After several weeks away from my You Tube subscription page, I had a lot of videos to watch, so I had to pick and choose the ones I wanted to catch the most. No surprise that Dr. Don was at the top of the list.
Dr. Lincoln mentioned the phrase "non-rotating" several times in this video. But doesn't every star have some (or quite a bit) angular momentum? If so, isn't likely that a black hole that results from a collapse of a star also has angular momentum? So the big question is: how are rotating black holes different than non-rotating black holes?
They are different (I'm sure that will be in a future episode), and yes, it is thought that all real BHs should be rotating, but in the early days of the theory's development it was much easier to start by assuming a non-rotating BH to work out the maths.
As far as I know, non-rotating black holes are just theoretical constructions meant to simplify the calculations while retaining some key features of the phenomenon. About the difference between rotating and non-rotating black holes, I think both Veritasium and PBS Space Time have videos on it.
@ I agree, at least in principle. The Penrose process could cause that. But I don't know if it would be possible to reduce the angular momentum of the black hole to exactly zero, which would have to be the case for us to have a completely non-rotating BH.
@ It is never that simple with GR. However, one remarkable result, which is part of a yet to be solved paradox, If one is a dot in free fall, forget about EM radiation from non-gravitational process, one cannot notice the black hole at all.
Thank you for clarifying that the singularity is a mathematical quirk! That always confused me. I'm sure a real singularity violates many many things, but the Pauli Exclusion Principle comes to mind
4 года назад
well actually it could easily not violate that, it just needs to be a bosonic singularity. Watch ZapPhisics' video on that, it's great
@ As the matter that went into the black hole is crushed beyond neutron degeneracy, there is no matter left that is governed by the PEP. The matter has been converted to energy(not sure?) and the spacetime curvature that is left behind causes the gravity well - and this is the opinion of today's best gravity expert - Kip Thorne. Although I probably didn't explain very well.
Ol' Bluelips The Pauli Exclusion Principle is certainly broken for smaller black holes. That’s what makes black holes different from neutron stars. And that’s why we have trouble describing the inside of the black hole.
Question: You spent a life dedicated to academia and then directed it towards youtube and digital outreach. In honor of the third law, how has a life of youtube and digital outreach affected you as an academic?
Question: I read an article recently about algebraic geometry, and how it might be the key to unifying general relativity and quantum mechanics. What have you heard of this, and what are your thoughts about the potential for this approach?
Gravity can only be seen in small objects by its effect. Dust can be in orbit around a planet, but the gravity of the dust mote is much too small to measure as yet.
dbmail545 “smallest” in size, I think black holes but smallest in mass that HUMANS can notice it’s deffo those lead ball experiments they did to find G
Hey Dr. Lincoln, thank you for these short videos! They're so informative and I love the viewer comments section. I have a question though about gravity and the higgs field: if the higgs field gives mass to matter, then is there a connection between the higgs field and gravity?
Gravity is not about mass, it's about energy. The higgs field gives mass to fundamental particles like the quarks inside protons, but most of the mass of the matter we interact with is in the binding energy in the proton, not fundamental particles. And that is what bends spacetime and creates gravity.
A minor pronunciation error, Don. Schwarzschild doesn't end with the "child" pronunciation. In German, schwarz means black and schild means shield, and is pronounced very similar to shield in English. Just make it short, like shild instead of shield, and you'll be spot on!
Note: It's Schwarz-Schild, not Schwarzs-child. There is no child. Schild is German for shield and pronounced more like sheeld. Schwarzschild means black shield. And the "a" is pronounced like English people pronounce the "a" in "can't". Shwuhrts-sheeld. 😄
It's always fun to see that even the smartest of people can be ignorant in things that you think are elementary. Seemingly he never studied the German language.
@@romanissimo3371 It's in fact a common misunderstanding when learning about it in German. People think it's a descriptive name and not the name of a scientist. 😄
Dr Lincoln, I love your series - great video as always. Only one remark: since Karl Schwarzschild was a German, he was most definitely not pronounced „Schwarzs-Child“. „Sch“ is the German writing for the English „sh“. „Schwarz“ is „black“ and „Schild“ is „shield“ (and is actually pronounced quite similarly in German, only with a briefer „i“ like in „to build“) So he was litterally called „black-shield“ - which makes the „black-shield“ radius of a black hole even more fitting! (And less „child“ish!) 😀
Wow, I got in there 1 minute after release and was the 21st to watch. Just shows you've gotta be at the right place at the right time! Thanks for the videos.
