that way.
0:35 nostopwaithangonaminute.......the Planck mass is unimaginably huge compared to the Planck time and length. is there a Planck energy too because if so it must be even bigger.......wtf I need a video explaining why asap
there is energy and you can work it out easily via E=mc2. The reason why planck mass is so "ordinary size" it's because some planck units are ridiculously large, while some are ridiculously small - the mass is the product of the large one and the small one. Specifically, it is the mass of particle that has planck length (very small) and planck temperature (very big).
How do you go about dating a black hole? Do you indirectly infer its age by dating the stars surrounding it? Do you measure the light being emitted from the black hole? How accurate is that?
Im confused... How can a black-hole decay? I understand the whole process but the destruction of a singularity I don't understand... 1. Is the mass of the black hole quantized to allow for clean evaporation? 2. Will mass inside the event horizon on a prolonged trajectory observe this decay, if it can't then would the decay of the event horizon be relative? 3. If it is relative, as the decreasing scale factor in between the universe and the inside of the event horizon approaches zero, does the singularity displace to have no quantifiable position in space relative to the universe besides for being apart from the universe itself. 4. If the black hole's position is now a zero dimensional coordinate, does that technically mean it has merged with the singularity that is our universe should it be considered in this manner?
I understand that black holes radiate thermally because matter-antimatter particle pairs can form in the vicinity of the event horizon, and the antimatter one falls in while the matter one radiates outward. What I've never understood is why the antimatter one is favored to fall in, and why isn't it just random which one falls in, so that we'd get some radiation and some absorption that just get in equilibrium so that the mass of the black hole neither grows nor lessens. Instead of evaporating why wouldn't the black hole simply stay roughly the same size? Is there some reason the matter particle of the pair preferentially radiates away while the antimatter particle preferentially falls in? Otherwise Hawking radiation wouldn't end up with black holes evaporating, would it? Thanks so much for clearing this up for me. I've been wondering this since the 1970s when I first read the SciAm articles about it.
Black holes like S5 0014+81 have to be Primordial black holes. A black hole feeding from the beginning of time. That is the best explanation to make sense of its sheer size.
I wish this came out sooner. I had to write a paper for my cosmology class and part of it was Primordial Black Holes. This would have helped get the ideas flowing -_-
Question: Is the inverse relationship between size and evaporation rate just geometric - volume > surface area? Or is something more complicated... or >>> more complicated?
It relates to several factors. The first is the gravitational gradient, over a fixed distance (Say a centimeter.) a smaller hole's gravity will increase more times than a larger hole's. The gradient fuels Hawking radiation so a sharper one produces more and higher energy emission. Secondly volume-surface area plays a part. For Hawking radiation to work a particle must 'miss' the black hole which is easier to do for small things (That will only take up a point in your sky) as opposed to larger things (Which can take up half your sky and indeed, due to gravity ALL of the sky.)
I'd like to hear more about so-called "relic black holes", in which a stable black-hole-like remnant is left over. How many of these are there? How common are they? What is their cross section? How could they interact with matter? And so on.
can you explain why evaporation can happen when black holes suck up background radiation? surely only if the quantum evaporations are bigger than the background radiation sucked in by a black hole will it ever lose mass?
if an object is so dense not even light can escape it, how is it they decay or evaporate like the Professor mentioned? where will it decay too? if the gravitational strength is that strong
No, kugelblitzes form from light only, these holes could have formed from many things. The radius of the observable (Not entire!) universe at these times was smaller than about 1'00 times the radius of our solar system (At the second epoch.) down to the size of a grapefruit or even smaller. The smaller the universe the smaller and lighter the holes that form in it.
It always has a zone of gravity that matches the speed of light, right? so what happen with photons that trapped in the zone when the surface area was decreased?
All of condensed matter, are the primordial infinitesimal black holes. A proton is a minimal singularity. It is a perforation. Space flows out this hole. This flow creates the proton charge. And the surrounding compensatory flow is the electron cloud/ field.
About that primordial soup, is there a gluon-free version? I stopped following trends when Planking was a thing, but according to Ed, this goes back just as far. ;)
When he was talking about high energy photons I just thought "Imagine what we're all missing out on because we cannot measure them yet, or even in principle."
