isn't the singularity of a black hole just a big gradient leading all the way into the future point where the black hole dissipates? if you think about it, when something falls into a black hole, time dilates so much that you never get close to it. even going at light speed (light itself for instance) you would still experience time dilation to such a degree that by the time you could even travel 1cm closer to the centre, 100 trillion trillion years will be passing, and eventually so much time will pass that the black hole just won't even be there anymore due to hawking radiation. for this reason how is it that people think you could get to the centre, or that any matter could be there in the first place? clearly all the matter is in the process of approaching the centre but it never quite gets there, because that would require an infinite amount of time, and by some point before that the black hole will have already fizzled out due to hawking radiation. you can't get to the centre! it's gone before you get there, and it never was there in the first place because it's all just one big collapsing motion until time dilates it away completely. it never forms a solid ball or anything. right?? am I crazy?
I was waiting for his hello! I love how he always greets his viewers that way. And his videos are always so well-made and narrated, and done so in a way that is easy to follow for the layperson!
No idea how much (if any) merit it has but it's pretty inspiring to see Roy Kerr still producing comment worthy work at the age of 89. Good for him (and if it leads anywhere, good for all of us too :).
it's a good paper. Taking the math from Hawking, Swartzchild, and Penrose and applying it to actual observations; and gets the results of a region, not a singularity. For all effective purposes right now that actually doesnt effect us much, he is attempting to show that the singularity is a spherical cow; and I think he is sucessful at a first read through, and if not at very least his stated goal was sucessful should I ever go down the path of scientific instrument design and manufacture again; I at very least will bring up these possibilites if ever there is an apperatus that needs to concern them, or will go though and run simulations with his paper. but I am greaviously injured, old, and near retirement age anyway so I might not work again, or might find a job that allows for ample writing time after another round of surgeries and just write science fiction.
@@AnonymousAnarchist2sorry to hear that you have been greviously injured. I hope you can heal, though that becomes harder the older we get. All the best to you.
@@AnonymousAnarchist2 Sir, how does one goes in the field of scientific instrument making? I'm a Biochemistry graduate. And my research goal lies in applying cutting edge techniques like attosecond pump-probe Spectroscopy on Biomolecules. May be use some next gen spinotronic material etc. All of which is about instrumentation. But how do I go into these with a Biochemistry degree?
I was playing with this idea a lot when I was a PhD candidate in cosmology, because you parameterise light ray trajectories using an affine parameter as opposed to proper time, even in non-rotating black holes, light doesn't necessarily converge to the singularity in finite time. I brought it to my supervisor and was bluntly told to shut up about it, but I'm glad the idea is getting some attention now.
Why would your supervisor do that? I'm NOT calling you a liar with the question. It seems to be normal that universities suppress thought in many instances, not just in line with BS activists agendas, but as if in many cases they don't want good ideas at the cutting edge of science advanced too.
@@TheJeremyKentBGross Me and my supervisor did not get on well from the get go. Many of my results he claimed were incorrect and essentially he tried to make me feel like I was stupid. His supervisor was incidentially Stephen Hawking, so perhaps he didn't like the idea of singularities being just mathematical artifacts.
@@Trimza42 Or maybe his supervisor made HIM feel stupid and wrong, because by comparison he was, and he had to take it out on, and be superior to someone else.
@@hawks3109 do you honestly think there going to give us the real perpetrators who went to that certain island?, remember who it is that is 'giving' us this list and then consider if they would want to muddy the waters surrounding who the evil bastrds really are, (i'm not saying everyone on the list is innocent or guilty just pointing out a dose of skepticism is required), the same people who turned off the camera's in eppy's prison cell maybe?
We (humanity) are grateful and appreciate folks like you who CONTINUE to question in order to be more and more accurate instead of becoming rigid and stagnant. Good man.
he's just a reporter, you should be thanking the writers of these reports and papers that are actually attempting to move us forward, including the ones that we never get to hear about
Some cool guy started talking to me about Black Holes. Then about 4:59 minutes later he tells me hello and his name. I was scared at first but now I’m intrigued.
The "one direction" may be better referred to as "the future" at the point where it becomes the only direction it is. It is sometimes referred to as "time-like space" because causality is reduced to a spatial direction in which all events move.
@@Nat-oj2uc basically time and space get flipped so space becomes time-like and time becomes space-like. Outside the black hole, time is moving but space is not. Inside, it's the space that moves.
@@burbanpoison2494 well outside space is moving too because of expansion. So what's the difference? The flip only exist in Schwarzschild coordinates. And coordinates are arbitrary.. in other words the flip isn't real
@@TTime685 what does that even mean, time represents infinity? Mathematics is a tool used to help model reality it’s not any deeper than that, there are tons of mathematical concepts that do not exist in the physical world. They are still useful concepts, just not physical ones
@@Jm-wt1fs "It exists in mathematics, but it doesn't mean anything" "Mathematics is a tool to help model reality" Lol.. You're just confusing yourself. Our entire civilization, it's technology, and everything we know about reality and the universe is based off mathematics/physics/geometry.. Just stop. What other "tons of" mathematical concepts would we use? Space and time most likely represent infinity, meaning they're infinite. That's what I meant. Comprehend?
Anton, my understanding is we can consider the event horizon as a "surfacularity", where space-time fabric is stretched to the point it rips apart (and acts as a "diode" does with electricity) That would lead to an "infinitely" curved space-time inside the event horizon, (whereas time alone doesn't really make sense), meaning you could infinitely travel in a straight line without leaving the volume limited by the event horizon
And also, incorrect. The things Kerr says are long known not to be true. This is just sour-grapes. The Penrose argument is correct, you have to have a singularity inside the rotating black hole, The paper requires a competent physicist to review, Anton doesn't have the proper expertise.
@@annaclarafenyo8185 The title is a question, so it can't really be incorrect. As for the contents of the paper, I wouldn't know. But I'm unsurprised that there's controversy to it, when challenging names such as Penrose and Hawking!
@@lucidstream5661 It's not controversy, it's just that Kerr doesn't get the full argument. The Penrose proof shows there are light-rays that just "end" in the middle of nowhere, they can't be extended. The proof is rigorous, it shows you there must be these light rays somewhere inside. What Kerr noticed is that there is a class of light-rays that "just end" on the inner horizon (also on the outer horizon), and he says "Maybe those fix up Penrose's theorem, so there's no singularity". The reason he is wrong is that you can extend those light rays in a larger space-time that has extra regions beyond the inner and outer horizons, this is the maximally extended Kerr space-time, and there, Penrose's argument STILL goes through, so there has to be some other singularity where other light-rays (not the ones fixed up by maximal extension, other ones) have to end! Those are the light-rays that end on the singularity. It's not a difficult argument, but Kerr complicates it because he imagines that adding collapsing matter will prevent a branched space-time from emerging, but still allow light-rays to end at finite time. This is just not true. His argument is well-intentioned, he is sincere, he believes what he saying, he's just wrong.
@@annaclarafenyo8185I'm very curious about how you can make such a strong statement. Do you have knowledge that use normies do not? As far as I'm aware the only concept we have less solid information about than black holes is dark matter/energy, so how exactly are hawking and penrose correct while kerr is not? Please enlighten me
There are also further developments in Rotating/ Charged Black Hole physics from 1990 until now: The inner ( Cauchy) horizon is unstable. Penrose ( again) was the first that pointed out this instability already in the late 1960s. In the early 1990s Poisson et al dubbed it " mass inflation" and further calculations by other experts confirmed that the inner horizon is replaced by a Null or spacelike singularity. Kerr doesn't even mention these well known developments , or having any references to them in that paper ( although the latter has to do with rotating black holes ).
I once read a book where the author used the expansion of the universe to describe the possibilities of black holes not being singularities at all but instead being pockets of negative gravity surrounded by enormous gravity. They tried to show whenever too much mass is located in a Schwarzschild radius gravity would reverse. I don't know enough to comment on the author's math but I always love reading about other possibilities.
Interestingly enough information theory supports something close to this, the Bekenstein bound says that the entirety of a black hole can be described by the surface area of the event horizon. All the mass of the blackhole could be on an insanely thin layer with nothing inside it at all.
I always just thought black holes were the same as stars but they have enough mass to re-absorb the light. But, other than that, nothing special. Yes this would sort of cause some "singularity" because light is being produced and also reabsorbed at the same time. But that seems meaningless and it might not even cause any special effects other than being an energy source that lasts a really really long time. I personally think that Hawkings theory that black holes are super cold, is total bullshit. I would put my life on the theory that once you break the event horizon in a black hole, it would just be the same as being inside of a star.
@swickens930 since a black hole 'star' would be compressed to the point of (and way past) a solid, it would need to obey Shell Theorum and its maximal gravity would be at one radii depth... this would mean that from the outside edge of the singularity to that depth would need to be void of any matter as it wouldn't allow any movement except towards the center of the black hole.
@@petergraphix6740 Uh, nope. Black holes have the largest gravity of any celestial object. Black holes don't have "one radii depth of gravity." Entire galaxies revolve around black holes. It literally sounds like you just made that up bahahaha. Also, it's totally unproven and theoretical that a black hole compresses itself down to nothing. And seeing they have various sizes, they're probably exactly like a star under the event horizon. Furthermore, it's impossible to have mass energy and also be absolute zero in temperature. Everything you just said is actual astronomy magic mumbo jumbo. It straight up sounds like something a crazy religious person would say, no offense. Ya, planets also only allow for objects to fall directly towards the planet. That doesn't mean they are infinitely small. Like, all satellites will eventually be dragged down to earth. That doesn't mean earth is infinitely small.
Black holes seem to be just very dense objects, not magical portals, not a hole. It has the same matter that we have everywhere and it will evaporate in time like all stars do.
This just proved to me just how important black holes are to solving all kinds of problems with quantum physics, not the least of which being reconciling it with current theories of gravity. Great video as always, Anton!
I thought of this in another way. There is a famous example of a seemingly paradoxical probability fact involving a dart board. We will idealize the board to be a mathematical disc (filled-in circle), which of course contains infinitely many points. As it turns out, the probability of dropping a pin on any particular point is zero in the limit, even as the probability of hitting _some_ point is one. You can drop infinitely many pins infinitely many times and still miss infinitely many points. Of all the infinitely many possible angular momenta the black hole could possibly have, the probability of it having none is zero. This is far from being any sort of rigorous proof, of course. But it does lead one to imagine that a Schwarzchild black hole is infinitely unlikely, if not impossible, and makes it easy to imagine why.
@@CiaDora-us1tf It is also useful to remember that angular momentum is one of those properties that are subject to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. So even if the spin is zero, it's also not zero. And even if somehow it was zero and not nonzero, quantum fluctuation would certainly change that before the ring singularity could collapse.
@@CiaDora-us1tf Right. A non-rotating (Schwarzschild) black hole has a point-like singularity, and a rotating (Kerr) black hole has a ring-like singularity, along with a couple more event horizons that do different things. I do think that Schwarzschild black holes are possible, but it's an unstable configuration. Even if one particle of Hawking radiation could make the angular momentum precisely zero (and also not nonzero), the very next particle to be emitted _and/or_ to fall in would upset that balance. To sustain a Schwarzschild black hole, every particle to fall in would have to be accompanied by a simultaneous emission of a Hawking particle with the same angular momentum. That's a really cool idea, if it turns out to be true. Now that I think about it, I kinda hope I'm wrong!
I'd like to imagine in the future when I get to an old age instead of waiting to eventually rot and die, I want to just build a spaceship with enough fuel for the nearest black hole and just go into one just so I can finally experience what is it like to enter a blackhole
It wasn’t really accurate. This had been known for a long time. Hawking and Penrose didn’t disagree with Kerr. And it kinda oversimplifies things as nobody knows what goes on beyond the event horizon. The ergosphere surrounds the event horizon. Penrose is who figured out how to extract energy from that region, in fact. Kerr’s ring object is as theoretical as a point singularity. I don’t see anyone disagreeing with anybody in reality.
I always appreciate a more "down to earth" analysis. It's pretty obvious a purely static black hole would be excessively difficult to imagine in our very dynamic universe. It might exist, but the probability of it's existance is probably near to null.
Really well presented researched and explained, well done young fella! I think I might be nearly a 100 and even I understood the jist of what you explained. It's truly a shame Mr Hawking wasn't around to lend his mind to the theory (I mean that respectfully) Thankyou
Eh, Hawking was proven to enjoy orgies (though not participating) at a child sex island. And he’s a cripple too. And he’s stated as an “ordinary” genius.
Anton, thank you for covering this paper. Smn shared it on facebook but I didn't have time to read it and then i forgot about it. This is a long time argument that the astrophysical BH is different from the mathematical one and some people that the region between the two horizons is not stable (which is very serious), so I can totally believe Kerr's arguments exactly for this region. I am still convinced that what we observe practically everywhere in the universe is not really mathematical black holes, but an object that in some approximation is described by this in this in its outside region. I really want to go back to studying black holes, but the community is kind of brutal, because of the money involved in the big experiments. You have to be Roy Kerr to publish something like this.
Never mind that the apparent passage of time in the surrounding universe already goes to infinity at the event horizon. Also, the singularity is the reduced mass of the event horizon. That means, a black hole could have all its mass infinitesimally outside the event horizon while producing the same gravitational field as a singularity, but without having to deal with any division by zero.
The black hole doesn't care if you divide by zero or not. It doesn't need to make sense. Probably our math isn't describing reality. That's why this nonsense begins to make sense. It's a clear sign that something is wrong
Having absolutely no chops in this. But I have been wondering why time dilation doesn't imply it takes infinite time for a singularity to form. Or If plank length is a real thing. that implies a plank volume. resulting in a finite mass in a nonzero volume.
@@pierrepero9338 If you mean constant mass in a Planc area, rather than nonzero mass in a finite volume, we completely agree. I imagine matter taking infinitely long time to settle on the event horizon. Meanwhile, the black body radiation emitted by the matter is spaghettified into Hawking radiation, so that everything is evaporated before reaching the EV, and nothing ever crosses.
1:06 it would make no sense at all for infinity to only exist in mathemathics, as mathematics describe the physical world, and for example fractals can only exist as parts of themselves, meaning they could not exist at all in any way or form unless they existed everywhere in some way.
i've never really bought into the idea of a black hole singularity. singularities, infinities, and paradoxes are what happens when the math fails. not reality imo. i've posed the question numerous times of "why can't a black hole simply be an object denser than a neutron star and able to bend light back on itself? seems to me its just a matter of strength of gravity and density of the object with no need of invoking some kind of exotic circumstance to explain it all.
Honestly, once I discovered the Planck star hypothesis that seemed like it was the most likely solution. No singularity, and no Planck length woo. And no string theory!