I got the video notification on my phone app 10 minutes before I could see the video on my PC. Pretty sure it's a relativity thing since my PC is so much faster than my phone it's clock must run slower.
Hi Dr. Don, thanks for that answer! I've heard of gravity being diluted by extra dimensions but I didn't know about the link between the extra dimensions and "massive" gravitons. That's a really cool connection! Sadly I think extra dimensions siphoning off gravitons has become less likely because of results from the LHC but I can't off hand remember what led to that conclusion. Wild thought, what if dark matter was a non-local excitation of a field? An electron is where the electron field is excited, in one place, what if what we see as dark matter was a large excitation of that field so that no particle is seen, but just energy in that field has built up? It wouldn't have to be the electron field either, it could be the Higgs field or a quark field or even the neutrino field. Now how to test that…
@ disks form because of collisions and the averaging of momentum. If the excitation is not "matter" in the classical sense but something like a higher ground state (not exactly but it sort of explains the idea) then there may be nothing to collide.
@Michael Bishop the fields are in constant flux and can have various states of excitation. Vacuum fluctuations are the ground state of a field but they can be more or less active. Who knows what the vacuum energy looks like in regions with no "dark matter"
@Michael Bishop then how do you explain the fluctuations in empty space that produce no particles but are none the less omnipresent? I think the divergence here is that there's a discreet energy level that quantized means an electron but there are energy levels in the fields that don't produce electrons. If there was a low level excitation that was diffuse over a large area, the amount of energy could be significant and produce mass like effects.
4 года назад
@@emmettobrian1874 fair enough, hadn't thought about that
Question about the density of a black hole: I got it that we assume that the matter in black hole is not crushed to literal zero size. But do we have any idea how it is actually distributed? Is it crushed in the middle to a small, but nonzero size? Or is it evenly distributed within the Swartzchild-radius? Or is it unevenly distributed? I’m thinking about the thought-experiment where we fill the volume of the solar system with athmospheric air, which will immediately be a black hole due to its mass versus size, even though its density is really low, so atoms are not crushed together. And since time stops for an outside observer, we won’t even see any change, it will stay low density.
I don't think there's consensus. However, you could certainly have a black hole with nearly uniform density when it formed. From the inside, the singularity is a moment in time, not a point in space. The universe inside a such black hole would be shrinking towards a big crunch, while staying at roughly uniform density. Sort of like our universe, time-reversed. Very much like, in fact, as the big bang singularity is at a distance in time equal to the Schwarzschild radius of the mass of the observable universe.
Skorj Olafsen There is certainly no consensus, but I don’t know if there is any leading hypothesis. My other comment right next to it describes how I would imagine the inside of a black hole.
There is no matter inside a black hole, its been converted into the warping of space time. That's covered on one of the Kip Thorne interviews search for this in youtube "kip thorne closer to truth"
Brandon LastName That’s a maybe. We don’t have the “theory of everything” about what happens with the matter in the black hole, so you cannot say this with certainity. Kip Thorne has one idea, Steven Hawking has another idea, and there are more. We don’t know exactly.
Is it possible that cores of black holes, at least those of solar remnants, are held by neutron degeneracy pressure but obscured from observation due to extreme curvature of space-time at the event horizon?
@Dr Deuteron I get that part, where all future light cones point to the singularity inside the event horizon. My question is though, if one ought to speculate (because observation is impossible beyond the event horizon), could the neutron degeneracy pressure known to hold most neutron stars intact, also be responsible to keep the singularity at the core of black holes from solar remnants, if that makes sense.
I'd just like to say that one of your colleagues, Paul R., is woefully underappreciated. His groundbreaking work clearly merits doubling his salary and giving him one of those emeritus positions where you don't have to actually work. It's entirely coincidental that we attended college together.
They say dark matter is 85 percent of the universe... an exotic matter that is undetectable but manipulates normal matter... if that is a plausible explanation, then so is yours.
@@olbluelips Nonsense. Galaxy after galaxy is being discovered without the need for the dark matter variable. Some galaxies do require the extra mass suggesting a lack of understanding. Phenomenon being observed does not shoehorn dark matter as the explanation.
Interesting video as always Dr. Don! I am hoping that you are going to discuss the temperature of Black Holes & why it approaches absolute zero. Also, what are the differences between Anyons, Fermions, and Bosons? Thanks for these awesome videos! Stay safe......
