Could Naked Singularities Exist?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ก.พ. 2025
- To support SciShow Space and learn more about Brilliant, go to brilliant.org/....
A naked singularity is something that should be a black hole, but it’s neither black nor a hole. If they exist, they’ll rewrite physics as we know it.
We want to learn more about you and your opinions! If you have time, please take a moment to fill out this survey: www.surveymonk...
Thank you!
Host: Reid Reimers
----------
Support SciShow by becoming a patron on Patreon: / scishow
----------
Dooblydoo thanks go to the following Patreon supporters:
Kelly Landrum Jones, Sam Lutfi, Kevin Knupp, Nicholas Smith, D.A. Noe, alexander wadsworth, سلط الخليفي, Piya Shedden, KatieMarie Magnone, Scott Satovsky Jr, Bella Nash, Charles Southerland, Bader AlGhamdi, James Harshaw, Patrick Merrithew, Patrick D. Ashmore, Candy, Tim Curwick, charles george, Saul, Mark Terrio-Cameron, Viraansh Bhanushali, Kevin Bealer, Philippe von Bergen, Chris Peters, Justin Lentz
----------
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
----------
Looking for SciShow elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook: / scishow
Twitter: / scishow
Tumblr: / scishow
Instagram: / thescishow
----------
Sources:
io9.gizmodo.co...
www.quantamaga...
www.theory.calt...
www.theory.calt...
www.sciencenew...
blogs.scientif...
www.nytimes.com...
www.newscienti...
journals.aps.o...
www.nytimes.com...
www.pas.rochest...
----------
Images:
commons.wikime...
www.nasa.gov/m...
www.nasa.gov/s...
apod.nasa.gov/...
apod.nasa.gov/...
www.nasa.gov/a...
www.nasa.gov/c...
![The Other Side of a Black Hole [4K]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ZVPsNDonA84/mqdefault.jpg)
![The Other Side of a Black Hole [4K]](/img/tr.png)
The first 200 to sign up at brilliant.org/scishowspace/ will get 20% off their annual subscription.
SciShow Space heyyyyyyyy... can you respond if you see this?
Yes!
I've done a black hole. I'm preparing for the event #metoo
I have a question . Please do answer.
According to Newtonian mechanics , for gravitational force to act on some particle .it should have mass and should have particle nature
And according to relativity if a particle gains velocity equal to speed of light ,it looses it's particle nature ,
Here if we consider particle mature of photon . We just can't use Newtonian mechanics
. Then how can we say that due to strong gravitational field , light cant escape through it ?
@Captain Dic negative the gamma ray burst would have to overpower the gravity of the black hole, and since gamma burst travel at relativistic speeds it would not have enough oomph to dislodge anything.
Of course they exist! I get ads for naked singularities near me all the time.
This needs more likes
Trust me, they are NOT real. It would be impossible to find real ones.
That sounds like something Fry from Futurama would say lmfao
That thing at the end of the black hole?!
@@damagedjefff6821 not impossible, but very, very unlikely.
I was under the impression most singularities were naked, as the intense forces at the event horizon would destroy any pants they tried to wear.
You have been granted the "Best comment award" prize.
Not just that prize, but the Nobel Comment Prize.
Cosmic wedgie as everything disappears into a black hole.
As soon as I saw the title I knew there would be comments like this
Thanks dad
What did the Black hole say to the singularity!?
-"Send Nudes"
What followed was astrophysics...
Ronnie Banerjee get out
reborn new I'm sorry, but someone had to do it...
Ronnie Banerjee haha
Is that a singularity in your pocket or do you have a micropenis?
@@afrog2666 I dont know what your talking about its massive
Hey, singularity, put some clothes on!
It's cold outside.
Singularity's won't listen to anyone, they're too dense.
Actually, since black holes have accretion disks, which are insanely hot, and naked singularities _don't_ have that layer of warmth, they are *_literally_* naked, and space itself *IS* very cold.
Some singularities have the "Nudist" trait, although technically you just have to leave them without trousers to avoid the mood debuff
rimworld right? :D
Illuminati: Don't you dare move...
I like my Singularities fully dressed, thank you!
I like My Hank Hill not retired and selling propane and propane accessories, Thank you!
So rated BH-13, not rated NS-17.
virgin
69 likes... nice
Prude
I was gonna ask "then what would a naked singularity look like?" but then I remembered that it would be infinitely small so impossible to see.
And he does utter the phrase 'we have never observed one' and then moved on as if that shouldn't raise any questions.
They warp space around a lot, so they would be easy to see by the way they distort the image of stars behind them. Gravitational lensing. And no, Victor, their mass is not zero, not at all. To learn more look up "Kerr metric".
thedeemon But under which conditions they could even possibly exist having this much gravity but not creating an even horizon by pulling photons towards them?
Reid didn't say about it either (unless I was listening with my butt) but this is like the most obvious question here.