> why can't a black hole simply be an object denser than a neutron star and able to bend light back on itself Because a stationary surface of such an object would be locally moving faster than the speed of light. Think about it. To "stand still" at event horizon, the particle needs to move at light speed. A photon emitted "to outside" by you while you cross the even horizon, will be "flying away" yet stay at the same distance from the center. Any deeper, and even photons can't stand still, they'll fall to the center even if they were emitted "to outside". If photons can't do it, any solid surface, made of anything, can't do it either.
i don't get where the event horizon has anything to do with it. presumably, the object in question is far, far, smaller than any event horizon so if you were on the surface of said object pointing a laser to the sky then that light wouldn't even be emitted. isn't the event horizon just an arbitrary sphere where nothing can come back from due to gravity? i honestly don't see any reason why it can't still be a physical 3 dimensional object just like any other star.
@@nopenoperson3665 The particular problem of using an analogy of "standing on the surface of a singularity" is there is no surface of which you can do that. You and your laser would turn into physics in planck scale time frames. Now, information theory itself says something similar to what you say, the entirety of a black hole can be described by its surface via the Bekenstein bound. Now, what happens to nuclear and quantum matter over the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit is still up for a lot of debate, and who knows if we'll ever have an answer for it.
It made sense to me that black holes were more chaotic than just a single dot where all the mass is located, otherwise they wouldn't have some of the behaviours that have been observed. It would just be a dot fixed in space where all things converge to, no mass or energy getting ejected so violently to look like a beacon to Earth-bound sensors. What differentiates me from someone actually studies celestial objects is the ability to theorize what more is there to black holes with any plausibility, 'cause my "inkling" doesn't serve much on its own.
I'm not sure that the zone between the inner wall and the central star (remnant) would be 'chaotic'. Rather more like the zone in the eye of a hurricane - kinda serene, provided you ignore the adjacent threat of instant dismemberment! ;)
I've liked the idea that the things that black holes take in staying there for a long time. Between the matter that orbits them and the matter that actually falls past the event horizon, even a small black hole represents an unfathomable amount of energy. While the concept of what might exist inside of the hole is interesting. I'm more interested in what could cause the mechanics that pull all that together to break down, letting everything expand out. It makes for some interesting implications regarding the beginning of our universe. It's a fun tangent to let your brain run with if nothing else.
I think Hawkings entire idea about black holes all fizzling out forever with a whimper is just him being bitter and hoping existence will end cold and small and alone. He and his direct assistants are all ass hats who won't even entertain new ideas they haven't already been trying to prove. Hawking was one of the greatest geniuses of all time but he was nowhere near perfect.
I don't think our universe started as a black hole but some physicists do think black holes could become unstable and explode at some point, and they'd probably release a lot of particles that could form hydrogen leading to new star formation, but that last part is just my crack theory.
I like to think that in the far future, there will be a branch of calculation for black hole programming, in which they calculate the appropriate charge, and spin, and change them to make a specific path trajectory that transverse in both space, and time in any direction possible. Well, up until the Kerr black hole creation it is
One important factor is often overlooked. Even if singularities do exist. Even if it is an ideal non-spinning black hole. This singularity exists in the far future, in the infinite future. No black hole in the universe today has reached it yet. And even in the far future, thanks to Hawking-radiation (if exists), black holes will evaporate before any singularity could form.
I’ve Always felt like it seemed like a fairly obvious option that maybe black holes are just stars whose gravity is so strong light cant escape but it’s still a burning star back there
Very interesting , Anton. That singularity, or ringularity, idea certainly is a hard nut to crack. A real puzzler, for sure. Thanks. Can't hear enough about black holes.
So, black holes form when enough matter is condensed so that the repulsive forces can no longer resist the gravitational one. The matter then falls into a spacetime pinch that gets deeper and deeper, and at the limit becomes infinitely dense. But this is a process isn’t it? Will the singularity never form because the spacetime pinch is just getting deeper and deeper?
I think that as it falls into itself from the ever increasing self attractive forces, it’ll always result in a spin, and that spin will alter the resulting shape and direction of the pinch, therefore it wouldn’t just go down forever faster and faster.
Totally agree with Kerr, but for slightly different reasons. Like, two singularities should never be able to merge. Points with zero surface area should never be able to touch, just spin around each other, forever accelerating inside the eventhorizon. That would generate gravitational waves of unreasonable amplitudes and speeds far beyond C. Unless there is something that I'm missing completely offcourse. Would love to hear it.
I gave a cursory read to the arXiv paper of Kerr. It is a bit too far from my area, but he points out what seems to be a mistake in Penrose/Hawking's proof of singularity. I can't say if that's correct or not (better people should look into it), but I can say that probably Penrose is either quite mad or worried right now.
It's surprising how professional these physicists can be - especially in any field within cosmology. At best, Penrose would defend some of his posits but I doubt his ego was harmed in the least.
Penrose's proof is valid ( that's why you don't here any trumpets from the experts). Kerr has done great job in the past, but that recent paper is not correct.
I was listening to Carlo Rovelli's book on white holes a couple of weeks ago and he also proposed that black holes are not singularities because,.....well, i can't even hope to paraphrase Rovelli, but it had to do with time, gravity and a space time 'funnel' through which the collapsing star is falling but never reaching the end point of a singularity.
Its already mind boggling to think about black holes by themselves... Kerr black holes are just insane, but I love it a lot! It just goes to show, how far people are in theory, that Roy Kerr even goes further.
There seems to be a lot of freedom in the math surrounding BHs, but it's good that Kerr is trying to use observations as much as possible. I also have the feeling (crackpot assumption here), Kerr is reading over a lot of extreme neutron/quark star research and is inferring that very likely, BHs aren't so mysterious and are just further extreme neutron/quark stars. There's a reasonable chance that a BH is just an extremely large particle - more like a spacetime wave (a quanta) than a body of quantum particles.
What's so mind boggling? They are often just the remainder of past massive stars that due to their high mass have such high gravity that not even light can escape that gravity.
@@laaaliiiluuu Yes, thats the basics. Crazyness starts, when you try to think about what happens at the event horizont, the mathematics behind all of this, the pulling on spacetime and its implications and much much more... I feel like you just scratched the surface of the topic if you call black holes "just the remainder of past massive stars"... They are litterally holes in the fabric of space time where we cant say for certain (and maybe never will be able to) what happens within the boundaries of their event horizonts.
@@JoyexerI personally don't think a black hole is a literal hole in space time lol. It's probably much more likely that a black hole is the same as any other star except that it has so much mass, it reabsorbs the light, making the black hole, well, black. This is why the color black is black in the first place, because the pigment absorbs all the light and seeing no colored light escapes, it appears black. I fully believe that this is all that's happening in a black hole, and if you were to pass the event horizon, you'd just be looking at a regular star. Black holes are just more efficient, as they effectively store all their energy and it doesn't shoot out into space like with a normal star. This also makes sense because the universe always moves in the direction of best possible energy usage. And seeing black holes come after stars, it's pretty easy to put it all together. I would also go as far as to say that Hawkings theory that black holes are super cold, encroaching on absolute zero, is total bullshit. I don't even think black holes are that complicated
@@swickens930 Well relativity is a thing and mass influences space time. We can actually observe this in a lot of examples, one of them even is our own sun. Black is not a color, but an absence of color (light). So what you are proposing is that the event horizont is a magical barrier where no light passes through? And if black holes where hot they would still radiate... So idk what you talk about doesnt make any sense in terms of the understanding of our world if you ask me.
Particles could emerge not just somewhere, but one of many somewheres, depending upon the spacetime distortion at any given moment. Just as the example of pointing to the center being different from realtive position during its movement, the particles could emerge in a number of different locations through an inconstant wormhole.
There is the possibility it may never reach the "center" and all things that enter spin around ever increasingly, growing its energy and thus growing its mass. In essence it goes where its dimensions allow it to go within the event horizon. Its possibly how subatomic particles act in QCD, where the gap is what we would call mass but its actually the energy spinning around it that causes that. This would complete the analogy of nuetron stars being like big atoms and black holes being like big subatomic particles.
if a black hole was truly infinite mass or infinite density then everything would be pulled into it faster than the speed of light. I never quite got around that and always thought this was something they just missed or didn't care about
This is one of the most interesting developments that I have heard of in years. In hypothetical wormholes, particles could get near a singularity but still pass them by as they leave through the back half of the wormhole. Here, I think, Kerr is suggesting that particles could stay indefinitely within a roughly toroidal volume. They would be moving through space at almost the speed of light but by frame dragging. Therefore, they would move along a geodesic but would experience almost no proper time. To me, the important difference is that I believe that Kerr is proposing that there are geodesics near the center of a rotating black hole that loop back on themselves at least once. To have one particle pass extremely close to itself only a tiny amount of proper time later seems to be just what would be required to induce an interference pattern of quantum states.
So in reality, matter just kind of circles the 'drain' forever, like water trying to drain in a sink while the sink keeps moving in a circle? That makes sense, considering blackholes evaporate, eventually, right? Here you say the matter is trapped forever between the event horizon and the theoretical singularity. You cite Penrose, but he believes blackholes eventually evaporate (cyclic conformal theory), so the matter cannot be trapped forever according to him. Is this not a contradiction?
I think it's a cleverly crafted science-troll of the next level, some assumptions we all got cannot possibly be true, you pointed this out too with that contradiction. He (Penrose) probably meant there was some "acceptable threshold" to call something eternal. Neutron stars can already survive 1000x current age of the universe, effectively eternal. And Anton points out that mathematically there are **zones** that (when undisturbed by infalling matter and while in equilibrium) won't allow matter to go anywhere else. I understand that as being akin to the Lagrange points around orbiting bodies, but then visualize it as an internal gravity zone. These shapes are defined in the images. These zones would still be disturbed and create tidal forces within the mass trapped there whenever the Black Hole starts eating again. Anything can happen, maybe there's even a star in there somewhere, stuck forever. But I'm also finding contradictions... A Neutron star can effectively survive for trillions of years on gravity power alone, why can't a black hole prevent evaporating itself for at least that long? It should have an even better conversion ratio of mass:timetolive than a Neutron Star, no? Spaghettification is the next "singularity" that evades any rationalization. If your physical being can be stretched without breaking, implying a pure "spacetime" smearing, the electrons trapped inside neutrons would tunnel out as even their locations would be shifted in spacetime relative to each other. You would be radioactively decaying long before turning into a human tapestry. Ok, enough yapping.
I've always wondered if the singularity could come to fruision before the black hole radiated away. The more space time is warped near the center of the black hole, the more time dialation affects the matter inside. Everything outside the black hole happens much faster from the perspective of anything within it, including hawking radiation.
I don’t believe that a black hole is a singularity, it’s just a neutron star whose mass reached a point where its escape velocity surpassed the speed of light and it just became invisible at that point but there’s still a neutron star inside 🤷🏻
This isn't exceptionally new, but it is tying together a few leading theories. Singularity was only predicted when it was because the Lorentz transformation broke down, leading to a mathematical singularity. Argued, whether black holes had a spin at all, which was only relatively recently proven. Not too sure about even subatomic particles surviving, more likely a quark-gluon plasma. Possibly, some stranglets, with a maybe on those. Special Relativity had very little novel at its introduction, Einstein tied together math already presented, packaged together in a new way of viewing the disparate parts and that's survived the test of time thus far. Einstein himself didn't like his own theory because it predicted a singularity, but it also predicted frame dragging. Still, it's a bit rare to see Clarke's first two laws proved in one paper!
I have always been skeptical of the idea of a singularity. If there was a big bang precursor to the current universe, then necessarily all the mass of the universe initially existed in the mother (literally) of all black holes. So evidently black holes can reach a state, maybe a matter/energy oscillation(?), that can cause them to explode. Which could also explain supermassive black holes in the early universe. Who says the bang had to be homogeneous? What if the precursor was spinning? What if the expansion of space along with relaxation of the supposedly infinite gravity resulted in shock waves that bunched up early matter/energy? In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there almost always is.
For a black hole to exist it needs to be embedded in something. Big bang was not embedded, not at any stage of its evolution, and thus was never a black hole.
Early matter formed into cells and that primordial structure evolved into the spongy, non homogeneous structure of the modern universe. I believe that the universe has a spin, a North/South axis, and a standard orientation of galaxies to a central orientation. 🌌
@@petergraphix6740 to be really pendant about it: no… Really taken at its core, the CMB resembles a particular moment in time when it turned out the universe is practically homogeneous. It doesn't say anything about what happened before with certainty because it is technically all extrapolations rooted in certain assumptions which may or may not be valid. If we take the big bang theory as "correct", it still means that there is a gap of 100.000 years for which we literally cannot see or observe anything by definition. As far as I understand, we have no way to distinguish between a universe starting from a singularity as the Big Bang or a universe which had been in that opaque plasmatic state for a long time and suddenly starting to expand, meaning the emergence of the standard model. Technically the CMB can resemble a universe being 100.001 years old or a universe already being a billion + 1 years old. We assume the first because we infer that from running the clock backwards and doing the math, but the singularity at "the start" is a consequence of the assumption that our laws and concepts like entropy and general relativity are applicable as we understand them right from the start.
It seems simple to me, (which means the I am probably missing something), that matter inside a blackhole gets crushed down to just it's raw energy state, a point that needs no actual space to be defined. However, it would be much like a neutron star, where, the neutron star is in the process of turning all the matter into neutrons, a blackhole would be in the process of turning all the matter into raw energy It should also be noted that with such small scales, the issue of quantum states comes up as well, where quantum particles can be in many places at once, or, act like a wave rather....the singularity would act like a wave until acted upon.....but, the singularity being just energy, it can't traditionally be acted upon, and thus, is able to keep it's superposition intact, even while matter might be moving through it, as, it is not exactly being affected
Honestly, the singularity always bugged me. Due to time dilation, there shouldn't be enough time in the universe for anything to coalesce into a singlarity, so they shouldn't really exist.
Small singularities can form at around 3 solar masses, so in theory we should expect to see lots of small ones to potentially medium sized ones. These billion mass monsters point more at direct collapse. Of course you may be confusing how time dilation works somewhat also.
Wow! The paper says: "The Kerr metric shows that there will be a region between the event shell and the central body where an eagle can fly if it flaps its wings hard enough. It will, of course, notice the outside universe spinning very quickly around it. It may also have a problem with the radiation building up between the star and inner horizon." Amazing!
What's wrong with having a super dense mass in the middle, like a more dense version of a Neutron star that has just so much damn gravity that light just can't leave?
That would mean anyone could understand it, and it would give definable size-differentiation. We can't have none of that, it makes too much sense. Cosmology is about keeping these people in jobs, so they need concepts that make no sense, to keep getting paid to try to explain it.