Six related Questions: 1) Since most of the mass of a proton is not "rest mass" shouldn't a measurement of proton mass look "fuzzy". I.e. on a normal distribution around an average value? 2) Have we seen such a distribution experimentally? 3) If so, what does it look like? 4) If rest mass is a result of the Higgs Field shouldn't rest mass also be on a distribution? 5+6=2+3 for rest mass.
Karl is a true hero. Died way to young As a designer, thanks for short explanation of Fermilab logo. Appreciate that even artsy people like me get attention.
By no coincidence, it's the age of the universe. It would be the radius of the observable universe but for "inflation" of the early universe. It's not so obvious why this is true, but it's clear that it's no accident. Personally I think it's because the universe is a black hole, just with the singularity in the past instead of in the future - the arrow of time is a tricky business, after all. Reverse time and the observable universe is pretty much what you'd expect the interior of a large block hole to look like, as the singularity is a moment in time, not a point in space, from the inside.
Hi professor , i recently watched a 60 symbols video claiming that the black hole information paradox had been resolved - does this mean that there are no firewalls?
Obviously the answers are classified and they will never spill the beans. I have heard the same story my entire life and nothing changes. 50 years ago I described the black hole the same as you did almost word for word when my father asked how I was on it.
You absolute chad, Don. You didn't mention it or reply to the comment, but you (or whoever controls it) renamed the episodes of this series with numerical labels involved. However, I might request (15) or [15] or something like that for more clarity, as I almost thought this was a compilation for a moment. Sorry to be a pain, but it's absolutely a step in the right direction, you guys. Thanks a zillion planck-doodads.
Hi Don ! I can't understand the frequently given explanation of Hawking Radiation : pair of particules pop into existence near the event horizon, one escapes, the other is captured. You see radiation coming from the black hole so it must have lost mass. But from the black hole point of view, you see particules coming in, I can't see how it loses mass. Isn't the black hole extracting particules from vacuum energy instead ?
The story about pairs of particles there is such an oversimplification that it doesn't really work. The actual mechanism is quite different. backreaction.blogspot.com/2015/12/hawking-radiation-is-not-produced-at.html twitter.com/duetosymmetry/status/1283231172160622592 Explaining why the black hole loses energy takes a lot of math, I haven't seen a simple explanation.
Well I mean there are singularities not only in gravity... Even something as simple as Flow of liquid has singularities in Navier-Stokes equation at a corner... But what we get in real world is turbulence there which we have hard time describing rather than some weird infinities...
@Michael Bishop that because singularity = errors your do not have the math to operate there, like quantum gravity. geometry could describe it just fine and dandy, but QG and other missing pieces your out in the weeds.
Dr. Lincoln, Subatomic Stories are amazing. Thank you!!! Kip Thorne said that black holes are the objects made from pure warped space-time, and there's no matter or antimatter under their event horizons: the worldline of every particle the matter made of ends its life in central singularity, which is under event horizon not a location in space, but inevitable future. He also said that technically these objects are "gravitational solitons": spacetime is curved so strong, that enormous energy of this curvature make the process of spacetime warping to self-sustain itself due to non-linear gravitational effects. Can you explain, please, how does this mechanism work?
Travel through a Black Hole: I'm trying to understand why people wonder what it would be like to go through a black hole, if it would ever become possible, and what they would find on the other side. Given that the black hole is the remnant of a star, in a particular point in space, if you were to get close to a star from any angle and circumnavigate, it would be the same on all sides. If you could pass through, somehow, wouldn't you just end up on the other side. The same for a black hole, if you could pass through without being completely destroyed and then turned around, outside the event horizon, wouldn't you just be looking at the black hole from the other side?
Oftentimes, elementary particles are described as being 'point objects' that occupy zero volume. Could you explain why this is allowed, but a black hole having zero size is not?
That will be explained away as quantum phenomena...the uncertainty principle. They will also argue that black holes evaporate due to hawking radiation which is a quantum phenomena in itself.
In special relativity: When an object is traveling at a significant fraction of the speed of light an external observer would note the object's: clocks run slower; the object has a greater resistance to changes in velocity; and that objects length, measured along the direction of travel, is shorter. All to ensure that both the observer and the object's respective measurements of the speed of light agree. With General Relativity, Question: would a distance observer see a similar set of effects to an 'stationary ' object in a strong gravitational field? (Gravitational time dilation is well known, I am curious if gravitational length contraction or gravitational inertial mass are predicted) Thank you for providing this wonderful and informative series.
