Has Stephen Hawking Solved a Black Hole Paradox?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 มิ.ย. 2024
- Stephen Hawking recently announced that he’d come up with an answer to one of the biggest questions in physics. But it’ll probably be a while before we know exactly what it is.
Hosted by: Hank Green
----------
Dooblydoo thanks go to the following Patreon supporters -- we couldn't make SciShow without them! Shout out to Justin Ove, John Szymakowski, Fatima Iqbal, Justin Lentz, David Campos, and Chris Peters.
----------
Like SciShow? Want to help support us, and also get things to put on your walls, cover your torso and hold your liquids? Check out our awesome products over at DFTBA Records: dftba.com/SciShow
Or help support us by becoming our patron on Patreon:
/ scishow
----------
Looking for SciShow elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook: / scishow
Twitter: / scishow
Tumblr: / scishow
Instagram: / thescishow
Sources:
www.extremetech.com/extreme/21...
www.csmonitor.com/Science/2015...
www.sciencenews.org/article/h...
qz.com/487418/stephen-hawking-...
www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/s...
www.washingtonpost.com/news/sp...
www.huffingtonpost.com/christo...
www.latimes.com/science/scienc...
www.scientificamerican.com/art...
Winning a science related bet with Stephen Hawking must feel like an honor
+Timothy Yasi Even if the reward is a baseball encyclopedia.
+Ebot75 Baseball encyclopedias are freakin amazing!
He's also humble enough to accept defeat even though there was no clear winner, and I love that.
+Juliane Nguy (Lastsolace) that serves no real purpose then. the epitome of a scientist is to find the truth and when he conceded without finding it he went against the ethos of all scientists.
+DigitalYojimbo I don't know, you can put together a lot of math and logic and come up with a hypothesis, but if you can't really experimentally prove it, is it really science anyways?
As far as I see it: Hawking's untested hypothesis lost to Hooft untested hypothesis. For all we know they are both really wrong.
A photon walks into a hotel and asks for a room. The concierge asks if he has any luggage. "No, I'm travelling light." Badaboom-tish :D
"slow clap"
*more slow claps*
some more slow claps 😃
some more slow claps 😃
Thank you, thank you....I'm here all week! (That joke is actually one of Prof Hawkings'....)
The problem with describing theoretical physics to laypeople is that all the mathematical foundation is left out because it's beyond most people, and explanations end up sounding like philosophy. Unfortunately, some misguided people then think they've understood it from hearing simplified accounts. This turns physics into a crackpot magnet. While it's not a problem unique to physics, the field seems to suffer the most from this issue because of the vast divide between popular conception of physics and how people actually work in physics.
+Blinky Lass Whenever i search for quantum mechanics lectures on youtube i always get videos with some guy rambling about how the 11 different dimensions are >.< Got to admire the work they put into it though! I don't think they're trying to lure money out of you so maybe it's just some form of narcissism driving them.
There was one series of six(!?) or so episodes, all one hour each. The first four were sort of true'ish but then in the last two the argumentation went out the window!
+Ang badang Not to put words in the mouth of the person you're addressing, but they never said that helping laypeople understand the frontiers of theoretical physics is a bad thing. What I believe was meant is that there are two huge *difficulties* in doing it.
The first is that it's not only very challenging material, but challenging in a way that specifically requires a great deal of mathematical training. Just to take a less theoretical example, when you major in Physics, you usually take an E&M course in your first year, using a text like Halliday or Freeman. Then in your Junior or Senior year, you take another E&M course from the ground up using a text like Griffiths, and in it you quickly realize you really didn't understand E&M at all after your first course. Then in your first year of grad school you'll take a course on electrodynamics using a text like Jackson, and you'll realize you really didn't understand E&M after reading Griffith's text. Then eventually you'll still need to take a course on quantum electrodynamics which ties it all together as a quantum field theory. You get this same progression for other subjects like classical mechanics, quantum mechanics, etc.. My point is that even among people who are dedicating their life to the study of these topics, there is a steady progression of realizing how necessary the deep mathematics are to the true understanding of them. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to phrase them in non-mathematical terms when communicating to laymen of course. But we have the right to acknowledge how difficult it is, and the laymen have the right to know that we're not just philosophizing, we're building structured theories with mathematical proofs.