There are actually some hypotheses that predict this. I can’t remember the exact names but the structure you’re talking about is often called an information diamond. There’s no official term for it that I’m aware of but it’s basically exactly what you described. Some kind of object that is very dense and contains everything that fell into it as well as its intact information
This was actually brought up by Einstein himself. Originally he ran the numbers and had the idea that a black hole's wormhole might lead outside of the universe, a concept he was uncomfortable with, and then a student of his pointed out that it could lead back to a point inside the universe. Shortly there after the concept of "white holes was developed, and more than a few people have speculated that those might be the exit points of black holes.
I've always wondered this. Once the escape velocity reaches the speed of light, wouldn't time dilation prevent the black hole from further collapse into a singularity?
@@2ndEditionBryce Yes but escape velocity exceeds the speed of light as soon as you get inside the event horizon, and singularity is not the same as event horizon.
One of your best Anton! Adding on an academic observation, logic based: Assumption: If there is variation in the size of black holes, then there is variation in the "singularity", even if it only exists mathematically, perhaps especially. Why then, do we assume (by exclusion from discussion I suppose) that there is not such a singularity at the core of all clumps of mass-- rocks, planets, stars, etc.? It sounds to me like Kerr has reached the same answer: even a one dimensional phenomenon can vary along the range of its single dimension. Also, the concept of charged black holes is very intriguing and I'd like to hear more about that, how it is estimated, and its relationship to other charged objects in the surrounding environment.
7:47 to me as a non-scientific intellectual, technically… But a person who’s always been very interested in science… This only makes sense to me. There’s no way that anyone can convince me that anything is only one anything anymore. Meaning nothing is one dimension nothing is flat. Nothing has just one side and not another side to it. It just doesn’t make sense. Even an atom, a pixel a dot, all of those things have multiple sides to them also. I also like to think when they say that ones and zeros make up coding I kind of view it as “how do we not know that the ones are just the side of zero?” Creating a chain link effect. I don’t know I’m just saying stuff that I feel in my body could be happening, but have not been scientifically, proven or discussed. I love that I found your channel. Thank you so much.❤
If the black hole drags matter to a point faster than light, could the some energy (matter, particles) be thrown out faster than we can see or detect rather than it all being trapped.
I like how we call them "holes" but in reality they're more like dense dust balls there may be a solid core but as stuff falls in it doesn't immediately reach the center it probably gets trapped for a long time beyond the even horizon before moving inwards
I like this theory! In real life, the answer to pretty much any question is "Well, it depends..." Having a single, hard-coded answer to a question is math, not real life. Real life has too many variables. Having a theory that takes this variability into account is refreshing. Cosmology has a bit of a problem right now in that certain ideas are fashionable. These ideas are treated as hard, proven fact despite the fact that they're just theories. Instead of trying to prove these theories wrong, the community seems stuck on proving they're right, which isn't really scientific. When the data doesn't match the expected results, they tweak the theory or add to it rather than asking "does this theory's predictions even match observable data?" I was talking with a friend who's studying physics in college right now. A couple months ago, we got together over beer and video games. He was talking about all the wonderful progress that had been made in physics and I asked what the competing theories said. He looked at me as if I'd asked him whether penguins like ice cream. It didn't make sense to him. If the question had made sense to him, then maybe we wouldn't be dealing with a "Crisis in Cosmology".
The crisis in cosmology refers to the discrepancy of results for two methods of calculating expansion. I don’t see how him looking at you sideways or not would change the values we measure.
@@gravitonthongs1363 It goes a bit deeper than that. Two ways of measuring, but that isn't why it's a crisis. Neither method gives an answer that fits the current theories and models and THAT is a problem... so they keep focusing on which comes closest and assume the discrepancy is due to observational or methodological errors rather than theoretical ones. The point is that there are theories out there, in multiple fields, that are being treated like holy cows. They mustn't be questioned, but if it were truly science, then they MUST be questioned.
@@KeyClavis obviously we are questioning both measurements, and have possibly found recent answers after incorporating expansion rates of the local void.
They probably have a sphere of some sort of exotic matter thats size is relative to the event horizon. Something that doesn't fuse any further, thus is super dense. Plus the gravity keeps it from even being able to emit light of any sort.
If black holes have different spin and polarity, would collisions between black holes of similar spin/polarity cause bigger gravitational waves than collisions of those with of opposing spin/polarity...
General Relativity predicts dilation, not singularities. In the 1939 journal "Annals of Mathematics" Einstein wrote - "The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the Schwarzchild singularities (Schwarzchild was the first to raise the issue of General Relativity predicting singularities) do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters (star clusters) whose particles move along circular paths it does seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that more general cases will have analogous results. The Schwarzchild singularities do not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light." He was referring to the phenomenon of dilation (sometimes called gamma or y) mass that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside observer. It's the phenomenon behind the phrase "mass becomes infinite at the speed of light". Time dilation is one aspect of dilation. Dilation will occur wherever there is an astronomical quantity of mass because high mass means high momentum. Dilation is the original and correct explanation for why we cannot see light from the galactic center. It can be shown mathematically that the mass at the center of our own galaxy must be dilated. In other words that mass is all around us. Sound familiar? This is the explanation for dark matter, the "missing mass" is dilated mass. Einstein wrote about dilation occuring in "large clusters of stars" which is basically a very low mass galaxy. For a galaxy to have no/low dilation it must have very, very low mass. It has recently been confirmed in 5 very, very low mass galaxies to show no signs of dark matter.
@@martinblank-jt2yc No they wont. Why would they? Gravitational attraction doesn't have anything to do with spin. They would attract just as any other heavy mass**. However, their combined new spin will indeed be different also depending on how they rotated around each other. And also, 'polarity' (as in magnetism) doesn't have anything to do with this AT ALL. Neither black holes, nor other types of objects are magnetic monopoles. ** there are a few caveats, like _'the final parsec problem'_ , but even that hasn't anything to do with how much they spin individually. So assuming they would merge, they would merge regardless of spin.
@@michaellee6489 yes, because spin hasn't got anything to do with the ability to merge. Merging occurs because of gravitational attraction, spin doesn't have any influence on that.
I suggest looking at inversion physics; as in the curiosity in the geophysics PREM chart made by Mary Fowler (E. Rutherford's grand daughter). This might be an excellent starting point for a better understanding of dark energy, the many red shift curiosities, etc. This rather straightforward concept was reviewed by Edward Teller in 1974; and he mentioned to me that John von Neumann also found this a very intriguing concept. Free energy - or crazy perpetual motion is a 'well huh'!
In fairness, lots of discoveries were found due to finding a singularity in the maths. Usually it’s not possible and suggests the maths is wrong. Not saying that is always the case, but it’s worth looking outside the box
It would be pure hubris for humanity to think we know what's actually going on within black holes or what they actually are. We might know quite a lot obviously, but it's great that someone has some compelling arguments against current thinking. Thus we can argue more, theorize more, find out more and learn more.
Why do black holes not act as huge nuclear reactors? surely having such a high density of matter , alongside Kerr’s theory of a lot of movement inside the black hole, would result in many collisions and hence energy exertion?
@Matt, so there are a few potential answers. 1. They do, but this excess energy production is trapped inside because of the whole event horizon thing, so the inside of the thing is really spicy. 2. The gravitational potential energy of things falling in is off the charts insane as it is. The amount of energy released in two black holes crashing into each other and being released as gravity waves is MORE than ALL the stars output in the observable universe put together at that moment (there are some LIGO papers on this). 3. Exertion only makes sense in open entropy systems. Other than possible hawking radiation, or potential stealing of energy from objects in the egosphere any entropy created inside the black hole would be kept there adding to the total entropy of the system.
I agree, my theory is that eventually degeneracy pressure will emerge for true elemental particles. It could still look like a black hole, it’s just that all of the matter is so densely packed that it still literally catches light around it, still forming an accretion disk and event horizon.
@@davidhoward4715but that is how the idea of the big bang started. It started with Lemaître's conclusion in 1931 that the universe started with the explosion of the primeval atom. (hypothèse de l'atome primitif). Lemaître didn't have "proof" of anything. We had to search for it after it was proposed.
You don't necessarily need to have the singularity at the beginning of the universe, but you're going to have a hell of a time explaining the homogeneity of the visible universe without some creative theory.
1:00 Well, actually this is not how the Kerr metric works. What you describe here is the Schwarzschild metric (non-rotating). In the Kerr (rotating) case the nature of the singularity (the singular ring) is very different: (1) it is actually _very difficult_ for an infalling object to hit the singularity: in order to do so, the object's trajectory must be entirely equatorial (this is one of Carter's theorems). If it is not (as would be the case typically in real life), the object will be _repulsed_ from the singularity and, depending on its energy, it will either bounce back (and cross the horizon leading into another patch of the extended Kerr spacetime) or will go through the ring (into the "negative" Kerr spacetime where radial coordinate r is negative. (2) During those trips the resulting tidal forces can get large but they do have _finite maxima,_ (unlike in the Schwarzschild case) and given a massive enough black hole, those tidal strains can be made FAPP imperceptible. All of the above is the standard Kerr geometry from way back when.
I've long had an issue with the possibility of physical infinities. Infinity is an interesting concept, that certainly helps in certain theoretical mathematical situations, but when extrapolated to the physical world, it creates too many paradoxes.
How big is the universe? And, if the physical universe is finite, what medium does that universe exist within? And, if our universe exists within a medium, what is the extent of that medium? It's kind of difficult to get away from the infinity problem even in what we call the physical universe :) > Mind you I did recently have a thought that solves one part of the infinity problem I described above.
@@pervyboy69 It's a long explanation, but in short for YT comments. (I am not an indentured physicist. Science physics has just been something of a long time non professional interest) Physics seams to assert that time somehow emerges from the 3D void (Complete empty space) and as I hinted above which ever way we look at it that void (universe) is ether infinite, or finite and exist within another finite realm leading us to an infinite number of realms. Where does it start and where does it end seams un-answerable because we start from the premise of everything in the universe beginning from something with physical mass. But time is a weird phenomena that receives little attention. They say time somehow emerges from the void or does not exist but it's always this Space->Time perspective. Time is even stapled to the end of the physical dimensions like some pseudo physical dimension that has no apparent physical properties and called the forth dimension. It's an issue of perspective (for me) and what is the primary driver of the universe. > If I flip that perspective and the starting premise around and place Time as the primary driver of the all things in the void/universe then many paradoxes in the "math" of physics appear to be answerable. Even Zero and Infinity become explainable. So, at the moment I am looking at the 4 dimensions as follows: Zeroth Dimension (0D) void of any physical dimensions; 1stD, 2nd D, 3rdD the physical dimensions of the void. So Space-time become time-space (For me). In this the thought experiment begins with time and the 3D void is what emerges from time. At zero time there is no physical void, so the universe (or the 3D void) does not have to exist anywhere or in any physical realm to begin with (Eliminates some physical ream or infinite number of realms for the universe[s] to need to exist in). Once time begins (For what reason I can't explain atm) the leading non physical edge of time leaves the appearance of the void in its wake, between zero time and current time (not our time) since time began. If we were an observer in this void (Note I have not introduced any concept of energy of matter yet) it would not matter which way we look all that we would observe is the appearance of an empty void. It would "Appear" infinite because if we introduce mater etc. we can never catch up to the leading edge of times progress since zero time; it always appears unreachable. > So, at zero time there is no physical properties (No 3D) nothing and time does not have to have any physical medium to exist in. When time begins, the leading edge of time is always moving ahead and out of physical reach but remains finite and in motion (Even if time itself appears to be moving toward the infinite, time began nowhere and is progressing to nowhere). > I have introduced what appears to be a paradox, but if you accept it in the thought experiment then much of physics and even the quantum realm seam to fall into place for me. The assertion (Paradox) is this: "Time is not physical and does not exist in a physical way." "3D space (the void) emerges as an illusion created by the progress of time." "3D space (the void) has emerged from nothing." and like our humble photon due to 'c' and time dilation that experiences time as well as experiencing zero time. it both exists and does not exist. . *"The void both exists and does not exist."* Does not exist in any physical medium to begin with, but for the observer inside this progression of time everything appears very real (Maybe we can just call it real for us, which is what we currently do even though we cant actually find any solid mass at the center of particles). > It's a weird concept and much more to it than I say here, but I found that it even offers a preliminary explanation for quantum entanglement and superposition. And time (I think) can explain also how energy and matter emerge from nothing other than the potential/tension created in the progression of time itself. > Busy with tertiary study, writing programming books and life general at the moment. Down the road I will explore the math of this for my own curiosity :)
P.S. It also offers plausible explanations for the Black Hole questions as shown in this video. [edit] This was attached to the comment (response/explanation) I posted. Unfortunately YT won't allow me to post it. So the discussion is an impossible mess now :(
@@pervyboy69 It's a long explanation, but in short for YT comments. (I am not an indentured physicist. Science physics has just been something of a long time non professional interest) Physics seams to assert that time somehow emerges from the 3D void (Complete empty space) and as I hinted above which ever way we look at it that void (universe) is ether infinite, or finite and exist within another finite realm leading us to an infinite number of realms. Where does it start and where does it end seams un-answerable because we start from the premise of everything in the universe beginning from something with physical mass. But time is a weird phenomena that receives little attention. They say time somehow emerges from the void or does not exist but it's always this Space->Time perspective. Time is even stapled to the end of the physical dimensions like some pseudo physical dimension that has no apparent physical properties and called the forth dimension. It's an issue of perspective (for me) and what is the primary driver of the universe. > If I flip that perspective and the starting premise around and place Time as the primary driver of the all things in the void/universe then many paradoxes in the "math" of physics appear to be answerable. Even Zero and Infinity become explainable. So, at the moment I am looking at the 4 dimensions as follows: Zeroth Dimension (0D) void of any physical dimensions; 1stD, 2nd D, 3rdD the physical dimensions of the void. So Space-time become time-space (For me). In this the thought experiment begins with time and the 3D void is what emerges from time. At zero time there is no physical void, so the universe (or the 3D void) does not have to exist anywhere or in any physical realm to begin with (Eliminates some physical ream or infinite number of realms for the universe[s] to need to exist in). Once time begins (For what reason I can't explain atm) the leading non physical edge of time leaves the appearance of the void in its wake, between zero time and current time (not our time) since time began. If we were an observer in this void (Note I have not introduced any concept of energy of matter yet) it would not matter which way we look all that we would observe is the appearance of an empty void. It would "Appear" infinite because if we introduce mater etc. we can never catch up to the leading edge of times progress since zero time; it always appears unreachable. > So, at zero time there is no physical properties (No 3D) nothing and time does not have to have any physical medium to exist in. When time begins, the leading edge of time is always moving ahead and out of physical reach but remains finite and in motion (Even if time itself appears to be moving toward the infinite, time began nowhere and is progressing to nowhere). > I have introduced what appears to be a paradox, but if you accept it in the thought experiment then much of physics and even the quantum realm seam to fall into place for me. The assertion (Paradox) is this: "Time is not physical and does not exist in a physical way." "3D space (the void) emerges as an illusion created by the progress of time." "3D space (the void) has emerged from nothing." and like our humble photon due to 'c' and time dilation that experiences time as well as experiencing zero time. it both exists and does not exist. . *"The void both exists and does not exist."* Does not exist in any physical medium to begin with, but for the observer inside this progression of time everything appears very real (Maybe we can just call it real for us, which is what we currently do even though we cant actually find any solid mass at the center of particles). > It's a weird concept and much more to it than I say here, but I found that it even offers a preliminary explanation for quantum entanglement and superposition. And time (I think) can explain also how energy and matter emerge from nothing other than the potential/tension created in the progression of time itself. > Busy with tertiary study, writing programming books and life general at the moment. Down the road I will explore the math of this for my own curiosity :)
White hole? It comes from math being wrong yet again. It comes specificly on something like x^2 and x is either - or + aaaand that x is TIME my guy. + is time going towards future so its the answer black hole. - is time going towards past so a white hole where everything comes out because its black hole reversed in time. And clearly it doesnt exist since time is constantly running towards future.
