Can Black Holes Unify General Relativity & Quantum Mechanics? 

Hackers will always find a way. No system is perfect.

🤣🤣🤣

They thought they could get away with this

​@thingsiplay Neo??

Just gotta find an open port and we'll unlock the secrets of the universe.

Like he said, that idea already exists in physics. As you know, particles can pop into existence spontaneously as long as they disappear before they can be perceived.

It's the sophistic anthro-centric view of the universe. Something only exists if a human can understand it, anything before or after humanity doesn't exist.

@@palladin9479 the theory doesn't rest on the fact that a human observer cannot see both, it rests on the fact that nothing can detect both. As far as abstract point in spacetime outside of black hole is concerned, there was no duplication. As far as abstract point in spacetime inside black hole is concerned, there was no duplication. As far as abstract point in spacetime traveling at or below the speed of light across the event horizon, there was no duplication. If there is nothing in existence where a duplication happened, then there was no duplication and nothing was violated. Whether or not this is what is actually going on is another question entirely.

@@archmagusofevil I'm talking about the core QM concept of "information is never lost", which is demonstrably false due to the information from before the universe being lost. Everyone is coming up with crazy ideas to try to get around the apparent loss of information. If instead they just accept that information is lost anytime we get a singularity, a region of infinite density or where space equals zero, then everything resolves itself.

@@palladin9479 how would things resolve if we just accept we can never know and stop looking for things? all experiments we've done has the information go somewhere, why give up looking for information on weird things? and the whole issue is that we're trying to learn more about the nature of zero and infinity in the universe and you just say to forget what we know and just accept it? what even is it? there is no resolution like that

Controversially, I'd say: if you can't see the baby, it still exists. Others: if you can't see the baby because it's inside someone, it's not even a baby.

@@FLPhotoCatcherpolitic

​@@FLPhotoCatcherwell, it's not, it's zygote, embryo or fetus (depending on stage), it becomes baby *only* after birth. That's definition.

@@w01dnick Yes , is human without a brain still a human ? I always trust science over religion for those kind of questions.

@@w01dnick Baby is not a technical name for a stage of development unlike zygote, embryo, or fetus; but neonate is.

they didnt die. bob got into a blender that turned him into a machine and then reconstructed alice from the hawking radiation after eons passed. then they furiously smashed

@@John-jc3ty Interstellar if it was good

Don't worry about them; like a certain popular 'toon, they die again & again, then are back in the next dilemma. "They killed Alice & Bob. Whoo-hoo, mastered!"

I'm not so keen on being spaghettified. That could take forever in a supermassive black hole. I mean, OW!!!

@@beenaplumber8379 i dont think it would hurt much. you would fall so fast that you wouldnt even feel pain

this seems like a philosophical question about mereology at that point

Do not drink the unitarity smoothie it'll rot your brain

Margaritas anyone?

Nah, different situations. Complementarity is formed by different views of the very same events, while superposition is constructed from different outcomes and intial conditions.

Reminds me more of the quantum eraser. The universe similarly "conspires" to prevent the violation of unitarity.

It's the generalized Stokes-Cartan Theorem (the "Fundamental Theorem of Calculus"). The derivative of volume is the integral of the boundary surface around it.

I noticed that a lot of quantum physics boils down to the impossibility of observing certain things, so we must make do with probability. Although, not being able to observe where a particle is doesn't necessarily mean it's physically at multiple places at once.

This is a common misunderstanding of superposition I think (not OP's fault IMO, I mostly blame bad pop-sci explanations). A superposition is just a quantum state that's a linear combination of terms that are each _also_ valid quantum states (this is an aspect of quantum mechanics - or really wave mechanics in general - known as "linearity"). It doesn't make _any_ claims about "existence" in itself (what the equations tell us about "existence" is where _interpretations_ of quantum mechanics come in - "many worlds", DeBroglie-Bohm, Copenhagen etc. - and physicists have been disagreeing on those for about a century). Since superposition is _a_ state (i.e. not a _collection_ OF states) this means It absolutely _doesn't_ tell us for instance that "electrons can be in two places at once" or "the cat is both dead and alive" (though as I say, bad pop-sci has been claiming so for decades) - all we can _actually_ say is "we can describe the electron's/cat's pre-measurement state as a superposition". (I get the various "reminders" BTW but i'd say black-hole complementarity is actually more like e.g. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle - which tells us there are pairs of observables, like position and momentum, where even in principle we can never precisely measure both simultaneously - or wave-particle duality)

But when will then be now?