The other huge difficulty is that both amateur and sometimes even professional philosophers like to think they're *creating* theories in Physics, citing modern results from fields like quantum mechanics. But without the math, they just aren't. Sometimes it's harmless, and there is some degree of value in speculating on certain topics, like whether the Copenhagen or many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct (and that example is at a level that the layman who researches enough will be able to personally speculate). But on the opposite end of the spectrum you have douchelords like Deepak Chopra who are literally just spouting buzzwords from quantum mechanics and claiming medical properties.
I'm 100% in favor of the scientific education of the public, and many of the people I respect the most are the physicists trying to bring difficult ideas to the layman audience (Tyson, Cox, Greene, Randall, Susskind, Hawking, etc.). But I don't think it's disrespectful to acknowledge how difficult that job is. :)
+Ang badang
Where did you get any of that? I implied none of the things you attributed to my comment. I am not an elitist and I don't oppose science popularization. I'm just pointing out a pitfall in overabstracting difficult problems and de-stressing the details. None of what you said about intelligence is relevant to my original comment.
There's nothing wrong with learning science at a hobbyist level. Not everyone wants to be a theoretical physicist. That's not insulting anyone's intelligence. Some people do want to become theoretical physicists, and they might get started by following pop science channels like SciShow. That's totally great. Problems arise when certain people consume pop science media and then consider themselves thus fully informed. They're _everywhere_ on Internet forums and TH-cam: crackpots and misinformed people spreading false beliefs using very general philosophical language and citing only simplified accounts from pop science media.
Just the other day, a flat-earther on TH-cam used a Veritasium video to support his crazy belief that footage from the ISS is faked using magical levitation technology on the ground. In that case, it's obvious hokum, but sometimes it's more subtle than that. If they talk the talk, how can anyone tell if it's nonsense?
Science popularizers can help. One way to do this is to occasionally show the hard work involved, e.g. by going through a little of the math or research papers. That way, if you find someone just talking the talk but otherwise clueless in any of the details, you can tell that person's perhaps not as well-informed as they want you to think.
+Blinky Lass The comment section of physics videos are often the perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action.
+Pounce Baratheon Very well put. That is exactly the point I was trying to express with the original comment.
"Has Stephen Hawking Solved a Black Hole Paradox" is a weird title for this.
A more accurate title would be:
"Does Hawking finally accept he's wrong about black holes destroying information and now agree with Susskind's holographic principle"
This is not hawking's idea (as you mentioned later in the video)
+Stephen Kamenar
The news is that Stephan Hawking is formally submitting a written solution to the problem, not that he changed his mind. If the holographic principal was sufficient to solve the paradox, there would be no story, no bet.
Also, is it Susskind's theory or did it come from Juan Maldecena? I know Susskind was one of the first to argue that information is not lost, but I thought Maldecena came up with the theory of 3 dimensional information being stored in a 2 dimensional surface.
Just curious...
+Stephen Kamenar thx. i like hawkins but the image of him the media is pushing realy is a joke. he is popular but not the untouchable genius they stylize him to be.
+Stephen Kamenar BlackHoles are not holes,.. they are dormant Quasars,... A BLACK HOLE
DOESN"T SWALLOW ANYTHING!!! if it did it would be active,... meaning it
would be a quasar,.. not a black hole... Hawkings is a fucking puppet...
nothing more
The Vault Quasars contain super-massive black holes, but black holes can form from stars at the end of their life and don't require a quasar. Two different scales; quasars are galactic cores, black holes are gravity wells anywhere from a dozen solar masses to millions. I'm not sure what you're saying.
We don't know what happens to matter that is gravitationally drawn past the event horizon of a black hole. "Swallow" might not be the right word, but it is not coming back out the way it went in at any rate.
The information that enters my brain, the night before exam also vanishes as the exam begins... Its forever lost 😂😂😂😂😂
I hated that feeling! XO
I was so excited when I heard about this!
Thanks for the video.
Thank YOU for your videos ❤
Cool. Thanks for clearing that up!
how to connects internet history to black hole?
How to correct grammars'?
+josh weber How do child born?
+abc140290 how is stupidity infinite?
+Evan Scott how do babby made?