Right. But time approaches zero as objects approach the speed of light. The math breaks in black holes- maybe things Do exceed light speed and time, and therefore gravity, go backwards. It'd be an equilibrium between this white hole pushing against the event horizon from the inside. Sheer speculation here.
Gargantua WAS a spinning black hole. So, nothing 'impossible' about it. In fact, it is one of the most accurate animations of a spinning black hole. If you want the real deal/real images, then look at the images taken by the Event Horizon Telescope from the center of the galaxy M87 from 2022.
@@CookieTubeapparently you dont understand much about black holes cause if you did you would know that simulation is wrong it doesnt simulate the rotation of the black hole. The shape is of a non spinning blackhole. It should have one side where accreation disk is spinning towards observer appearing larger and brighter (blue shift), and other side exact opposite (red shift).
@@mertc8050 Au contraire my friend... It *IS* of a spinning BH. One side also DOES look brighter as you'd expect. Also, and more importantly to your last comment: you might have a (common and easy to make) misunderstanding about the relation of the spin of a BH and the spin of the accretion disk itself. An accretion disk forms and rotates NOT because the black hole has spin!!!! It forms and rotates because the matter falling into the black hole is rotating. The matter falling usually has angular momentum (if it didn't, if it would fall strait in, no accretion disk would form). Aka: even a non-spinning BH can actually have a rotating accretion disk! The spin of a BH is formed by the initial body of mass' rotation which collapses into a BH, thus NOT by the spin of its accretion disk. Accretion disks spin because the material composing the disk is in *orbit* around the BH. The spin of the BH itself is independent of that. I can't post links, but I highly suggest to search the Fermilab QA forum which addresses this specifically ('Rotation of Black Holes'). Either way, keep in mind, _some_ liberties have been taken on that whole sequence for artistic purposes since it is a movie afterall (especially in relation to how the space ship interacts with the BH and the relative size of it, etc...) But overall, that animation of the BH itself is as correct as it can be and was calculated and made via a real scientific physics simulation.
@@mertc8050 Incorrect. Look it up before you make it up. They made it look like that on purpose because when they depicted it as spinning that fast it was too confusing to look at. It was no mistake and wasn't wrong, it was a choice. The black hole IS spinning, just not as fast as it should have been. “When I saw the movie, I immediately saw that the black hole did not look as it should for a near maximally spinning black hole,” says Andrew Hamilton of the University of Colorado in Boulder. Now that he has read the paper, he’s glad to see they slowed it down for a reason. “I had not realised just how careful the Interstellar team had been with their renderings.”
@@filonin2 No, the previous commenter was correct. Fast spinning Black Holes look asymmetrical, especially when a/M is close to 1( as it was the case for Gargantua). Yes, they tweaked and "corrected" the image to make it more "good looking" , but that doesn't mean that it is accurate!
"Think logically if any aspect is at all recognizable. And then carry on the never-ending struggle for applied mathematics from a modern point of view needed for the study of interactions between energy and matter along country roadsides. But let’s keep a close eye on sunspots anyway, but with a demand for carefully crafted parking lots, comfortable, economical and made to last once you know the rule of pressurized air. The balance of power is changing because it is easy to operate, safe and harmless for fresh-squeezed lemons. Brush your teeth in less than 10 seconds with a simulation experience and the sound is crisp and clear on sun-drenched beaches of mirror worlds. Barber shops are playing a leading role in preserving and sustaining the unique ecology of inclusive federal policies in response to years of experience and observation. That's the primordial truth behind everything finding anomalous structures inside emotional thresholds using a new technology that results in cereal boxes. The singularity has already happened, low-carb and gluten-free." ---Albert Einstein
"Pure logic dictates that black holes will display cosmological time dilation formulas of differential equations with plenty of free parking that never lets perspiration odor come between friends. The Slab City art and pumpkin festival is a topic of interest worldwide that exactly fits the measured number of the few scientists who are standing up for reality. The photoelectric effect implicit in the dimensions of the Planck constant suggests that your local hardware store can illustrate the positive curvature around the sun using concentric circles. Once you go full hyper-dimensional where the deer and antelope play, you'll never look back. I am not a cucumber. Don't be afraid to challenge the status quo and bring new ideas to the table about hula hoops. It is essential to understand that the gravitational lensing of lawn furniture is an intrinsic property of the infinite-dimensional spaces of a naked singularity. Seaweed and even wood pulp can simultaneously occupy the same quantum state of pickaxes. Stay frosty and keep your nose clean. Everybody gets a participation trophy made from refined moon sugar. Keep on trucking looking for what happened to Larry." ---Albert Einstein
It seems to me there would still only be one direction - down - but that "down" would change in different regions such that as you fell "down" suddenly "down" is somewhere else, so you never actually get there. Does this sound like a more accurate explanation to what Kerr was trying to describe?
When two black holes collide, interesting things happen. One of the first blackhole mergers was a 25 solar mass black hole and a 9 solar mass black hole. They orbited each other, the orbits getting closer and faster as each was slowed down. Think of a motorboat riding up the wake of another motorboat; energy is lost... 25 + 9 = 30, with 4 solar masses being blown off into gravity waves. For that second, that was the brightest thing in the universe. Brighter, in fact, than the rest of the universe combined. If you can get gravitational energy out of a blackhole, then it isn't an eternal trap. (Hawking radiation.)
@@geraldfrost4710 But we don't know if gravity has a wave/particle associated with it. If it doesn't then this wouldn't apply. Actually, I think you just said why it can't be a wave/particle!
No. I'm assuming that if a particle fell through the eye of a ring singularity then 'down' would be a every direction in a ring around the particle, in other words not a very useful concept of 'down'.
This could somewhat explain the shape of galaxies. You’d think if a black hole had even distribution of gravity galaxies would be circular or spherical. But they tend to have a disc with arms. Almost like the way weed wacker wires look from angular momentum.
Does gravity even explain why all astronomical objects in the universe rotate? It seems it hardly has anything to do with rotation. Electric currents and magnetic fields easily demonstrate what's going on here with regards to galactic structures. We need to start thinking more in terms of plasma / and electrical currents. The structure and spiraling effect of galaxies is identical to that of an overhead view of a hurricane. Which we know are formed by a build up of charge in the clouds acting as a giant super capacitor, drawing in convection currents of conflicting temperatures and air pressures.
I think this suggests that there is a universe inside of a blackhole. You can go in, once in you cannot get out, and while in you can move around. Meaning while inside everything that has crossed the event horizon that hasn't been annihilated is still there. Lastly, even if we had access to one of these blackholes and we knew how to extract "free" energy from it. We don't have a way to store enough to make it meaningful. Imagine the size of that capacitor if we did. We would have to have a blackhole for getting the energy and one for storing it.
The singularity always felt like math to me. It seems intuitive that there has to be a solid object inside them. Just one we can’t yet understand. I get the universes isn’t obligated to behave intuitively, but here I strongly suspect it does.
The particular problem with densities this high is our idea of solids might not exist. Neutron stars still seem to be solid objects but at any higher masses/densities the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit is reached and we're kind of in the "Dragons be here" part of the map.
It does seem like you would have a dense center like a white dwarf or neutron star has a pressure that must be overcome to collapse further. It feels intuitive that there would be a limit where the last bit of energy would just form a central ball of mass/momentum
When I talked to Roy on the subject several years ago, he said to me that he denies the existence of Hawking Radiation. He said the maths made sense, but that it did not bear on reality.
@@gravitonthongs1363 That is simply not the case. Epicycles are very elegant math that turned out not to be true. It wasn't that the epicycles didn't describe the movement of the clestial bodies correctly from the point of view of the earth, it just turned out that the celestial bodies were not going around the Earth, an assumption that was baked into the model. All math describing physical reality are models. All models are wrong (due to simplifying assumptions), but some are useful.
@@2jlee Epicycles were anything but elegant or accurate. I understand where you are coming from because Newtonian Dynamics are elegant but inaccurate for all applications, and GR is elegant but incomplete. QED will never change because the model is accurate and complete. Saying it is not reality is pure ignorance of the scientific method. Likewise, saying Hawking radiation doesn’t exist (just because it is not apparent given the current density of spacetime) is also ignorance of the most likely probability. It is an unjustified and unsupported claim.
The description of the singularity at the start of the video sounds so familiar... It's the same way we are experiencing time. You can only move "down", I mean forward in time :D
This is why I find science far more compelling than the philosophy of religion, because of the continued efforts to understand as compared to the efforts to stagnate and maintain the status quo’s.
The surface singularities where 1/x in some dimension becomes infinite are likely smoothed/roughened by quantum boundary chaos phenomena. Likely lots of bubbly phase change boundary modelling, and working out some Burt Reynaldo's number, and the other dimension of fluid dynamic phase change on the mach number.
Singularities possibly do not exist?! 😱 🤔 🤨 . . .does this mean I can take a day off to mourn the loss of the concept? 😌 I think it does. Relaxing at the house, free to do whatever, resting my bones, and crying my eyes out for. . . oh, yeah! Singularities!
@@filonin2 what made you think I don't care about science, because I made a joke? That doesn't mean I don't care about science, that just means you have no culture or character and are running low on 'C' words.
@jameselliott216 Your entire 'joke' rests on the conceit that you are being expected to care about something. I would suggest that you reserve the format for those times when you have no agency about what you are consuming. It doesn't work here. You like irony, so you'll enjoy that the first response to your joke was the person that actually read and understood it, as opposed to the other guy.
I’ve been saying this since I heard the concept of a singularity. The fact they were ever treated as fact despite being intrinsically absurd is wild to me
isn't the singularity of a black hole just a big gradient leading all the way into the future point where the black hole dissipates? if you think about it, when something falls into a black hole, time dilates so much that you never get close to it. even going at light speed (light itself for instance) you would still experience time dilation to such a degree that by the time you could even travel 1cm closer to the centre, 100 trillion trillion years will be passing, and eventually so much time will pass that the black hole just won't even be there anymore due to hawking radiation. for this reason how is it that people think you could get to the centre, or that any matter could be there in the first place? clearly all the matter is in the process of approaching the centre but it never quite gets there, because that would require an infinite amount of time, and by some point before that the black hole will have already fizzled out due to hawking radiation. you can't get to the centre! it's gone before you get there, and it never was there in the first place because it's all just one big collapsing motion until time dilates it away completely. it never forms a solid ball or anything. right?? am I crazy?
what if all of the blackholes singularities points to the (a) big bang singularity?
Last place I expected a random desinc comment
Just accelerated back hop towards the center and you'll get there faster than the Hawking radiation dissipates
When Anton is so excited about something he doesn't even say hello until 5 minutes into the video you know it's gonna be something good 😊😊
Lol I made a comment regarding that. 😅
I was waiting for his hello! I love how he always greets his viewers that way. And his videos are always so well-made and narrated, and done so in a way that is easy to follow for the layperson!
No idea how much (if any) merit it has but it's pretty inspiring to see Roy Kerr still producing comment worthy work at the age of 89. Good for him (and if it leads anywhere, good for all of us too :).
it's a good paper. Taking the math from Hawking, Swartzchild, and Penrose and applying it to actual observations; and gets the results of a region, not a singularity.
For all effective purposes right now that actually doesnt effect us much, he is attempting to show that the singularity is a spherical cow; and I think he is sucessful at a first read through, and if not at very least his stated goal was sucessful should I ever go down the path of scientific instrument design and manufacture again; I at very least will bring up these possibilites if ever there is an apperatus that needs to concern them, or will go though and run simulations with his paper.
but I am greaviously injured, old, and near retirement age anyway so I might not work again, or might find a job that allows for ample writing time after another round of surgeries and just write science fiction.
@@AnonymousAnarchist2sorry to hear that you have been greviously injured. I hope you can heal, though that becomes harder the older we get. All the best to you.
@@AnonymousAnarchist2 I hear your pain, man. Life’s been tough to you. Write here anything you want to share, I and other people will listen.
@@AnonymousAnarchist2 Sir, how does one goes in the field of scientific instrument making? I'm a Biochemistry graduate. And my research goal lies in applying cutting edge techniques like attosecond pump-probe Spectroscopy on Biomolecules. May be use some next gen spinotronic material etc. All of which is about instrumentation. But how do I go into these with a Biochemistry degree?
Sure Hawking’s thinks it is great for us all too! RIP.
I was playing with this idea a lot when I was a PhD candidate in cosmology, because you parameterise light ray trajectories using an affine parameter as opposed to proper time, even in non-rotating black holes, light doesn't necessarily converge to the singularity in finite time. I brought it to my supervisor and was bluntly told to shut up about it, but I'm glad the idea is getting some attention now.
Why would your supervisor do that? I'm NOT calling you a liar with the question. It seems to be normal that universities suppress thought in many instances, not just in line with BS activists agendas, but as if in many cases they don't want good ideas at the cutting edge of science advanced too.
@@TheJeremyKentBGross Me and my supervisor did not get on well from the get go. Many of my results he claimed were incorrect and essentially he tried to make me feel like I was stupid. His supervisor was incidentially Stephen Hawking, so perhaps he didn't like the idea of singularities being just mathematical artifacts.
@@Trimza42 Or maybe his supervisor made HIM feel stupid and wrong, because by comparison he was, and he had to take it out on, and be superior to someone else.