Thank you again for the fantastic video! One thing that I have real issues with regarding a black hole is how they move through space/time? I have heard a few times that if you are unfortunate enough to be pulled next (and ultimately into ) the event horizon, someone observing from the outside will actually see you slowing down as your time dilation will go up exponentially as you approach that line of no escape. That said, if time is getting massively compressed near the Schwarzschild radius- how does that even horizon makes it way through normal space time? How can it move if the time is being so squished that it has actually stopped? Isn't that area now effectively halted for the entire future of the universe? I hope this question makes it!
Thanks for the reply. I guess I am confused with the special case of a black hole where the event horizon represents the massive compression of space/time so I can't really think of it as a "normal" horizon if you know what I mean.
Question: the only thing that leaves a blackhole is hawking radiation, so, is it somehow related to the values of the singularity, and can we use it to make measurements of the singularity?
Would you say black holes are our best observations of gravity working on small scales (or at least originating from small scales) and are there any plans to utilise them to test general relativity’s limits? As clearly the “ singularity” is indicates some dodgy divergence of maths and physics?
Hi Dr. Lincoln, i have two questions: 1. i´m not sure if im right, but is it correct that inside of black holes time slows down to the point you would think it´s a direction of space? and if its true, would it be possible at least in theory go back in time? 2. Maybe its a silly question but... how does a balck hole looks like? is it a 3D structure? like a sphere?
in a universe of debt, black holes might be the repayment plan, from us to us... or they might not, in which case we borrowed from someone else to get the ball rolling.
Hi Dr. Lincoln, Big fan from Iraq, thank you and all Fermilab to make such hard subject fun and easy to all non physics specialists . My question is . What will the discovery of neutrino bring to our daily live or at least to the science community ?.
Dear professor, thank you for this amazing series. If black holes are not literally singularities in space-time, then is it possible that a black hole smaller than Planck length might exist ? Could we expect a black hole of every possible mass ?
If hawking radiation exists, which we're fairly sure it does, then small black holes would evaporate almost instantly. But they can theoretically exist. How they would form is another matter.
@@narfwhals7843 Yeah, process of formation of black holes vary for different mass range, and it is a quest which would require different theories .........
Hello, I admire your videos and don't miss any of them. I have two questions: - During supernovae, I know that the core of the star collapses and forms a black hole while the outer layers are thrown outward. How can the outer layers escape the black hole? Why are they not immediately sucked into the newly created black hole? - I know that empty space has energy and thus an outward force opposing gravity (so that the universe expands and accelerates). But I can't grasp behind the science of the inflation during the first moments of the universe. Where does the energy of inflation? Could you please explain briefly? Thanks very much! Cheers!
Hello DR. Lincoln, Does dark matter can be affected gravitationally and fall into a black hole? Can we theoretically detect a black hole gaining mass without a visible disk of matter around it?
Born too late to crack electromagnetism, born too early to sail throughout the galaxy, born just in time to hear Dr. Lincoln's jokes! Dr. Lincoln, could you summarize why/how the known dimensions are shaped up the way they are? And, since "singularities" are mathematical entities and not physical, what then the idea of "naked singularity" would stand for?
Hi I tried to research the black hole heartbeat phenomenon, and I was very confused with what was happening I'm hoping you can shed a little more light then the black hole itself about this :)
Question: If all or part of the matter in the universe were contained in an extremely small area before the big bang, wouldn't that create a black hole and prevent the big bang from being able to happen? (I know that the first part of this might not be accurate, but that's how I've usually heard it explained).
It depends on energy/momentum content. Spacetime evolves in GR according to Einstein's field equation, and certain parts of the energy-momentum tensor can make it expand rather than shrink, this is how dark energy expands the universe now, this is probably also how the early universe expanded. A black hole is a very different configurartion with a lot of mass in one point and empty space around, not filled with energy.
It would, it it were surrounded by less dense regions. From what we can tell, distribution of energy during the big bang was fairly uniform. There were no energy gradients. You can't have a hole, when everything is level.
Question: what exactly happens with a single particle falling into the black hole? As I understand, an outside observer will see this particle fall towards the event horizont, but it slows down before reaching it due to time dilation, and eventually stops right at the event horizont. If we live forever, we always “see” that particle staying there, until Hawking-radiation gets there and eliminates that particle in the distant future. (I oversimplfied it, and ignored the troubly with information-loss). The same thing for particle’s point of view looks like it is falling THROUGH the event horizont, and meanwhile it sees the outside world speeding up infinitely. The universe ages trillions of years while it is just touching the event horizont. It would see itself going towards the center without slowing down, but Hawking radiation comes immediately before leaving the event horizont towards the middle, and the black hole is destroyed. Is it a real hypothesis in scientific community, or do I miss something? Following the previous logic, the particle is frozen on the event horizont, but its mass is added to the black hole so the event horizont moves out a bit, so the next particle falling into the black hole freezes on the new event horizont, a little bit further away from the center. So the black hole’s internal structure is basically layers of particles imprinted layer by layer in reverse order, like the layers of an onion.