I love how on point Brady is with his questions. They really contribute to how interesting the video is.
Life savers
is this guy always so calm? its very relaxing to listen to his voice xD
i have to rewatch it to pay more attention to the content... xD lol
He's usually like this, but if you want to see him in an excited state, watch the series of videos about his visit to the LHC. He was practically weeping with joy.
xD it makes sense then ;)
;)
his voice creeps me out - because I consider it inappropriate: as if he would be hitting on me
ah finally a new Ed Copeland video, time just flew by watching this, my favorite professor of this channel.👍, we need more and longer videos like this
YES. It's the ones I learn a alot but leave dumber, with more questions
Ed has been my favorite for a long time now.. Especially in this longer format, It is a shame they are so few and far between
Agreed! Especially love moments like 13:36
Couldn't agree more, he is my absolute favorite aswell, damn even my four year old daughter likes him. He just seems to be such a nice person and I love how he is full of passion and actually enjoys what he is doing.
daveangels iDiskjki
I'm a theoretical physicist working on this exact problem, and this is really an excellent video explaining so much of the current state of research here. Great job to all involved!
any progress in the 2 years since your comment?
I am also interested
Keep us updated
If you’re still alive that is
Could dark matter be mini black holes?
What impresses me is how Brady can understand the context of all these topics well enough to be able to ask further questions in the videos, especially when he doesn't have a Maths, Physics or Engineering degree.
He probably reads up on some of this stuff in his free time, since he obviously enjoys learning these topics.
Even if he doesnt have a degree in stem im pretty sure he graduated high school im pretty sure any high school student would know about quantum gravity or hawking radiation or schwarzchild radius maybe some would even write papers about it or come up with equations
In my high school, we never learned about those subjects in science, actually.
fairly rudimentary questions...
I am a simple man. I see Prof. Copeland in the thumbnail, I press like.
He is a simple man. He simplified.
Mee too :) Sometimes they say something in the first few seconds, and I HAVE TO exit from full screen to give a propper like :D
Props to this channel for still making top-notch educational videos. So many "smart" youtubers have gone the way of clickbait
i love the art style of these videos!
+Jonah it was by Pete McPartlan
6:18 worst jumpscare by sixty symbols to date.
This isn't numberphile :p
true, thanks
The clap? Are you serious?
True
It's so soothing to listen to his voice then *CLAP*
Favorite professor! Props to Brady for the critical questions
Dr. Copeland's expression when you asked about black hole accretion and its impact on evaporation was equally one of surprise and the pride of a teacher whose pupil was finally understanding enough to think about the problem and meet him rather than just receive lecture.
He is one of the best in the sense that he is clear in what we know , what we don’t know and what we may not know.
I let out an audible "Yes!" when I saw a Sixty Symbols upload with Prof. Copeland's face on it.
did you? That's wonderful. and now we all know that. We don't know you or where you are in the world or anything at all about you but we *do* know you, a person on the planet's surface somewhere, let out an audible "yes!"
cringe..
I love this. Not only are these videos interesting, I get a nostalgic feeling to when I watched these videos in the pivoting year 2009 in terms of my interest in physics and mathematics. Sixty symbols was not the initial spark that got me interested in physics and mathematics, but it most certainly made a breeding ground for my interest. I want to say a big thank you to Brady and the physicists at Nottingham University. You're part of why I just got accepted to do a masters degree in theoretical physics!
1:03 I always wondered, when there is something written on whiteboards behind the interviewed person, was it there before or did you write some random matrices just to fill it a bit?
Ivan Mazepa there is determinants too
Maybe it's from class
Ivan Mazepa That's linear algebra on the board behind him. Linear algebra is often used in quantum mechanics, though it is used in many other areas of physics too. I don't know enough to be sure why it's written there. But if he wanted to write sonething on the board to look impressive (which would be highly unlikely) that wouldn't be it.
I think it's from a linear algebra class. But I doubt it has anything to do with the topic of the video.
Those looks like tensors to me, and they are used for all sort of things in physics.
Brady and the whole team is doing a great job at bringing us this spectacularly brilliant content.
i really like your talks with Ed, super interesting! And the art style and color grading of this clip is really nice as well :)
Ed is my favorite professor in the series! It he is so patient with everything. Although I have to admit my favorite videos are when he gets his feathers ruffled. He doesn't even get upset he just gets slightly frustrated and stands his ground. Either way it's always a joy watching his videos.