It's all about the ratio between angular momentum and mass. If the angular momentum is high enough, then equations predict such effect. Such black hole must be formed by huge amount of matter that rotates with high speeds in one direction. It's only a mathematical prediction, we don't think any physical process can really lead to such state. There are many ideas why such state should not really be possible.
thedeemon Well I guess then either it would spin so freaking fast the photons (somehow) would just bounce off of it or one literally shouldn't be able to imagine how this could happen, not from a classical physics perspective anyway.
...or I'm just dumb.
How is nobody talking about how awesome the name: Conjecture of Cosmic Censorship is?
Oh my god, it's a pun. Stay classy, physicists.
C O C C
@@doomerbloomer6160 🤣🤣
TH-cam: *heavy breathing*
Is that something that China came up with?
Always happy when Reid is the host. He just seems like such a chill dude.
He also sounds kind of like Penn Gillette.
One of your better videos guys. Always prefer the longer more in depth ones, and Reid was very clear in his speaking
Quite the complisult 😆
If the internet has proven anything, it's that somebody's gonna toss a pencil up in the air and have it stand on it's end.
Jesse Crandle only if there are some funny cats involved
I tossed a sheet of paper up in the air once and it landed on it's side, wish I would've had a camera
I flipped a quarter once and it landed on its edge.
I rolled a car once and it landed on it's tires
Joshua Real
That makes me wish I could drive even more.
The term 'cosmic censorship' to describe a void of blackness masking every singularity is just so brilliant
What do you think of the idea of a Planck Star? If you assume that the center of a black hole is just filled to the maximum packing density of the Universe rather than being infinitely dense, then surely all of the paradoxes would disappear?
UFBMusic True, if that was the case, the physics behind black holes wouldn't break down, but do we have evidence of plank stars?
We don't have any evidence, this is all just theoretical for now. More often than not, however, if something is elegant theoretically, it points us in the right direction.
I mean, we don't have any direct evidence for an infinitely dense singularity either, it's just the maths that points us in that direction.
@@andrey4898 I wouldn't say this is the issue. There's no force of nature holding up stars - it's outward fusion pressure, then electron degeneracy pressure, and then neutron degeneracy pressure that holds up different stars against the force of gravity before a black hole finally forms. The deal is that there's nothing about light or causality that has to be overcome to resist an infinity result. The speed of light is only pertinent to the event horizon, which also only means it keeps us from measuring events happening deeper within the black hole. The matter itself is still on an inward journey towards the singularity, and the singularity being a point of infinite mass and density is the problem. What we need is a description of some kind of degeneracy pressure that can't be overcome no matter the force of gravity upon it. Some kind of Planck Pressure.
Yes because the event horizon wouldn't exist and it wouldn't take an infinite amount of time to cross the event horizon. Also light would escape the Planck star at very low energies.
"And you might wanna fasten your seat belt, because things are about to get a hole lot weirder." Hihihi
As always, extremely informative and well presented.
Great host and/or speaker. 👍
Questn So black is a colour?
well presented yes. Informative....mmmeh
Well I'm laying here on my own in bed with no clothes on. .
*HAS BECOME A NAKED SINGULARITY*
I like this host. He gets the information across in a way that I can easily understand and makes me want to learn more.
It would be really interesting to find out that Dark Energy is just the left over Naked Singularities of stars billions of years old. The problem is the amount of Dark Energy vs. the amount of possible Naked Singularity stars. Still a fun idea.
No
how would that even be possible? naked singularities would *attract* matter, whereas dark energy *repels* matter
Maybe it's like the funnel cloud of a tornado.
For a short period of time after its formation, it hasn't had enough time to form all of its parts.
More like the eye of a storm. When a storm cell forms, in this case a tornado or hurricane, it pulls in everything around it. However, at the center the weather is different then in the event horizon around it. Would that not be a logical conjecture?
Balancing a pencil on the pointy end is actually quite simple but only if you wish it to be. Use a softer surface such as clay and embed the tip in it, rubber band several together so the tips create many stable points of contact or even use magnets to help suspend the pencil on end. Every problem can have it's perimeters interpreted from a different perspective. Further defining the rules which govern the problems we need to solve are the real issue for me. Sadly...just as in the Hawking example, we just don't have enough data yet to start making bold statements. Fun video and curious ideas though!
If the diameter of the event horizon was less than the diameter of a elemental, detectable particle such as a photon or an electron and we made a perfectly solid wall around the outside of the event horizon so the black hole couldn't evaporate through hawking radiation wouldn't it be possible to use the particles to find out information about inside the event horizon as they hit things inside the event horizon but they cannot be consumed as they cannot for into the hole. And why couldn't we use particles that are quantumly (I think that's a word) entangled to find out what's inside the event horizon by doing something like entangling two electrons so if one has spin up the other has spin down, sending one into the black hole and using vague tests, so they stay entangled, work out what is happening to the electron inside the event horizon.