Just a remark: >it sees the outside world speeding up infinitely That's not what GR predicts. Just as in the twins paradox where two moving ships see each other slowed down, and both see the other's clock late compared to their own (so for the two observers different pairs of events are considered simultaneous), similar effect takes place for someone falling into a BH. We see them slowed down, they see us slowed down. We see their clock late relative to ours, they see our clock relative to theirs. An observer near a black hole would only see the universe accelerated if they stayed put above the BH and experienced the gravity. If they just fall freely, they're weightless and their frame of reference is different, making different pairs of events simultaneous. These scenarios are much easier to understand when looking at Kruskal diagrams.
thedeemon The whole point of twin paradox, is that they do NOT see each other in the same way. One ages more than the other. One sees the other slow down, while the other sees the one speed up. It is NOT symmetrical. The same happens at the black hole. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
this guy gets physics .. i graduated with > 90% average for both 1st and 2nd year physics at uni, i wish i had this guy as a teacher, i might have stayed on to do 3rd instead of finishing electronic engineering and becoming a slave to middle management
Question/introduction: Drop two stones to Grand Canyon (vacuum, Newton's physics) with one second interval. They will pass every horizontal level with that one second time interval even if their speed and distance grows. Actual question: Drop two stones to a black hole (vacuum, Einstein's physics) with one second interval. What is the time interval the stones hit the singularity? My guess: there is not much time in the singularity, not a full second. The stones may come down at the same moment.
Can you explain the Pauli Exclusion Principle as it relates to black holes? I know I'm not the first to ask, but consider this a vote. I've always vaguely thought Pauli limits the density of a neutron star. Do we know what allows black holes to bypass this limit? Does all their mass get converted to bosons? How?
Hope you don't mind me use this opportunity to ask a real physics pro a very specific question!: Is it accurate to say, while from the outside of the black hole time near the horizon almost seams to stops, from the inside time would move very very fast indeed? Or from another point of view: Is it fair to say that, observed from the outside, black holes do exist long enough for galaxys to form around them, from the inside of the BH the same galaxy is being build and destroyed in the blink of an eye? Thank you so much for sharing you knowledge! Awesome channel!
Dear Don. Thank you for wandering off to black holes, where I have developed a ton of skepticism over the years. But please, could you find it possible to answer this question? How can a black hole form at all within the time frame of our universe, if relativistically speaking, the matter would be taking forever to drop into such highly curved space-time as is suggested for those objects by the same theory? How can we see those object at all in our universe? How can we see any object falling into it for that reason? And secondly, what do you think the matter is within those objects (because we still have to assume there is some real physics going on within)? This question arises from the assumption that any object can be turned into a black hole, but for some it is so small that no known matter can accommodate that.
You have misunderstood the time thing with the real thing. The object going in to the black hole is most definetly going in there, the light that bounces off the object and towards us is delayed and fading.
Very interesting series even for non-physicists like myself. At what point/size/mass does something become part of the quantum realm? Is it a cliff-edge or a very fuzzy border?
How to measure black hole's charge? Is it possible for 2 black holes to have so big negative charge they would repel each other, even if in other circumstances they merge?
Does the bending of space time explain why the moon exerts a gravitational pull on the earth? Also, does gravity follow Newton’s Third Law, in that, does the moon apply an equal and opposite gravitational force on the earth?
The bending of spacetime explains everything Newtons gravity does and more. It may be more complicated in detail, but it is also more correct. It does not necessarily follow newtons third law since it is not a force.
Yes! Einstein’s equation of general relativity embodies the concepts that “matter tells spacetime how to curve” and “curved spacetime tells matter how to move”. That includes the earth and moon acting on each other via gravity. Newtonian mechanics is a special case of general relativity where gravity is not too strong, which for practical purposes is everywhere in the earth-moon system. Of course, gravity is strong near the sun, so Mercury’s orbit precesses and starlight is bent more than Newton predicts; Einstein is correct.
Is a black hole uniform or is it's center denser than the event horizon? Can we take an informed guess on what the center of a black hole looks like without a singularity? If not, why?