+abc140290 If Microsoft does it I will crash the Universe with a Massive BSOD
3:40
baseball encyclopedia?
there's some really REALLY inside joke here isnt there.
cool stuff,cant wait to see what they come up with,thanks guys keep up the great work.
Tremendous video. I'm gonna become a patron!
Thanks for mentioning Gerhardt and Leonard. Without their tenacity Hawking would have kept the physics community from considering this more advanced and accurate model.
301 clu- ;-; oh thats right..... club died.....
NO! IT STILL LIVES! HAIL THE 301 CLUB!
NO! IT STILL DIES! HAIL THE ANTI-301 CLUB!
+Red Pawn The first rule of 301 Club is: you do not talk about 301 Club.
+Red Pawn It's been swallowed by the black hole!
+Red Pawn well, if we get very technical here then everyone who watch this after the first 301 is among the 301+ and if you are among the first 301 then you are... among them?
This is awesome news and briefly informative, as we learn more about the black hole etc.
Thank you for making a video on this! Unil now, o was uncertain if I had understood what Hawking was saying properly and I have now confirmed that I did, in fact, get the gist of it.
JUST FOUND THIS CHANNEL! Why have I been living under a rock? I must watch every video!!!
1. Can anyone explain to me why information has to be stored in a way that a historical timeline can account for it? Can it not just be outside of the "before-during-after" sequence of "something entering a black hole"?
2. If information can't disappear completely, then couldn't it just be displaced? Why does it need to be stored anywhere near the black hole? If a 1 or a 0 disappears at a black hole, then perhaps a 1 or 0 pops up somewhere else to replace it?
3. Is it possible that something can't actually be entering a black hole, because it is already there? Maybe there is a fundamental problem with the angle in which black hole problems are being addressed, and the math will work once they stop asking the wrong questions.
Just questions.
Your questions kinda bother me.
Spencer Geller
fantastic
about 1 and 2:
without knowing the actual definition of information in this particular context, and without knowing the math behind the scenes (I actually don't know them either), it's probably very hard to explain correctly. we don't even know what information is yet.
about 3, the reason day-to-day material won't coexist in the same space is because the electrical forces push them apart. other than that, particles have 0 volume, so I don't think there's any problem. (but don't believe me, I'm not an actual physics student)
+Khechari I like you
+Khechari Check out Blinky Lass's comment -nobody here can explain it to you, but trust in the physicists. Your questions sound a lot like philosophy to me, and I'm sure they have already explored these ideas if they were possible. I know nothing and I really am not trying to be mean so please don't take this the wrong way :)
I read the black hole war in 7th grade and it is still my favorite book on physics today. Incredibly well written, funny, interesting and everything is well explained. A great read about awesome people.
Hank, your white and gold shirt is really flattering.
So basically he didn't solve anything, he just changed his mind and used another persons' principle lol
+Bill Smith That's science. You ponder ''What if I am wrong?'' then you use the knoweldge you already know (thus a principle someone discovered) to try and check that.
+willl676 why is he getting the title for it? It's susskind who solved this and Hawkins gets the credit for accepting it? Seriously
+Bill Smith I think that it is more that he was the first to apply those principles to a black hole. The people who had originally figured out the idea probably never even considered this could work for black holes. Most scientific discoveries are just taking previous discoveries and either taking them a step further or combining them with other principles to explain more about the universe.
Well, if the principle given by Susskind would have been sufficient enough, we wouldnt have that problem, would we ?
Yay Leonard Susskind!
I'de love to learn about how gravity effects the way light (or EMR) moves. I thought it didn't affect it at all and if it didn't how could the gravity of a black hole stop the light from escaping? Thanks
This whole story about supertranslations is quite interesting, might be worth reading up on it. Nobody has tried to explain what they are though.
There's also an active theoretical physicist / science blogger who once did 'complain', in a well-natured manner, that whenever Hawking, 't Hooft, Lusskind, Weinberg, Wilczek and other 'senior' figures in physics make a statement the entire world knows about it; but when a younger person does so it receives next to know attention even if it is of equal scientific merit.
Sees on social media " Steven Hawking.......black hole......theory..." a dozen times.
Meh, I'll just wait till scishow covers it.
What do you mean it was a mystery? I thought it was common knowledge that when you enter the black hole you end up in a little girl's 5D bedroom... HELLO!?
