The sentences "This is my area of expertise" and "I don't buy it", following it up by peer reviewing these papers on the spot are just phenomenal. This is science at work. More of this Becky!
...i both agree and disagree.....it has a limited effet over time as the black holes die (yes black holes eject enegy(matter) )...but it can take millions if not billions of years... but its true this affect both the size, density and how much the black hole distort space-time... (eintein predicted a linear correlation between mass/energy and T[space-time stress tensor] wich i belive isent accurate enugh...
@@Patrik6920it takes more than billions of years... a lot more. As I remember for now even totally lonely BH that are not accreting material are not shrinking due to CMB outweighing Hawking radiation.
Yes! Dr. Becky's whole discussion from 31:48 onwards is a beautiful showcase of why science should be left to the experts. A layperson reads the research primed by news as 'Dark Energy solved! it's BHs!' and thinks "hurpederp, I now know all about DE and BHs, thanks science!'. Dr. Becky show's us how scientists/experts consider a paper and criticize it respectfully while adding its data to their body of knowledge regarding the ongoing 'discussion' they are having towards finding the Truth. Textbook critical thinking and prudent reservation of judgement all wrapped up in a concise summary for all to appreciate. This is why I love this channel.
Great analysis on the new papers Becky! I knew this was your area of expertise, so had been very curious to get your take. Glad you added context by talking about your own research results about the source of growth of black holes.
Wow! This is a *Much More* technical and in-depth monthly video than usual Dr. Becky! When other published papers "encroach" on your area of expertise then you really get energized and it really shows. Kind of tough to follow the really technical bits here, but you can follow along and get the gist of it, I suppose. Very nicely done Dr. Becky! Thanks for this.
I really enjoy how you skeptically looked at these papers. First explaining the data, their model and what it implies, and how you interpret the results and the paper. It’s great to see a reminder that good science involves disagreement, and isn’t always as simple as ‘testing the hypothesis’ because data is messy, and assumptions always need to be questioned.
You are by far the coolest astrophysicist I know of and what I really love about you and your videos is your ability to explain complex astrophysics in a way that even I can understand.
The Cosmo Coupling is a very intriguing idea. One thing I like about it is that it attempts to explain dark energy without having to hypothesize new particles we don't know anything about or new physics that we also don't know anything about. The other thing I like is that the math (although I can't do it myself) seems to hang together, at least that's what astrophysicists such as yourself and Leonard Susskind are saying. I have also been watching vids where Leonard Susskind explains his ideas about ER=EPR in which he shows how black holes can (at least in mathematical theory) be expanding on the inside. Although what you say about direct observational evidence of what's inside the event horizon of a black hole being nearly (or maybe completely) impossible to obtain, others are attempting to mathematically model what might, or what could, be going on in there. No wonder you're so passionate about it. It is truly quite interesting and sits at the cutting edge of cosmology today.
This episode is an excellent example of why i love your channel. You break down cutting edge science and explain things well so that a lay audience can understand them. In this particular episode, you did a great job of structuring the presentation so that concepts presented in the early part helped in understanding later parts. And you shine a spotlight on how science is done, by measurement, analysis, publishing, predictions, further measurements and debate. Thanks so much for being our go to astrophysicist!
totally. she's got such a gift for this. I think Her and Anton Petrov are my two favorite youtubers for turning stuff that's way over my head into stuff i can actually ponder in my own time. plus, now i get to imagine black holes burping, and that's pretty good lol
Thanks very much for explaining the super-complicated dark energy / black hole growth relationship. I needed this! (I smile at the little bit of debate drama in your corner of science. I understand this is how science works. Can't wait to hear more!)
Thank you so much for discussing all of this. It's so interesting to see someone with knowledge of the subject break down these papers into understandable information and show us where the flaws may be.
Good video. I continue to like the fact that you bring up and discuss papers from the current literature. This adds to the critical analysis of the topic being discussed. Keep up the good work!
Love how you are always able to take cutting edge research like this and break it down for lay people like us. Thank you very much! BTW I’d love to hear your take on Voids like the Bootes Void. Very fascinated to hear if anyone knows why these huge areas are virtually empty.
Thank you for the thorough breakdown of the paper discussing the dark energy link to black holes. The idea isn't that far fetched actually, but I'm always skeptical when the leading intuition is "the maths turns out neat". The logical leap in assumptions to provide "evidence" was even more damning. I'm not saying there is nothing to the idea, it could be that there genuinely is a link between the negative pressure of vacuum and black holes via this coupling, but it's gonna be a lot harder to provide evidence for it than oversimplifying it like these researchers did. Still, solid idea, solid effort.