I wonder how well he's dealing with the new Stephen Hawking findings relating to a certain island lol
@@hawks3109 do you honestly think there going to give us the real perpetrators who went to that certain island?, remember who it is that is 'giving' us this list and then consider if they would want to muddy the waters surrounding who the evil bastrds really are, (i'm not saying everyone on the list is innocent or guilty just pointing out a dose of skepticism is required), the same people who turned off the camera's in eppy's prison cell maybe?
We (humanity) are grateful and appreciate folks like you who CONTINUE to question in order to be more and more accurate instead of becoming rigid and stagnant. Good man.
he's just a reporter, you should be thanking the writers of these reports and papers that are actually attempting to move us forward, including the ones that we never get to hear about
@markd.s.8625 I was thinking the same.
The Earth is flat. Its flat.
@@markd.s.8625agreed hes just a reporter but he does play a role in getting this informstion out to people.
Ya its called the scientific method. This is a science channel.
Some cool guy started talking to me about Black Holes. Then about 4:59 minutes later he tells me hello and his name. I was scared at first but now I’m intrigued.
> Talks for 5 minutes, then says "Hello"
> My brain turns into a singularity
Wouldn't a brain singularity be the ultimate form of Derp?
@@stcredzero Even a thought traveling at c couldn't escape.
The "one direction" may be better referred to as "the future" at the point where it becomes the only direction it is. It is sometimes referred to as "time-like space" because causality is reduced to a spatial direction in which all events move.
“The future” which is a “present” ticking away one second per second.
And how is it different from everything outside event horizon? Nobody can escape future
@@Nat-oj2uc basically time and space get flipped so space becomes time-like and time becomes space-like. Outside the black hole, time is moving but space is not. Inside, it's the space that moves.
@@burbanpoison2494 well outside space is moving too because of expansion. So what's the difference? The flip only exist in Schwarzschild coordinates. And coordinates are arbitrary.. in other words the flip isn't real
RIP for those Animes and Sci Fi who overused Black Hole as singularity concept.
this is good. a general rule of thumb is that any time an infinity is present in physics, it more likely indicates something we dont know.
Virtually all mathematical equations break down into infinity, so we know infinity is real. The question is, how is it applied to reality
@@TTime685it is definitely not a real physical thing that exists in the material world. It exists in mathematics, but that doesn’t mean anything
@@Jm-wt1fs Mathematics is the language of the universe you dingus.. Of course it means something. Time is what most like represents infinity
@@TTime685 what does that even mean, time represents infinity? Mathematics is a tool used to help model reality it’s not any deeper than that, there are tons of mathematical concepts that do not exist in the physical world. They are still useful concepts, just not physical ones
@@Jm-wt1fs "It exists in mathematics, but it doesn't mean anything"
"Mathematics is a tool to help model reality"
Lol.. You're just confusing yourself. Our entire civilization, it's technology, and everything we know about reality and the universe is based off mathematics/physics/geometry.. Just stop. What other "tons of" mathematical concepts would we use?
Space and time most likely represent infinity, meaning they're infinite. That's what I meant. Comprehend?
Anton, my understanding is we can consider the event horizon as a "surfacularity", where space-time fabric is stretched to the point it rips apart (and acts as a "diode" does with electricity)
That would lead to an "infinitely" curved space-time inside the event horizon, (whereas time alone doesn't really make sense), meaning you could infinitely travel in a straight line without leaving the volume limited by the event horizon
Love the title of Kerr's paper. Simple, on point, and unpretentious
And also, incorrect. The things Kerr says are long known not to be true. This is just sour-grapes. The Penrose argument is correct, you have to have a singularity inside the rotating black hole, The paper requires a competent physicist to review, Anton doesn't have the proper expertise.
@@annaclarafenyo8185 The title is a question, so it can't really be incorrect. As for the contents of the paper, I wouldn't know. But I'm unsurprised that there's controversy to it, when challenging names such as Penrose and Hawking!
@@lucidstream5661 It's not controversy, it's just that Kerr doesn't get the full argument. The Penrose proof shows there are light-rays that just "end" in the middle of nowhere, they can't be extended. The proof is rigorous, it shows you there must be these light rays somewhere inside. What Kerr noticed is that there is a class of light-rays that "just end" on the inner horizon (also on the outer horizon), and he says "Maybe those fix up Penrose's theorem, so there's no singularity". The reason he is wrong is that you can extend those light rays in a larger space-time that has extra regions beyond the inner and outer horizons, this is the maximally extended Kerr space-time, and there, Penrose's argument STILL goes through, so there has to be some other singularity where other light-rays (not the ones fixed up by maximal extension, other ones) have to end! Those are the light-rays that end on the singularity.
It's not a difficult argument, but Kerr complicates it because he imagines that adding collapsing matter will prevent a branched space-time from emerging, but still allow light-rays to end at finite time. This is just not true. His argument is well-intentioned, he is sincere, he believes what he saying, he's just wrong.
@@annaclarafenyo8185I'm very curious about how you can make such a strong statement. Do you have knowledge that use normies do not? As far as I'm aware the only concept we have less solid information about than black holes is dark matter/energy, so how exactly are hawking and penrose correct while kerr is not? Please enlighten me
There are also further developments in Rotating/ Charged Black Hole physics from 1990 until now:
The inner ( Cauchy) horizon is unstable. Penrose ( again) was the first that pointed out this instability already in the late 1960s.
In the early 1990s Poisson et al dubbed it " mass inflation" and further calculations by other experts confirmed that the inner horizon is replaced by a Null or spacelike singularity.
Kerr doesn't even mention these well known developments , or having any references to them in that paper ( although the latter has to do with rotating black holes ).
I once read a book where the author used the expansion of the universe to describe the possibilities of black holes not being singularities at all but instead being pockets of negative gravity surrounded by enormous gravity. They tried to show whenever too much mass is located in a Schwarzschild radius gravity would reverse. I don't know enough to comment on the author's math but I always love reading about other possibilities.
Interestingly enough information theory supports something close to this, the Bekenstein bound says that the entirety of a black hole can be described by the surface area of the event horizon. All the mass of the blackhole could be on an insanely thin layer with nothing inside it at all.
@@petergraphix6740Like a ring magnet' right?
I always just thought black holes were the same as stars but they have enough mass to re-absorb the light. But, other than that, nothing special. Yes this would sort of cause some "singularity" because light is being produced and also reabsorbed at the same time. But that seems meaningless and it might not even cause any special effects other than being an energy source that lasts a really really long time. I personally think that Hawkings theory that black holes are super cold, is total bullshit. I would put my life on the theory that once you break the event horizon in a black hole, it would just be the same as being inside of a star.
@swickens930 since a black hole 'star' would be compressed to the point of (and way past) a solid, it would need to obey Shell Theorum and its maximal gravity would be at one radii depth... this would mean that from the outside edge of the singularity to that depth would need to be void of any matter as it wouldn't allow any movement except towards the center of the black hole.
@@petergraphix6740 Uh, nope. Black holes have the largest gravity of any celestial object. Black holes don't have "one radii depth of gravity." Entire galaxies revolve around black holes. It literally sounds like you just made that up bahahaha. Also, it's totally unproven and theoretical that a black hole compresses itself down to nothing. And seeing they have various sizes, they're probably exactly like a star under the event horizon. Furthermore, it's impossible to have mass energy and also be absolute zero in temperature. Everything you just said is actual astronomy magic mumbo jumbo. It straight up sounds like something a crazy religious person would say, no offense.
Ya, planets also only allow for objects to fall directly towards the planet. That doesn't mean they are infinitely small. Like, all satellites will eventually be dragged down to earth. That doesn't mean earth is infinitely small.
my man! so glad you make these and keep us updated on current discoveries. keep up the good work we need you
Bye by Anton, you stay wonderful too. So many love what you provide, your an inspiration to me. ❤
Black holes seem to be just very dense objects, not magical portals, not a hole. It has the same matter that we have everywhere and it will evaporate in time like all stars do.
"I Don't Want 1 Position, I Want ALL Positions!!"
*Ruby Rhod 5th Element ♡
Wonderfull person Anton, thanks for the quality content. Appreciate you!
Great concept. I like this explanation. I’ll be contemplating about this for weeks.
This just proved to me just how important black holes are to solving all kinds of problems with quantum physics, not the least of which being reconciling it with current theories of gravity. Great video as always, Anton!
I miss my golden retriever, Betty Kitten
4:59 - Anton says Hello Wonderful persons! Thank you Anton!
I thought of this in another way. There is a famous example of a seemingly paradoxical probability fact involving a dart board. We will idealize the board to be a mathematical disc (filled-in circle), which of course contains infinitely many points. As it turns out, the probability of dropping a pin on any particular point is zero in the limit, even as the probability of hitting _some_ point is one. You can drop infinitely many pins infinitely many times and still miss infinitely many points.
Of all the infinitely many possible angular momenta the black hole could possibly have, the probability of it having none is zero.
This is far from being any sort of rigorous proof, of course. But it does lead one to imagine that a Schwarzchild black hole is infinitely unlikely, if not impossible, and makes it easy to imagine why.
@@CiaDora-us1tf It is also useful to remember that angular momentum is one of those properties that are subject to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. So even if the spin is zero, it's also not zero. And even if somehow it was zero and not nonzero, quantum fluctuation would certainly change that before the ring singularity could collapse.
@@CiaDora-us1tf Right. A non-rotating (Schwarzschild) black hole has a point-like singularity, and a rotating (Kerr) black hole has a ring-like singularity, along with a couple more event horizons that do different things. I do think that Schwarzschild black holes are possible, but it's an unstable configuration.
Even if one particle of Hawking radiation could make the angular momentum precisely zero (and also not nonzero), the very next particle to be emitted _and/or_ to fall in would upset that balance. To sustain a Schwarzschild black hole, every particle to fall in would have to be accompanied by a simultaneous emission of a Hawking particle with the same angular momentum.
That's a really cool idea, if it turns out to be true. Now that I think about it, I kinda hope I'm wrong!
I'd like to imagine in the future when I get to an old age instead of waiting to eventually rot and die, I want to just build a spaceship with enough fuel for the nearest black hole and just go into one just so I can finally experience what is it like to enter a blackhole
My number one source for unbiased, accurate and entertaining Science News. Thanks Anton
Aww, that's so adorable
It wasn’t really accurate. This had been known for a long time. Hawking and Penrose didn’t disagree with Kerr. And it kinda oversimplifies things as nobody knows what goes on beyond the event horizon. The ergosphere surrounds the event horizon. Penrose is who figured out how to extract energy from that region, in fact. Kerr’s ring object is as theoretical as a point singularity. I don’t see anyone disagreeing with anybody in reality.
I always appreciate a more "down to earth" analysis. It's pretty obvious a purely static black hole would be excessively difficult to imagine in our very dynamic universe. It might exist, but the probability of it's existance is probably near to null.
Really well presented researched and explained, well done young fella! I think I might be nearly a 100 and even I understood the jist of what you explained. It's truly a shame Mr Hawking wasn't around to lend his mind to the theory (I mean that respectfully) Thankyou
He'd have shot it down. He shot down anything even remotely challenging his impossible to prove theories.
@@gmork1090On the other hand he did have at least one major change in a position he held. He might have accepted this one as well
Eh, Hawking was proven to enjoy orgies (though not participating) at a child sex island. And he’s a cripple too. And he’s stated as an “ordinary” genius.
Anton, thank you for covering this paper. Smn shared it on facebook but I didn't have time to read it and then i forgot about it. This is a long time argument that the astrophysical BH is different from the mathematical one and some people that the region between the two horizons is not stable (which is very serious), so I can totally believe Kerr's arguments exactly for this region. I am still convinced that what we observe practically everywhere in the universe is not really mathematical black holes, but an object that in some approximation is described by this in this in its outside region. I really want to go back to studying black holes, but the community is kind of brutal, because of the money involved in the big experiments. You have to be Roy Kerr to publish something like this.
Never mind that the apparent passage of time in the surrounding universe already goes to infinity at the event horizon. Also, the singularity is the reduced mass of the event horizon. That means, a black hole could have all its mass infinitesimally outside the event horizon while producing the same gravitational field as a singularity, but without having to deal with any division by zero.
The black hole doesn't care if you divide by zero or not. It doesn't need to make sense.
Probably our math isn't describing reality. That's why this nonsense begins to make sense. It's a clear sign that something is wrong
They couldn't exist otherwise black holes would never be able to increase in size
fuzzball
Having absolutely no chops in this. But I have been wondering why time dilation doesn't imply it takes infinite time for a singularity to form. Or If plank length is a real thing. that implies a plank volume. resulting in a finite mass in a nonzero volume.
@@pierrepero9338 If you mean constant mass in a Planc area, rather than nonzero mass in a finite volume, we completely agree.
I imagine matter taking infinitely long time to settle on the event horizon. Meanwhile, the black body radiation emitted by the matter is spaghettified into Hawking radiation, so that everything is evaporated before reaching the EV, and nothing ever crosses.
1:06 it would make no sense at all for infinity to only exist in mathemathics, as mathematics describe the physical world, and for example fractals can only exist as parts of themselves, meaning they could not exist at all in any way or form unless they existed everywhere in some way.
i've never really bought into the idea of a black hole singularity. singularities, infinities, and paradoxes are what happens when the math fails. not reality imo. i've posed the question numerous times of "why can't a black hole simply be an object denser than a neutron star and able to bend light back on itself? seems to me its just a matter of strength of gravity and density of the object with no need of invoking some kind of exotic circumstance to explain it all.
Honestly, once I discovered the Planck star hypothesis that seemed like it was the most likely solution. No singularity, and no Planck length woo. And no string theory!
> why can't a black hole simply be an object denser than a neutron star and able to bend light back on itself
Because a stationary surface of such an object would be locally moving faster than the speed of light. Think about it. To "stand still" at event horizon, the particle needs to move at light speed. A photon emitted "to outside" by you while you cross the even horizon, will be "flying away" yet stay at the same distance from the center. Any deeper, and even photons can't stand still, they'll fall to the center even if they were emitted "to outside". If photons can't do it, any solid surface, made of anything, can't do it either.
i don't get where the event horizon has anything to do with it. presumably, the object in question is far, far, smaller than any event horizon so if you were on the surface of said object pointing a laser to the sky then that light wouldn't even be emitted.
isn't the event horizon just an arbitrary sphere where nothing can come back from due to gravity? i honestly don't see any reason why it can't still be a physical 3 dimensional object just like any other star.
@@nopenoperson3665 The particular problem of using an analogy of "standing on the surface of a singularity" is there is no surface of which you can do that. You and your laser would turn into physics in planck scale time frames.
Now, information theory itself says something similar to what you say, the entirety of a black hole can be described by its surface via the Bekenstein bound.
Now, what happens to nuclear and quantum matter over the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit is still up for a lot of debate, and who knows if we'll ever have an answer for it.