Screw Krauss, Tyson, Guth and the rest. I've watched almost ALL the physics videos I can find on TH-cam and you my friend explain at the best level of detail with the most concise explanations I've seen yet. I haven't heard anything really new and interesting in a while and checking back to Sixty Symbols has definitely left me fulfilled. Keep at it mate.
I'm a physics student, and every time a new video is released on this channel, my mind is blown! THANKS!!
Prof Copeland could tell the world was ending and I'd approach it with a 'can do' attitude. You can't help but like the man.
you could make a series of all states of matter (from solid, to plasma, bose einstein condensate, etc..)
Artur Mizuno that would be interesting. At school we just get "there are three states of matter" and then later on "we lied there's more, moving on". And then we don't get any more about them
I did a double take at the "10^-5 grams is Planck Mass" thing. All the other Planck units I know are so much smaller that I had to look up if that was right - it just seemed weird that Planck Mass is 10 micrograms while Planck Length is something like 1.6x10^-35 meters.
But it was right! I guess Planck mass is the only Planck unit that people can actually visualize the scale off - google says it's the mass of a flea egg or whereabouts.
yes, it is also the mass of an object that has planck size (very small) and planck temperature (very big), so it's not that surprising the unit is somewhere in between.
I was surprised too!
We need more Ed! I Love these videos, the way he simplifies these complex ideas so anyone could understand is fantastic. Could listen to him for hours! Great back and forth as expected from Sixty Symbols.
So exciting to see there's a new Sixty Symbol video :D
Great subject and animation. Loved this video. Best thing I've seen today on TH-cam. 😊
I absolutely LOVED the Campbell's soup visual! Very clever, and great design style! (Everything else was great as well, of course, as usual ;) )
I love this channel. Professor Copeland's and professor Merrifield's talks are amazing
Great that Ed had time to do this video, always interesting on subjects that are thought provoking and not necessarily easy to grasp.
Pure joy. Excellent video, challenging material made digestible.
I've watched this for two seconds now and I'm convinced that I'm going to enjoy this video because of professor Copeland and black holes.
ed Copeland is so calm yet excited it is beautiful
I don't understand these videos I just like being lost by how intelligent these people are.
I was looking forward to a new video with Prof. Copeland! And such an interesting topic. I always found black holes so fascinating. The animations are also great ^^ Thank you all for what you do, keep doing it please :)
I just wanted to say that it is a great channel. Keep up the good work and keep these interesting videos coming ;)
More Dr Copeland videos!!
Animation is stunning!
I will never tire of learning about Black Holes.
Great video, love the content, and how Ed explains things. Also, Brady killing it with the questions xD
I like physics, don't get me wrong... but I cannot focus on the content with such a calm and soothing voice in the background. This is Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman all over again.
I love those videos, do it more often please
I didn't understand anything, but this man seemed enthusiastic and confident enough, so I believe what he's saying is true.
8/8 would watch again.
Can two neutron stars collided and combine? What kind of forces are in play? Do they impact like solid objects or meld like two drops of water?
THIS IS THE UPLOAD I'VE BEEN WAITING FOR!!11one
I love a wandering deep-dive conversation like this. It reveals just how complicated the subject is, and how many unanswered questions we still have. Thank you!
I love love looove listening to Ed Copeland talk about this stuff
I love Ed Copeland.
I hadn't watched in a little bit, this art style is new to me. I like it quite a bit too.
How do you intepret these cosmological and astrophysical statements given we can only see a small portion of the universe and how do we use these models if they are only suppositions?
Expansion can thin out space but so can black holes. The heat death or the big freeze and the big crunch have something in common, a symmetry.
So many videos on youtube make you *feel* like you learned something, but an hour later you remember nothing about the subject. What I like about this channel in general and Ed's videos in particular is that they are the *opposite* of this.
I feel like I have no idea about this subject...but I could explain to somebody else probably a lot more than they knew before.
This subject needs a follow up. Fascinating!!!
this one was one of the most interesting explanation of how theoretical physics work. we model this, then we should see this, but if we see that than the model should answer that.