CORRECTION: We don't actually know whether there's an infinitely-dense singularity inside a black hole. Its gravity merely behaves the same as a mathematical model of a singularity. It's entirely plausible that a black hole contains a large ball of degenerate matter slightly smaller than the event horizon, but we can't see it because the event horizon warps the surrounding spacetime so severely that it's impossible to get a coherent image of the interior.
That I keep mentioning! It's quite surprising that they never tell about any of that. Even if light can't escape the object, it isn't unlikely to be something that we already know but can't see because of said force preventing us from getting any information.
We do know that any star can turn into a very heavy object/spin incredibly fast to achieve an immense gravitational influence.
A pulsar for example might as well be a naked singularity itself even if it's not dense enough to be sucking up light since how would we be able to see a singularity otherwise!
Sounds possible but, it is a balance between gravity and opposite forces of atomic nuclei.
Interesting
Considering a black hole is denser than a neutron star, and neutron stars are so dense that the protons and electrons of the star are compressed so tightly that they actually combine to form neutrons, I don't see it possible that a black hole would contain a ball of matter only slightly smaller than its event horizon.
That awkward moment when you see two singularities at once.
😂
Tell that singularity to put its accretion disk on before going out; it's indecent.
I'm pretty sure Roger Penrose is a mathematician, not an astrophysicist, even though he has contributed significantly to mathematics relevant to astrophysics and cosmology.
"... It could change our understanding of the universe as we know it.." is said too many times for comfort on this channel
Hmm, a black hole without the event horizon... so a black hole without the black.
Basically just a hole in spacetime
if you really wanted to see a Singularity
step 1: live long enough till scientist discover the cure to ageing or upload your brain into a computer.
step 2: get a spaceship and spend millions of years to fly into a massive black hole.
step 3: profit?
I don't know, were they clothed to begin with?
well apparently they liked to dress in black before. but are now looking for something new.
Nude is the new black?
im still waiting on those white holes
Hey Guys and Gal, I took her up on the Brilliant offer just shy of a year ago and love it. I am a 62 year old biker and Brilliant is perfect for an addled mind like mine. I will never slow down. I get jazzed by it several times a week. Perhaps more often that I enjoy this wonderful effort that is Sci Show Space. Keep up the good work.
So many ‘That’s what she said’ moments.
0:55 The zero volume point, aka the singularity is a misconception. It is based on Einsteins formulas about gravity, and of course, there is a mathematical singularity. But to explain the insides of a black hole, we need at least quantum theory, maybe something else. For Example, how should the universe hold the information about how much particles are inside the black hole inside a zero volume point? If so, then one particel, or zwo particels, or 4 particles, are all of the same size. But you need to store the information somehow. And we know the matter is still there because of its gravity. So what's more likely is that the matter gets extremely compressed, like plank-length-compressed, but not to are zero volume point compressed. That is just a misuse of a formula that make good predictions on our regular matter. And even mathematically, you can't get to infinity, or infinite small, anyway. You can always just approach towards it.
I want to know what conditions it would take for an imploding star to create a naked singularity, we need more info on that cause I can't even imagine what conditions would be required for that......
Joseph Dillard agreed
Very fast rotation, angular momentum must be higher than certain value: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr_metric
Probably, although we don't really know how general relativity works on micro (quantum) level. And keep in mind that in rotating black holes singularity is not a point in the center but a thin ring.
The singularities are infinitelly small, but still all black holes need to have more mass than a neutron star (after all this is that makes then black holes, more mass that surpasses neutron degeneracy preassure) and this minimun mass would be enough to keep the event horizon always distant from the singularity
Reid is funny, and he shares very interesting facts about theories and space!😃
I believe that there may, according to my limited knowledge of physics and quantum mechanics, be a small window where the Singularity has enough mollecular density to bend light around it but never catch it. In this case, we couldn't be able to see the singularity, not would we see an event horizon, but rather a point in space where light is bent around a region of seemingly empty space. The margin for this to take place, however, would be on such a fragile, narrow wall, that any small loss in Mass would cause the Singularity to suddenly expand rapidly, and any extra mass would cause it to collapse further, forming an event horizon where no light can escape. In addition, we don't know what the singularity looks like. It could either be brighter than a Quazar, or may produce no light at all. All I know is that if they did exist, they would certainly be highly radioactive, and unstable.
I thought you could also potentially see the singularity if somehow you found a very quickly spinning black hole or spun it up yourself (crazy hard). Because even though the singularity is infinitely small it can be made into an infinitely thin pancake if spun up which would then poke out the sides of the event horizon allowing you to see it.
Wouldn't the event Horizon also get formed into a pancake?
@@marv5078 I think it would stay more spherical but some squishing would probably happen. I think it might still be theoretically possible and I recall hearing about it.
i'm not sure how much you can apply newtonian mechanics to singularities
I don’t have a degree in physics, but I’m very passionate.