@@poppedweasel Now. Where? You just missed it. When? Just now.

@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 Soon.

We're at now now.

@@reson8q Forget my children, that scene will be the last thing I ever think of when I die 😂

Cool way to describe it!

That's been said for some time, including hypothesising an actual universe in each black hole

Only trouble with this interpretation is Hawking Radiation. But for practical understanding, this is probably the best way to think of the weirdness.

I would take it with a grain of salt black hole theory is beyond theoretical and even if we manage to send a probe or someone in we likely will never get any information back

I made a comment trying to articulate this point too. It's like two extremes meeting and the horizon a kind of transitional intermediary.

Seconded, I'm missing the comments replies a lot.

@@Nope-w3c Don't you think that's kind of an exaggeration? They were only doing it in just a few videos anyway because Matt was busy

​@@Nope-w3cthen you will miss a lot of otherwise free content.

@@LuisSierra42 True, people seem to be forgetting that Matt is actually a proper working physicist - if he spent all his time on RU-vid comments, he wouldn't be making the videos or doing proper physics.

@@Nope-w3c God, you people are so entitled.

Forever separated by traveling past each other at the speed of light

Alice and Bob are quite popular in cryptography, too!

Alice and Bob are popular anywhere where you need 2 theoretical people. Followed closely by Charlie if you need a 3rd.

@@Ethrel1024 Can you name another field where they pop up frequently? I've only seen them in these two contexts.

@@Ethrel1024 Dan if you need a 4th?

Gotta trust the science! 🤓

They must be up to something, why all those secret messages?

The reason it exists is also how and why it's inaccessible.

_firewall: cmp byte [particle], 1 jne .terminate_particle; 01011001 01101111 01110101 00100111 01110110 01100101 00100000 01100010 01100101 01100101 01101110 00100000 01100010 01100001 01101110 01101110 01100101 01100100 00100000 01100110 01110010 01101111 01101101 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01110011 01100101 01110010 01110110 01100101 01110010 00100000 01110101 01101110 01110100 01101001 01101100 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01101110 01100101 01111000 01110100 00100000 01101001 01101111 01101110 00100001

I see what you guys did there.

I'm still working on the privilege escalation attack using the buffer overflow error on the singularity.

@@Merennulli same

Nope, it's always been super easy, barely an inconvenience

​@@feynstein1004So, you have a new set of thought-provoking insights to better probe the fundamental machinations of reality for me?

@@FireHax0rd Yes, sir, I do

​@@FireHax0rdYes sir, I do!

Every April 1st I wish he would build up to it, pause, and then say something else and repeat that several times. "It add more mysteries to our ever expanding, ... understanding of the universe with it's fundamentally quantum, ... particles that interact in ways that are sometimes unobservable within our, ... reference frame of"

The backlog of videos goes back for more than 5 years and it's invaluable

Good choice young padawan

I always find that I have to really pay attention to it to be able to twist my melon around some of the concepts discussed particularly on quantum theory!

I hear you. I've grown to never miss a video from this channel. Also while mentioning channels, there's an up an coming channel named ScienceClick, which I highly recommend as well.

Maybe lay off the weed for a week or two... 👍😎

Is that the actor guy that said he can prove that 1+1 doesn't equal 2 or something like that?

​@@serotoninsyndrome yeah, that's the guy

Yeah Terrance has been cooking for years all his pseudo-scientific mystic stuff and thinks he is like a revolutionary genius and even claimed to have built some new kind of drones making up new words and misinterpreting and misusing old ones. He's really really full of himself and the sad part is that the talk shows he gets invited to are mostly clueless about anything physics (like Joe Regan) and actually end up agreeing with him. He is good at talking and looking smart, i'll give him that, but thats what makes him dangerous

always must be

Move around some and see if the episode changes any. :)

From Theological perspective I would prefer 'What was God doing before Creation ?' from channel Rational Believer. Its interesting to see that its zero for the Creator, i.e. not passing.