Dr. Becky, that image with the galaxies is absolutely mind blowing! The odds, at least in my estimation, are pretty good that there is/was/will be a being on a planet in one of those galaxies looking at an image like the one we see, whose mind is blown too! Absolutely amazing!
Thank you for reply and for the update on that recent paper, Dr. Becky. I'm currently getting serious about studying astronomy and astrophysics and I appreciate your ability to explain complex investigations into black holes and dark energy in terms lay people can understand. You are providing a very needed and welcome service.
Black holes have nothing do do with dark matter or energy EVERYTHING about the universe is misleading 😑in fact I personally came up with a new theory for galaxies 🙂it was a hypothesis I PERSONALLY came up with on January 15 2023 🙂I call it the GHCH the Galaxy Hurricane CREATION Hypothesis 🙂I would go deep into detail but I’m not just going to give you the answer😐you have to find out the answer for your self 😑so I’ll ask you what do you want ?🧐RED or BLUE ?🧐if you say BLUE the story ends and I’ll leave you alone 😐but if you say RED you stay in wonderland and I’ll tell you how deep the rabbit hole goes 😐remember I’m NOT doing this for some lame ass Nobel prize as people will just forget and money is NOT unlimited 😑all I’m offering is the truth no matter how cruel it is 😑nothing more and nothing less 😑so blue or red 🧐? The choice is yours 😑
I know this is an old video now, but did you read the paper? Instead of relying on an "expert" to interpret something for you, why not just try yourself?
I love how animated you get when the topic hits a nerve within your area of expertise. It shows just how passionate you are about it, and that passion is infectious.
Dr. Becky I've downloaded the *Abel* image and you were correct, I am not disappointed at all. The wondrous galaxy and universe in the background, just mesmerising, awe-inspiring indeed. Thank you for sharing and keep up the good work 👍👍
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the black hole/ dark energy story. I was really curious about it, and fairly skeptical. You should probably publish your own paper on the topic. Also, I'm halfway through your book and enjoying it very much! 🙂
Dr. Becky. Thank you. I was listening to the black hole/ dark matter part of this video and you stated that nothing can go faster than the speed of light "Under the laws of physics as we understand it". I studied aerospace enginery in university and I loved that before we broke the sound barrier the was a far amount of people who thought we couldn't go faster than sound. Right now our best understanding is nothing can move faster than light. There are theories about warping space/time... these are work arounds. I hope there are kids studying now who don't let our current limitation keep them from proving us wrong. Always great info, you're keeping my love of space alive. I heading to the Nightscapers conference in May as I go deeper into astrophotography. Your channel keeps me motivated! Thanks again
Thank you so much for breaking down these thoughts, theories, and sky viewing charts. That chart using Orion as a reference to find the pleiades is the first time I've ever been able to understand where they are. Orion is so easy to find, and now I know where Taurus is and the "sisters". You are the best teacher. Tonight is the 27th, but So California has been in rain for almost a week, so I doubt I'll see anything looking at the sky except rain in my eye. 😉
@David Evans You are so right. I live in Los Angeles area, which makes sky viewing even more challenging. Orion is one of the few constellations I can actually see with all the light pollution. 🌟
@Todd Marshall with my naked eye, not too well, but on a clear night, I've taken pictures and noticed I captured them. (I was pretty excited when I realized it the first time 😁)
I once worked with an engineer who considered himself to be so colossally talented that at one point he said: "This is something that someone like me would have come up with". It created a vacuum that swallowed all the energy around him.
@@carlosoliveira-rc2xt She said 'big bang' theory is childish. I said it's a scientific theory which explains, in full, the observations we make and the evidence we see. She walked out of the room.
@@RideAcrossTheRiver Either this is made up or you are in a relationship where you aren't trusted enough to be the source of truth or fact. Either you rant to much or she believes in the made up. Either way, sometimes in life. You have to check yourself. Alternatively you say "i'm not going to try and argue with stupidity, you can't convince fools not to be fools. It's something they must discover themselves."
the idea of having the SMBHs grow with the expansion of the universe and then that increasing their mass since its strictly proportional to the radius is quiet elegant.