That first line is great.
You guys are the reason I lose sleep at night... So much information, so little ti.... oh the suns up now...
Except that all is highly theoretical. We never observed Hawking Radiation, and we probably will not observe holographic black holes in the next 1000 years. Don't get me wrong, Stephen Hawking is a great scientist and probably he is on the right track, but the time to declare something as "solved" is when we can experimentally test it. So, it's really lots of hype around Hawking.
+Holz Name Wait. We didn't find Hawking radiation? I thought for sure that we had found it.
+Noah Williams Well no, not really. Computer simulations have modeled hawking radiation, but that's kind of cheating. Also an experiment was done a few years ago with a sonic blackhole in a lab where lasers where aimed at the analog event horizon. Light was detected escaping from this. That supposedly represents hawking radiation, but not everyone was convinced by this, and it wasn't hawking radiation itself, just ordinary light.
Hawking radiation is theorized to be energetically pretty weak. Even with the most sophisticated telescopes and detectors you'd probably never be able to find it amongst all the other much stronger radiation.
+Flintstoned
I can create flying pink elephants in a computer simulation, does that mean they exist?
Why would the information be lost though? I was under the impression that a black "hole" was just a massive enough ball of matter to be able to suck anything, including light, into it with no hope of escape. So would all the matter and information still be there, just in the ball? Sure we can't access it, but the information is still there.
It would be great if an expert happened to come across this and set things straight.
+Lord Vivec But, as was stated in the video, black holes eventually turn into nothing. As they release Hawking radiation, unless they have nearby matter continuing to feed it, they keep getting smaller and smaller until they break down completely and disappear. And the matter they sucked in is not left behind.
+Lord Vivec I would reccomend reading some of Hawking's books on the subject. A black hole's shape is determined only by it's mass and rate of spin, the input matter has no other effect.
Luna
That's what the video was trying to address. The energy intensity and release of Hawking radiation seems to have no relation to the matter put into the black hole. So, even if matter could be converted into it, what's coming out doesn't match up.
+Silverizael I mean if you think about it if you place antimatter into a black hole wouldn't some of the matter inside disappear?
rong tian
Presumably? It depends on if the stuff that goes into a black hole is put into the same space. Also, antimatter-matter annihilation produces a huge amount of energy. So that seems to make our matter/energy and Hawking radiation conundrum even worse.
SciShow is a very good channel I have to say. They actually do their research
Please, make a SciShow about Betteridge's law of headlines :)
So he figured it out, maybe, by morphing other theories.... People should just work together.
We stand on the shoulders of giants brother
+F.B. Jefferson Physicists work together by disagreeing with each other. Works quite well actually.
mouseinmyhelmet The system is good, but think about the grandeur that would come when one theory gets two great minds instead of two theories opposed, or close.
In my opinion, a lot less time would be wasted.
EDIT: Not that it is ever wasted.
F.B. Jefferson It just doesn't work like that. They disagree. That means that each one has a reason to think the other is wrong. You are proposing that they just ignore the flaws they see in the theory? You can't force people to work together if they disagree fundamentally about a starting point. That is the opposite of productive. In politics what you are saying works. Physics is not politics.
Yeah, you're right, it's all about survival of the fittest.
Did you now that you can fit 63 earths in uranus
No the planet
Ahaha banter is unreal
+Никола Тодоров real*
+cashisafag But what if you try 65? Could Uranus tear? And if it did, would it leak gas?
for the worlds sake lets not try that
you dont want any accidents hapening
ahaha
Plz could you upload with any video brief description
This video was like a commercial for an upcomming scientific study
't Hoofd is pronounced somthing like Towft
+Frahamen (credit: Wammes Waggel! ROTFL!)
Martijn Coppoolse
Sorry, maar ik ben niet echt vertrouwd met het werk van Marten Toonder ;)
+Frahamen toast, but said like a phtefen
I've met Prof. Gerard 't Hooft last year (not a humblebrag... just a brag :P)!! :D
A very interesting guy
[never met Hawking though.... even though I was in Cambridge. For 5 years. Doing (astro)physics..... :P]
No information is destroyed because the information is frozen. There is no time past the event horizon so whatever is on the event horizon stays there.