So, in my opinion, it is more likely that there is a naked singularity as opposed to a white hole that looks like something from Walt Disney comics.
Is it also possible to change the language of the courses? I would like them in Italian.
Thanks for the video!
I dont quite understand how two virtual particles popping into existence of either side of the event horizon would cause the black hole to evaporate. If the particle on the outside of the event horizon never passed through the event horizon, then its not adding mass to the black hole, nor removing mass from it, but the particle inside the event horizon would be adding mass, and not evaporating it...?
as far as I understand, those two particles are of opposite charges, so let's say if the negative one popped inside the event horizon, then it will annihilate another positive particle from the inside, so the black hole will lose mass
I think he's talking about Hawking radiation. Look it up :)
Virtual particles form in pairs of matter & anti-matter
If the 1 that forms inside is the anti-matter the matter one Would be released to the universe and the anti-matter explodes inside the black hole
microbuilder virtual particles take energy from the vacuum and in this case the energy still must be returned so it takes some energy from the black hole and sense alot of energy is a tiny amount of mass you why it takes so long for the black hole the evaporate
A very simplified answer: To create particles you need energy, which comes from the black hole.
When a particle is created, an antiparticle is also created. When they two collide they annihilate each other and the energy is liberated into the black hole, but when a particle/antiparticle is created in the event horizon, there are possibilities that they are created in opposite sides. When that happens the half of the energy used to create the particles is lost
Great video! Love it whenever these notifications pop up. Thank you. ❤️
What if the singularity is a hypersphere (4d sphere) and we can only observe the edge of the said sphere because the rest of it is in the other dimension.
As it absorbs mass and matter it continues to build up on the 4th dimension.
Makes me wonder if the big bang was just a ball rolling down the 4d hill.
Interesting 🤔
Well, it's Saturday, that means that there will be countless naked singularities all over, looking into a glass of something and wondering where it all went wrong...
WoooHoooo! I got the Brilliant coupon! Thanks SciShow!
Wanna play a game? It's "Strip singularity Naked" !
I learn more from this channel than a month at school...
captainwinky If he is in secondary school, there is no way that school will teach him more than Sci Show
One thing that always bugs me a bit about videos like this is when they talk about how the singularity is "infinitely small" or "infinitely dense". The density being "infinite" and size being "zero" are part of the math of relativity (in fact, they are mathematical singularities which are points in functions which are not well defined or well behaved). However rather than indicating the object is actually infinitely small, it indicates that the mathematical model is incomplete and isn't accurately describing what happens at that particular point in the real world. It's not that the cores of black holes are infinitely small, it's that they become so small and dense that they are affected by things on a sub-atomic planck-like scale that we can't observe or predict.
So while the math says the center of a black hole has "no size and infinite density", in reality it's simply that the math and physics aren't fine tuned enough at those extreme scales to be able to actually describe what happens at those insane ends of the relativity spectrum.
How would a naked singularity even work? By definition, if it has mass, it has gravity- and if it has gravity, it has a schwartzchild radius. As small as this radius may be, it's still bigger than "infinitely small", so something with no volume that has mass (even a tiny amount of mass) would default to becoming a black hole. So from what I can tell, you really can't have a singularity without a black hole around it. It's basically trying to have mass with no gravity.
I've read that - according to general relativity calculations - a rotating black hole wouldn't actually have an event horizon, if its rate of rotation is high enough.
MikeRosoftJH, the event horizon becomes flatter the faster it spins. But it can't spin faster than the speed of light which happens to be the point where the poles would reveal the singularity. So yeah, I have the same question as the OP: how would this even work?
The answer is here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr_metric
Rotating black holes indeed. If angular momentum gets higher than certain value, the two event horizons meet and disappear. And yes, rotating black holes have two horizons: outer and inner. Schwarzschild solution is a simplified edge case of non-rotating black hole.
@thedeemon Yes, I gather that when the angular momentum is high enough, the event horizon disappears, and is simply replaced by the ergosphere.
thedeemon Ah thanks for explaining that, it makes sense now.
If I'm not mistaken, Hawking bet Leonard Susskind of Stanford University (love his online classes btw!) with regard to evaporating black holes too...
Hawking theorized that when black holes evaporated, the matter inside them would too and disappear entirely from the universe!
Susskind disagreed, most simply because this violates the law of conservation of mass, and Hawking finally conceded the bet after 20 yrs.
.
The going theory now is that when a black hole evaporates, all matter remains afterward, only not in the same arrangement as it went in - it would have been spaghettified and ripped to bits - bits of information!
So fascinating! ♡♡♡
Anyone interested needs to learn about Susskind's Holographic Universe theory - it is mind-blowing too!
Love love love the channel guys - Thanks!