This explanation on what the paper said was better than Sabine's ramblings. She seemed to be targetting anger at physicists instead of trying to explain the average layperson. Your engagement was so much better, thanks
Your brilliant Dr Becky. Thank you for your RU-vid uploads. With less The Sky at Night programs lately I've missed an astronomy fix and this is one of the best. 😁👍. Thank you
With those numbers matching, this leads me to believe we're the ones changing position within multiple gravitational lenses causing what we perceive as cosmic expansion
I must say this Black Hole being responsible for the expansion of the universe is a neat and attractive theory. I even talked about that yesterday with the family. I am really interested to see where this will go.
25:40 I have a gripe about this "Energy must be conserved". The context is the stretching of spacetime itself. Can you apply conservation of energy to General Relativity?
@@emrek99205 Dark Energy implies that the vacuum energy stays constant as the Universe expands, and photons get redshifted=lose Energy with this expansion. Hard to see Energy Conservation here.
This episode was just recommended in the most episode of PBS Spacetime about whether or not blackholes are dark energy (I recommend that channel to anyone here as a nice compliment to this channel)
When I was in High School, I remember a demonstration they did in science class. They took a standard size marshmallow, and put it in a vacuum chamber. As the pressure in the chamber was reduced, the marshmallow grew to the size of the chamber, which was about the size of a bucket. I always thought of the universe in that way, the universe is expanding into an infinite void, theoretically the universe could keep expanding, and accelerating in an attempt to fill the void. At some point in the future, it is possible that everything in the universe will be moving at the speed of light, at which point time will equal zero.
Hi. Dear dc, like always your episodes are keeping me very focus in. It s amazing what we learn and understand every day. I have seen yesterday that JWT found at the edge of this range very big and well form galaxies, that proved that the universe is so much older that we think. I am not un expert în any arya of expertise, for me is just a way of spending my free time a little. Probably, there is no darkmatter at all. And all the movement that we see in the universe is the result of gravity between all the things that are out there, and for sure any gravity force has an opus force that act in the opposite way to equal the equation. The sum of all this opposite gravity forces can be responsible for the expansion of the universe. Every force that is out there comes from un equation,and is the result of a spended energy. That energy cames front somewhere and is producing effect on on the other side of the equation. What I am trying to say is that all this attraction forces that represents gravity have Un equal rejection forces,exactly like magnets. Just an ideea.
Great video this month! As always, i appreciate the detail. People can look up the stuff they don't know (and maybe will be inspired to); but if the detail isn't there to begin with....
Thank you for supplying such a clear explanation of these two papers suggesting that dark energy and black hole growth are cosmologically coupled. My head would have exploded just trying to comprehend all the math in that first paper. I love your channel. I learn so much and it inspires me to learn more.
I absolutely love this new information for black holes coming out and furthering our understanding, even if it turns out to be wrong, it's still a fascinating concept!
I always kinda figured that the reason the expansion of space was accelerating was that as galaxies move further away from each other, their gravity becomes less and less able to slow down the expansion. The idea that the expansion is just an intrinsic property of space kind of feels intuitive, but I'm also not really that familiar with all the work that's been done to understand what little we do know. I've done some reading up on it but I honestly struggle to parse the really technical stuff.
I was curious about the black hole thing and this was a great video - a very clear explanation of the physics, the evidence, and why it's possibly less convincing than at first glance. One thing I don't quite get is 25:35. Why *should* there be conservation of energy? According to Noether's theorem, energy is conserved when the Lagrangian has no time dependence, but this is one of the cases where the Lagrangian _does_ have time dependence due to the scale factor. And in similar cases where we look at the expansion of the universe, energy definitely isn't conserved (e.g. in a radiation-dominated universe with increasing scale factor, energy drops as 1/a). So why should we assume energy must be conserved here?
DR BECKY YOU HAVE A GREAT JOB. YOU ARE VERY GOOD AT IT TOO. I LIKE THE "SKY NEWS' I AM A CONSTELLATION ENTHUSIAST. BEEN WATCHING THE STARS SINCE THIRTEEN. THANK YOU .
very nice video, one of your best imo. particularly, i like the in depth review into the reasoning for and against the theory of dark energy that you discussed. dark energy never sat right with me on an intuitive level, but as you rightly point out we need to have solid empirical evidence to support all claims about the universe
I have an idea to test the theory. If black holes are providing negative pressure, thereby causing expansion of space, then there should be a slight difference in two different sets of measurements: (1) speed of galaxies moving away from us where the galaxies are in the direction of our back hole (i.e., our black hole is between us and those galaxies); and (2) speed of galaxies moving away from us where those galaxies lie along a line intersecting our black hole and us (i.e., we are between those galaxies and our black hole).