If infinity is the job, maths is the wrong tool for it. You've got it backwards.
So glad you covered this paper Anton. I love listening to Roy's lectures.
UC baby ⛳
It made sense to me that black holes were more chaotic than just a single dot where all the mass is located, otherwise they wouldn't have some of the behaviours that have been observed. It would just be a dot fixed in space where all things converge to, no mass or energy getting ejected so violently to look like a beacon to Earth-bound sensors.
What differentiates me from someone actually studies celestial objects is the ability to theorize what more is there to black holes with any plausibility, 'cause my "inkling" doesn't serve much on its own.
I'm not sure that the zone between the inner wall and the central star (remnant) would be 'chaotic'. Rather more like the zone in the eye of a hurricane - kinda serene, provided you ignore the adjacent threat of instant dismemberment! ;)
if it was just a dot fixed in space there would still be a violent accretion disk. that's just orbital mechanics
only Anton would do the intro 5 minutes into the video. Respect the thoroughness.
I've liked the idea that the things that black holes take in staying there for a long time. Between the matter that orbits them and the matter that actually falls past the event horizon, even a small black hole represents an unfathomable amount of energy. While the concept of what might exist inside of the hole is interesting. I'm more interested in what could cause the mechanics that pull all that together to break down, letting everything expand out. It makes for some interesting implications regarding the beginning of our universe. It's a fun tangent to let your brain run with if nothing else.
I think Hawkings entire idea about black holes all fizzling out forever with a whimper is just him being bitter and hoping existence will end cold and small and alone. He and his direct assistants are all ass hats who won't even entertain new ideas they haven't already been trying to prove. Hawking was one of the greatest geniuses of all time but he was nowhere near perfect.
@@gmork1090 I don't understand what this has to do with what I said. I made no implications about his ideas being flawless.
I don't think our universe started as a black hole but some physicists do think black holes could become unstable and explode at some point, and they'd probably release a lot of particles that could form hydrogen leading to new star formation, but that last part is just my crack theory.
This was what the Indian physicist Abhas Mitra said years ago in his book The Black Hole Paradigm
I like to think that in the far future, there will be a branch of calculation for black hole programming, in which they calculate the appropriate charge, and spin, and change them to make a specific path trajectory that transverse in both space, and time in any direction possible. Well, up until the Kerr black hole creation it is
damn this is just steins;gate lmao, it's basically exactly what "SERN" does
One important factor is often overlooked. Even if singularities do exist. Even if it is an ideal non-spinning black hole. This singularity exists in the far future, in the infinite future. No black hole in the universe today has reached it yet.
And even in the far future, thanks to Hawking-radiation (if exists), black holes will evaporate before any singularity could form.
I’ve Always felt like it seemed like a fairly obvious option that maybe black holes are just stars whose gravity is so strong light cant escape but it’s still a burning star back there
This is definitely how i have always felt.
Very interesting , Anton. That singularity, or ringularity, idea certainly is a hard nut to crack. A real puzzler, for sure. Thanks. Can't hear enough about black holes.
So, black holes form when enough matter is condensed so that the repulsive forces can no longer resist the gravitational one. The matter then falls into a spacetime pinch that gets deeper and deeper, and at the limit becomes infinitely dense. But this is a process isn’t it? Will the singularity never form because the spacetime pinch is just getting deeper and deeper?
I think that as it falls into itself from the ever increasing self attractive forces, it’ll always result in a spin, and that spin will alter the resulting shape and direction of the pinch, therefore it wouldn’t just go down forever faster and faster.
Totally agree with Kerr, but for slightly different reasons.
Like, two singularities should never be able to merge. Points with zero surface area should never be able to touch, just spin around each other, forever accelerating inside the eventhorizon. That would generate gravitational waves of unreasonable amplitudes and speeds far beyond C.
Unless there is something that I'm missing completely offcourse. Would love to hear it.
I gave a cursory read to the arXiv paper of Kerr. It is a bit too far from my area, but he points out what seems to be a mistake in Penrose/Hawking's proof of singularity. I can't say if that's correct or not (better people should look into it), but I can say that probably Penrose is either quite mad or worried right now.
It's surprising how professional these physicists can be - especially in any field within cosmology. At best, Penrose would defend some of his posits but I doubt his ego was harmed in the least.
Penrose's proof is valid ( that's why you don't here any trumpets from the experts).
Kerr has done great job in the past, but that recent paper is not correct.
This is an incredible idea from an incredible mind. I can't wait to learn more. Thank you Anton!
TY Anton for remining us that fastest way to go into the hole 🕳 is to try and divide by 0. 😱
Divide by 0 and then multiply by 1/137? 😂😂
How did you comment on this before it was posted? it's been out for an hour and you posted this 6 hours ago...
@@hypercoder-gamingthey’re commenting from beyond the event horizon 😯
@@the80hdgaming he's a member, so he get access to the videos previously
I was listening to Carlo Rovelli's book on white holes a couple of weeks ago and he also proposed that black holes are not singularities because,.....well, i can't even hope to paraphrase Rovelli, but it had to do with time, gravity and a space time 'funnel' through which the collapsing star is falling but never reaching the end point of a singularity.
Its already mind boggling to think about black holes by themselves... Kerr black holes are just insane, but I love it a lot! It just goes to show, how far people are in theory, that Roy Kerr even goes further.
There seems to be a lot of freedom in the math surrounding BHs, but it's good that Kerr is trying to use observations as much as possible. I also have the feeling (crackpot assumption here), Kerr is reading over a lot of extreme neutron/quark star research and is inferring that very likely, BHs aren't so mysterious and are just further extreme neutron/quark stars. There's a reasonable chance that a BH is just an extremely large particle - more like a spacetime wave (a quanta) than a body of quantum particles.
What's so mind boggling? They are often just the remainder of past massive stars that due to their high mass have such high gravity that not even light can escape that gravity.
@@laaaliiiluuu Yes, thats the basics. Crazyness starts, when you try to think about what happens at the event horizont, the mathematics behind all of this, the pulling on spacetime and its implications and much much more... I feel like you just scratched the surface of the topic if you call black holes "just the remainder of past massive stars"... They are litterally holes in the fabric of space time where we cant say for certain (and maybe never will be able to) what happens within the boundaries of their event horizonts.
@@JoyexerI personally don't think a black hole is a literal hole in space time lol. It's probably much more likely that a black hole is the same as any other star except that it has so much mass, it reabsorbs the light, making the black hole, well, black. This is why the color black is black in the first place, because the pigment absorbs all the light and seeing no colored light escapes, it appears black. I fully believe that this is all that's happening in a black hole, and if you were to pass the event horizon, you'd just be looking at a regular star. Black holes are just more efficient, as they effectively store all their energy and it doesn't shoot out into space like with a normal star. This also makes sense because the universe always moves in the direction of best possible energy usage. And seeing black holes come after stars, it's pretty easy to put it all together. I would also go as far as to say that Hawkings theory that black holes are super cold, encroaching on absolute zero, is total bullshit. I don't even think black holes are that complicated
@@swickens930 Well relativity is a thing and mass influences space time. We can actually observe this in a lot of examples, one of them even is our own sun. Black is not a color, but an absence of color (light). So what you are proposing is that the event horizont is a magical barrier where no light passes through? And if black holes where hot they would still radiate... So idk what you talk about doesnt make any sense in terms of the understanding of our world if you ask me.
I really appreciate how to the point you are. Instead of throwing out the "cool terms" for fun
Particles could emerge not just somewhere, but one of many somewheres, depending upon the spacetime distortion at any given moment. Just as the example of pointing to the center being different from realtive position during its movement, the particles could emerge in a number of different locations through an inconstant wormhole.
*hits bong*
*clears chamber, exhales, slightly coughs😤 now let's talk about the speed of darkness as opposed to the speed of light
There is the possibility it may never reach the "center" and all things that enter spin around ever increasingly, growing its energy and thus growing its mass. In essence it goes where its dimensions allow it to go within the event horizon. Its possibly how subatomic particles act in QCD, where the gap is what we would call mass but its actually the energy spinning around it that causes that. This would complete the analogy of nuetron stars being like big atoms and black holes being like big subatomic particles.
@@generaleerelativity9524 The more dank, the more often the bowl needs to be cleaned and the water needs to be changed.
aka the speed of dankness@@brianwesley28
Anton, thank you for being a wonderful person, for all humans..
if a black hole was truly infinite mass or infinite density then everything would be pulled into it faster than the speed of light. I never quite got around that and always thought this was something they just missed or didn't care about
This is one of the most interesting developments that I have heard of in years. In hypothetical wormholes, particles could get near a singularity but still pass them by as they leave through the back half of the wormhole. Here, I think, Kerr is suggesting that particles could stay indefinitely within a roughly toroidal volume. They would be moving through space at almost the speed of light but by frame dragging. Therefore, they would move along a geodesic but would experience almost no proper time.
To me, the important difference is that I believe that Kerr is proposing that there are geodesics near the center of a rotating black hole that loop back on themselves at least once. To have one particle pass extremely close to itself only a tiny amount of proper time later seems to be just what would be required to induce an interference pattern of quantum states.
So in reality, matter just kind of circles the 'drain' forever, like water trying to drain in a sink while the sink keeps moving in a circle? That makes sense, considering blackholes evaporate, eventually, right? Here you say the matter is trapped forever between the event horizon and the theoretical singularity. You cite Penrose, but he believes blackholes eventually evaporate (cyclic conformal theory), so the matter cannot be trapped forever according to him. Is this not a contradiction?
I think it's a cleverly crafted science-troll of the next level, some assumptions we all got cannot possibly be true, you pointed this out too with that contradiction.
He (Penrose) probably meant there was some "acceptable threshold" to call something eternal. Neutron stars can already survive 1000x current age of the universe, effectively eternal.
And Anton points out that mathematically there are **zones** that (when undisturbed by infalling matter and while in equilibrium) won't allow matter to go anywhere else.
I understand that as being akin to the Lagrange points around orbiting bodies, but then visualize it as an internal gravity zone. These shapes are defined in the images.
These zones would still be disturbed and create tidal forces within the mass trapped there whenever the Black Hole starts eating again. Anything can happen, maybe there's even a star in there somewhere, stuck forever.
But I'm also finding contradictions...
A Neutron star can effectively survive for trillions of years on gravity power alone, why can't a black hole prevent evaporating itself for at least that long? It should have an even better conversion ratio of mass:timetolive than a Neutron Star, no?
Spaghettification is the next "singularity" that evades any rationalization. If your physical being can be stretched without breaking, implying a pure "spacetime" smearing, the electrons trapped inside neutrons would tunnel out as even their locations would be shifted in spacetime relative to each other. You would be radioactively decaying long before turning into a human tapestry.
Ok, enough yapping.
I've always wondered if the singularity could come to fruision before the black hole radiated away. The more space time is warped near the center of the black hole, the more time dialation affects the matter inside. Everything outside the black hole happens much faster from the perspective of anything within it, including hawking radiation.
I don’t believe that a black hole is a singularity, it’s just a neutron star whose mass reached a point where its escape velocity surpassed the speed of light and it just became invisible at that point but there’s still a neutron star inside 🤷🏻
Kerr took a break … then came back and said: ima have to show these folks how it’s done
I don't need sleep, I need answers!
This isn't exceptionally new, but it is tying together a few leading theories. Singularity was only predicted when it was because the Lorentz transformation broke down, leading to a mathematical singularity. Argued, whether black holes had a spin at all, which was only relatively recently proven.
Not too sure about even subatomic particles surviving, more likely a quark-gluon plasma. Possibly, some stranglets, with a maybe on those.
Special Relativity had very little novel at its introduction, Einstein tied together math already presented, packaged together in a new way of viewing the disparate parts and that's survived the test of time thus far. Einstein himself didn't like his own theory because it predicted a singularity, but it also predicted frame dragging.
Still, it's a bit rare to see Clarke's first two laws proved in one paper!
I have always been skeptical of the idea of a singularity. If there was a big bang precursor to the current universe, then necessarily all the mass of the universe initially existed in the mother (literally) of all black holes. So evidently black holes can reach a state, maybe a matter/energy oscillation(?), that can cause them to explode. Which could also explain supermassive black holes in the early universe. Who says the bang had to be homogeneous? What if the precursor was spinning? What if the expansion of space along with relaxation of the supposedly infinite gravity resulted in shock waves that bunched up early matter/energy? In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there almost always is.
For a black hole to exist it needs to be embedded in something. Big bang was not embedded, not at any stage of its evolution, and thus was never a black hole.
>Who says the bang had to be homogeneous?
The cosmic microwave background.
Early matter formed into cells and that primordial structure evolved into the spongy, non homogeneous structure of the modern universe.
I believe that the universe has a spin, a North/South axis, and a standard orientation of galaxies to a central orientation. 🌌
@@bretthess6376But there isn't any evidence that there is a central point (?)
@@petergraphix6740 to be really pendant about it: no… Really taken at its core, the CMB resembles a particular moment in time when it turned out the universe is practically homogeneous. It doesn't say anything about what happened before with certainty because it is technically all extrapolations rooted in certain assumptions which may or may not be valid. If we take the big bang theory as "correct", it still means that there is a gap of 100.000 years for which we literally cannot see or observe anything by definition.
As far as I understand, we have no way to distinguish between a universe starting from a singularity as the Big Bang or a universe which had been in that opaque plasmatic state for a long time and suddenly starting to expand, meaning the emergence of the standard model. Technically the CMB can resemble a universe being 100.001 years old or a universe already being a billion + 1 years old. We assume the first because we infer that from running the clock backwards and doing the math, but the singularity at "the start" is a consequence of the assumption that our laws and concepts like entropy and general relativity are applicable as we understand them right from the start.
It seems simple to me, (which means the I am probably missing something), that matter inside a blackhole gets crushed down to just it's raw energy state, a point that needs no actual space to be defined. However, it would be much like a neutron star, where, the neutron star is in the process of turning all the matter into neutrons, a blackhole would be in the process of turning all the matter into raw energy
It should also be noted that with such small scales, the issue of quantum states comes up as well, where quantum particles can be in many places at once, or, act like a wave rather....the singularity would act like a wave until acted upon.....but, the singularity being just energy, it can't traditionally be acted upon, and thus, is able to keep it's superposition intact, even while matter might be moving through it, as, it is not exactly being affected
Honestly, the singularity always bugged me. Due to time dilation, there shouldn't be enough time in the universe for anything to coalesce into a singlarity, so they shouldn't really exist.
Small singularities can form at around 3 solar masses, so in theory we should expect to see lots of small ones to potentially medium sized ones. These billion mass monsters point more at direct collapse. Of course you may be confusing how time dilation works somewhat also.