Don, thanks for your always excellent and enjoyable videos. A minor comment: The pronunciation of the German name Schwarzschild is not "Schwarzs-child" (which suggests something like "black child", "schwarz" being the German word for "black"), but "Schwarz-schild" (which means "black shield", suggesting perhaps a black shield for the singularity). Wikipedia has the correct pronunciation, also as audio file.
How do black holes interact with vacuum energy? On one hand, vacuum energy coats the universe, so it seems to me that vacuum energy close to a black hole should fall in and create an energy gradient that pulls in more vacuum energy. On the other hand, (and this might be a misinterpretation/misunderstanding of Hawking Radiation on my end) the energy of a black hole accessible from it's boundary effectively contributes to or replaces vacuum energy's role in the creation of virtual particles.
My black-hole inspired question: People talk about space-time moving (especially when explaining why light can't leave a black hole or explaining frame dragging near a spinning black hole). How does space time move near Earth, for example? And why doesn't this end up looking like luminiferous aether? Specifically, (AIUI) the movement of space time causes the frame dragging which pulls people around with a spinning black hole. Also, light (or anything else) can't leave a black hole event horizon and one of the explanations given is that space time is falling in towards the center at faster than the speed of light, so even at the speed of light, you can't make progress outwards. So, if we can assign a velocity to space time, then presumably we can describe the velocity of space time around me here on the surface of Earth. So, let's have observer A be inertial and stationary relative to local space time and observer B be inertial and moving at .9 c relative to A. They should be able to measure the frame dragging and therefore determine their speed in an absolute sense, which would violate relativity. (At least Special Relativity and Galilean Relativity. Maybe General Relativity has a way to avoid this issue (like the Lorentz contraction allows the speed of light to be constant in SR)?) So, did I misinterpret what it means for space time to move? Or is this an analogy that I've applied beyond it's useful range? Is something else going on here? I'd love if I could understand this issue by the time you finish your series on black holes.
It is an analogy, and a misleading one. Much like the stretching sheet. But it is much easier than explaining how the geometry of spacetime changes. What happens is that the pythogarean theorem, the definition of distance, gets changed so that a step in any direction is also a step in the direction of rotation. But to understand that requires a bit more involvement than imagining spacetime pulls you with it. General Relativity basically was invented to solve exactly your problem. Observer A thinks he's inertial and moving in a straight line in spacetime and Observer B is accelerating away. Observer B says, oh but Observer A is in a gravitational field, so hes the accelerated one. GR gives us Relativity for accelerated frames, that's why it's "General".
Question: When something moves at relativistic speeds it experiences a slower time and the same effect happens if the same something experiences a higher amount of gravity, then movement and gravity have something linking them what is it?
Have you watched that science fiction show on SyFY called "Dark Matter" that ran for three seasons? What did you think of it?
4 года назад
I do not know, If I was too late to ask last time, or ignored, so I'll try one more time: What is the current understanding of physicists, HOW photons are both particles and waves? Would I be correct in thinking that one particle would equal to one wavelength of light? This is the impression I got from the Faraday's cage phenomenon. I am probably misled, but I will enjoy this intuition until it's clarified.
I've wondered about that myself quite a bit in my 45 years of being a student of physics. The only way I know to explain it is that indeed, a photon, being a boson having a quantum spin value of 1, directly correlates to the transfer of energy between the emission of the photon and its absorption over one full cycle of its wavelength/frequency. Now, the interesting thing about light speed bosons, besides their wavelength and frequency being related by the speed of light, wf=c, is that from the Special Theory of Relativity, the amount of time between emission and absorption in the photon frame is zero, as is the distance between them. For me, this picture, if you will, resolves the issue of how bosons are particles but have a wave characteristic, along with my own principle that there can only ever be a full spin boson exchanged between two half spin fermions. As it turns out in quantum mechanics, this also factors into how to solve the wave function of any particular physical arrangement as the superposition of all possible paths over which an interaction can take place, with associated probabilities for each and every one.
Is there a maximum limit to the bending of space time? Or does the escape velocity increase indefinitely as you hypothetically approach the singularity?
Dear Dr. Lincoln, I have a question about the space around and in black holes: I have heard many times that the space around black holes essentially flows into the black hole. At the event horizon the space flow exceeds the speed of light, therefore you cannot get out of one. Is this just an analogy or is this what is believed to be the case? To me it makes somewhat sense that space can act similar to a fluid... I also heard that the particles that falls into the black get crushed down so much that they get annihilated completely similarly to matter and anti matter. and therefore there isn't a singularity instead the mass of the black hole is due to the potential energy of the warped space. Is this believed to be true or also a oversimplification?