Love the art on this one.
+Christopher Macrander thanks to Pete, who did it!!!
The editing is great!
Could a black hole be split to form 2 or more black holes.
13:30 If the temperature of the Hawking Radiation for a given black hole is less than the MBR then wouldn't that mean there is more energy falling into the black hole that radiation out? In that case would the black hole not be getting bigger, rather than smaller?
yes that is the case. In fact it is the case for all black holes we know of. It will take perhaps trillions of years if not more for BHs to actually start evaporating.
so, question, the univers is expanding,and the univers is space, and space and time is part of the same thing, does time also expand?
OK so trick question (I don't know the answer):
If the universe exploded as a single point in space that contained everything the universe currently has in it, why was *that* not a black hole? Surely that much energy/mass in that small a space would be enough to create a black hole. Why didn't the universe just explode into an instant black hole?
There was no space outside that point. So it wasn’t a black hole
best channel ever.keep it going brady!
If you had some primordial monster black holes that rotated around each other, enough for them to cause significant local gravity waves, (even if it had to a group of pairs!) what affect would that have had on the forming galaxies, I was wondering if you would get either a void or the equivalent of the great attractor. Just what would you get from such constant waves over such a long period?
Gravity waves are quite weak, the holes themselves would cause a bigger disturbance, especially in a pre-stellar universe. There wouldn't be too much of an effect since gravity waves don't 'push' matter and energy places, merely changing its density temporarily. This might be enough to seed a few stars and through them eventually galaxies, but it almost definitely wouldn't throw off the symmetry of the universe.
But two massive holes at that early an epoch, that itself would be a massive imbalance that could seed whole clusters of galaxies.
Are there intermediate black holes that are somewhat in equilibrium of growing n shrinking perpetually?
Look at all these animations! 👍👍
So what happens when one of these mountain-mass blackholes wanders into a burning star?
I imagine it would accrete mass at a fantastic rate as it falls/burrows through the star's outer layers and then settle at the core where it would rapidly devour the star from within. What would the emissions from that look like? And if the star was spinning then the angular momentum would have to be preserved as the mass becomes concentrated into the schwarzschild radius. It'd be one hellofa fast spinning top. And of course the jets of radiation and particles shooting out as this singularity consumes the doomed star would interact with the not-yet-adsorbed stellar material to create an upwelling of plasma at the polls. I wonder if it would have enough energy to escape the star's gravity or if it would fall back down like a fountain.
Sounds like it'd be a fun supercomputer simulation.
This was really fascinating.
Nice video. I just read a paper about Planet 9 and the possibilty of Planet 9 being a Primordial Black Hole. Such a interesting theory.
More Ed Copeland please - he's my favourite!
15:45 There is a typo in the first sentence of the abstract of Dr. Green's paper: "...stimulated interested in...".
I love this channel so much.
Great discussion. really enjoyed this one.
Underrated! 💯 this was brilliant! 💯
When you have the quark soup, why do you need any fluctuations at all to get formation of primordial black holes? The quarks are interacting probabilistically, so it wouldn't make any sense to consider everything homogenous and likely to remain static unless there are fluctuations.... or are those probabilistic interactions what those 'fluctuations' are? Seems strange to consider those fluctuations as everything always works that way.
0:35 nostopwaithangonaminute.......the Planck mass is unimaginably huge compared to the Planck time and length. is there a Planck energy too because if so it must be even bigger.......wtf I need a video explaining why asap
there is energy and you can work it out easily via E=mc2. The reason why planck mass is so "ordinary size" it's because some planck units are ridiculously large, while some are ridiculously small - the mass is the product of the large one and the small one. Specifically, it is the mass of particle that has planck length (very small) and planck temperature (very big).
15:50 Why has no peer reviewer pointed out the typo in the abstract? _(»... has stimulated interested in ...«)_
Thank you for this video !
How do you go about dating a black hole? Do you indirectly infer its age by dating the stars surrounding it? Do you measure the light being emitted from the black hole? How accurate is that?