Would the mass from which the universe expanded have been a naked singularity?
i don't think that the concept of either a naked singularity nor of a black hole would even apply here. you're talking about a state 'before' there was even space or time
A couple of slightly misinformed (or simplified) things I picked on
a) when a "star collapses", its not the whole star, its just the core (which happens in under a second). Rest of the star is blown away in the following supernova
b) Gravitational pull has nothing to do with why not even light can escape beyond the event horizon. But rather the infinite curvature of space-time which causes all possible paths to converge towards the singularity. The gravitational effect at the edge of a supermassive BH's horizon is not a lot, relatively speaking. The smaller the BH, the greater the "pull" at the edge.
Gravity = spacetime curvature, so it's just a matter of choice of words. Every event horizon is a place where spacetime is curved just so much to not let light out, and we can describe the very same thing as gravity being strong enough to not let light out, it's the same thing.
Could Naked Singularities Exist? Sure , unless their to modest .
here's the thing about singularities: there are different types. A singularity is just a point in space that our current theories can't describe. the type discussed in this video is a gravitational singularity. An example of another type is a thermal singularity. The gist of a thermal singularity is that you get something so inconceivably hot that the theory of black body radiation (which relates temperature to wavelength of light emitted) breaks down. If you got something so hot that the radiation it emitted would be smaller than the planck length, then you've got a problem. That object would break the laws of physics, and thus be a singluarity.
Good news is you would die the instant you crossed the event horizon (no matter the size of the black hole), so no waiting forever.
Wouldn't that instant last forever tho? I'm joking.
Touche'
The gravitational gradient can be survivable but since all the forces/force carrying particles also travel at the speed of light no part of you closer to the singularity could interact with any part of you further away. Probably just a quark mist when all is said and done.
Nijaitchy I've seen that video too somewhere, but still get confused as to how the gravitational force inside gigantic blackhole's event horizon is not strong enough to kill you. The event horizon is the part where not even a light could escape right? no matter how big the diameter of the blackhole.
I mean if the gravitation is strong enough to prevent light from escaping, how couldn't it rip you apart?
Because it isn't the force of gravity it is the gradient of the force they are referring to. Free fall in all constant gravity fields are indistinguishable.
2:25 it annoys me that the lower jet is moving in the wrong direction
If I understand correctly, a naked singularity is a point of infinite density without enough mass to capture light. They don't seem that unlikely if you look at it that way (even though the mathematics of infinities are always a bit odd).
Iam Sagittare Nope - it's a singular point of the curvature tensor not enclosed within trapping surfaces, or some like that
A better analogy would be balancing the pyramid of Giza on its point.
ofc its me when i leave bathtub
Interstellar played a bit on this solving for gravity. Kip Thorne assisted in the movie’s physics.
When we find a naked singularity, we could solve for gravity, and perhaps learn how to make gravity artificial.
Gravity and Spacetime have a connection that only a naked singularity could solve, technically.
That solution I believe is possible, but that’s like judging the circumference of the earth using only an inch of ground in front of you.
The answers are out there.
"this video is not suitable for all advertisers, so it's gonna be demonetised" (i bet it happened...)
Take a shot every time he says “black hole” or “light”
Pssst, your singularity is showing...
Better than your BLACK HOLE showing.
Introducing our newest sports car, the Singularity ... it goes from zero to infinity in a Planck second
If nothing can escape how are things ejected from black holes?
They aren't. Watch the video again.
Maracachucho not this particular black hole but there are others that eject energy
www.google.com/amp/s/www.engadget.com/amp/2015/11/30/black-hole-ejects-massive-energy-jet-after-devouring-a-star/
its impossible for stuff inside the event horizon to get out. stuff thats being pulled in can get super hot and emit lots of radiation and particles and they can escape, so long as theyre emitted before the stuff crosses the event horizon
nathan mckenzie
Quantum mechanical effects at the edges of black holes, due to the fact that quantum fields encompass all of space-time (so the same field is inside AND outside the event horizon), means you'll have matter from inside the black hole 'leaking' outside.
+PixelatedDonkey
Only now do I realize he was talking about stuff outside the black hole being flung away, not hawking radiation. Oops.
Imagine a binary black hole system, two black holes orbiting each other. Now if the other black hole would be way more massive than the other: could the more powerful gravitational force at times 'expose the singularity' of the smaller one? If the bigger black hole's gravity should overcome the smaller one's gravity to the point its escape velocity should dip under the speed of light, at least regionally.
No. Because the gravity of the bigger one, it's still finite at any set distance from it, while you could get arbitrarily close to the little one and at some point you'd reach a point of no return. The gravity of either one is unbounded as you get closer and closer. It doesn't matter if the larger black hole has more gravity in general and pulling you the other way, there's no limit to how high the gravity of the smaller one gets the closer you get to it. So its point of no return would simply be a little bit further in.
You said that singularities have infinite density, but how can that happen if there is 0 volume because of mass/volume=density?
something called limits....