Does the Planck length indicate the shortcomings of the present theory?? More seriously, you say that the centre of a black hole is likely not of zero size, but can we account for the densities required? Even quark matter would occupy too much volume, so can we explain how to compress quark matter further? Does this indicate that the quarks themselves are composite particles so as to permit this further compression?
Dear Don, Thanks for all the great shows. I have a complex question nobody answered to me so far. Can you? We can't see behind the event horizon because light would have to be faster than it is to come out at a distance closer that that. On the other hand the closer we come, the slower the time passes so in a subjective way this would change the perception of the relative velocities needed. I have an idea... In that case I understood the event horison is nothing fix but instead the distance from the center for an outside "objective" observer and if you get closer to it, with time distorted when being near, the radius moves as well closer to the center. Or in another interpretation, if your time becomes "slower" when getting closer to the black hole, your event horizon should also become smaller since the subjective time distortion becomes smaller to compared to the "original event horizon position". So doesn't that mean, sending some drones each one a few kilometers away from each other connected as a "chain", we could look closer to the center than we could from the far outside? Every one would only need to send its observations a bit outside to the next one and we eventually would get a view we couldn't from our sace position. They just have to be close enough to each other to be able to send a signal to the drone next in line (so the relative distortion of the signal being slowed down would be just enough to "refresh" and resend it themselves to their next relay... and eventually outside to us. Would that work? Could we see past our "normal" event horizon? Why not? Thanks a lot!
In your own reference frame your clocks always tick at the rate of one second per second. Other observers, farther than you from the gravitational source, will see your clock ticking more slowly than their own clocks, but you will always see your own clock as normal. Also, the size of the event horizon depends only on the mass, not on time.
@@michaelsommers2356 so you mean the distorted time doesn't change anything and even a person right at the event horizon will perceive it at the same position (directly in front of them)? I heard their event horizon would shift since their reference shifts too when coming closer. Isn't it the case that the time passing will approximate to the one in the black hole for the one "falling down"? I underatood, to an observer falling down the black hole it is not a hard cut as one might assume but more a slowly fading out the nearer they come. So why can't they send a signal a minute before entering "our" event horizon and tell us what they see ahead?
Doctor Don Lincoln, I read somewhere that Hawkins radiation has been referenced on a recent paper as a possible indication that information is not lost on a black role. If memory serves, it was stated that an attempt to measuring a particle would cause the appearance of a wormhole linking to another part of the entangled pair inside the black hole. If this is theory holds, would it be reasonable to consider that we could somehow get some information from beyond the event horizon if we send entangled photons strait to it while measuring the others outside? Oh Boy! my brain is about to explode. Cheers!
Question - in your previous videos we learnt that strong force gives matter most of the mass, we also know that mass is responsible for the bend in space time, I may be misunderstanding but what does it imply?
Nothing particularly special. It is any kind of energy that bends spacetime. The mass of the particles comes from the strong force binding energy. That energy bends spacetime.
Hey Dr Don, I've heard before that white holes can be described as time reverse black holes. If this is true would white holes exhibit Hawking absorbtion? Thanks!