Wow! The paper says:
"The Kerr metric shows
that there will be a region between the event shell and the central body where
an eagle can fly if it flaps its wings hard enough. It will, of course, notice the
outside universe spinning very quickly around it. It may also have a problem
with the radiation building up between the star and inner horizon."
Amazing!
What's wrong with having a super dense mass in the middle, like a more dense version of a Neutron star that has just so much damn gravity that light just can't leave?
That would mean anyone could understand it, and it would give definable size-differentiation.
We can't have none of that, it makes too much sense.
Cosmology is about keeping these people in jobs, so they need concepts that make no sense, to keep getting paid to try to explain it.
There are actually some hypotheses that predict this. I can’t remember the exact names but the structure you’re talking about is often called an information diamond. There’s no official term for it that I’m aware of but it’s basically exactly what you described. Some kind of object that is very dense and contains everything that fell into it as well as its intact information
This was actually brought up by Einstein himself. Originally he ran the numbers and had the idea that a black hole's wormhole might lead outside of the universe, a concept he was uncomfortable with, and then a student of his pointed out that it could lead back to a point inside the universe. Shortly there after the concept of "white holes was developed, and more than a few people have speculated that those might be the exit points of black holes.
I've always wondered this. Once the escape velocity reaches the speed of light, wouldn't time dilation prevent the black hole from further collapse into a singularity?
That’s kinda what the singularity is. The point at which math doesn’t quite work right.
@@2ndEditionBryce Yes but escape velocity exceeds the speed of light as soon as you get inside the event horizon, and singularity is not the same as event horizon.
One of your best Anton!
Adding on an academic observation, logic based:
Assumption: If there is variation in the size of black holes, then there is variation in the "singularity", even if it only exists mathematically, perhaps especially. Why then, do we assume (by exclusion from discussion I suppose) that there is not such a singularity at the core of all clumps of mass-- rocks, planets, stars, etc.? It sounds to me like Kerr has reached the same answer: even a one dimensional phenomenon can vary along the range of its single dimension.
Also, the concept of charged black holes is very intriguing and I'd like to hear more about that, how it is estimated, and its relationship to other charged objects in the surrounding environment.
A total side tangent:
What is the minimum number of supernovas that had to occur to form the mix of elements we see here in the solar system?
3
According to current thought, we seem to need a kilonova as well as a supernova.
7:47 to me as a non-scientific intellectual, technically… But a person who’s always been very interested in science… This only makes sense to me. There’s no way that anyone can convince me that anything is only one anything anymore. Meaning nothing is one dimension nothing is flat. Nothing has just one side and not another side to it. It just doesn’t make sense. Even an atom, a pixel a dot, all of those things have multiple sides to them also. I also like to think when they say that ones and zeros make up coding I kind of view it as “how do we not know that the ones are just the side of zero?” Creating a chain link effect. I don’t know I’m just saying stuff that I feel in my body could be happening, but have not been scientifically, proven or discussed. I love that I found your channel. Thank you so much.❤
If the black hole drags matter to a point faster than light, could the some energy (matter, particles) be thrown out faster than we can see or detect rather than it all being trapped.
I like how we call them "holes" but in reality they're more like dense dust balls there may be a solid core but as stuff falls in it doesn't immediately reach the center it probably gets trapped for a long time beyond the even horizon before moving inwards
I like this theory!
In real life, the answer to pretty much any question is "Well, it depends..." Having a single, hard-coded answer to a question is math, not real life. Real life has too many variables. Having a theory that takes this variability into account is refreshing.
Cosmology has a bit of a problem right now in that certain ideas are fashionable. These ideas are treated as hard, proven fact despite the fact that they're just theories. Instead of trying to prove these theories wrong, the community seems stuck on proving they're right, which isn't really scientific. When the data doesn't match the expected results, they tweak the theory or add to it rather than asking "does this theory's predictions even match observable data?"
I was talking with a friend who's studying physics in college right now. A couple months ago, we got together over beer and video games. He was talking about all the wonderful progress that had been made in physics and I asked what the competing theories said. He looked at me as if I'd asked him whether penguins like ice cream. It didn't make sense to him. If the question had made sense to him, then maybe we wouldn't be dealing with a "Crisis in Cosmology".
Whether penguins like ice cream. I'm going to file off the serial numbers and use that myself. 🐸😁🐸
"Theory" in science means "true" in the sense supported by observational evidence. Not yet falsified. "Conjecture" might be a better word to use.
The crisis in cosmology refers to the discrepancy of results for two methods of calculating expansion. I don’t see how him looking at you sideways or not would change the values we measure.
@@gravitonthongs1363 It goes a bit deeper than that. Two ways of measuring, but that isn't why it's a crisis. Neither method gives an answer that fits the current theories and models and THAT is a problem... so they keep focusing on which comes closest and assume the discrepancy is due to observational or methodological errors rather than theoretical ones.
The point is that there are theories out there, in multiple fields, that are being treated like holy cows. They mustn't be questioned, but if it were truly science, then they MUST be questioned.
@@KeyClavis obviously we are questioning both measurements, and have possibly found recent answers after incorporating expansion rates of the local void.
They probably have a sphere of some sort of exotic matter thats size is relative to the event horizon. Something that doesn't fuse any further, thus is super dense. Plus the gravity keeps it from even being able to emit light of any sort.
If black holes have different spin and polarity, would collisions between black holes of similar spin/polarity cause bigger gravitational waves than collisions of those with of opposing spin/polarity...
General Relativity predicts dilation, not singularities. In the 1939 journal "Annals of Mathematics" Einstein wrote -
"The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the Schwarzchild singularities (Schwarzchild was the first to raise the issue of General Relativity predicting singularities) do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters (star clusters) whose particles move along circular paths it does seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that more general cases will have analogous results. The Schwarzchild singularities do not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light."
He was referring to the phenomenon of dilation (sometimes called gamma or y) mass that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside observer. It's the phenomenon behind the phrase "mass becomes infinite at the speed of light". Time dilation is one aspect of dilation. Dilation will occur wherever there is an astronomical quantity of mass because high mass means high momentum. Dilation is the original and correct explanation for why we cannot see light from the galactic center.
It can be shown mathematically that the mass at the center of our own galaxy must be dilated. In other words that mass is all around us. Sound familiar? This is the explanation for dark matter, the "missing mass" is dilated mass.
Einstein wrote about dilation occuring in "large clusters of stars" which is basically a very low mass galaxy. For a galaxy to have no/low dilation it must have very, very low mass. It has recently been confirmed in 5 very, very low mass galaxies to show no signs of dark matter.
@@martinblank-jt2yc No they wont. Why would they? Gravitational attraction doesn't have anything to do with spin. They would attract just as any other heavy mass**. However, their combined new spin will indeed be different also depending on how they rotated around each other.
And also, 'polarity' (as in magnetism) doesn't have anything to do with this AT ALL. Neither black holes, nor other types of objects are magnetic monopoles.
** there are a few caveats, like _'the final parsec problem'_ , but even that hasn't anything to do with how much they spin individually. So assuming they would merge, they would merge regardless of spin.
@shawns0762 stop spamming that in every thread. That whole explanation you make is highly flawed, misquoted and misunderstood by you.
good question! I wonder if black holes spinning AGAINST each other would even be able to merge...
@@michaellee6489 yes, because spin hasn't got anything to do with the ability to merge. Merging occurs because of gravitational attraction, spin doesn't have any influence on that.
I suggest looking at inversion physics; as in the curiosity in the geophysics PREM chart made by Mary Fowler (E. Rutherford's grand daughter). This might be an excellent starting point for a better understanding of dark energy, the many red shift curiosities, etc. This rather straightforward concept was reviewed by Edward Teller in 1974; and he mentioned to me that John von Neumann also found this a very intriguing concept. Free energy - or crazy perpetual motion is a 'well huh'!
In fairness, lots of discoveries were found due to finding a singularity in the maths. Usually it’s not possible and suggests the maths is wrong. Not saying that is always the case, but it’s worth looking outside the box
> "looking outside of the box"
That's a Black Hole joke right there...! 😅
@@tesseract_1982 it’s both funny and unfunny depending on who observes it 😅
My guy math is always incomplete we are surprised when it is correct and we write that down...
It would be pure hubris for humanity to think we know what's actually going on within black holes or what they actually are. We might know quite a lot obviously, but it's great that someone has some compelling arguments against current thinking. Thus we can argue more, theorize more, find out more and learn more.
Why do black holes not act as huge nuclear reactors? surely having such a high density of matter , alongside Kerr’s theory of a lot of movement inside the black hole, would result in many collisions and hence energy exertion?
I don't know if the center is internally small. It is viewed from the outside, but is it from the inside?
@Matt, so there are a few potential answers.
1. They do, but this excess energy production is trapped inside because of the whole event horizon thing, so the inside of the thing is really spicy.
2. The gravitational potential energy of things falling in is off the charts insane as it is. The amount of energy released in two black holes crashing into each other and being released as gravity waves is MORE than ALL the stars output in the observable universe put together at that moment (there are some LIGO papers on this).
3. Exertion only makes sense in open entropy systems. Other than possible hawking radiation, or potential stealing of energy from objects in the egosphere any entropy created inside the black hole would be kept there adding to the total entropy of the system.
I agree, my theory is that eventually degeneracy pressure will emerge for true elemental particles. It could still look like a black hole, it’s just that all of the matter is so densely packed that it still literally catches light around it, still forming an accretion disk and event horizon.
This sound similar to the notion of a Planck Star.
Fascinating. Now imagine if we could remove the singularly from the beginning of the universe as well.
That's not how science should work. You don't start with a conclusion and search for evidence. This too often leads to cherry-picking of data.
@@davidhoward4715 He didn't. Classic straw man argument.
@@davidhoward4715but that is how the idea of the big bang started. It started with Lemaître's conclusion in 1931 that the universe started with the explosion of the primeval atom. (hypothèse de l'atome primitif). Lemaître didn't have "proof" of anything. We had to search for it after it was proposed.
You don't necessarily need to have the singularity at the beginning of the universe, but you're going to have a hell of a time explaining the homogeneity of the visible universe without some creative theory.
@@petergraphix6740 I thought expansion did exactly that.
1:00 Well, actually this is not how the Kerr metric works. What you describe here is the Schwarzschild metric (non-rotating). In the Kerr (rotating) case the nature of the singularity (the singular ring) is very different: (1) it is actually _very difficult_ for an infalling object to hit the singularity: in order to do so, the object's trajectory must be entirely equatorial (this is one of Carter's theorems). If it is not (as would be the case typically in real life), the object will be _repulsed_ from the singularity and, depending on its energy, it will either bounce back (and cross the horizon leading into another patch of the extended Kerr spacetime) or will go through the ring (into the "negative" Kerr spacetime where radial coordinate r is negative. (2) During those trips the resulting tidal forces can get large but they do have _finite maxima,_ (unlike in the Schwarzschild case) and given a massive enough black hole, those tidal strains can be made FAPP imperceptible. All of the above is the standard Kerr geometry from way back when.
I've long had an issue with the possibility of physical infinities. Infinity is an interesting concept, that certainly helps in certain theoretical mathematical situations, but when extrapolated to the physical world, it creates too many paradoxes.
How big is the universe? And, if the physical universe is finite, what medium does that universe exist within? And, if our universe exists within a medium, what is the extent of that medium?
It's kind of difficult to get away from the infinity problem even in what we call the physical universe :)
>
Mind you I did recently have a thought that solves one part of the infinity problem I described above.
@@axle.studentwhat was your thought?
@@pervyboy69 It's a long explanation, but in short for YT comments. (I am not an indentured physicist. Science physics has just been something of a long time non professional interest)
Physics seams to assert that time somehow emerges from the 3D void (Complete empty space) and as I hinted above which ever way we look at it that void (universe) is ether infinite, or finite and exist within another finite realm leading us to an infinite number of realms. Where does it start and where does it end seams un-answerable because we start from the premise of everything in the universe beginning from something with physical mass.
But time is a weird phenomena that receives little attention. They say time somehow emerges from the void or does not exist but it's always this Space->Time perspective. Time is even stapled to the end of the physical dimensions like some pseudo physical dimension that has no apparent physical properties and called the forth dimension.
It's an issue of perspective (for me) and what is the primary driver of the universe.
>
If I flip that perspective and the starting premise around and place Time as the primary driver of the all things in the void/universe then many paradoxes in the "math" of physics appear to be answerable. Even Zero and Infinity become explainable. So, at the moment I am looking at the 4 dimensions as follows: Zeroth Dimension (0D) void of any physical dimensions; 1stD, 2nd D, 3rdD the physical dimensions of the void. So Space-time become time-space (For me).
In this the thought experiment begins with time and the 3D void is what emerges from time. At zero time there is no physical void, so the universe (or the 3D void) does not have to exist anywhere or in any physical realm to begin with (Eliminates some physical ream or infinite number of realms for the universe[s] to need to exist in).
Once time begins (For what reason I can't explain atm) the leading non physical edge of time leaves the appearance of the void in its wake, between zero time and current time (not our time) since time began.
If we were an observer in this void (Note I have not introduced any concept of energy of matter yet) it would not matter which way we look all that we would observe is the appearance of an empty void. It would "Appear" infinite because if we introduce mater etc. we can never catch up to the leading edge of times progress since zero time; it always appears unreachable.
>
So, at zero time there is no physical properties (No 3D) nothing and time does not have to have any physical medium to exist in. When time begins, the leading edge of time is always moving ahead and out of physical reach but remains finite and in motion (Even if time itself appears to be moving toward the infinite, time began nowhere and is progressing to nowhere).
>
I have introduced what appears to be a paradox, but if you accept it in the thought experiment then much of physics and even the quantum realm seam to fall into place for me.
The assertion (Paradox) is this:
"Time is not physical and does not exist in a physical way."
"3D space (the void) emerges as an illusion created by the progress of time."
"3D space (the void) has emerged from nothing."
and like our humble photon due to 'c' and time dilation that experiences time as well as experiencing zero time. it both exists and does not exist.
.
*"The void both exists and does not exist."*
Does not exist in any physical medium to begin with, but for the observer inside this progression of time everything appears very real (Maybe we can just call it real for us, which is what we currently do even though we cant actually find any solid mass at the center of particles).
>
It's a weird concept and much more to it than I say here, but I found that it even offers a preliminary explanation for quantum entanglement and superposition.
And time (I think) can explain also how energy and matter emerge from nothing other than the potential/tension created in the progression of time itself.
>
Busy with tertiary study, writing programming books and life general at the moment. Down the road I will explore the math of this for my own curiosity :)
P.S. It also offers plausible explanations for the Black Hole questions as shown in this video.