+Glen Bentley Wow, the first person I see aying the same thing as I do! Woohoo! See above for my comment regarding this thought. It is the answer to +Calaban619.
lol, nice I like that comment
+Glen Bentley No. Thats... The question then is, where does the radiation come from? The main problem is that, it emits back information, just some information, not the information that entered it. And that was a problem.
Black Holes are not even proven fact just remember that
Ben Pledger LOL. The funniest thing Ive heard so far
I ended up reading The Black Hole War as mentioned. Great book!
Must say, I'm loving that white and gold shirt you're wearing, Hank!
Instructions Clear Enough. Successfully crossed the even horizon. Writing this comment through gravitational paradox. Thank you.
BTW check my channel from 5th dimension, the internet is slow here, but I do my best
+Clear Instructions You did it! You found a way to modulate Hawking radiation!
+Clear Instructions There is no paradox. Just because we don't have access to the information, doesn't mean the information is lost or destroyed or whatever. It just means we currently don't know how to retrieve it. When you come across a paradox, its always your logic failing not nature.
+Monochromicornicopia Very well said :-)
We describe the Big Bang as a sudden appearance of everything known to us. In 1 plank instant. Now what if when a black hole is created and starts absorbing light and everything around it, it makes a new universe... It makes a lot of sense if you understand it. The event horizon is a point of no return because everything that is going into the black hole is being compresses into 1 spot smaller than an atom, and when the black hole dies then that's when the Big Bang happens in the new universe. All of the material that was sucked into the black hole is now released into a new universe. It explains a lot of how the universe was made, and it also makes sense unlike some other theories
makes actually sense.. i thought off the same thing
There is where White holes Come in. IF u dont know what White holes are. Then search it up. I think that big bang might have been a White holes.
CSGO Redline Thats what I said
+Ignacio Alvarez yep kind of
White holes have nothing to do with it. White holes are black holes that expel matter and are actually theoretically moving backwards in time. Just because their is an explosion doesn't mean it has to do with a white hole.
But, this theory that you present is actually an established theory in physics called the big crunch and is something that we think might be the cause of the big bang (meaning there might have been universes before us!)
Is there a follow-up to this? Did Hawking and his team ever publish that paper? (And is there a nicely put-together video like this one that explains it because I don't actually have the time or attention span to read a scientific paper on theoretical physics?)
Really like the white and gold shirt you're wearing in this Hank :]
if our brains constantly absorb massive amounts of information, and can continue to do so on an infinite scale, (until we die) does that mean we are technically black holes ourselves? maybe understanding how we store info ourselves could be the gateway to how black holes absorb information as well...
it's quantum information, it's not what you're talking about
how is what we observe not quantum information? everything around us contains it, and we have the ability to infinitely observe that information and translate it into what we see, hear, taste, etc.. how is it any different than the information being pulled into the black hole, and what is left behind to be observed in the event horizon? or do i sound like a crazy person? i seriously dont know, and it would really help if you can elaborate the differences
kiddcampbell memories are stored on neural networks, not at the quantum level of every atom, and by quantum info, they talk about the spin of the atom, it's energy level, and that information can't be destroyed it is physically impossible, just like going faster than the speed of light, i can elaborate even further if you want, i'm in my fourth year of med school so i think i know what i'm talking about
+Ian Darabos that definitely cleared it up! thanks for the info!
I'm afraid you've fallen to the black hole known as philosophy. You are now lost forever.
But then, it's thoses two guys who solved the problem ?
+SpyMonkey3D I think it's more like Susskind and 't Hooft first formulated the idea, and now Hawking managed to make it fit.
Zarathustra Venda Well, the one on the news right now is Hawking, because that's the breakthrough that's happening right now. I hope that, if this calls for a major award like a Nobel Prize, all 3 of them get it, of course.
+Eric Vilas This is fascinating. It was Susskind who first openly and vehemently denied that information could be destroyed. At the very first he was one of the few who vocally disputed. I think Hawking has admitted that he was glad that he did. I also feel, (personal opinion here) that this is why Hawking has gladly accepted and done work on their theory. Well, that's partly it. If he finishes it, he will get a claim to a partial victory in their name. The truth of physics and science, become immortal through having your name go down in history. And, of course, that's fine for those people. The world is beautiful, and science makes it more so.