Boots n' Catz division by zero results in infinity. look at a graph of the equation y=1/x
Boots n' Catz Dividing by zero is the prime example of a mathematical singularity…
Claire D. Ok thanks
Yes, start with Mass of 1, and volume of 1 to start.
1/1 = 1
decrease volume, keep mass the same;
1/0.5 = 2
1/0.1 = 10
1/0.01= 100
1/0.001 = 1000
as volume approaches 0, the density will approach infinity.
limits
Fam I didn't even know dressed singularities were a thing, let alone naked.
The original state of the universe WAS a naked singularity.
Kilwillae Mind. Blown.
woah
There's a hypothesis that the universe was formed by a collapsing black hole and all black holes in our universe create more universes.
and then fashion week started.
I think a naked singularity would look more like the big bang, but in reverse.
The singularity in my wallet usually leaves me cold, hungry and naked.
Oh my god, I am so sick of these Brilliant plugs on nearly every channel I'm subscribed to.
then sign up for Patreon, and get others too.
Thank the TH-cam Adpocalypse 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0
@@vlogenericsrants948
1.0: Pewdiepie.
2.0: Google.
3.0: _GOOGLE._
event horizons are formed at the distance where the flow of space-time into the singularity exceeds the speed of light. in order for the singularity to have no apparent horizon, there would have to be no such distance, this would require that the curvature of space-time formed by the presence of the singularity be somehow flattened to a degree such that light would be able to escape. the only way that the spacetime surrounding a singularity could be flat is if there was sufficient mass outside the distance where the horizon would be in order to make the slope of spacetime more gradual. Incidentally this means that the horizons of two black holes would be nullified in between them just before they collide and information, matter, and energy could be exchanged between them. I believe this is what would allow the singularities themselves to combine.
Seth Apex flow of space-time? I know black holes distort space-time but I've never heard it described as a flow or having a speed. Space-time isn't moving into the black hole, or did you mean something different?
I meant what I said. Space literally moves toward mass. This is Einstein's invariance principle applied to general relativity. If you're in a box and you feel a force holding you against the floor, it is not possible to tell (locally) whether that force is due to gravity or due to a rocket engine pushing the box in the opposite direction, becasue in both cases, space is literally moving downward relative to your frame of reference. it's also why you couldn't tell the difference between freefall and being in the middle of intergalactic space, becasue space is not moving relative to your frame of reference and you are simply riding it. At the event horizon of a black hole, space is literally moving towards the singularity so fast that a photon traveling in the opposite direction cannot overcome the flow of spacetime. It's like trying to swim against the flow of a river when you're at the precipice of the waterfall.
Seth Apex I'm quite familiar with everything else you said, but I've always heard it described that mass distorts space time so that an object, or even light, is traveling in a straight line through curved space time which results in the appearance of a force. I have never come across the idea that rather than a distortion it is a constant flow nor that gravity works by sweeping things along with moving space. The description I've encountered several times for a black hole is space time becomes so distorted all directions lead to then singularity.
I re-read several explanations of relatively and black holes and can't find any reference to space flowing caused by gravity. Perhaps you have a link or reference I could check out?
This is a fairly common interpretation of general relativity, I'm surprised you haven't heard of it. And i'm nto sure why you're so surprised by it. It doesn't imply any contradictions with any other interpretation unless You see something I don't. Besides the links posted below, there is also a theory that space-time itself is actually a superfluid.
jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/waterfall.html
arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411060
It's not about flattening spacetime, it's more about twisting it. See Kerr solution for rotating black holes and "frame dragging". Naked singularities are predicted in Kerr metric when angular momentum gets higher than certain limit.
I thought a black hole was just a chunk of mass smaller than its Schwarzschild radius. Where does the "infinitely tiny" part enter the picture?
I really want to believe that there's just this "thing" behind the event horizon, but it just doesn't add up; whatever it is, it's too small and too dense to even make sense of it. I think we're just gonna have to accept that until at least the year 300 billion when we transcend.......
I thought the same, why do we think the mass is confined to a point instead of condensed to a new hyper-dense but not infinitely dense state?
David Annett Its only small relative to us. There could be a universe infinitely bigger than our own inside there for all we know.
good question, I don't like infinities. That is why I like the Planck lenght as the smallest possible. My question is if a 10 solar mass singularity is infinitley small/dense, what is the difference then to a 10bn solar mass supermassive black hole. Both have infinite values?
yea, i thought that was weird too. i think the implication was that the singularity forms in the supernova, then the singularity build the black hole? im going to have to look up this penrose theorem...
Thanks for the vid. Always great.
I was waiting to hear Stephen Hawking's name in that video :D
your name is weird
He does love making bets he hopes to lose. That way he "wins" either way.