​@@supernatural_forces Interesting

Dont bother.. its incorrect

There's indeed a theory that our observable universe is functionally inside a gargantuan black hole, Kurzegast did a video on it a few days ago. Light we emit can functionally never leave the edges, it is retreating form us faster than light.

​@@Appletank8But black holes don't grow exponentially. It's like making gravity and dark energy equivalent in some weird way. Also, wouldn't our universe have a singularity somewhere in there that everything is headed towards?

@@zualapips1638 They actually touch on that in the video, including how the singularity could lead to a new Big Bang, creating bouncing universes. Of course, the entire theory can't be falsified, but it's a pretty cool thought experiment.

But is that thinking wrong tho? The math is always there. It always state that there is always a disconnected region of space that is not linked causally no matter where/when you are. PBS even did an episode that cover this to calculate how many of the universe we can "see". What is the difference between causal disconnection from falling into a black hole and being so far apart? Note that I don't know the answer myself but your question indeed makes me ponder that

@@zualapips1638 in this model, the apparent expansion of the universe is equiavlent to us falling deeper and deeper inside the BH and watching its horizon getting more and more distant.

The old intro had a nice vibe to it. Like it was a show that could get magnitude of the sun's effect on tides wrong or mispronounce the name of one of Saturn's best-known moons. This into says the show is a professional operation. I liked the old one better too.

I miss astronauts from the old intro. They were the best.

It took a lot of time to do and people skipped it, which was bad in the eyes of the almighty algo

@@ingoseiler People only skipped it because it came after the ad read close to the end of the video.

what? they've done multiple episodes on these topics

@@Giantcrabz This time they said the quiet part out loud. To me, this was a definitive moment where before it was more playful hypothesis.

@@nuckyduck6071 No, it's _still_ a "playful hypothesis". ER = EPR is _highly_ speculative at the moment, the video isn't stating what _is_ it's merely presenting what _might_ be. (the description for instance refers to black-hole complementarity as "a proposed solution")

Everything they cover is stuff that has already been discussed in research papers for several years, so it makes no sense that the show itself would figure out anything new merely by covering the topics when researchers have already been considering these things, in far more detail/nuance, for much longer than the show.

@@anonymes2884 I entirely agree. I think I misrepresented my claim in the ambiguity of language. I'm not suggesting this is truth nor knowledge, I'm rather saying that this level of analysis is quite deep in the rabbit hole of 'relativity' and I like that. It's nice to see bold claims being made because they stir my wonder of the universe. I wish my teachers had taught me that reality 'could' be this wacky, because as I get older, I find the world becoming more magical, not less. I don't think we can go into wormholes, but I'm delighted that there's a way to interpret reality in which we 'possibly could'. TL;DR: thanks for reinvigorating my imagination again, PBS.