+SpyMonkey3D No, they laid the groundwork and Hakwing solved it with the help of their theory.
+SpyMonkey3D Susskinf and Hooft kind of repurposed the idea and did some mathematics to prove it.
I think I recognize Leonard from some amazing quantum mechanics lectures online.Seriously, if you have the time you have got to check out that guy, he is by far one of my favorite professors.
My favorite TH-camr talking about my favorite scientist 😍
"Love is the one thing we're capable of perceiving that transcends dimensions of time and space." Anne Hathaway, you silly.
Finally something talks about this emitting radiation. Yeah I know there must have been some sources of this information, but in every single documentation or scientific discussion I've seen so far nobody seems to notice this paradox
so the event horizon could be be theorized or the properties of one could be used to make a type of matter storage?
I thought the same thing about the media/Hawking problem. I read three or four different articles and every one reported different results. One article said that he "confirmed that the information goes to another universe."
Reminds me of the Banach-Tarsky paradox video on Vsauce. Storing 3 axes or information in just 2?
Have they published their findings yet?
There's a very interesting documentary with Suskind talking about this and how Hawking made and announcement in public without giving any details leaving everyone perplexed.
The basic information law of the formation and development of matter: information about energy interactions, quanta of "rosebuds", when the quantum strings are formed for transfusion of energy, are stored in these flat quantum membranes. Black holes, which are part of the quantum "rosebuds", captivate their movement in space, but in another part of the quantum "rosebuds", energy is merged from the black holes, where information is stored.
''Information must always be conserved throughout the Universe; It can't be created or destroyed''
This has some deep philosophical implications
what is information in context of cosmology and black hole? i could not understand from the video
A few years ago, I read Hawkings' book "George's Secret Key to the Universe", and it went into this theory a little bit. It's a book for kids (BTW I'm only 13), but it's really interesting
Yay! Quantum Mechanics has been mentioned!
... we're not mentioned as much.
Can someone please answer my question: How did we arrive from the original definition of "event horizon" (point-of-no-return for light) which describes no real surface but just the sphere beyond which we can't see anything + where space-time gets messy to turn it into a surface that can have further properties like structure and information "imprinted" on it?
Since the mass inside mass-holes falls (descends) only 'halfway'-to where its potential energy replaces the mass-energy of each particle-or-photon-etc. of said mass itself-its information is preserved in a radial column, and escapes when mass-holes merger....
My "theory" was always instead of thinking about it as a hole, it's a super massive / dense object and as matter enters the event horizion, the "hole" only got more dense and massive.
A lot of the comments are cut off half way by TH-cam (as is pretty usual). Does anyone know how to get around that and read the entire original? Thanks.
I that book! "The Black Hole War." I don't remember a whole lot about it.
Like the lines on a record, in a way.
Any follow up on this one?
Maybe Atoms and protons and neutrons are are somehow ripped apart in the middle of the black hole, because one side of the particle is affected by much more gravitational force, than the other, then the remains are turned into radiation and spitted out, maybe just all particles turn into the same amount of radiation. So the information is not really lost, because you must be able to somehow turn radiation back into any kind of particle
Any updates on this?
You proved the most famous living theoretical physicist wrong, here is a baseball encyclopedia as your reward.
I guess solving the puzzle of the universe isn't the only thing these people are awesome at.
In the voice of Don de la Fountain, "One particle, one way in, no way out!"
This could point to fundamental particles even smaller than we've found or can measure. I believe that the gravity of the black hole breaks things down into these particles and releases them as the radiation, making this radiation the information. BOOM paradox solved!
What if black holes and white holes are interconnected, Kind of like a hypercube is. information goes in, then a really really long time later it comes out as hawking rad, thats why we cant measure it because it takes a very very long time to resurface
thanks buddy
This information will not be lost by me.
I have Question for myself why do atoms or do atoms fuse when they get sucked into the blackhole becasue the blackhole has a strong gravitational pull right? so? atoms will fuse right?
Even if it is not destroyed, it is impossible to get that information back, and after the BH emits enough energy, the event horizont will vanish, and the information inprinted on it destroyed.