[edit] This was attached to the comment (response/explanation) I posted. Unfortunately YT won't allow me to post it. So the discussion is an impossible mess now :(
@@pervyboy69 It's a long explanation, but in short for YT comments. (I am not an indentured physicist. Science physics has just been something of a long time non professional interest)
Physics seams to assert that time somehow emerges from the 3D void (Complete empty space) and as I hinted above which ever way we look at it that void (universe) is ether infinite, or finite and exist within another finite realm leading us to an infinite number of realms. Where does it start and where does it end seams un-answerable because we start from the premise of everything in the universe beginning from something with physical mass.
But time is a weird phenomena that receives little attention. They say time somehow emerges from the void or does not exist but it's always this Space->Time perspective. Time is even stapled to the end of the physical dimensions like some pseudo physical dimension that has no apparent physical properties and called the forth dimension.
It's an issue of perspective (for me) and what is the primary driver of the universe.
>
If I flip that perspective and the starting premise around and place Time as the primary driver of the all things in the void/universe then many paradoxes in the "math" of physics appear to be answerable. Even Zero and Infinity become explainable. So, at the moment I am looking at the 4 dimensions as follows: Zeroth Dimension (0D) void of any physical dimensions; 1stD, 2nd D, 3rdD the physical dimensions of the void. So Space-time become time-space (For me).
In this the thought experiment begins with time and the 3D void is what emerges from time. At zero time there is no physical void, so the universe (or the 3D void) does not have to exist anywhere or in any physical realm to begin with (Eliminates some physical ream or infinite number of realms for the universe[s] to need to exist in).
Once time begins (For what reason I can't explain atm) the leading non physical edge of time leaves the appearance of the void in its wake, between zero time and current time (not our time) since time began.
If we were an observer in this void (Note I have not introduced any concept of energy of matter yet) it would not matter which way we look all that we would observe is the appearance of an empty void. It would "Appear" infinite because if we introduce mater etc. we can never catch up to the leading edge of times progress since zero time; it always appears unreachable.
>
So, at zero time there is no physical properties (No 3D) nothing and time does not have to have any physical medium to exist in. When time begins, the leading edge of time is always moving ahead and out of physical reach but remains finite and in motion (Even if time itself appears to be moving toward the infinite, time began nowhere and is progressing to nowhere).
>
I have introduced what appears to be a paradox, but if you accept it in the thought experiment then much of physics and even the quantum realm seam to fall into place for me.
The assertion (Paradox) is this:
"Time is not physical and does not exist in a physical way."
"3D space (the void) emerges as an illusion created by the progress of time."
"3D space (the void) has emerged from nothing."
and like our humble photon due to 'c' and time dilation that experiences time as well as experiencing zero time. it both exists and does not exist.
.
*"The void both exists and does not exist."*
Does not exist in any physical medium to begin with, but for the observer inside this progression of time everything appears very real (Maybe we can just call it real for us, which is what we currently do even though we cant actually find any solid mass at the center of particles).
>
It's a weird concept and much more to it than I say here, but I found that it even offers a preliminary explanation for quantum entanglement and superposition.
And time (I think) can explain also how energy and matter emerge from nothing other than the potential/tension created in the progression of time itself.
>
Busy with tertiary study, writing programming books and life general at the moment. Down the road I will explore the math of this for my own curiosity :)
We are meant to change the space we are in.
Our thoughts are the beginning.
If we only consume we are just as valuable as ???
What about what comes out of black holes in a White Hole really interests me.
This was one of your best explainstions
The entire concept of white holes is fascinating...
So you're interested in fantasy.
White hole? It comes from math being wrong yet again. It comes specificly on something like x^2 and x is either - or + aaaand that x is TIME my guy. + is time going towards future so its the answer black hole. - is time going towards past so a white hole where everything comes out because its black hole reversed in time. And clearly it doesnt exist since time is constantly running towards future.
Right. But time approaches zero as objects approach the speed of light. The math breaks in black holes- maybe things Do exceed light speed and time, and therefore gravity, go backwards.
It'd be an equilibrium between this white hole pushing against the event horizon from the inside. Sheer speculation here.
Great video Anton! I always learn so much!
Now I would like to see realistic visual representation of rotating Kerr black hole, since Gargantua from Interstellar appears to be impossible.
Gargantua WAS a spinning black hole. So, nothing 'impossible' about it. In fact, it is one of the most accurate animations of a spinning black hole. If you want the real deal/real images, then look at the images taken by the Event Horizon Telescope from the center of the galaxy M87 from 2022.
@@CookieTubeapparently you dont understand much about black holes cause if you did you would know that simulation is wrong it doesnt simulate the rotation of the black hole. The shape is of a non spinning blackhole. It should have one side where accreation disk is spinning towards observer appearing larger and brighter (blue shift), and other side exact opposite (red shift).
@@mertc8050 Au contraire my friend... It *IS* of a spinning BH. One side also DOES look brighter as you'd expect.
Also, and more importantly to your last comment: you might have a (common and easy to make) misunderstanding about the relation of the spin of a BH and the spin of the accretion disk itself. An accretion disk forms and rotates NOT because the black hole has spin!!!! It forms and rotates because the matter falling into the black hole is rotating. The matter falling usually has angular momentum (if it didn't, if it would fall strait in, no accretion disk would form). Aka: even a non-spinning BH can actually have a rotating accretion disk! The spin of a BH is formed by the initial body of mass' rotation which collapses into a BH, thus NOT by the spin of its accretion disk. Accretion disks spin because the material composing the disk is in *orbit* around the BH. The spin of the BH itself is independent of that.
I can't post links, but I highly suggest to search the Fermilab QA forum which addresses this specifically ('Rotation of Black Holes').
Either way, keep in mind, _some_ liberties have been taken on that whole sequence for artistic purposes since it is a movie afterall (especially in relation to how the space ship interacts with the BH and the relative size of it, etc...) But overall, that animation of the BH itself is as correct as it can be and was calculated and made via a real scientific physics simulation.
@@mertc8050 Incorrect. Look it up before you make it up. They made it look like that on purpose because when they depicted it as spinning that fast it was too confusing to look at. It was no mistake and wasn't wrong, it was a choice. The black hole IS spinning, just not as fast as it should have been.
“When I saw the movie, I immediately saw that the black hole did not look as it should for a near maximally spinning black hole,” says Andrew Hamilton of the University of Colorado in Boulder. Now that he has read the paper, he’s glad to see they slowed it down for a reason. “I had not realised just how careful the Interstellar team had been with their renderings.”
@@filonin2 No, the previous commenter was correct.
Fast spinning Black Holes look asymmetrical, especially when a/M is close to 1( as it was the case for Gargantua). Yes, they tweaked and "corrected" the image to make it more "good looking" , but that doesn't mean that it is accurate!
"Think logically if any aspect is at all recognizable. And then carry on the never-ending struggle for applied mathematics from a modern point of view needed for the study of interactions between energy and matter along country roadsides. But let’s keep a close eye on sunspots anyway, but with a demand for carefully crafted parking lots, comfortable, economical and made to last once you know the rule of pressurized air. The balance of power is changing because it is easy to operate, safe and harmless for fresh-squeezed lemons. Brush your teeth in less than 10 seconds with a simulation experience and the sound is crisp and clear on sun-drenched beaches of mirror worlds. Barber shops are playing a leading role in preserving and sustaining the unique ecology of inclusive federal policies in response to years of experience and observation. That's the primordial truth behind everything finding anomalous structures inside emotional thresholds using a new technology that results in cereal boxes. The singularity has already happened, low-carb and gluten-free."
---Albert Einstein
"Pure logic dictates that black holes will display cosmological time dilation formulas of differential equations with plenty of free parking that never lets perspiration odor come between friends. The Slab City art and pumpkin festival is a topic of interest worldwide that exactly fits the measured number of the few scientists who are standing up for reality. The photoelectric effect implicit in the dimensions of the Planck constant suggests that your local hardware store can illustrate the positive curvature around the sun using concentric circles. Once you go full hyper-dimensional where the deer and antelope play, you'll never look back. I am not a cucumber. Don't be afraid to challenge the status quo and bring new ideas to the table about hula hoops. It is essential to understand that the gravitational lensing of lawn furniture is an intrinsic property of the infinite-dimensional spaces of a naked singularity. Seaweed and even wood pulp can simultaneously occupy the same quantum state of pickaxes. Stay frosty and keep your nose clean. Everybody gets a participation trophy made from refined moon sugar. Keep on trucking looking for what happened to Larry."
---Albert Einstein
EXACTLY!!
It seems to me there would still only be one direction - down - but that "down" would change in different regions such that as you fell "down" suddenly "down" is somewhere else, so you never actually get there. Does this sound like a more accurate explanation to what Kerr was trying to describe?
No
When two black holes collide, interesting things happen. One of the first blackhole mergers was a 25 solar mass black hole and a 9 solar mass black hole. They orbited each other, the orbits getting closer and faster as each was slowed down. Think of a motorboat riding up the wake of another motorboat; energy is lost...
25 + 9 = 30, with 4 solar masses being blown off into gravity waves. For that second, that was the brightest thing in the universe. Brighter, in fact, than the rest of the universe combined.
If you can get gravitational energy out of a blackhole, then it isn't an eternal trap. (Hawking radiation.)
@@DolphLundgrensDolphinDungeon 🤣 thanks for clarifying!
@@geraldfrost4710 But we don't know if gravity has a wave/particle associated with it. If it doesn't then this wouldn't apply. Actually, I think you just said why it can't be a wave/particle!
No. I'm assuming that if a particle fell through the eye of a ring singularity then 'down' would be a every direction in a ring around the particle, in other words not a very useful concept of 'down'.
This could somewhat explain the shape of galaxies. You’d think if a black hole had even distribution of gravity galaxies would be circular or spherical. But they tend to have a disc with arms. Almost like the way weed wacker wires look from angular momentum.
Does gravity even explain why all astronomical objects in the universe rotate? It seems it hardly has anything to do with rotation. Electric currents and magnetic fields easily demonstrate what's going on here with regards to galactic structures. We need to start thinking more in terms of plasma / and electrical currents. The structure and spiraling effect of galaxies is identical to that of an overhead view of a hurricane. Which we know are formed by a build up of charge in the clouds acting as a giant super capacitor, drawing in convection currents of conflicting temperatures and air pressures.
A black hole is just a neutron star with an event horizon that exceeds its physical boundary, that's what I've always thought.
No, inside a black hole neutrons and protons would break down into quarks and stuff.
Neutron stars don't have event horizons.
But you still get the idea, I bet your being obtuse on purpose.@@anonymes2884
@@truhartwood3170 still matter in a sense, not "spacetimey" wimey...
i never believed in a singularity in a black hole. im no physicist but at least some sort of exotic quark lump is intuitive.
I think this suggests that there is a universe inside of a blackhole. You can go in, once in you cannot get out, and while in you can move around. Meaning while inside everything that has crossed the event horizon that hasn't been annihilated is still there.
Lastly, even if we had access to one of these blackholes and we knew how to extract "free" energy from it. We don't have a way to store enough to make it meaningful. Imagine the size of that capacitor if we did. We would have to have a blackhole for getting the energy and one for storing it.
The singularity always felt like math to me. It seems intuitive that there has to be a solid object inside them. Just one we can’t yet understand. I get the universes isn’t obligated to behave intuitively, but here I strongly suspect it does.
The particular problem with densities this high is our idea of solids might not exist. Neutron stars still seem to be solid objects but at any higher masses/densities the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit is reached and we're kind of in the "Dragons be here" part of the map.
@@petergraphix6740 Yeah my use of the term solid object was just a place holder for “IDFK”.
It does seem like you would have a dense center like a white dwarf or neutron star has a pressure that must be overcome to collapse further. It feels intuitive that there would be a limit where the last bit of energy would just form a central ball of mass/momentum
When I talked to Roy on the subject several years ago, he said to me that he denies the existence of Hawking Radiation. He said the maths made sense, but that it did not bear on reality.
If the math works then it is likely a reality.
@@gravitonthongs1363 That is simply not the case. Epicycles are very elegant math that turned out not to be true. It wasn't that the epicycles didn't describe the movement of the clestial bodies correctly from the point of view of the earth, it just turned out that the celestial bodies were not going around the Earth, an assumption that was baked into the model. All math describing physical reality are models. All models are wrong (due to simplifying assumptions), but some are useful.
@@2jlee Epicycles were anything but elegant or accurate. I understand where you are coming from because Newtonian Dynamics are elegant but inaccurate for all applications, and GR is elegant but incomplete.
QED will never change because the model is accurate and complete. Saying it is not reality is pure ignorance of the scientific method.
Likewise, saying Hawking radiation doesn’t exist (just because it is not apparent given the current density of spacetime) is also ignorance of the most likely probability. It is an unjustified and unsupported claim.
I am so glad this is finally being dis-proven, now we can move onto defining the smallest matter and how we can unravel the information.
Although the answer is likely not "quantum" in nature, just "probabilistic" in nature.
Especially when you probabilistic formulas to define it.
Hawking was probably meaning something else with singularities after visiting Epstein's island 🏝️ lol 😂
...at least that would have been a black hole that actually, really existed.
The description of the singularity at the start of the video sounds so familiar... It's the same way we are experiencing time. You can only move "down", I mean forward in time :D
This is why I find science far more compelling than the philosophy of religion, because of the continued efforts to understand as compared to the efforts to stagnate and maintain the status quo’s.
The surface singularities where 1/x in some dimension becomes infinite are likely smoothed/roughened by quantum boundary chaos phenomena. Likely lots of bubbly phase change boundary modelling, and working out some Burt Reynaldo's number, and the other dimension of fluid dynamic phase change on the mach number.
Singularities possibly do not exist?! 😱 🤔 🤨 . . .does this mean I can take a day off to mourn the loss of the concept? 😌 I think it does. Relaxing at the house, free to do whatever, resting my bones, and crying my eyes out for. . . oh, yeah! Singularities!
If you do not care about science why are you here? Lost on the way to Pewdiepie?
@@filonin2 what made you think I don't care about science, because I made a joke? That doesn't mean I don't care about science, that just means you have no culture or character and are running low on 'C' words.
@@filonin2 how does him making a stupid joke prove he doesn't like science lol
@@eeshaan1426 yeah! Lots of unfunny knuckleheads love science!
@jameselliott216 Your entire 'joke' rests on the conceit that you are being expected to care about something. I would suggest that you reserve the format for those times when you have no agency about what you are consuming. It doesn't work here.
You like irony, so you'll enjoy that the first response to your joke was the person that actually read and understood it, as opposed to the other guy.
I’ve been saying this since I heard the concept of a singularity. The fact they were ever treated as fact despite being intrinsically absurd is wild to me
Man please upgrade your mic or change your gain
Hello Anton, this is person wishing you a prosperous 2024