Subspace: +ve charge cells (+1 base charge quanta) held together by an ethereal sea of free-flowing -ve charge . SWEET Quantum-Relativity Inertia: Energy lost by a free cell squeezing through the lattice is returned with a kick as the lattice decompresses/refreezes/balances behind Momentum: Free cells have inertia, free chunks form energy loops of cells in front moving to fill -ve space behind. Holes are just -ve charge flow Positron: +ve free cell (+1 elctric charge) pulls in -ve charge that rebounds with curved outflows. Drags cells, vibrates the Lattice Electron: -ve hole (-1) pulls in +ve cells that rebound outwards before stopping or looping back in. Drags -ve charge, vibrates the Lattice Neutrino: Over 50% (else back to empty lattice) out of phase Electron + Positron. Close free cell and hole with tight shared charge loops so tiny mass Proton: 2 positrons (fuzzily) sandwiching/wrapping 1 electron (pep, +1 electric charge). 3 sub parts and long charge loops so mass is large Neutron: Proton + Electron. Electron joins another nucleus proton, (pep)(e)(pep), decays outside via centripetal/vibe force on the dangling electron Alpha Particle: 2N + 2P.. (pep)(e)(pep)+(pep)(e)(pep), 8p-6e = +2 electric charge. -ve core in a +ve shell (PPeePP). Helium: (eAe) ++++: Lattice chunks + holes of various sizes quickly turn to smaller chunks and holes, until electrons, positrons, neutrinos/back to regular lattice Atom: Lattice density increases to the nucleus centre. Outer electrons may be squashed flat on the nucleus surface or pulled away (completely) Weak Force: A nucleus weak point hit hard enough releases alpha particles, neutrons, protons, electrons, positrons, neutrinos and (gamma) light Nuclear Force: Gravity + electric attraction beat repulsion. Fuzzy balloons recursively pulled into spheres. Stretched flux tube joins parted particles Electron Bond: Electron stretched between two +ve nuclei zones. There is also a 6 ins+6 outs charge flow model of electrons and positrons -ve Charge Flow: Continuous, centralised inflows, outflows curve with shallow exit angle. Lateral forces in random directions cancel, else spin Magnetism: Spin-aligned particles have straight and joined so shorter internal flows with longer external loops back. Ferrous matter joins the circuit Gravity: Mass pulls -ve charge from voids that repel more so expand. Higher -ve charge density compresses lattice. Compression waves travel at C Time: Charge density shrinks lattice, slowing charge flow and light as they cross cells in a fixed time. Universal clock? Process synchronisation? Velocity: Higher velocity compresses lattice (Length Contraction) and base processes cross more cells so local time slows (Time+Mass Dilation) Black hole: Drags lattice around (Frame Dragging). Neutrino crystal. Feeding may annihilate core boundary matter to empty lattice (a universe?) Hawking Radiation: Annihilated matter frees trapped -ve charge that radiates in all directions, out of the black hole and into its core Tunnelling: Intrinsic radial energy of positron and electron charge flow directed in one direction for a brief time, possibly travelling at C2, or even C3 Particle Entanglement: Particles linked by charge flows.. Stopping a flow at any point in the network breaks entanglement -- Light Blip: Compressed (+extra?) -ve charge dipole pulls in lattice. Concentrates -ve charge so may deplete voids and add to gravity. Velocity = C Light Wave: Amplitude = number of blipping layers. Shorter wavelength = higher blip frequency = higher wave energy. Peaks concentrate blips Photo-Electric Effect: Light frequency over a threshold determined by atomic mass and valency dislodges an electron on impact Photon Entanglement: Vibrating line of cells like an ultra-fine (spinning?) AC current / Warped line of cells between entangled photons -- Big Bang: Lattice explosion flings charge as matter / Black holes collide so rapid core growth / Black hole hit like a bell / Lattice expansion/growth Steady State: Universe could grow slowly. A big hit may start simultaneous (patchy) matter formation across the whole universe, not from a point Boxed Universe: If voids can't expand when they lose -ve charge to matter gravity wells are steeper with more compressed lattice Flow/Gradient: As stationary as possible -ve charge density gradient vs -ve charge continuously flowing from voids to centres of gravity and back Vacuum Fluctuations: Continuous flow could create dark matter whirlpools. Neutrino collisions, light-neutrino interactions. Background radiation Conservation: Everything is conserved - but if a black hole core annihilates matter to empty lattice that absorbs the energy the information is lost PROS: Simpler, semi-symmetric, recursive, realistic, 3D/4D, self-contained, open/closed, (in)finite, (semi)conformal, cyclic , (un)balancing -- This isn't any form of science, not even pseudoscience. It is materialist make-believe in-mind modelling minus maths. A self-contained quantum-relativistic universe/multiverse using the fewest base particles and forces (2+1). The above quark-free variant is one of many possibilities. Powerful premise.... The Lattice is everything, there is no nothing, no thing is perfectly still, balanced lattice. Space is Cartesian everywhere and there is probably not (much) truly empty lattice containing no thing(s). There is no before or after The Eternal Lattice, there is no outside and The Lattice knows everything because it is everything - except a (collective) conscious entity.
Just an idea & question related to it: As the matter is squeezed immensly in the black hole, can it interact with, or transfer its very existance to the hidden dimentions at sub-planck level? And this sub-planck interaction leads to transfer of that “kind of energy” via that hidden dimentions towards the whole universe to form dark energy? Or am I getting psychosis at the cellular level?
As well as the arrow of time only goes one way. From the past to the future. Is there any correlation in the fact that the spacetime only goes towards the singularity in black holes? What if we are experiencing time in a manner such as if we are contantly "falling" into a "time singularity" ?