Flagging this video as needing (not just auto-generated) subtitles. Please help us hard of hearing and deaf folks access your content!! 🥰🤟🏻
One more thing, due to Hawking Radiation the holes lose mass eventually. It could be possible that the singularity might explode in a theoretical white hole, giving the universe back the original base matter it had when it formed.
I like that even the great scientists are also humble and can, tho I'am sure none desire to do this, admit when they might be wrong. :)
I have a question, what does a black hole look like, as something is in the center of it creating the black hole, you just can't see it as the light doesn't go from it to you, but if we figured it out, that would be an amazing feat of science
hey I have a question. I learned a lot from your videos, but one thing i can´t comprehend. Should I imagine a black hole as a 3 dimensional black sphere with immense gravity or is it a 2 dimensional hole in space? Sorry maybe it´s a stupid question, but I am really curious.
Ripped apart, super heated, compressed, changed, propelled.
2:55 Gèrard t Hoeft :D
hank is my favorite teacher :P
For what reason was the word "information" used instead of the traditional "matter" in this video?
Does "information not retrievable beyond the event horizon" include particles that aren't only matter?
What about the energy emitted from quasars?
Basically I think the matter that falls into a black hole gathers onto the singularity, thus making the holes radius bigger each time it feeds. Obviously, the matter is broken down to probably a quantum state, but it's still there beyond the horizon. Also, black holes are spherical and thus essentially still stars. Kind of like an ultimate end state for a massive star. I believe that Supermassive black holes that merge together due to galactic cannibalism increase proportionately to the added mass.
1:36 - Nobody breaks the laws of quantum mechanics on my watch!
So has he solved the paradox? Also, I would love to see more videos about black holes.
Has there been an update on this?
Update: Stephen Hawking is piggybacking theories, and is incorrect, as usual.
4:05 Or maybe, maybe like every physic discovery it will only lead to more questions than solved answers.
I thought I had a pretty good basic understanding of physics, but I've never heard of this conservation of information principle. In fact, it seems to contradict thermodynamics. If, in a closed system, order always decreases, how can information be conserved? Thanks in advance.
On a personal level I don't know if I can wholehearted conceptually agree with the idea that matter can neither be creator nor destroyed since I frequently think about the idea of a beginning to the universe, and if there is any "beginning" there must have been a point in which matter was created? Anyone else have thoughts on this?
+Everyday Science The matter wasn't created at the beginning of the universe. The matter *was* the beginning of the universe. Basically when the universe formed, it was in the form of energy. And since mass is just congealed energy, all the matter we see formed from energy. Also, there is no "believing" in the first law of thermodynamics. Its true whether you believe in it or not. The universe would be a very different place if mater could be created or destroyed. We could have infinite energy and perpetual motion machines by now.
+Garret Griffith yes I realize it does come across a little silly to hear it put that way as I don't feel as though I'm disputing thermodynamics, I just have trouble with the concept of the "beginning" of matter.
Everyday Science I understand, concepts like this are beyond everyday human comprehension. I cant help but wonder what else we will find out about the universe in the future.
From a viewpoint, outside of the event horizon, wouldn't everything that ever entered a black hole still be plastered on the event horizon, but smashed down into a two dimensional surface? That might not be what happens, from the viewpoint of falling through the event horizon, but from outside it, doesn't time come to a halt at the surface where gravity is strong enough to effectively bring the speed of light to zero? The speed of light is constant, so in order for it to be effectively at zero speed (observed from a lower gravity spot), time has to stop, where that light is. If light can't move, how can matter? It is all there, on the event horizon, or where the event horizon was, when it fell through. I can't even think about what time does, inside the event horizon.
Maybe a black hole isn't a singularity but a more compact form of matter than Nuetrons (or whatever makes up a Nuetron Star)? It would be 'lost' as in untouchable, but it would still exist.
Thank you for breaking this down for those of us who are uneducated in physics :p
I like to think that a Black Hole is a giant Record that plays my favorite jams.
I love Hank. Honestly.
Well maybe as the material falls in time is dilated to an extent where it isn't "crushed" yet and thus it makes the event horizon slightly "bumpy". As in little, almost undetectable, bumps from the mass not directly in the center on the event horizon which would theoretically change the way hawking radiation is admitted by a very very very very very very very very very very small amount but detectable. Just an idea...