Hello fellow simulated being, your request has been rejected but an alternative simulation had a script for the video I just so happened to grab it. Hey everyone, before we get to the episode, remember we have the new merch in the store, link in the description. In string theory, D-branes (short for Dirichlet-branes) are objects upon which open strings can end. These objects can have various dimensionalities, denoted as Dp-branes, where "p" indicates the spatial dimensionality of the brane. For example, a D0-brane is a point-like object, a D1-brane is a string, and a D2-brane is a membrane, and so forth. A D0-brane is a zero-dimensional object, meaning it is a point in space. In string theory, D0-branes are especially interesting because they are considered to be the fundamental building blocks from which higher-dimensional branes and spacetime itself can emerge. Here’s how they are related to the creation of spacetime: D0-branes carry mass and can be electrically charged under the Ramond-Ramond (RR) fields in type II string theory. This mass is typically proportional to the string tension and inversely proportional to the string coupling constant, making them heavy in weak coupling regimes. D0-branes can interact and form bound states. These bound states can aggregate to form higher-dimensional objects, such as Dp-branes. The dynamics of multiple D0-branes can be described by a gauge theory, specifically a U(N) gauge theory for N D0-branes. In the context of M-theory (a proposed unification of the various string theories), D0-branes are interpreted as the quantum mechanical degrees of freedom of the theory. Matrix theory, proposed by Tom Banks, Willy Fischler, Stephen Shenker, and Leonard Susskind, suggests that the dynamics of a large number of D0-branes can describe M-theory in the infinite momentum frame, where the eleven-dimensional spacetime emerges from the collective dynamics of these branes. The idea that D0-branes can create spacetime comes from several theoretical constructs: In the matrix model of M-theory, the positions of D0-branes are represented as the eigenvalues of large matrices. The spacetime coordinates themselves become dynamical quantities emerging from the D0-brane interactions. Essentially, the geometry of spacetime can be seen as an emergent phenomenon from the underlying matrix model. In the AdS/CFT correspondence, which posits a duality between a gravity theory in Anti-de Sitter (AdS) space and a conformal field theory (CFT) on its boundary, D-branes play a crucial role. D0-branes in this context can be used to construct black hole solutions in string theory, and their dynamics can provide insights into the nature of spacetime and gravity. The non-commutative geometry arising from D0-brane interactions suggests that at very small scales, spacetime coordinates do not commute, leading to a "fuzzy" or quantized structure of spacetime. This is a departure from the classical continuous geometry and hints at the fundamental quantum nature of spacetime itself. D0-branes are fundamental point-like objects in string theory that carry mass and can form bound states, interacting via gauge theories. The collective dynamics of many D0-branes can give rise to higher-dimensional branes and spacetime. This emergent perspective on spacetime suggests that what we perceive as smooth, continuous spacetime is actually a macroscopic manifestation of the underlying quantum interactions of these fundamental objects. In matrix theory and related frameworks, spacetime is not a fixed backdrop but rather a dynamic entity shaped by the behavior of D0-branes. Thank you to all of our Patrions, considered joining us there for extra content. I hope you've enjoyed, see you in the next PBS space time episode.

Are you saying that this video put you to sleep? What an odd thing to say...

​​@@Surgical02 I also love this channel and fall asleep to the videos. They're relaxing

I got the opposite effect, it gives me more energy and inspiration.. can't believe people fall asleep to this, it makes my brain more active if anything...

@@Surgical02 well I am an odd kind of guy! I do enjoy the videos though. I find them really fascinating, but just cannot stay awake…

@@beea314 yep, I watch one every night and rarely get past ten minutes. Which is in some ways annoying as I never get to the conclusion. Although sometimes I fall asleep and wake up again halfway through or near end and then fall asleep again.

If the astronaut is falling then they are still getting information from their feet, but instead of the information travelling up to meet them they sort of fall on it (the information is falling in slower because it is trying to climb up). As was discussed in the previous video, you won't notice anything near you change when you fall freely through the event horizon. If you're instead trying to hover just above the horizon and dip your feet in then they will get ripped off, which you would probably notice indeed. Standing on the Earth instead of free-falling you experience constant 1 g acceleration, trying to 'stand' on a black hole will feel like a lot of g's.

@@tymoteuszdomeradzki6645 I don't think so, the topology doesn't add up. Once the horizon is crossed, any events happening at the feet would no longer be anywhere within the future _head's_ past light cone, after all. As far as I can tell the 3+1 spacetime geometry itself becomes fully degenerate at the event horizon since one of the spatial dimensions ("inwards") can no longer be considered separable from the time dimension ("future") at all, let alone orthogonal to it even locally. For all practical purposes involving spacetime the black hole then _is_ its event horizon.

That is because it is a functional simplification. The “alice” or “you” is simply a point source observer in these descriptions. The “you” is just an artifact to help describe the stuff around “you” it’s not really an analysis of the physiological effect of crossing an event horizon. “You don’t notice” really means, there’s no sudden change of acceleration, space etc..

It always takes time for information to reach your brain about different parts of your body. In the case of the feet, it takes about 80 milliseconds for a signal to reach the brain. For that 80 milliseconds after your feet cross the event horizon, you notice nothing, because the signal has not reached your head. If you're freefalling, you still notice nothing wrong after more than 80 milliseconds, because you fall onto the information just as fast as it would normally climb up towards your brain. If you somehow manage to massively accelerate the rest of you enough to escape the black hole immediately after your feet dip in, you feel your feet being ripped off faster than a signal can reach your head from your toes, which is in fact the uh... "normal" experience of having one's feet ripped off, it's always faster than a signal about it can travel, the pain comes from whatever's left.