Matt Langstraaat shut up dirt bag
One of the things that determines the distance between the event horizon and the singularity is the rate at which it spins. the faster it spins the closer the event horizon is to the singularity. This supposedly what limits the rate of rotation of a black hole. I wonder if a naked singularity could be spinning infinitely fast. then would it really be spinning at all (the effect is has one space around it and its magnetic field)?
rest in peace, Stephen Hawking. an infinitely wondrous mind.
I heard of a different bet Hawking made having to do with a magazine subscription. It seems naked has been a theme for some time.
01:40 Ok stop lying, there is a library inside the event horizon and Matthew McConaughey told us so..
I think I said this once somewhere but I'll say it again, When the black holes hawking radiation temperature is higher than the blackbody temperature of the universe you'll first see a flash of light called the naked singularity then a white hole until you see it evaporate in a flash of bright light.
his head is a naked singularity
Rick James was this really necessary
i love him and feel mean as well as the guilt but this comment made me snort=laugh out loud tbf, as unexpected scrolling down, serious comments all read.. then this and it just had me hit so suddenly with a line of comedy gold. well done
Reid Reimers is probably my favourite SciShow host of all times.
I do in the shower.
SHUSH
Could you imagine if you fall into a singularity and theres just a mariachi band playing at the centre?
how would that even work? if its a naked singularity. a point that has infinite density there has to be some point at which light cant escape its gravitational pull right?
Exactly. This whole video and the very concept of a naked singularity is nothing but mental masturbation on a contradictory concept. It's like pondering if a square circle could exist.
He's correct about one thing though ... if one would exist within our Universe, it would indeed change the whole world of physics.
General relativity answer: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr_metric
As I understand it, for naked singularities, the "event horizon" falls below the one-dimensional "surface" of the singularity - it becomes negative in value as measured by radius out from the singularity. This does not make logical sense, though it does make mathematical sense. One theoretical composition of a naked singularity would be a singularity comprised of particles which all have the same electric charge, or another - that the singularity has large angular momentum or spin. Celestial bodies have never been observed with appreciable net charge, however, and the required spin is absurdly high to remove the event horizon.
I think the idea is that electric repulsion (think the entire energy of the universe in a singularity) can overcome the gravitational attraction.
from my understanding that would mean that it has simultaneously infinite density and no mass. which is a weird concept to say the least. seems like another "spherical object in a vacuum" deal.
So, just as a matter of clarification, if the singularity is infinitely dense, isn't that what is CAUSING the black hole? So what would the hypothetical properties of the naked singularity be? Wouldn't it also have insane gravity? Wouldn't it eventually become a black hole again if it was given a lot of mass to munch, and thus increasing its gravitational pull? Or is this singularity too weak on its own to crush more matter into its infinitely dense core?
Or in other words, are you suggesting there is a gradient, on which at some point there isn't enough gravitational pull to crush more mass, but just enough to hold it together? So what would happen if you did add matter to it? Would it simply pile up in a very dense manner around the outside of it, but wouldn't further add mass to the infinitely dense center? What would the interaction of a naked singularity with matter even be?
Question, if gravity propagates at the speed of light mass should do the same. If light can’t propagate and escape from a black hole gravity also can’t propagate. Therefore mass should not be able to escape and we should have zero mass on the surface of a black hole and also we should have zero gravity on the surface. In the future the idea of someone falling into a black hole might seem as mad as someone falling off the edge of the world!
I don't think your logic works very well.
What about this: (E=ˠM˳C²)∞ with energy ∆E equals mass ∆M linked to the Lorentz contraction ˠ of space and time. The Lorentz contraction ˠ represents the time dilation of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. We have energy ∆E slowing the rate that time ∆t flows as a universal process of energy exchange or continuous creation. Mass will increase relative to this process with gravity being a secondary force to the electromagnetic force. The c² represents the speed of light c radiating out in a sphere 4π of EMR from its radius forming a square c² of probability. We have to square the probability of the wave-function Ψ because the area of the sphere is equal to the square of the radius of the sphere multiplied by 4π. This simple geometrical process forms the probability and uncertainty of everyday life and at the smallest scale of the process is represented mathematically by Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π. In such a theory we have an emergent future unfolding photon by photon with the movement of charge and flow of EM fields. This gives us a geometrical reason for positive and negative charge with a concaved inner surface for negative charge and a convexed outer surface for positive charge. The brackets in the equation (E=ˠM˳C²)∞ represent a dynamic boundary condition of an individual reference frame with an Arrow of Time or time line for each frame of reference. The infinity ∞ symbol represents an infinite number of dynamic interactive reference frames that are continuously coming in and out of existence.
First sentence is false.
If you do general relativity (one of the best proven physical theories out there), gravity isn't "propagating" in the same sense as EM radiation is, it's just an effect of the curvature of space, which isn't bounded by the black hole.
Also falling in a black hole is like falling in the Sun. Takes a ton more energy to get in the Sun than to get away from it.