2:44 That Campbell's quark soup pun...absolutely brilliant! lol
Im confused... How can a black-hole decay? I understand the whole process but the destruction of a singularity I don't understand... 1. Is the mass of the black hole quantized to allow for clean evaporation? 2. Will mass inside the event horizon on a prolonged trajectory observe this decay, if it can't then would the decay of the event horizon be relative? 3. If it is relative, as the decreasing scale factor in between the universe and the inside of the event horizon approaches zero, does the singularity displace to have no quantifiable position in space relative to the universe besides for being apart from the universe itself. 4. If the black hole's position is now a zero dimensional coordinate, does that technically mean it has merged with the singularity that is our universe should it be considered in this manner?
Nice to see Ed Copeland ... another great video! Thank you. Damn quantum gravity
I always find black holes and the early universe super scary. I jumped out of my skin at 6:19! I did not expect a jump scare from you Brady...
Beautiful animations Brady
Brady didnt do the animations
I understand that black holes radiate thermally because matter-antimatter particle pairs can form in the vicinity of the event horizon, and the antimatter one falls in while the matter one radiates outward. What I've never understood is why the antimatter one is favored to fall in, and why isn't it just random which one falls in, so that we'd get some radiation and some absorption that just get in equilibrium so that the mass of the black hole neither grows nor lessens. Instead of evaporating why wouldn't the black hole simply stay roughly the same size? Is there some reason the matter particle of the pair preferentially radiates away while the antimatter particle preferentially falls in? Otherwise Hawking radiation wouldn't end up with black holes evaporating, would it? Thanks so much for clearing this up for me. I've been wondering this since the 1970s when I first read the SciAm articles about it.
Black holes like S5 0014+81 have to be Primordial black holes. A black hole feeding from the beginning of time. That is the best explanation to make sense of its sheer size.
I love professor Copeland's lectures
I wish this came out sooner. I had to write a paper for my cosmology class and part of it was Primordial Black Holes. This would have helped get the ideas flowing -_-
Question: Is the inverse relationship between size and evaporation rate just geometric - volume > surface area? Or is something more complicated... or >>> more complicated?
It relates to several factors. The first is the gravitational gradient, over a fixed distance (Say a centimeter.) a smaller hole's gravity will increase more times than a larger hole's. The gradient fuels Hawking radiation so a sharper one produces more and higher energy emission.
Secondly volume-surface area plays a part. For Hawking radiation to work a particle must 'miss' the black hole which is easier to do for small things (That will only take up a point in your sky) as opposed to larger things (Which can take up half your sky and indeed, due to gravity ALL of the sky.)
I'd like to hear more about so-called "relic black holes", in which a stable black-hole-like remnant is left over. How many of these are there? How common are they? What is their cross section? How could they interact with matter? And so on.
can you explain why evaporation can happen when black holes suck up background radiation? surely only if the quantum evaporations are bigger than the background radiation sucked in by a black hole will it ever lose mass?
I have a question: Would a "particle" with Int. (0,t) psi^2 dt
if an object is so dense not even light can escape it, how is it they decay or evaporate like the Professor mentioned? where will it decay too? if the gravitational strength is that strong
i love these high information videos
Beautiful video. The quark soup illustration is as hilarious as it is intuitive. :)
How does scientist distinguish between primordial black hole and ones which becomme after super novae?
Great questions Brady
Amazing video! Cheers!
Great video! thank you
12:25 science explained in 15 seconds!
Aren't they kugelblitz black holes? and what was the radius for the whole universe? because i'm confused on the expansion of the initial singularity
No, kugelblitzes form from light only, these holes could have formed from many things.
The radius of the observable (Not entire!) universe at these times was smaller than about 1'00 times the radius of our solar system (At the second epoch.) down to the size of a grapefruit or even smaller. The smaller the universe the smaller and lighter the holes that form in it.
It always has a zone of gravity that matches
the speed of light, right?
so what happen with photons that trapped in the zone when the
surface area was decreased?
All of condensed matter, are the primordial infinitesimal black holes.
A proton is a minimal singularity.
It is a perforation.
Space flows out this hole.
This flow creates the proton charge. And the surrounding compensatory flow is the electron cloud/ field.
About that primordial soup, is there a gluon-free version? I stopped following trends when Planking was a thing, but according to Ed, this goes back just as far. ;)
When he was talking about high energy photons I just thought "Imagine what we're all missing out on because we cannot measure them yet, or even in principle."