Even though sharing your enthusiasm at that point, I just *had* to pause and look up the phrase 'put the cat among the pigeons.' I'd never heard that phrase before...
As an actual Statistician, I can say this is either going to be the Perfect example of finding a completely unrelated variable that just so happens to perfectly correlate to what you are looking at - or it will be the Statistical find of a lifetime.
I remember an oceanographer who was tracking El Nino who saw a graph compiled by an agriculturist friend that matched his data. He then correctly predicted the corn crop of Zaire for 19 of the past 20 years. Some things are intertwined beyond chance.
Fraser Cain has a great interview with the main author of the papers on the black holes might contain “Vacuum Energy” conjecture. If one is interested in the topic, the interview does possibly give one something to ponder about. RU-vid Title: Breakthrough In Dark Energy? Here's What The Researchers H... Dr. Becky does an outstanding job of explaining the concepts and tries to be very even handed despite her skepticism. I wish I had seen this video before the Cain one as you can get a much better critical understanding of the arguments. It is interesting that another youtube video just dismisses this without any serious explanation and never even mentions the term Vacuum Energy which suggests that she doesn’t have much credibility on this subject.
One of my physics teachers used to say that behind the event horizon, we can't tell anything. Black holes could be filled with yellow rubber ducks, for all we know.
Indeed. I’m only being half facetious saying that it’s ironic that we seem to use known physics to evaluate hypotheses concerning objects one attribute of which we do know is that beyond it’s event horizon said known physics completely break down. I’m often baffled by the circular logic.
@@greggary7217 I agree and have pointed out the same many times before. I don't think the universe is expanding at all, that red shift is not because of galaxies racing away from us, but from the universe containing something that absorbs the light energy causing the redshifts. What could it be? Well it could be anything, we make up all kinds of stuff that has no known physics explaination. btw, I also think black holes are actual holes, there is nothing inside them, the collapsing mass converts into rotational energy, which is well known physics. Singularities are total nonsense.
Instant subscriber. God I wish these channels existed when I was a kid. I wonder if I still would’ve ended up as a Great White Shark tagger/Bar Mitzvah magician
Every RU-vidr out there is totally paranoid that the noise generated by the neighbors is going to be heard by us on the viewing end. Especially when folks are live-streaming. To this day, I have never heard the noise from outside whatever building the RU-vidr is in. And I listen to a LOT of RU-vid.
Hi Becky, thanks, that was very interesting, particularly the section about black holes. One thing I don't understand though is that you argue something like: " the Eddington limit puts a limit on black hole mass growth, but we see that black holes can grow more quickly than this, ergo: we don't understand enough about black hole growth to make the assumptions in this paper.." I agree that there is obviously a lot of research to do to confirm or refute this, but doesn't this hypothesis explain why we see black holes that apparently grow faster than the Eddington limit? I don't see the fact that black holes exceed the limit as a problem, more as a potential confirmation. Or have I misunderstood?
Wow. The explanation of that paper was top-notch, and I loved your rebuttal at the end. I really need to go to school and learn more. Like you, I am always thinking about black holes (and gravity and dark energy), but I know I need more than just what youtube videos can teach me if I am ever going to understand them as intimately as you do, which is quite inspirational. I also liked your "Balrog" suggestion better than "Brian" for the name of dark energy. "A monster cloaked in shadow."
25:38 I didn't understand why to conserve energy the black hole with more mass results in a dilutted universe with negative pressure... I would appreciate if anyone can explain a little more or give a direction on the physical principle involved
For me, the biggest issue with this hypothesis is that HOW are the black holes managing to dump out all the repulsive energy without dispersing the galaxies they're in the center of. It makes more sense to me that dark energy is the result of increasing void energy. In the early universe, there were no voids and thus no virtual particles popping up. But the more the universe expands, the more vacuous the huge open spaces become, and the more virtual particles appear. I suspect the black hole observations are simply a result of us not completely understanding how super massive black holes grow in the first place.