As you fall into the black hole, you would catch up to the signals that were emitted by your feet before they crossed the event horizon. If it was possible to hover at the event horizon, you would notice that the signals from your feet are arriving slower and slower (essentially redshifted, but not quite, as they are electrochemical signals, not photons). Hovering at the event horizon isn't possible, though - you'd either fall in or have your feet torn off accelerating away.

Has to do with the background temperature of space itself, something about the temperature being lower then that of the black hole for it to evaporate.

@@RWMAirgunsmithing and that always comes around to half of the lifespan?

@@user-sl6gn1ss8p it probably isn't exactly half but when we are talking trillions of years I think it is safe to approximate xD. 99% sure this info is in my brain because of this channel (might be a Sean Carroll podcast) so I'd suggest searching the PBS video library for hawking radiation and checking those out before you quote me xD but this is the gist of it hehe.

@@RWMAirgunsmithing thanks for the pointers : ) And yeah, I get that these things are often order of magnitude, but the explanation in the video made it sound like it would result in a very near miss. But maybe the point was more like "if you time it optimally it will still be a near miss", rather than "if you time it a half the lifespan it will still be a near miss".

​@@user-sl6gn1ss8pI was wrong, matt was not colloquially approximating time scales. I wasn't wrong about the hawking radiation but that is just the tip of the iceberg. The physicists he mentions are debating the actual properties of the radiation and it would appear that in the (roughly) first half of the evaporating black hole the radiation is too diffuse or mangled to be actually measured as information, only after that mid point does the radiation become identifiable as information. Thanks for sending me down the rabbit hole lol

This sounds very reasonable

This doesn't solve anything

@@bengoodwin2141 I never claimed it did.

@@binbots oh, I guess it just sounded like you did to me, sorry

This is plausible sounding incoherent gibberish unfortunately. ALL measurements are of events that have, by necessity, already happened (events in the future can't produce physical changes in a measurement apparatus in the present, that would break causality). Quantum measurements are no different (no, not even those involving entanglement). Similarly, ALL predictions, whether those made using QM or GR, are of the future (by definition). It's true that QM's predictions are probabilistic (as far as we know this is because that's just how reality works though it's _possible_ there 's some deeper underlying theory that's entirely deterministic) but they're _also_ "from information collected from the past" since the Schrodinger equation (arguably _the_ central mathematical tool of QM) evolves entirely predictably and deterministically from the past to the future, just like the equations of classical physics (after solving it you then apply the Born rule to the resulting complex wavefunction and _that_ step yields a probabilistic prediction but everything before that is standard deterministic physics, again, just as with General Relativity). (you're perhaps getting wrapped up in the fairly trivial notion that since light takes a finite time to travel everything we observe is in our past. While true this is irrelevant because it's just as true of quantum mechanics as it is of general relativity)

Howd it go??

Doing the same here, cheers!

Hit of pot, I’ve never heard somebody say it in such a awkward way lol anyway, let me go have one marijuana and then watch

​@Jackiee_Chann thats cuz he's a gentleman unlike you 😊

@@Jackiee_Channgive him a break he’s 35

Commenting this before you even saw the video? Trying to farm likes for your comment or somthing?

​@Josecannoli1209 your burning desire and need to reply to my comment. 👏

Even the experts are confused

You sound like the type that would be into femboys

Except for the "singularities"...

yes, When a qubit escapes as Hawking Radiation, it implies that the internal quantum state of the black hole has changed, and thus the qubit no longer exists inside it. This preserves unitarity. According to the holographic principle, this loss of a qubit necessitates a corresponding reduction in the surface area of the black hole. Regarding the holographic principle, the two-dimensional surface (one Planck scale per bit of information) of the black hole shrinks. A potential conditioning factor is that we project a three dimensional volume inside or behind the surface. Therefore, what we are doing-conditioned by our human scale and surroundings-is projecting locality onto the inside as if it were spacetime. That could be totally wrong.

I just realized that could imply that the expansion of the universe may also be the result of us being inside a slowly evaporating black hole 😱

"Ask again later"

OFC it can travel faster than C. C is just the limit to 3D space. In the early universe there was literally no light. This is a fact

Lol no such thing as nothing. Try again

which just goes to show things can be in two places at once