The problem, I believe, is that Einstein conceptions of gravity are perturbations of a spatiotemporal fabric. Light sits on this fabric and so its worldlines will bend toward the singularity (which is why, despite having no mass, light can be lensed by significant masses). The perturbations of the fabric, however, sit _within_ rather than _on_ this fabric and so aren't affected by such curvature.
On the QM side, there isn't a for-sure quantum theory of gravity, but the gist of it is: virtual particles carry forces (like gravity and electromagnetism) and, due to being virtual, aren't bound by the same laws of physics. So they're free to travel faster than light to escape a singularity. For better details, see David Kornreich's piece here: curious.astro.cornell.edu/physics/89-the-universe/black-holes-and-quasars/theoretical-questions/451-how-do-gravitons-escape-black-holes-to-tell-the-universe-about-their-gravity-advanced
To say that something get's "sucked' into black hole would be to say that we are being sucked into Sun right now.
TyDreacon That article you linked posed a ton more questions than it answered. Like, WAY more. I'll have to ask QFT professor about that someday.
[holds up a blanket so naked singularities can privately put on some clothing]
You know nature is just what you want.
what if the big bang is just a cosmic entity farting and accidentally made a universe LOL
Fawn Frauscht you are so smart you must watch richard and mortimer
I'm falling in love with this channel
First! #notificationSquad
no you're not
*no*
I have a lot questions here. Like what would a naked singualarity look like? being a point of mass it is neccessarily smaller than it's swartschield radius. Are they hot? Could we detect them? Would they behave in the same ways as a black hole?
7 minutes and 37 seconds condensed to one word; No.
Puff,TheMagic You could sarcastically summarize a majority of these videos as "Yes," "No," or "Maybe" but that's basically true with any question. You aren't being clever nor are you accurate with what the video said.
hello brother
Puff,TheMagic it's a video on singularities, after all ) they do condense ))
Also, "Could Naked Singularities Exist? [_] Yes [_] No" ))
Thank you Anstign! I would also like to add that, for science, simply having the answer (yes/no) is only all that useful if you know the reasons behind it. Otherwise it's not very practical information, as you can't derive a lot of further information from it. Knowing WHY, gaining understanding, is the entire point.
The answer's actually "yes but highly improbable".
Well, one very simple thought... the singularity is the point in space where all the mass of the black hole is centered and the event horizon is the "bubble" around it, in which even light can't escape the gravity. So, basically the mass of the singularity would determine how big the event horizon is, because the more mass you have, the bigger your gravity is and the bigger the radius of the gravitational field which is strong enough to pull light in. So the diameter of the event horizon should grow proportional to the inverse quadratic strength of gravity, which is determined by mass.
To cut a long story short: the more massive the singularity, the bigger the event horizon.
But then, in conclusion, there should be a point where the event horizon is equally large as the singularity, right? So, it would be "naked".
And also, if you take curved space into consideration, you can send messages from inside the event horizon using light, because with gravity curving space, light travels in a straight line, not a curved one, when traveling around a black hole, where the space itself is curved and makes it look like the light is "bent". In this case, the event horizon would be the region of space after which the curvature would be so extreme, that every ray of light that isn't perfectly radial to the singularity will travel in circles until the black hole evaporates. And in this theory, black holes evaporate because the high density of the mass creates heat, which is infrared light, which can travel in a straight line from the singularity through the event horizon into the universe. This lets the black hole lose energy and hence, mass. And it's the same principle as in biology, the larger the body, the smaller the heat-loss compared to the size. This explains why black holes accelerate to evaporate when they can't suck any mass in, they're lossing mass, so their getting smaller, the event horizon get a bigger surface compared to its volume and more energy can escape it.
At least that makes some sense to me...
On the road to 1 million subs. Hopefully, we'll get their by the end of this month. Cheers!
Question. How could a black hole shrink because of a virtual particle interaction? If half goes into the black hole and half escapes into space the black hole shouldn't lose any mass since it's technically taking on more mass. Not letting some go. Hawking never made much sense with Hawkins radiation. A black hole would care less about a virtual particle interaction. I also believe there is no singularity. There's nothing more than a Plank Star at it's core disturbing the Spacetime around it due to it's insane mass at such small scales.
This doesn't make me sleepy at all. Now I want to keep an eye on light sources to make sure they aren't being slurped up by a wandering black hole.
New favorite host.
So I heard there were naked singularities in my area waiting for me to enter their black holes.
Anyone else thinking the drawing of spinning black hole looks like a start of the apocalypse?
This video just highlighted something interesting that I was previously thinking nothing about and that is from the infinitely tiny (quantum mechanics) to the infinitely dense(general relativity) regardless of the formula that links them together there was still a very specific point of time/energy where the governing rules passed the baton off to one another, which is indeed very intreresting.
Correction: at 5:44, a very important "not" is missing... "(..) is a big mystery because quantum mechanics & general relativity would [not] apply to it".
Thanks! I love your videos!