In my ASD brain i have this picture of there being this ‘dot’ where everything started and it has a mass, hence gravitational pull. The big bang, was bursting things out from this dot, so the farther away everything gets from the center the less gravitational pull there is. The 2nd picture i have in my brain is the big bang being a bubble that’s created and the ‘walls' of that bubble have a mass too, so another source of gravitational pull. So the farther things get from the center the more they are freed from that central gravitational pull, but at the same time are getting more and more affected by that gravitational pull from the bubble wall. But i’m just a simple man :-)
Fun fact: I was just standing below the model of Jupiter, near Sky City at Arlanda Airport outside of Stockholm. It is part of the Sweden Solar System model, using the Stockholm Globe arena as the model of the Sun. I also spotted Calisto there.
Thanks for putting the time markers in because where I live, there's so much light pollution my night sky is like this: Jupiter, Venus, the moon, Orion, a few stars. Sad.
Dr Becky, how did the first black holes form? How did those black holes grow and from what did they form and grow? How did they grow so fast in the very beginning? Thank you.
At some point in my past, I considered that the singularity of black holes must be the rest state of the universe, but then Hawking radiation came into that equation, and I was forced to consider the probability that perhaps black hole conditions or that state is not a rest state of the energy of the universe but that there must be another rest state of the universe that has not been found. Is that a quantum gravitational state? A state where quantum fluctuations cease to exist? If there was a point where nothing existed not even the potential for anything, no fields, no probability, is that the universe's rest state, and because the universe as we know it today is headed for more of a lack of heat death due to Cosmic Inflation with potential and matter still existing does our universe really die? And then that brings up my next thought...What if Cosmic Inflation causes a rip or tear in the fundamental spacetime structure of the universe, what would this look like on a cosmic level? Would this ewswmble a structure like the Great Attractor or would this act like cosmic inflation run amok in every direction?
Instead of posting my "shower thoughts" in the comments, i will kick back and hear it from a person who has dedicated their professional life to it. I've got a lot to learn, just so i can post coherent comments and questions! Thank you Dr. Becky!
really enjoyed your look at the night sky, and appreciate the uncomplicated way you explained things, so was relieved you weren't convinced that black holes create dark energy ...what i can't figure out is why no one's asking how galaxies with dark energy factories at their centres could refrain from expanding ...i think it's more likely that uninhabited space/time produces dark energy (perhaps as a way for the universe to remain inflated ~ first when matter propelled by the big bang began to coalesce and then when black holes began 'consuming' matter) or that space/time is itself dark energy ...reacting to quantum particles, massive objects, and black holes (meaning, wherever some thing exists, there's space/time making room for it, and of course its activities, as well as creating a 'safe distance' between it and other things) ...i've also considered the notion that, if dark energy is a by-product (of e.g. the "big bang") that it might be able to duplicate itself, thereby 'accidently' increasing expansion ...i do realise that last idea's as far fetched as black holes producing dark energy ✿
21:25 If an observer in those distance galaxies looked at our galaxies, would they notice the same accelerated expansion with our galaxies, compared to their local clusters??
I read a theory one in some pop-science magazine a decade or so back that I thought really made for a solid explanation of the expansion of the universe, and the apparent increase in acceleration. it was totally theoretical, but so is Dark Matter, which I honestly find unconvincing. The core concept was that the singularity before the Bag Bang was not the zero state, but the one state. Their theory of the zero state was actually where we are headed, totally spread out. As such, the expansion is the universe returning to it's natural state. In a very, very simplified way of putting it, the expansion is us 'rolling down hill' back to the natural state. The acceleration is simply the momentum of entropy. Still a lot there unexplained, for example how did we get from zero to one, but it has a nice completeness to it.
Question. How much does the spectra of a galaxy so far away get influenced by molecules in between the source and our observation point? How do they know which lines are from the molecules in the source and which are from molecules in between?
21:20 "We've known that the universe is expanding for nearly a hundred years now." I had to re-listen this sentence several times, because I was pretty sure the universe has been expanding for much longer than that.
That actually made good sense & was able to follow along with the theory & form a mental image of Vacuum Energy. Sounds a bit like one of the possible origins of the Universe and the cause of the "big bang" involving a point of negative vacuum becoming unstable. I could have that relationship all wrong. Love your work, helps keeping my brain youngish. 🙃
I like Eric Idle's suggestion for an alternate name for dark energy: if there is a force that opposes Gravity, obviously it is Levity. And how marvellous is it that the universe has dedicated most of its resources to L😊😊evity?
The thing about black holes I've never understood is hawking radiation. One particle goes in and the other escapes, ok got that. But wouldn't that be a net gain for the black hole of one particle?
